Object

Representation ID: 26181

Received: 10/02/2020

Respondent: Salter and Skinner Partnership

Agent: Planning Direct

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Flooding assessments and extensive consultation undertaken with Environment Agency and emergency services. Feedback positive and carried to EA requirements. No fundamental objections. Concerns of consultees can be met. Site partly within flood zone 1, development can be made safe for its lifetime, refuges can be available on-site, flood evacuation routes can be facilitated to Bourne Park and compensatory storage designed in. Whilst approach routes could be inundated this hasn't been raised as a fundamental objection by AECOM or Fire Service. As occupants would be safe then considerable weight should be given to the tilted balance in favour of development (NPPF).

Object

Representation ID: 26332

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Not justified

Object

Representation ID: 26337

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Ravenswood Environmental Group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Policy is supported by site sheets in an appendix. The appendix should make it clear that the site sheets are or are not part of the plan. The plan is vague and unjustified. Site IP150 e is adjacent to other sites such as IP150c and IP150e and IP150d. These are geographically related but they are separate in the plan. There is no justification for this piecemeal approach. The plan highlights serious traffic, air-quality, ecology, amenity and heritage constraints but does nothing to resolve these and does not insist upon materplanning and effective mitigation.

Object

Representation ID: 26419

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Fundamental concerns regarding the ability of SP2 sites to viably deliver residential development over the plan period and whether there is a demand for the type of homes that these sites can offer. Some SP2 sites are unavailable and require existing occupiers to relocate and others are heavily constrained by designated heritage assets and areas of archaeological importance. These significant constraints impact the delivery of homes from these sites in principle. Also, the Plan is relying on the delivery of housing from sites in high risk flood zones. The Council should look to identify additional sites outside of its boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 26449

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Therefore, Pigeon consider that the majority of the sites that the Council has proposed for residential allocation are subject to significant constraints that could delay, or indeed, ultimately prevent their delivery. Whilst many of the sites highlighted may be of a small to medium scale, it is considered that when combined, their implications on housing delivery could be significant. In any case, these provide only a snapshot of the constraints that are likely to impact upon many of the sites that are proposed for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 26458

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Agent: Kesgrave Covenant Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Although support the inclusion of the allocation at Humber Doucy Lane within the Core Strategy document, it should also be included within the Site Allocations and Policies DPD. Omission is neither justified nor effective. Recommend additional line within Table 1 in relation to Humber Doucy Lane: Site ref: ISPA4.1
Site name and development description: Northern End of Humber Doucy Lane
Site size ha (% residential on mixed sites): 23.62ha
(c. 50%)
Indicative capacity (homes): 496
Capacity evidence: 35dph (DM23c)
Likely delivery timescale: M/L
For sake of completeness, Ipswich Garden Suburb should also be included. Recommend amendment to paragraph 4.7 wording.

Object

Representation ID: 26482

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Agent: Associated British Ports

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support allocation of the Island Site for residential/residential-led mixed use. Support references (paragraphs 4.7 and 4.10) that figures included in table 1a are “indicative”.

Will work with IBC to agree deliverable masterplan to deliver Council’s regeneration objectives subject to commercial viability.

Indicative capacity of 421 homes considered to be high. Consider that the Island Site will deliver a reduced density of approximately 150 units.

Considered inappropriate for Policy to refer to need for “additional vehicular … access (including emergency access)…to be provided to enable the site’s development”. Matter should be addressed in the masterplan preparation - request reference is removed.

Object

Representation ID: 26550

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Department for Education (DfE)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The allocation wording is too restrictive and could potentially frustrate and delay the delivery of the school. The specification of the retention of the locally listed façade is too specific for a site allocation policy, as it is not clear on what evidence this is based. The requirement for a development brief for the proposed primary school site is also considered to be unnecessary, the need for which is not sufficiently evidenced. We propose that the school component of allocation IP048a be stripped out from the policy and included as a separate allocation for a Primary School only.

Object

Representation ID: 26577

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Bloor Homes are promoting land at Humber Doucy Lane, Rushmere St Andrew, (see Site Location Plan Appendix A). Land is situated within both the Ipswich Borough and East Suffolk District. Approximately 115 hectares in size. It presents both a shorter term opportunity for a smaller scheme and a medium-long term opportunity for a larger scale Garden Village development. Development Framework Plans are included (Appendix B).Concerns were raised in relation to the cross boundary approach of working with Ipswich Council and the Site was promoted for a large scale opportunity. The relevant Hearing Statements are included at Appendix C.

Object

Representation ID: 26600

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Table 1 of the Site Allocations Policies document - this part of the plan is not sound because it is not effective. The entry for site IP048a and IP037 on this table should include an early years setting, to provide certainty in delivering an early years setting on this site, in order to mitigate the impacts of growth on the provision of early education.

Object

Representation ID: 26652

Received: 02/03/2020

Respondent: Silverton Aggregates Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We support the allocation of sites for residential development. However, it is our view that our client’s site should be considered for residential development in the IP-One Area. The site is adjacent to proposed allocation IP031a, and would make a logical extension to this. It is therefore considered that, at this stage, the emerging Local Plan does not meet the tests of soundness in terms of ensuring the consistent delivery of housing in accordance with National Planning Policy. Please see pages 9 -12 and appendices 1 and 2 of the full representation for further information regarding the potential development.