Public sector £20 million boost to Wine Rack stalled Ipswich Waterfront project

This topic contains 14 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of Mart Mart 3 weeks, 6 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
  • #3669 Score: 0
    Profile photo of News Robot
    News Robot
    • New Topics: 158
    • Total Replies: 1
    • Contributions: 159

    Millions to be spent on the Winerack

    The building on the Ipswich Waterfront, known locally as the Winerack, is set to be finally completed.It will include 149 apartments and an area of commercial space, thanks to an investment of millions of pounds of public money.

    The Homes and Communities Agency is set to invest £15m, with a further £5m from the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership.

    The building is owned by John Howard, who said: “We hope work will start in September.

    “At the moment we’ve gone back to our preferred contractor, who’s just going to update the tender, but we’re fairly confident we can start in September.”

    New Anglia LEP news article

    Vital public investment has been agreed to restart the development of the ‘Winerack’ building on Ipswich waterfront.

    Subject to legal documentation, the Homes and Communities Agency is set to invest £15 million in the long-delayed town centre project, along with £5 million from New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership. Construction is expected to commence later this year. Ipswich Wharf Developments (IWDL) led by local developers John Howard and Jeremy Scowsill have been advised on the financing by Zenzic Partners.

    The Homes and Communities Agency’s £15 million investment is through its Home Building Fund, which provides government-backed finance to developers of all sizes to help them build more homes and improve places. The investment is supported by a facility of £5 million from New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) through its Growing Places Fund.

    Regatta Quay – known locally as the Winerack – has been in a semi-constructed condition since the financial crash of 2008. It is a key development in the Ipswich Vision project, which brings together local partners to work towards a single vision for the regeneration of Ipswich town centre.

    The completed project will create 149 residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. It will support 56 new jobs.

    Feel free to comment on IPSWI.

    #3672 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Mart
    • New Topics: 9
    • Total Replies: 278
    • Contributions: 287

    £20m of our money in what to me has always been a private development… *sigh*

    If this doesn’t fully stack up as a commercial venture without public money should it not just be flattened now and the area given over to something else? I knew there had been the intention to try for some public money but £20m!!! Is it a loan, do we get that back with interest, is it all affordable subsidised housing, how does it work? The Star reporting, as usual, is short on any proper detail….

    very angry now, don't like inappropriate censorship,

    #3673 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    Do not take my word for it but I am sure it is an interest free loan (or low interest rate loan).

    They haven’t handed John Howard £20m on a plate… it definitely needs repaying but that is beside the point. I don’t think they will shift the apartments/flats/homes as easily as he thinks. Even the taxpayer could end up losing out on the project or John Howard would file for bankruptcy… except the loans would be through the limited company.

    A brief summary here… Ipswich Waterfront. Developers are queuing up for all sorts of housing developments around Greater Ipswich – some have been battling for decades to get planning permission. Even the sugar beet factory site at Sproughton had attempts for housing which were refused… many housing projects have completed since the Ipswich Waterfront idea was first thought of.

    So why no commercial interest in the Ipswich Waterfront despite being the sole place marketing destination for the town? Lack of infrastructure? Lack of parking? Inflated land prices? History of vacant properties? Area liable to flooding?

    Ben Gummer & co can argue as much as he like about the recession as being an excuse. Elsewhere in the town (if indeed our politicians can recognise the large chunk of Ipswich which isn’t the waterfront) the recovery hadn’t discouraged housing development. Even selecting a very recent example of Electric House apartments that Ben Gummer posed for photos about. The developer got the funding and did the work… it is a much smaller project.

    The wine rack was purchased cheap and the owner had no money to invest in the flats. Ben Gummer had to work hard to get the pre-election news story to secure his seat. Otherwise, I sincerely doubt the funding would have been secured for such a large amount of money. Usually it would be expected in addition to a grant of loan for the owner/developer to use own funds match funded with a bank loan to spread the risk. The wine rack story stinks from the very start… I am sure the future history would be similar. The fortunes of the waterfront flats might improve when the flood barrier gets installed.

