Support

Representation ID: 25888

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

Support the safeguarding of sites, subject to the recognition that where sites (such as the Island Site) are in existing use and are allocated for alternative use(s), redevelopment will be dependent on commercial viability. Until a satisfactory scheme is agreed with IBC for redevelopment, such sites should reasonably be able to continue in their existing use. In the case of the Island Site, ABP reserves the right to continue to use the Island Site as operational port area and to restrict access in the interests of public safety and port security.

Object

Representation ID: 25889

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP is broadly supportive of the mix of uses for IP037 (subject to preparation of a detailed master plan which ABP will work with IBC to agree).

The indicative capacity of 421 homes @ 100 dwellings per hectare stated in the Policy should indeed be considered 'indicative' only. In our opinion, the capacity of the site is greater than 421 homes.

For the reasons set out in respect to Policy CS20, we do not consider it appropriate for Policy SP2 to refer to the need for "additional vehicular ... access (including emergency access)...to be provided to enable the site's development".

Object

Representation ID: 25890

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

For the reasons set out in respect to CS&P DPD Review Policy CS20 (and para 8.225) and in respect of Site Allocations & Policies DPD Policy SP2 (IP037), we request the removal of the reference to "additional vehicular access needed to enable the site's development".

Support

Representation ID: 25891

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP supports Policy SP11 and welcomes the recognition at para 5.21 of the need for new development to take account of the Port's operational needs.

Object

Representation ID: 25892

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP supports Policy SP16 and notes the comments at para 5.47 in respect of IBC's continuing aspirations for a Wet Dock Crossing (see comments on CS&PDPD Policy CS20). For the reasons given above, we request the removal from para 5.47 of the reference to "which as a minimum will require a road bridge from the west bank to the Island Site..".

Object

Representation ID: 25893

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

ABP questions the references in the text to:
* Residential 50% (IP037 says c.70%)
* Generally low to medium rise development (3, 4 and 5 storeys) (IP037 say minimum 100dph density)
* Development to provide vehicular access (including emergency vehicles) and bridge across New Cut to link to Mather Way
* Layout to facilitate location of new foot/cycle bridge from New Cut to St Peter's Wharf (it is not clear what this means)
* Ensure suitable public transport provision (it is not clear how this is expected to be achieved)

Request removal of "3, 4 and 5 storeys".

Object

Representation ID: 25894

Received: 13/03/2019

Respondent: Associated British Ports

IP037 - ABP notes and is generally supportive of the guidance on the Site Sheet, save the reference to the need for the provision of additional vehicular access.