Object

Representation ID: 25602

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

The DfE requests that a site is also allocated for Central Ipswich Free School which is planned to open on the Former Co-Op Department Store site on Carr Street (IP4 1HB). This primary school will have two forms of entry providing education for 3 -11 year olds. We are happy to provide further information to help add detail to this site allocation in the next iteration of the local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 25604

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

Table 8B (chapter 10) of the Core Strategy provides further details of the schools required in Ipswich Garden Suburb. The next version of the Local Plan should include similar details for all schools within the site specific policies so that all stakeholders are clear about the site requirements. Where possible the next version of the plan should also seek to clarify requirements for the delivery of new schools, including delivery time to support housing growth, the minimum site area, any preferred site characteristics and any requirements for additional land safeguarding. The Milton Keynes draft policy CC7 is a good example.

Object

Representation ID: 25605

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

The site specific policy requirements need to be set out clearly, informed by robust evidence of infrastructure need, so that they can be accurately accounted for in the viability assessment of the local plan (to ensure that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan), and in the price paid for land by developers and other parties.

Object

Representation ID: 25606

Received: 07/03/2019

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

While it is important to provide certainty to developers, retaining flexibility is also necessary given that the need for school places can vary over time. The DfE therefore recommends considering the following in the next version of the Plan:

Site specific requirements for developer contributions to enlargements of existing and new schools at application stage.

Requirements to deliver schools on some sites could change in the future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements.

Further details regarding establishing new schools is provided in the full text.

Object

Representation ID: 25633

Received: 08/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

We recommend that any sites of significant wildlife value are not allocated for development and that where sites are allocated adequate mitigation measures are secured as part of the allocation policy.

Object

Representation ID: 25813

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: AONB

The relevant sections in the Site Allocations and Policies Review document (IP150b- SP7, IP150c - SP5, IP150d- SP2, & IP150e- SP2) and Policies
Review document should be amended to identify the need for a full assessment of impacts of the proposed development on the Natural Beauty and Special Qualities of the AONB. This is necessary to help inform mitigation needed to offset the worst impacts. The AONB team would be happy to discuss the scope of an AONB impact assessment at the appropriate stage of the planning process.

Object

Representation ID: 25814

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: AONB

We note that a masterplan is to be prepared for these sites (IP150b- SP7, IP150c - SP5, IP150d- SP2, & IP150e- SP2) along land at Airport Farms Kennels site which is welcomed. The AONB team would like to be involved in any masterplan meeting or workshops and consulted on future iterations of the masterplan as it evolves.

Object

Representation ID: 25842

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

No credible consideration of the cumulative impacts of development at the six sites at Ravenswood on; traffic, residential amenity, various protected sites (including Nature Reserves and an SPA), air quality, noise and the environment. Such a large centre of development needs a clear policy environment relating to access. The plan fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 16d of the NPPF. The plan is not justified or positively prepared. It is not effective as there is no clarity as to what is expected of proposals. The plan is trying to allocate a large site via "stealth", without appropriate assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 25968

Received: 22/03/2019

Respondent: Austin Street Projects Ltd

The land at 68a Austin Street is vacant and secure. There is an intention to redevelop the site to deliver a high quality residential development, comprising predominantly of affordable housing.

The site was submitted to the 2017 'Call for Sites' and it has been assessed within the draft SHELAA as being suitable, available (immediately) and achievable (within 5 years) for residential development (SHELAA Ref. IP309).

Given the positive assessment through pre-application discussions, as well as through the draft SHELAA, the land at 68a Austin Street should be included as an allocation for residential development within the emerging Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 25981

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Detailed comments on archaeological constraints have, in the past, been included on the site sheets. The County Council would appreciate a discussion about reflecting detailed archaeological requirements as site-specific policy, as has become standard practice in other parts of the county.

See Appendix 4 for site-specific comments in respect of public rights of way.

Object

Representation ID: 25996

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The Waste Core Strategy and SMWLP protect permitted and proposed waste facilities from being prejudiced by development within their proximity. This is defined as 250m from the boundary of the waste site. Table 1 (Appendix 3) shows the proposed Ipswich allocations that fall within this. At planning application stage the developer of these sites should demonstrate that development does not prevent the facility from operating, and that the users of the development are protected.

It is recommended that this requirement is included in the text for these sites. This also applies to minerals facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 25999

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

The majority of the allocations in Ipswich are within the Minerals Consultation Area (MCA), meaning that the County Council would normally seek to protect the resources on these sites. However most of these are too small to trigger policy MP10 in the SMWLP. Sites larger than five hectares within the MCA are shown in table 3 (Appendix 3). The table also identifies the predicted area of actual mineral in the site.

It is recommended that text is added to the plan explaining that use of minerals on site may be required by the County Council, as stated in the SMWLP.

Object

Representation ID: 26115

Received: 01/04/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

In response to your request for feedback on 'Site Allocations and Policy (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document Review Preferred Options', it is requested that you include a requirement that all new and refurbished building proposals are required to be carried out in accordance with Secured By Design (SBD) standards following consultation with the local Design Out Crime Officer (DOCO). This will ensure that every opportunity to design out crime has been taken at the earliest opportunity in the planning process and improve the quality of the built environment for those who live, work, study-in and visit Ipswich.