    Waterfront flats were purchased by oversea investors involved in money laundering in some cases. This loop hole of distorting facts is now closed. Little chance of the apartments being sold (but vacant). What I would also add is Salthouse Harbour hotel needs to worry about the apartments being used for airbnb alternatives to hotels. Some have already popped up and the occupiers renting the properties don’t have permission to do so hence the photos not being geographically specific.

    Affordable subsidised housing? Not a chance. It could be “affordable” as they say but out of reach of typical hard-working folk from Ipswich. Likely rent-to-buy or deposit schemes to shift them. They should really be social housing. The public purse won’t see a return on investment… the Tories must show the commercial private sector as doing well even at government public sector loss… not surprisingly they have announced they expect to make a loss from the bank bail out. If you cannot get a good enough return, why not keep ownership of the banks and get dividends that way?! They see it as a weak and failed economy.

    #3674 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Ipswi
    • New Topics: 85
    • Total Replies: 189
    • Contributions: 274

    from Government website…

    What is the Home Building Fund?

    The Home Building Fund is a flexible source of funding administered by the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) on behalf of government.

    The Fund provides:

    development finance – loan funding to meet the development costs of building homes for sale or rent
    infrastructure finance – loan funding for site preparation and the infrastructure needed to enable housing to progress and to prepare land for development

    Loans can be tailored to your individual circumstances.

    We want to encourage innovation, both in the kind of homes that are built and the way they are delivered. Financing is available to support these projects which could include community led housing projects, serviced plots for custom and self-builders, off-site manufacturing, new entrants to the market and groups of small firms working in consortia to deliver larger sites.

    A range of non-financial support is also available for larger infrastructure schemes to help resolve barriers to schemes progressing more quickly.

    How does the Home Building Fund work?
    Our flexible approach to structuring loans enables us to provide finance on both a short and long term basis.

    All our lending requires appropriate security and loans are typically secured against property assets.

    The key features of the Fund are:

    • loans of £250,000 to £250 million are available with smaller loans considered for innovative housing solutions and serviced plots for custom builders
    • typical terms are up to 5 years for development finance and up to 20 years for infrastructure loans
    • interest is payable at transparent, pre-agreed variable rates
    • sales income can be recycled to minimise the loan request
    • subordinated lending will be considered
    • finance is available to draw down up to 31 March 2021
    • eligible costs will be discussed with each applicant and depend on the type of funding requested

    What does it cost?

    Interest rates will be applied to the loan at commercial rates. In addition to the interest rate an arrangement fee will be charged. Further information about our approach to pricing can be found on our website.

    Who can apply?

    Finance is available to all private sector organisations involved in delivering new homes and the provision of enabled sites ready for residential led schemes.

    The Fund has a few core eligibility criteria:

    • applicants will need to demonstrate that without this funding the scheme would not progress or progress as quickly, or at all
    • developments must be in England
    • the borrower must be a private sector entity which has majority control of the site
    • development projects must build a minimum of 5 homes
    • the borrower must be a UK registered corporate entity
    • infrastructure projects must ultimately lead to the development of new housing
    • the minimum investment the Fund will make is £250,000, except in the case of innovative housing solutions and serviced plots for custom builders

      At the point at which a loan offer is made, applicants are normally required to have a controlling interest in the land and a clear route to achieving planning consent.

    #3703 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Ipswi
    • New Topics: 85
    • Total Replies: 189
    • Contributions: 274

    Ipswich Star comments….

    Great news. Good investment from the HCA and the LEP into Ipswich, turning out to be a great couple of years for the town. A really significant amount of investment has gone in and really look forward to seeing this project completed. Best of luck to all involved


    Great news for making use of this eyesore. Sadly,no mention of how many apartments will be available for the homeless, the elderly, the low earners and “affordable housing” for young couples.


    Nor is there any mention about how much John Howard will make out of this, still with a donation of £20m from the taxpayer to the Winerack Charity I’m pretty sure he will be doing this out of his love of the area and not to make a profit.

    Mike Hunt

    It’s good news for the town and the timing of this announcement clearly has nothing to do with the coming election!


