Site Allocations and Policies (Incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document (DPD) Main Modifications

Object

Representation ID: 26794

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP048a-d:The New Policy for the Mint Quarter includes does not include the early years setting associated with the primary school, which is recognised in Table 8a, is not included in the policy. For completeness the policy should be amended to state: “Mint Quarter/Cox Lane East Regeneration Area facing Carr Street (IP048d): 0.43ha for a primary school and early years provision”.

Object

Representation ID: 26795

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP003: In part ‘b’ of this policy, it is recommended that the word “retention” is replaced with the word “safeguarding”. This would make the language of the policy more in line with chapter 17 of the NPPF and the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 26796

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP004: While the current wording does highlight the relationship it does not explain the significance of being near a safeguarded site, or what may be expected of developers and decision makers because of it. For consistency and clarity it is recommended that the wording in other policies near to safeguarded minerals and waste sites is used (see suggested change). While the safeguarded sites near to IP004 are part of IP003, and will require relocation when IP003 is redeveloped, safeguarding will still be a material consideration in planning decisions while the waste and concrete batching site are operational.

Object

Representation ID: 26797

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP080: The policy acknowledges there is a relationship with a safeguarded minerals site. However, while this does highlight the relationship it does not explain the significance of being near a safeguarded site, or what may be expected of developers and decision makers because of it. For consistency and clarity it is recommended that the wording in other policies near to safeguarded minerals and waste sites is used for IP080 (see suggested change).

IP120b & IP279: These site allocation policies do not recognise two safeguarded minerals and waste sites within 250 meters. These policies should contain the new text accordingly (see suggested change). While the safeguarded sites near to these allocated sites are part of IP003, and will require relocation when IP003 is redeveloped, safeguarding will still be a material consideration in planning decisions while the waste and concrete batching site are operational.

Object

Representation ID: 26798

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP119: This site allocation policy does not recognise two safeguarded minerals and waste sites within 250 metres. It should contain new text (see suggested change). While the safeguarded sites near to the allocated site are part of IP003, and will require relocation when IP003 is redeveloped, safeguarding will still be a material consideration in planning decisions while the waste and concrete batching site are operational.

Object

Representation ID: 26799

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

IP279: This site allocation policy does not recognise two safeguarded minerals and waste sites within 250 meters. The policies should contain additional text (see suggested change). While the safeguarded sites near to this allocated site are part of IP003, and will require relocation when IP003 is redeveloped, safeguarding will still be a material consideration in planning decisions while the waste and concrete batching site are operational.

Support

Representation ID: 26800

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Modifications to this policy are supported.

Support

Representation ID: 26801

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Modifications to this policy are in line with what is agreed in statements of common ground between the Borough and County Councils and is and is supported.

Object

Representation ID: 26802

Received: 23/09/2021

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

SCC supports this policy, but suggests there could be some improvements. Reference to adopted cycling and walking infrastructure strategies of both the councils could be mentioned in the policy, not just the explanatory text, and projects contributing to the Transport Mitigation Strategy for ISPA. The second paragraph could also make reference to improving the quality of PRoW themselves, as well as linkages to them (see suggested change).