ipswich.gov.uk

Question 41:

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24727

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Wrathall

Representation Summary:

I am strongly in favour of a mix of dwelling sizes and types on each individual site.

Full text:

I am strongly in favour of a mix of dwelling sizes and types on each individual site.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24778

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter

Representation Summary:

A mixture of dwelling sizes on individual sites appears to be the 'norm' and should be encouraged.

Full text:

A mixture of dwelling sizes on individual sites appears to be the 'norm' and should be encouraged.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24802

Received: 10/10/2017

Respondent: Rentplus UK Ltd

Representation Summary:

The policies in this Plan should be flexible, aiming to incentivise residential development that integrates well with existing communities and results in mixed and balanced communities. While it may be appropriate to have a mix of house types and sizes on individual schemes, this should be aimed at providing balance within the wider community, seeking to match local housing needs and demands. We recommend that the policies developed for this plan balances these needs.

Full text:

See attached letter and Affordable Housing Statement.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24850

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Representation Summary:

A mix as this creates a better community with a variety of ages and backgrounds.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 24979

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

Representation Summary:

In general, the Local Plan should continue to insist on a mix of dwelling sizes and types on each individual site, although some flexibility would appear sensible.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25159

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

Representation Summary:

We have no specific comments here, other than that the Plan will need to make adequate and appropriate provision for the required mix of housing given the overall projected population and employment growth.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25301

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Representation Summary:

No, the Local Plan should not continue to insist on a mix of dwelling types on each individual site. The Conservative Group prefers the option of an overall mix rather than a case by case basis.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25378

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Matt Clarke

Representation Summary:

Prince of Wales Drive - We consider that the Local Plan should not necessarily continue to insist on a mix of dwellings sizes and types on each individual site. Housing mix should broadly accord with the most recently published SHMA, the critical element being to ensure that the overall provision across all sites accords with identified needs for the Borough. Different sites will be suited to varied forms of provision, having regard to surrounding and site-specific context, in addition to viability considerations. The Local Plan should refer to the need for ensuring that developments are viable.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Representation ID: 25487

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Representation Summary:

We believe that housing mix should be not only driven by housing need, but by the context of the site being delivered. The Council's policies, have in the past, and in our view, offered uncertainty because of their approach of seeking to both determine mix and provide exemptions - the result of which is ambiguous policy. In our view, the context of the site should primarily lead the dwelling mix, with tenure mix and dwelling sizes for affordable provision then set within that context.

Full text:

See attached.