    Why has this project been given the financial support from the public whilst many other buildings in the town lay empty ? Is it because he is a Tory donor ? Just asking .Will the sugar beet get a £20 million handout next, I doubt it as the taxpayer is already paying for that too. The upper Orwell bridges , the wine rack and the sugar beet all being paid for by the tax payer , not bad considering we were told huge private sector funds were going to re build the town ,seems like we’re paying for it as the private sector creams the profits .


    Public funds being used so I take it these flats are going to be council and available for those who need affordable rents i.e under £400ish a month. Oh no silly me more like double that.


    #3710 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Ipswi
    • New Topics: 85
    • Total Replies: 189
    • Contributions: 274

    Ben Gummer didn’t always support the finishing of the Ipswich Wine Rack

    He has done so many U-turns, can he be trusted with other projects such as Northern Bypass?

    #3749 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    News article from 2014:

    Ipswich: New owner of the wine rack vows to complete luxury flats development – and expresses hope for foot bridge to link the Waterfront to the town centre

    Developer John Howard has bought the ‘wine rack ‘ building on the Ipswich Waterfront.

    John Howard sees lack of car parking and the physical isolation of the waterfront, which is separated from the town centre by a traffic-choked one-way system, as the only remaining barriers to its ongoing redevelopment and is calling for plans for a pedestrian bridge to the town to be made a reality.

    Mr Howard, and long-time business partner Jeremy Scowsill, are behind Marina Developments (Ipswich) Ltd, which bought Block A of the Regatta Quay complex in June and he is confident it will be completed and turned into luxury flats.

    Nicknamed “the wine rack”, the looming concrete skeleton came to symbolise the crippling effects of the Credit Crunch on the town’s economy and a very visual reminder of its years in the doldrums post 2008 after the company behind it collapsed.

    But Mr Howard, who lives in Claydon, near Ipswich, and has been involved in development schemes all around the country, says his company’s plans will lift the already impressive Waterfront area further and help kickstart other projects for as yet undeveloped parts of the waterfront.

    “It will help all the other prices in the area. It’s good news for Ipswich,” he said.

    But while the ‘wine rack’ building comes with its own 260 space parking area, he believes the waterfront as a whole needs more parking.

    “I think it needs a multi-storey car park,” he said. “It desperately needs a pedestrian bridge across the roads. It needs something to link it to the town.”

    He revealed he had been talking to “one or two” car parking operators about whether they would be interested in creating a profitable. 600-space multi-storey car park along the Waterfront and had received a “positive” initial response from a couple of them.

    “I think like all these things, it needs the borough council, it needs the county council and private developers to get together and work together,” he said. “We have got 260 car spaces in the core of our building, so we are fine, but I just think if you want to get retail down here we have got to get it full and get it buzzing.”

    He added: “I think everyone wants to see the Waterfront finished and what has been now I think we can all be very proud of.”

    He is hoping that the first phase of building work on the 149-luxury flat complex can begin around March or April of next year. This phase, which would include the completion of the outside shell of the building, and the creation of 30 flats at the top, along with parking and lifts, is envisaged to take around a year. Potential buyers are already showing an interest in the hi-tech, ultra modern apartments the firm is planning to build.

    The next two phases, developing the lower flats, is expected to take around 18 months, which would mean that in theory, the building could be complete as early as the latter part of 2017.

    A local developer has been earmarked, but contracts still have to be signed, said Mr Howard, and detailed proposals are currently with borough planners.

    “I’m confident there’ll be enough buyers for them. My confidence comes from a number of areas. The economy has picked up. It’s a unique development in a great setting, an hour and a bit away from London by train,” he said. “Looking over the marina, it’s got an awful lot going for it.”

    He appears willing to say anything to attract interest. The 600 space multi-storey car park hasn’t materialised. His attempt at getting the council to build a pedestrian bridge across Star Lane gyratory failed. Is he still aiming for hi-tech ultra modern luxury apartments?

    Ipswich Star comments:-

    Good news, if he keeps his word. However, I am sceptical of the longer term success, it needs more than a footbridge to attract people to the docks area. You need things to attract them there as well as access, and that’s beside the point that many developers are now saying that buyers are more looking for houses now rather than flats. The major part of The Mill is still unoccupied, The area doesn’t need people who buy as an investment it needs people who buy to live.

