Object

Representation ID: 25565

Received: 21/02/2019

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

We partially support this policy as it is currently drafted. We support the inclusion of land within our client's control at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane. Please also see objection comment on this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 25566

Received: 21/02/2019

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

We partially object to this policy as it is currently drafted. We support the inclusion of land within our client's control at the northern end of Humber Doucy Lane, however we submit that this land should be an allocation rather than a broad location and the plan should be worded to provide flexibility for the site to come forward earlier in the Plan period. This objection should be considered int he context of the Council's inability to meet their housing requirements int he early years of the Plan period (as set out in our response to Policy CS7).

Object

Representation ID: 25626

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Alice Martin

Support the theory of mixed uses, but I would expect there to be more work on the demand of such sites to show that businesses actually want these spaces. E.g. Duke Street and Stoke Quay have several empty units a number of years after completion. I don't think Stoke Quay has a single retail unit in use! If there is no demand for such uses then the ground floors would be better used as parking.

Support

Representation ID: 25689

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: East of England Co-Operative Society

Criterion d of Policy CS2 is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 25703

Received: 04/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Chamber of Commerce

Suffolk Chamber supports the continued development of the Waterfront as a significant cultural and leisure hub and economic driver in the town. We support the Council's wish to regenerate and provide sustainable growth in this area alongside the Portman Quarter. Likewise, we support the development of the town's retail offer but welcome the focus on new office, hotel, culture and leisure developments in and around the town. As a caveat however, we would like to see further research on hotel use to ensure any new hotels will be occupied and not sat surplus to demand.

Object

Representation ID: 25784

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ipswich Faith and Community Forum

We strongly urge Ipswich Borough Council to pursue policies that allow the development of community facilities that are easily accessible by all.

Object

Representation ID: 25788

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ipswich Faith and Community Forum

Community buildings near the town centre must be easily accessible for members of the community. For example, the Sikh community have a temple and community centre on Bramford Road, but this site is not easily accessible via public transport which hinders those without a car. The Town Hall, many churches, several mosques, the Buddhist centre are located within easy access of the town centre and a number of other communities regularly meet in or around the town centre at colleges & the university. To strengthen links/and understanding between different community groups, town centre infrastructure must take into account community cohesion.

Support

Representation ID: 25818

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

The Company offers its general support for the spatial strategy, as set out at paragraphs 6.10 to 6.22 and, in particular, the objective of focusing development in central Ipswich to tackle issues of deprivation and social exclusion.

Object

Representation ID: 25819

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Policy's main principles are supported. In particular, the Company again notes the focus that is being placed upon the IP-One Area, where high density development will be the norm.

There is a potential conflict between criterion h of the policy and the 'objectives' (as set out at paragraph 6.8) and Policy DM12. The former (criterion h) requires that new development demonstrates 'very high quality architectural and urban design', whilst the latter (the 'objectives' and Policy DM12) both require a 'high standard' of design. The latter is considered to be more consistent with the guidance set out in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 25837

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

The Parish Council have concerns, and object to, the inclusion of 'a broad location' at Humber Doucy Lane and Tuddenham Road.

The documents state that this Local Plan sets out the strategy for future development of Ipswich to 2036 but insufficient information is provided about what is proposed at this location.

The Parish Council are disappointed that only vague details for this location are included and this site has not previously been included for consultation.

It has been difficult to obtain information about the allocation.

This development would result in the physical separation being further diminished between Ipswich and villages.

Object

Representation ID: 25903

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

We are pleased to see the inclusion of policy CS2 - The Location and Nature of Development. Point (g) of the policy should be strengthened include reference to blue corridors to state "dispersing open space based (non-commercial) leisure uses throughout the town with preferred linkages to ecological networks and/or green and blue corridors and protecting the countryside from inappropriate development".

Object

Representation ID: 25910

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Robinson

The 3,485 homes suggested for CS10, more if Humber Doucy Lane (CS2) are included will create the following issues:
- Significant increase in car movements around Ipswich, especially to the north. The current road layout is entirely unsuitable for any significant increase;
- A northern by-pass would be far less useful than an additional ring-road situated as close to the north of Ipswich;
- Adverse effect on air pollution;
- Harm to the landscape and environment;
- Loss of agricultural land;
- No capacity for schools, libraries and health centre; and
- Under provision of green space, parks and recreation

Object

Representation ID: 25914

Received: 20/03/2019

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

The policy sets out that the central urban focus to the location of development also reflects the sequential approach to site selection required by the NPPF. However, Pigeon seriously dispute the Council's ability to deliver housing on many of the brownfield sites.

