SP2 Land Allocated for housing
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
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
See attached