    Esco Fiasco

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    I will only believe the so called wine rack will be completed when I see it,we have been promised so much over the last 10 years but very little has been achieved.

    Ipswich and proud

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    I will only believe the so called wine rack will be completed when I see it,we have been promised so much over the last 10 years but very little has been achieved.

    Ipswich and proud

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    Any plans to complete a development or bring derelict land into use must be welcomed and for a local company to be involved suggests they plan to do what they say. Clearly this is a big undertaking and part of it’s future success will be based on it’s integration within the the area of other schemes. There are still too many sites in Ipswich awaiting attention and a start has to happen somewhere. Not sure if Ipswich needs lots of new retail space at present but something is needed to lift the existing retail areas to something that attracts trade.


    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    Ipswich Entrepreneur has hit the nail on the head. The developer doesn’t want a footbridge out of any altruistic feelings for improving the lot of the townspeople, he wants someone else to fund the improvement to the value of his investment. And IBC may well be right when they say people don’t like using bridges. Pedestrians everywhere can hardly be bothered to walk 20 yards further to use a crossing, but would prefer to j-walk across roads to save themselves some effort. Let’s face facts – the docks are too far from the town centre to ever be integrated – they are two distinct and separate entities.


    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    The completion of the ‘wine rack’ is welcome news. The bridge connecting to the town is a good idea, too. However, it could be enhanced with a linking foot and cycle bridge over the Orwell for the new block of 380 flats on the South side at Stoke Quay. The bridge could span from the bottom of Gower street to the foot of the dance theatre tower. So not only would the North side residents get a quick and safe passage to the town, but the South side would have a shortcut as well.

    Steven Whalley

    Wednesday, August 6, 2014

    Drain the wet dock. Sink a multilevel subterranean carpark in it. Refill with water. Simple. Problem solved.


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    A footbridge as a sweetener! Anywhere else in the UK and they would dig a tunnel for the road and not allow any development while a site the size of the Island Site in the middle of the dock remains off limits and derelict. This piecemeal approach to dock development is a sad embarrassment.


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    We need retail space , not more flats ! Flats Flats Flats ! Why so many ? Anyone over the age of 20 doesn’t want to live in a flat , these will hit the rental market and we know what that will mean .

    Poppys Dad

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Whatever comes of this it must be an improvement on what is there now. However there is a large car park under the student flats in Duke Street and this has never been used. Why I now not. It is time to put right all that is wrong with the so called waterfront especially the nightmare traffic problems.


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Let’s be positive and give this proposal a chance. Surely it can only be an improvement on the current eyesore situation. There are too many people with no vision who are only too keen to be negative and that is not good for Ipswich


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Yes, a footbridge linking the town centre with the waterfront. Great idea, ask anyone who’s been to Basildon where they came up with the concept of “streets in the sky” 50 years ago and it was a loony idea back then. By the way, did anybody notice that the report of a stabbing on Stoke Bridge referred to it as “Bridge Street”? Maybe they didn’t want the Wonderful Waterfront to be associated with the possibility of a nearby crime. Just sayin’.

    PC Plod

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Well, hate to lower the tone. The concept of a pedestrian bridge isn’t so all Ipswich Residents can enjoy the waterfront… its because when you are selling flats the fact that two busy A-roads that are noisy, dangerous and a source of high pollution, in between your prospective home and the town centre (where the shops are) can be a little off-putting to some. This additional link for pedestrians will encourage businesses to the unoccupied retail units and subsequently increase the prices of the overpriced homes somewhat more. ***** Ipswich Waterfront is approximately 20% university, 75% residential flats and 5% leisure. What really is there for anyone other than students living in the flats? Not that students can even afford them.

    Ipswich Entrepreneur

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Well if he gets the same answer as I did when I pointed out a few years back that instead of yet another set of lights near Fore Street it required a well designed footbridge, the reply came back ‘ people don’t like using bridges’ so good luck with Ips BC who have their heads well and truly stuck in the sand…


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    At last…someone with vision! I’m glad he is keen on sorting the car parking- it’s been my view that this is one of the biggest barriers to developing the area- people spending lost of money dont want to have to park their car in some rubbishy old improvised gravel car park. They want shelter, security and a guarenteed space.

