Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Search representations
Results for Associated British Ports search
New searchObject
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP1 - The Protection of Allocated Sites
Representation ID: 26479
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 the safeguarding of sites for the uses for which they have been allocated, 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.
Not specified
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP2 - Land Allocated for Housing
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.
Request removal of reference to need for “additional vehicular … access (including emergency access)…to be provided to enable the site’s development”.
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP6 – Land Allocated and Protected as Open Space
Representation ID: 26483
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
ABP objects to the requirement that the Island Site provides 15% open space which is more than the minimum amount of on-site public open space provision required through Core Strategy Review Policy DM6. Until the completion of the masterplan exercise and the necessary technical assessments accompanying it, it is not appropriate for the DPD to be so prescriptive about the amount of open space to be provided and we would request the removal of reference to it.
Remove reference to requirement of 15% open space at Island Site.
Support
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP7 – Land Allocated for Leisure Uses or Community Facilities
Representation ID: 26484
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
ABP supports the Council’s position that the amount of land for leisure or community uses on the Island Site should be determined through masterplanning. Whether there is a need to make provision for early years facilities is a matter best addressed through that masterplanning exercise.
N/A
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP9 - Safeguarding Land for Transport Infrastructure
Representation ID: 26486
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Objection to inclusion in IP037 allocation of need for “additional vehicular access to the Island Site to enable the site’s development”. Not appropriate to be so prescriptive - request removal. Objection to inclusion in IP037 allocation of wording: “development layout should not prejudice future provision of a Wet Dock Crossing”. Given there is no formal commitment, not appropriate for Policies Map IP – One Area Inset to define alignment of potential route and for SP9 to effectively safeguard this. Whilst this may not be the intention, the wording can be interpreted this way. Request appropriate amendment.
Request removal of reference to the need for “additional vehicular access to the Island Site to enable the site’s development”.
Request appropriate amendment to Policy SP9 and/or Policies Map IP – One Area Inset concerning the provision of a wet dock crossing.
Support
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP11 – The Waterfront
Representation ID: 26487
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: 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.
N/A
Support
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP15 – Improving Pedestrian and Cycle Routes
Representation ID: 26488
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
ABP supports the aspiration for a safe cycle and pedestrian access across the lock gates at the entrance to the Wet Dock to create a circular route subject to viability and ensuring Port operations are not compromised. ABP also supports the provision of new foot and cycle bridges across the New Cut linking Stoke Quay to St Peter’s Wharf and the Island site to Felaw Street subject to the provision of such bridges being supported by public funding.
N/A
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Policy SP16 – Transport Proposals in IP-One
Representation ID: 26489
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Welcome intention to continue to make case for highway improvements including Wet Dock Crossing. However, in context of development of the Island Site, provision of Wet Dock Crossing is not a pre-requisite to enable development. Disagree with inclusion of statement (para 5.42) that “which as a minimum will require a road bridge from the west bank to the Island Site… to enable any significant development” - request removal. Need for access will depend on development established through masterplanning. Until established, not appropriate for the DPD to be so prescriptive - request removal of reference.
Request removal of reference:
“which as a minimum will require a road bridge from the west bank to the Island Site… to enable any significant development”
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Opportunity Area A – Island Site
Representation ID: 26490
Received: 02/03/2020
Respondent: Associated British Ports
Agent: Associated British Ports
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Welcomes statement that Opportunity Area descriptions, development principles and plans will act as concept plans to guide the development and should be adhered to unless evidence indicates a better approach to deliver plan objectives. Notes statement that allocation policies of the DPD take precedence over Opportunity Area guidance and site sheets - notes that there are discrepancies between these respective parts of the DPD which would benefit from clarification. Request changes to text under “Opportunity Area A – Island Site”.
Under ‘Development Opportunities’
- Concern about the amount of green areas including reinstatement of the tree lined promenade required.
- The old lock gate area is not suitable for leisure uses.
- Live Work units may not be viable in this location.
- Office use (other than small scale) is not considered appropriate in this location.
- The potential for small scale retail / café / restaurants will be subject to viability and market demand.
Under ‘Development Principles’.
- The retention of historic structures may be unviable to retain.
- Reinterpretation of the historic lock as a focus to new public space may not be compatible with operational and safety requirements.
- Generally low to medium rise development (3, 4 and 5 storeys).
- The requirement for vehicular access (including 73 emergency vehicles) and bridge across New Cut to link to Felaw Street is yet to be established and may not be necessary.
- What is meant by “prejudice to the potential provision of a full Wet Dock Crossing” needs to be better understood in the context of this being no more than an aspiration.
- 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).
Object
Ipswich Borough Council Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) DPD Review - Final Draft
Site Ref: IP037 (Policy SP2, SP6, SP15 & SP15) Island Site
Representation ID: 26656
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 for residential/residential-led mixed use. Will work with IBC to agree masterplan to deliver regeneration objectives subject to commercial viability. Vision for site (agreed with partners and the LEP) does not envisage ‘high density’ development. Indicative capacity (421 homes) considered high. Consider Island Site will deliver reduced density of approx. 150 units. Development should be sensitive to existing site uses. Disagree with reference to requirement of road bridge to enable development at Island Site. Access required dependent on development - reduced density may not require additional access. Object to requirement of 15% open space - more than minimum requirement.
Reduce capacity to 150 units.
