Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Comment

Representation ID: 25096

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

AquiGen agrees with the identified Key Issues. In terms of Economic Growth for Ipswich, it is essential that the emerging Plan promotes and supports growth in key employment sectors. The business sector is an important element of the local and wider sub-regional economy. The Plan should also however recognise the importance of other employment sectors including retail, leisure, entertainment and recreation. Appropriate forms of economic development can then make wider contributions in the social and environmental sectors also identified in the consultation document.

Comment

Representation ID: 25097

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

In order to achieve the level of consistency required, we recommend that any development targets identified in the SEP are aligned with the Evidence Base and eventual set of targets selected for the Local Plan. This will clearly need to be the subject of review and consideration as the Local Plan evolves.

Comment

Representation ID: 25098

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

As a landowner and investor in the Ipswich area and wider sub-region, AquiGen is supportive of the ambitious growth scenarios identified in the consultation document. AquiGen does not have a specific view at this stage on the growth scenario that should be adopted. Instead, given the nature of their land interest, their focus is on the actual implications for site allocation decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 25099

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

It is noted that Ipswich itself has had the lowest increase in jobs compared with the wider Ipswich FEA. The economic targets for the area are also based on significant economic development opportunities that are located outside of the Ipswich urban area. Whilst there is always an opportunity for spin-off investment and job creation, any economic strategy and resultant land requirement needs to be based on realistic targets to avoid an excessive allocation of employment land which could otherwise be used for alternative land use requirements and demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 25100

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

AquiGen notes the identification of employment land as a potential alternative sources of residential land. This is acknowledged as a sensible policy option given the OAN. At this stage we note that there has been no actual published assessment of the suitability of employment sites for continued B class/economic development. The consultation document refers to the assessment of sites under the ELSA 07/2017 yet this has not been published. This is a significant shortcoming of the consultation process as it leaves landowners unable to comment on the findings of the ELSA in terms of specific sites and land allocation decisions.

Comment

Representation ID: 25101

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

Futura Park and the remaining plots that are currently allocated for B-class employment. The plots have been made available since 2012 and yet have not attracted any mainstream B-class developers. This is significantly beyond the current 12-month period for positive consideration of alternative use under Policy DM25. This provides a clear market signal that the land should be considered for
alternative use within the wider 'Economic Development' definition. This will ensure that the Site can continue to make a positive contribution to the local economy through job creation, inward investment and diversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 25102

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

It is entirely sensible to roll-forward the current Local Plan policy to allow local service uses in Employment Areas. Such uses support the viability of large Business and Industrial Parks supporting the needs of the workforce and visitors alike. Other non-B class uses such as car showrooms also provide important inward investment and skilled employment generating benefits for such locations. This has been successfully demonstrated by the recent openings on the Site.

Comment

Representation ID: 25103

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

We consider that the present Policy DM25 marketing test is appropriate in establishing whether a site is suitable / viable for employment use or not. The marketing period represents an appropriate balance and reasonable time period for demonstrating whether a specific site is required or not. As such, aside from its use for development management purposes, it can inform allocations going forward.

Comment

Representation ID: 25104

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

We recommend that the emerging Plan proactively explores and identifies alternative land use policy options which in themselves can have benefits for the Town Centre (e.g. residential).

Comment

Representation ID: 25105

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

The Evidence Base published to date identifies that in terms of the Town Centre, present policy tools have been effective in managing out-of-centre development and ensuring it can be complementary. In formulating policy for retailing in the Ipswich area, we consider that the present NPPF Sequential and Impact tests are entirely adequate for the purposes of controlling any further proposals for out-of-centre retail development.