    Sentinel Red

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Agree wholeheartedly with these proposals from John Howard. However, I thought the borough council have been looking into improving the access to the waterfront for the past few years? Have they not come up with any confirmed plans of their own to date?


    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    At last somebody with brains looks at the Dock area. It is rather telling that a man from the private sector who has to please people to sell flats comes up with the point that the Dock needs foot bridges to connect it to the town and MORE CHEAP PARKING. Instead of council officials who’s only answer seems to be more lights or we will close one of the roads around the dock and make it one lane each way etc etc. The first thing that should happen is the middle island of the wet dock whould be bought. The boat builders allowed to remain but all the other mostly haulage businesses down there offered new accomadation at Nacton Rd Ind Estate and the whole island have houses with no roads built, maybe with a large sopping parade. A true green space with a big multisorey carpark both for visitors and residents at the Stoke Bridge end of the docks. Then you can use the lifts in that structure to have a walk way from say the 4th floor of the car park to a structure in St Nicolas St with a lift to provide deisabled access to the Docks. Repave the entrance to the dock which at the moment with any rain gets flooded. Finally remove both pedestrian lights on on the one way system there. Remove the pedestrian lights across Stoke Bridge by using the same access to have a bridge across to Trinity Park and linking the old B&Q site eventially to the Dock area. Then you can make access to the dock etc completely without having to touch or cross the oneway system at all. Use good quality products, not steel girders so the bridges are architectural statements in themselves like the millennium bridge over the Thames. Then we will have to do the same at the other end of the docks and remove those stupid zebra crossings.

    The Ginge

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    great ideas, good luck to him, the footbridge idea would make such a difference as the traffic wouldn’t be constantly held up.

    C Smith

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Well, he’s local, which is a plus, so may be more familiar with the failings of the council than others. He’s going in with his eyes open, has ideas, so good luck son!

    Mike Derruki

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    Before certain other contributors come on board can I get the ball rolling with a positive comment. I believe Mr Howard has the right approach to this development and hopefully he will get all the help and cooperation that he and this project deserves. As for the multi story car park and the foot bridge, brilliant.

    jack rabbit

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014

    #3750 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Mart
    • New Topics: 9
    • Total Replies: 278
    • Contributions: 287

    I did look for the planning application for completion once, but couldn’t find it, I assume there has been one, and its in the public domain?

    didnt realise he had it for so long, that’s a lot of deadlines missed now. He was committed to it from the time he bought it so it appears, at what point did the prospect of public moneY come into it I wonder…

    Also as an aside its interesting to see all the names of folks who used to post on the Star comments page, who no longer seem to do so. I imagine a lot have now given up as You maY as well talk to Yourself.

    and note, capital Y works, small Y does not.


    very angry now, don't like inappropriate censorship,

    #3756 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    After some severe digging the relevant planning reference numbers for this Wine Rack are:-

    • 05/00296/FUL: Mixed use development in multi-storey blocks (up to 14 floors), comprising of 290 residential units and 3000m2 (approx) of non-residential floor space potentially comprising all uses within Class A Class B1, Theatre and Classes D1 and D2, Car parking, formation of vehicular access, laying out of open spaces and associated works.
    • 07/00357/FUL: Amendments to Planning Permission IP/05/00296/FUL to provide 2 additional storeys in Block A (22 additional apartments and additional car parking floor space) adjacent to Cranfields Mill.
    • 09/00130/FUL: Retrospective amendment to the development approved by planning permission reference IP/07/00357/FUL in Block A (adjacent to Cranfield Mill) to provide 6 additional apartments by the provision of an additional floor within Block A (NEW DETAILS SUBMITTED)

    Hopefully I am not mistaken! I struggled to browse the pages of documents (as usual with IBC’s system)

    The initial area planning application (IP/05/00296/FUL) planning committee comments

    The scheme is, fundamentally, very similar to that which was considered previously,
    but the layout has been amended to provide for some addition a non-residential
    floorspace, chiefly by forming mezzanine floors within some of the commercial
    “double – height” space. This increases the total of non-commercial space from
    approximately 11% to some 14.25% of the overall floorspace –which is very close to
    the 15% target that was recommended to the Committee previously as representing an
    appropriate “bottom line” figure.

