Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review

Comment

Representation ID: 25078

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP will continue to assist the Council in developing a feasible solution for the
Upper Orwell Crossings and for all modes access to the Island site. ABP also supports the efforts of IBC and SCC to progress the Ipswich Northern Route Study and to bring forward proposals to secure transport capacity improvements which will benefit strategic and local traffic accessing and egressing the Port.

Comment

Representation ID: 25079

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP requests the identification of the Port of Ipswich as a strategic transport hub and the inclusion of policy (ideally) and wording which specifically seeks to support and protect the function and role of the Port in the town.

ABP would like to see improvement of the junctions on the A14 around Ipswich in order to accommodate existing and future growth. ABP supports the efforts of IBC and SCC to lobby Highways England for such improvements and investigation of other potential improvements to the A14 and A12(S) corridors.

Comment

Representation ID: 25080

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

New Local Plan would benefit from the inclusion of a new
policy which:
- Identifies the operational Port estate and its relationship to the town centre and IP-One area.
- Supports port development and the growth of the port where this does not conflict with other policies in the Plan; and
- addresses the particular development considerations which should apply in the interface area between the port estate and the town centre and IP-One areas. Such a policy would address the imprecision and lack of clarity of the current draft version of the DPD.
Whilst Policy DM25 serves to safeguard existing employment areas, it is important that care is exercised when development proposals are brought forward in the vicinity of these areas (consistent, perhaps, with other policies of the DPD) to ensure that this new development does not prejudice existing employment uses
and business operations which are "appropriately located". ABP requests, therefore, recognition in the new Local Plan that it will not apply policies in isolation in exercising its development control functions.

Comment

Representation ID: 25081

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

CS3 - ABP supports the regeneration objectives for the IP-One area. There are, however, important elements of the Port within or adjacent to this area. New development should, therefore, have regard to these existing uses and activities so as to ensure that they are protected. We suggest, therefore, the addition of a new criterion into any new policy based on Policy CS3:
"New development should be sensitive to existing uses (including those at the Port of Ipswich) and avoid potential impacts which may prejudice the continued operation and where appropriate, expansion of these uses."
CS20 - Policy needs to be updated to reflect progress since the DPD was adopted. ABP asks only that any update has regard to and reflects ABP's concerns that any new transport scheme:
1) avoids an unacceptable impact on existing vessel access to the Wet Dock via the Lock Pit to the detriment of continued port operations and those of our tenants, commercial businesses and the vitality and viability of the Ipswich Haven Marina
2) avoids any adverse impact (e.g. through traffic congestion) on Cliff Road, which is the primary access
onto Cliff Quay
3) avoids any adverse impact on the route for port operational vehicles, plant and equipment between
Cliff Quay and the Island Site
4) avoids a routing which would affect the existing railhead into the West Bank Terminal
5) does not prevent the Port from meeting the stringent security requirements of the International Ship
and Port Facility Security Code, and
6) allows for navigation rights along the New Cut

Comment

Representation ID: 25084

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

The majority of the operational area of the Port of Ipswich is identified in Employment Areas E9 and E12. Within and surrounding these areas there may be sites which are suitable for other alternative uses and redevelopment (eg for housing). ABP is concerned that any development proposals that may
be brought forward in these circumstances are sympathetic to port operations, particularly in respect of the juxtaposition and orientation of new development to ongoing port activity and the potential traffic impacts that this new development may have on already constrained access routes into and around the Port.

Comment

Representation ID: 25085

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP has no particular view on whether a continuation of the IP-One approach or alignment with the Ipswich Vision 'quarters' is preferable for planning purposes. ABP would only request that, whichever the approach adopted, the policy approach reflects the matters raised by ABP.

Comment

Representation ID: 25086

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP supports the efforts of IBC and SCC to progress the Ipswich Northern Route Study and to bring forward proposals to secure transport capacity improvements which will benefit strategic and local traffic accessing and egressing the Port.

Comment

Representation ID: 25087

Received: 23/11/2017

Respondent: Associated British Ports

The Ports NPS recognizes shipping as a sustainable mode of transport. The identification of the Port of Ipswich as a strategic transport hub and the inclusion of policy (ideally) and wording which specifically seeks to support and protect the function and role of the Port in the town, as suggested in our response to Question 30 above, would encourage this form of sustainable transport.