ipswich.gov.uk

SP2 Land Allocated for housing

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Support

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5234

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Representation Summary:

ABP supports the allocation of Site IP037 - Island Site for housing as part of a mixed use development. Given the nascent proposals for the site, the notional housing capacity set out in the policy can only be indicative at this stage, although it is below ABP's expectations. ABP welcomes the recognition in the Policy that the precise split should be a matter for a future master plan and/or planning application having regard to viability (consistent with para 2.11).

Full text:

ABP supports the allocation of Site IP037 - Island Site for housing as part of a mixed use development. Given the nascent proposals for the site, the notional housing capacity set out in the policy can only be indicative at this stage, although it is below ABP's expectations. ABP welcomes the recognition in the Policy that the precise split should be a matter for a future master plan and/or planning application. The Island Site presently accommodates successful high profile marine businesses (including Fairline Boats Ltd and Spirit Yachts Ltd) and the commercially successful Ipswich Haven Marina (which has contributed significantly to the regeneration of the waterfront area). Accommodating these activities in the future development of the Island Site so that they continue to contribute to an active and appealing waterfront environment for further regeneration will be critical.

A critical challenge to realise successful redevelopment of the Island Site, given the significant development costs on this site, will be viability (which is recognized at paragraph 2.11 as one of the more detailed issues emerging from the evidence which this plan needs to address). The low indicative development capacity for homes, which is at the lower end of the Policy DM30a range and high proportion of 'open space' use (proposed under Policy SP6) is significantly lower than in previous iterations of the IP-One AAP, has not been informed by a detailed study and does not take account of any viability considerations. In this context, ABP welcomes the wording at paragraph 4.8 which recognizes that the figures given in Policy SP2 are indicative to help ensure that developments can be viably delivered.

Support

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5295

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk

Representation Summary:

It does not appear that any sites are undeliverable for transport reasons when considered individually and if an assumption is made that proper provision is made for sustainable transport measures and highway mitigation. This statement needs to be considered against those made on the Core Strategy and cumulative transport impacts.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5301

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: New Anglia LEP for Norfolk and Suffolk

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This document is only deliverable with sufficient infrastructure. Indicative Section 106 costs (education, libraries, waste) and highway requirements are set out in the full representation.
Early years: larger sites (>200 dwellings) may need to make on site provision.
Primary: in principle, primary school places can be provided (predicated on development funding places, where compliant with the CIL Regulations).
Secondary: the new secondary school planned at Garden Suburb (CS10) will also need to mitigate demand arising from background and housing growth across Ipswich.
Sites should be deliverable with suitable (SFRA) flood risk measures. Archaeology does not prevent sites being allocated.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Core Strategy Review fails to identify either sufficient specific deliverable sites for years 1-10 or broad locations for the full housing requirement, and therefore fails the tests of Soundness in terms of Effectiveness, being Positively Prepared, and being consistent with the NPPF.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5381

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Applekirk Properties Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The approach to proposals for retail development in the Site Allocations Plan is at odds with the evidence base and crucially underplays the need to accommodate retail growth in the town. Applekirk Properties Ltd supports the allocation of sites IP043, IP136, IP052 and IP035 for mixed use development that will contribute to the regeneration of the Waterfront/Merchant's Quarter, but objects to the failure to provide for retail development in excess of 200 sq m within these sites. Policies CS2, CS3 and CS5 fail to meet the requirement for comparison retail identified in the evidence base.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Proposed Submission Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 5669

Received: 07/01/2015

Respondent: Ministry of Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Sites IP005, IP029, IP032, IP033,I P059a, IP061, IP105, IP140a and b, IP165, IP175, IP221, IP265 and IP261. These referenced sites fall within the 91.4m height consultation zone surrounding Wattisham airfield. Therefore, any proposed structures in these areas which may exceed 91.4m need to be reviewed by this office.

Full text:

See attached