Draft Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Object

Representation ID: 576

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to omission of Site UC029 from site allocation on the 'development options' map. The site will be available for redevelopment in the plan period which the owners wish to promote. It is considered that the Council is failing to allocate a suitable site to meet the scale and type of retail and leisure development needed in the town centre. Development would address poor environmental quality in the area and heal the fragmented townscape between the town centre and Cardinal Park.

Object

Representation ID: 578

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to omission of UCO29 (Jewsons) being omitted from Table 5 listing sites allocated for leisure uses. The site owner wants to promote the site for town centre uses in the medium term. Appendix 4 should be edited to reflect a revised table 5. In the explanatory text to policy DM44 'Leisure' uses should be clarified. The 2013 DTZ report (Appraisal of Ipswich Town Centre Opportunities) identifies a dearth of leisure and food/drink units in the town centre which are needed to increase 'dwell time' in the town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 579

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to policy DM49 which allocates 15000 sq m of new retail floorspace as opposed to 35000 in the Adopted Core Strategy. There is insufficient evidence to justify the reduction which has been reached arbitrarily. Only one site (IP40 Land at Westgate) has been allocated for new retail development but the NPPF states that a range of suitable sites should be allocated. The 2010 retail capacity study should be updated to inform policy and the Jewson site considered for town centre use.

Support

Representation ID: 580

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners

This policy is supported subject to a change to policy DM44 to reinstate site UC029 (Jewsons) for town centre use. This change to DM44 would be consistent with the aim of DM55. The site UC029 should be allocated for town centre use development including some leisure.