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

Object

Representation ID: 571

Received: 27/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site IP262 the Former Ash Tip overlooks the Orwell, in a topographically favourable location in the vicinity of prehistoric sites, particularly of Palaeolithic date. No objection in principle to development but it will require a condition relating to archaeological investigation attached to any planning consent. A desk-based assessment is recommended in the first instance.

Object

Representation ID: 572

Received: 27/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site IP263 Land West of Bridge Street lies in the Anglo-Saxon and medieval core, close to the waterfront. No objection in principle to development but it will require a condition relating to archaeological investigation attached to any planning consent. This depends on the nature of any groundworks.

Object

Representation ID: 665

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The potential for sites IP116 (St Clements Hospital), IP257 (Land at Felixstowe Road) and IP10a and b (Felixstowe Road) to provide a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Felixstowe railway line warrants further consideration. The potential benefits of a well located bridge include increasing healthy travel to a major local centre, schools and sports facilities and reducing trips currently made by car. If proven to be deliverable and desirable, it could warrant inclusion within policy DM45. It should be noted that the County Council has no plans to bring the Bury Road Park and Ride site back into use.

Object

Representation ID: 666

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The County Council welcomes the requirement placed on site IP037 (the Island site) to provide additional vehicular access. This site will need to be the subject of a risk assessment, in relation to the access proposals

Object

Representation ID: 667

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The in-principle support offered to pedestrian and cycle routes by DM55 is welcomed. Whilst each project listed as part of the policy can be considered broadly consistent with the Local Transport Plan's strategy for Ipswich, most of these projects are not themselves listed within the Local Transport Plan, and the County Council cannot guarantee support

Object

Representation ID: 668

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No options assessment has yet been carried out for the Wet Dock Crossing route, nor public consultation undertaken on the need for a crossing and potential routes. The Highway Authority recognises the aspiration for a crossing in the Local Transport Plan but is not currently promoting the scheme. Therefore, it does not require any particular route option to be safeguarded. Regarding the delivery of a Wet Dock Crossing/Star Lane gyratory, the County Council is committed to considering how the Waterfront Transport Study can be implemented, but decisions about the highway network will rest with the County Council as Highway Authority.

Object

Representation ID: 669

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The approach taken by policy DM57, in intending to support the town centre economy whilst limiting congestion, is welcomed. Detailed consideration of this policy and the area identified as a Central Car Parking core, as part of on-going discussions between both authorities, would be worthwhile. Further to the County Council's objection to the Core Strategy Focused Review vision, the Council seeks reassurances that the car parking policy and allocations will support the Travel Ipswich scheme.

Object

Representation ID: 670

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Upon initial consideration, the County Council has only minor comments to make in relation to the indicative proposals for the six opportunity areas, but highway officers would welcome the opportunity to hold more detailed discussions. Initial issues arising include:
- In redeveloping the Mint Quarter, consideration needs to be given to how traffic will access the site from the East.
- The Mint Quarter development (and associated proposals related to Upper Brook Street) will require consideration as to how development will relate to bus movements in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 671

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

With regard to the proposals for the Westgate area, is there an opportunity to increase the quality of pedestrian access from the vicinity of Arcade Street?

Object

Representation ID: 672

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The allocated sites will yield pupils as follows:
Early years 205; Primary 512; Secondary 369; Sixth Form 82.
Early education facilities across the town are at capacity. Full contributions will be sought from all the sites listed. 205 additional places creates a theoretical need for 5-10 new settings, which are normally sought within developments of >200 dwellings. Thus sites IP037 (Island Site) and IP116 (St Clements) are candidates. Development will create pressure at primary schools across Ipswich, therefore allocations within some catchments need urgent discussion. There is some secondary school capacity in Ipswich, but it needs to be carefully managed.