Draft Core Strategy and Policies Focused Review

Object

Representation ID: 633

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In rolling forward the Plan period to 2031, it is imperative that plan policies are suitably robust. The plan review process also, therefore, provides a platform to address issues which may have been previously overlooked. LT consider that the description of Ipswich should make appropriate reference to Ipswich Port at Cliff Quay, which represents one of the single largest concentrations of employment land in the Borough.

Object

Representation ID: 636

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The amendment to delete reference to the Haven Gateway sub-region is understood, however, the important role of Ipswich Port should still clearly be emphasised.

Object

Representation ID: 637

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

One of the key challenges over the extended plan period should also be to: 'Protect and support appropriately located industrial activity, in particular at Ipswich Port.'

Object

Representation ID: 638

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is an oversight from the previously adopted plan that the vision does not make reference to the important role of Ipswich Port, which is a key asset for the Borough. The distinct nature of the port employment area and the specific industrial activities which take place on the Cliff Quay site including LT's asphalt operation are not appropriately covered by the blanket designation as a 'Major Employment Area.'

Object

Representation ID: 639

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The key role provided by Ipswich Port should also be reflected in the vision and plan objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 640

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The role of the port including industrial activities such as the LT asphalt plant operation represents an important employment generator, which should also be specifically supported and encouraged.

Object

Representation ID: 641

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy should be amended to explicitly recognise that not all non-residential development can practically achieve energy and sustainability targets. The policy needs to be sufficiently flexible in order to avoid prejudicing employment generating uses and the construction industry. At paragraph 8.14 this necessary flexibility should also be acknowledged in the forthcoming SPD on Sustainable Construction.

Object

Representation ID: 642

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In line with the additional commentary suggested earlier, this policy should also recognise the role of supporting jobs in Ipswich Port by providing the conditions to enable expansion and re-use of land without the imposition of unnecessary restrictions or prohibitive standards.

Object

Representation ID: 643

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In developing detailed policies for the future of S106 contributions and CIL, the Council should be mindful to ensure that they do not overburden industrial uses as this could have unplanned for consequences on the delivery of jobs and the regeneration of employment land. The proposals for contributions from new employment developments (para 8.196) need to be carefully considered and clarification should be provided on the forms of employment development to be appropriately included. Care must be taken to ensure that the future of existing industrial sites e.g. Ipswich Port, Cliff Quay are not prejudiced.

Object

Representation ID: 644

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Lafarge Tarmac

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council must ensure that regeneration proposals do not prejudice existing HGV movements into and from the Ipswich Port. Transport proposals must take appropriate account of existing haulage routes and where possible help facilitate improvements which will also benefit the movement of traffic between this key employment area and the A14.