ipswich.gov.uk

SP16 Transport Proposals in IP-One

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Support

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

Representation ID: 5241

Received: 05/03/2015

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Representation Summary:

ABP welcomes the approach taken in the wording of Policy SP16 and paragraph 5.46.

ABP recognises the desire for a new crossing and will assist the Council in seeking to develop a feasible solution which addresses all safety, security and operational issues and avoids any adverse impact on port operations.

Full text:

ABP is aware that the Wet Dock Crossing has been a longstanding aspiration of IBC to provide for through traffic and potentially provide relief from town centre traffic congestion (particularly on the Star Lane Gyratory). Further work is needed to fully assess the feasibility and impact of such a new crossing (to ensure that the design of a Wet Dock Crossing maintains boat access through the lock and navigation along the New Cut) and to identify clear delivery mechanisms available to deliver it. In this context, ABP welcomes the approach taken in the wording of Policy SP16 and paragraph 5.46.

ABP recognises the desire for a new crossing and will assist the Council in seeking to develop a feasible solution which addresses all safety, security and operational issues and avoids any adverse impact on port operations. In particular, ABP is concerned to ensure that a Wet Dock Crossing:

1) avoids an unacceptable impact on existing vessel access to the Wet Dock via the Lock Pit to the detriment of continued port operations, commercial businesses and the vitality and viability of the Ipswich Haven Marina
2) avoids any adverse impact (e.g. through traffic congestion) on Cliff Road, which is the primary access onto Cliff Quay.
3) avoids a routing which would affect the existing railhead into the West Bank Terminal
4) does not prevent the Port from meeting the stringent security requirements of the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, and
5) allows for navigation rights along the New Cut

Development of the Island Site will require access improvements but by itself does not require the provision of a Wet Dock Crossing. Redevelopment of the Island Site will most likely require road access from the West, via Mather Way, from the North via Bridge Street and St. Peters Quay and a pedestrian and cycle connection across the Wet Dock lock gates to connect to the town centre and the surrounding area.

These access improvements do not require the provision of a Wet Dock Crossing and, in our opinion, the Wet Dock Crossing is not required to deliver future development in the Waterfront area and the Core Strategy Growth.

ABP recognises, however, that there may be some synergies between the need for improved access to the Island Site and the Council's aspirations for a Wet Dock Crossing. In this context, ABP will support the Council in seeking to develop a feasible solution which addresses all safety, security and operational issues and avoids any adverse impact on port and marine operations.