ipswich.gov.uk

DM21

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Support

Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Representation ID: 25827

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Cardinal Lofts (Mill) Ltd

Representation Summary:

The Company welcomes the recognition (para 9.21.6) that many people still own cars and that adequate levels of residential parking, that uses land efficiently and is well designed, needs to be provided as part of new residential schemes.

Full text:

See Scanned Representation.

Object

Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Representation ID: 25956

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

DM21 - Car and Cycle Parking in New Development includes reference to flood risk in paragraph 9.21.6 by stating that this is acceptable in flood risk terms as demonstrated through a Flood Risk Assessment. When considering car parking within flood risk areas, the ability of people to move their cars within the flood warning time should be considered. Long-term and residential car parking is unlikely to be acceptable on areas which regularly flood to a significant depth due to the risk of car owners being away from the area and being unable to move their cars when a flood occurs.

Object

Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Representation ID: 25957

Received: 12/03/2019

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

Policy DM21 - Car and Cycle Parking in New Development -Car parking can be appropriate in areas subject to flooding, provided that flood warnings are available and signs are in place however, ideally car parks should not be subject to flood depth in excess of 300mm since vehicles can be moved by water of this depth. Boundary treatments such as railings should ensure that if vehicles become mobilised during a flood event, they are contained within the confines of the site but still allow the free movement of flood water.

Object

Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Representation ID: 26020

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation Summary:

Support intent of policy but further discussion required in respect of car parking needs.

Assumed that 'operational' parking within the central car parking core doesn't refer to staff car parking - Please clarify.

Reference to secure cycle parking is welcomed, but 'security' needs to be defined and explained fully in supplementary guidance (E.g. Suffolk Guidance for Parking, forthcoming countywide design guidance or the IBC SPD). The supporting text could also explain that secure means a lockable facility away from public access, lit, covered and has natural surveillance. In respect of employment, cycle parking needs to be suitable for long stays

Full text:

See Scanned Representation.

Object

Preferred Options Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) Review

Representation ID: 26114

Received: 01/04/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Representation Summary:

The presumption must be in favour of in curtilage parking and non-secure under-croft parking must be avoided. Where communal parking is necessary, rear parking courtyards must be avoided and owners should be able to view their vehicles from active rooms within the building. SBD guidance must be followed when providing underground parking to ensure that it is safe and secure.

Full text:

See Scanned Representation.