Housing opportunities are limited and need to consider sites beyond the boundary. No further evidence as to how housing will be delivered later in the plan period.

IBC should look to sustainable locations which have good infrastructure, high accessibility to settlements with employment opportunities and connectivity to Ipswich. E.G. neighbouring satellite villages and Felixstowe and A12 growth corridors.

Support

Representation ID: 25932

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

We support the recognition that the Council should work with neighbouring authorities to address housing need within the Ipswich Housing Market Area. The Preferred Options accepts that there will be a need for future development beyond the Ipswich administrative boundary. There should be a particular focus on delivering this growth in those areas located around the Ipswich fringe, including appropriate sites in Mid Suffolk. This is logical given the direct/functional relationship between such areas and the Ipswich urban area.

Object

Representation ID: 25971

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Full opportunity and capacity to meet identified housing land needs should be explored. An amendment should be made to policy CS2 to acknowledge that local planning authorities within the Ipswich housing market area will plan to meet the needs of their own areas.

The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan housing numbers will be identified upon the publication of the national housing price affordability data schedule for March 2019. This will have consequential effects upon any Ipswich DPD document which refer to either Babergh or Mid Suffolk housing numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 26046

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Historic England

The section on densities needs to be clarified. As stated above, high density does not necessarily mean high rise. What does high density mean for the town centre, Portman Quarter and Waterfront? The sentence could also with being broken down into smaller sentences because, as currently constructed, it could be read that the low density elsewhere is so that it does not compromise the heritage assets and the historic character of Ipswich but that this caveat does not apply in the town centre, Portman Quarter, Waterfront and IP-One area.

Object

Representation ID: 26054

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: On behalf of Telereal Trillium Ltd

Support part of policy which focuses residential development within walking distance of the town centre.

Question the term 'medium' densities with respect to development in the rest of IP-One to maximise previously developed land. The Bibb Way Site (IP279) has been allocated for 104 dwellings across the entire site which only represents 40% of the site area. This is not maximise the use of previously developed land contrary to NPPF paragraph 123. A higher density with a mixture of houses and flats should be sought.

Object

Representation ID: 26068

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Coastal and Waveney District Councils (East Suffolk)

Support principles of policy which contributes towards each authority meeting housing needs within their area. The SCDC Plan Infrastructure Delivery Framework provides detail of the infrastructure to support development and policy (SCLP3.5) also supports this. Similar detail relating to infrastructure could be included in the Ipswich Plan, reflecting the Annex to the SOCG. For consistency with DM11, policy for development at the northern-end of Humber Doucy Lane should reference the maintenance of separation between Ipswich and surrounding settlements.

From 1st April 2019 the new East Suffolk Council will be created, and references to SCDC in the Plan should be updated.

Object

Representation ID: 26079

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Mersea Homes Limited

Agent: Mr Arwel Owen

Consistent with draft Policy ISPA4, CS2 should recognise the potential need for Ipswich to meet its housing need beyond its boundary. Whilst new clause (b) provides an appreciation of cross-boundary working in relation to prospective development at Humber Doucy Lane, it is certain that cross-boundary working will become increasingly important to meeting Ipswich's housing need. A further clear statement of commitment is therefore required under CS2 allied to a stronger commitment under the draft Statement of Common Ground on Strategic Cross Boundary Planning Matters.

Object

Representation ID: 26100

Received: 01/04/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

To highlight the importance of designing out crime would be beneficial in this policy to ensure that careful consideration is made prior to locating new housing too close to other land uses such as retail or recreational facilities

Object

Representation ID: 26133

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Ipswich & East Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group & West Suffolk CCG

NHS England and the CCG would welcome further discussions with the Local Authorities with regard to density of development and cumulative growth over the plan period within specific areas, to understand the impact and how this may be mitigated.

When identifying potential land for development, consideration should be given to the role open space plays to the development of healthy communities and preventative care.