    The developers have also responded positively to the suggestion of the Committee
    that public toilet provision should be incorporated within the proposal and have put
    forward a suggested location for such a facility, at the north-east corner of the
    development. Consultation is ongoing on this issue and an update will be reported at
    the meeting, but it is anticipated that a satisfactory proposal will be forthcoming in
    this regard.

    The possibility of increasing the proportion of affordable housing was also raised by
    the Committee, but the developer is not amenable to this suggestion, considering that
    it does not properly relate to the point of policy contention and would, in fact, only
    serve to decrease the proportion of non-residential floorspace.

    The developer has, however, agreed that it would be appropriate to provide additional
    “pump-priming” funding for the proposed arts use of St. Mary Quay Church which is
    well related to the scheme in terms of layout and synergy of use. A financial
    contribution of £30,000 is offered in this respect (matching the sum put forward by
    the developers of the adjacent Cranfield Mill Development).

    In terms of design, some minor amendments have been made to the scheme
    consequent upon the changes of layout referred to, and these are considered to be
    acceptable. In addition, further work has been carried out on illustrating the detailing
    of the elements of the proposals which were considered to be lacking clarity
    (particularly the tower features and the building facing the Old Custom House). The
    additional information will be displayed at the meeting and is considered to be
    reassuring concerning the appropriateness of these elements and the design quality
    that the scheme holds out.



    #3757 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    The planning application (IP/07/00357/FUL) planning committee comments

    Block A: The western section of the site (separated by a new pedestrian priority route through from the waterfront to Key Street) features multi-storey buildings, including a second tower which extends sixteen stories in height and other substantial quayside buildings to relate to the scale of the adjacent Cranfields Mill development. These buildings wrap around a 240 space, automated ‘car-stacker’ multi storey car park

    Block A (07/00357/FUL): The erection of a storey at 2nd floor level to the whole of the block, which would provide an additional 16 residential units and 34 car parking spaces in the car stacker is proposed. An additional storey at 12th Floor in the ‘tower’ element of the block only to provide an additional 6 units is also proposed.

    Consultations …

    HA: Suitable cycle parking for flats should be provided. A contribution to fund a new
    hopper bus serving the northern quays amongst other destinations is also requested. A
    reduced number of car parking spaces would be preferred in the development as a

    CFO: If the planning authority is minded to grant approval the Fire Authority
    recommends that adequate provision is made for fire hydrants, by the imposition of a
    suitable planning condition.

    Conservation Panel: provided the following comments on the original proposals. The
    committee will be updated on any further comments received in relation to the revised

    “Panel were very concerned at the potential precedent that might be set by
    commencing very carefully considered schemes only for the scale and
    arrangement of them to be further significantly altered once commenced.

    Panel considered that while upward extension by two floors of the western
    tower might be acceptable given its landmark status and relationship with
    Cranfields Scheme; the impact of adding three floors to the eastern tower
    would be unacceptable as shown. Notwithstanding the greater distancing of
    the tower from the Custom House (grade II*) than the former silo, the
    increased height would be detrimental to the setting of this important neoclassical
    listed building.

    The panel considered that an upward extension of the eastern tower might be
    acceptable but only by significantly remodelling the additional floors by a
    greatly enhanced and improved silhouette, but subject to further design
    studies, by no more than two additional floors (not three)”.

    English Heritage: Provided the following comments on the original proposals. The
    committee will be updated on any further comments received in relation to the revised

    “Has already expressed strong concern as to the size and scale of the original
    development in 2005. Were especially mindful of the potential negative
    impacts on the setting of important listed buildings such as St Mary at the
    Quay Church and the Old Customs House, and the threat of the special visual
    relationship between the Wet Dock area and the historic core of Ipswich. The
    latest applications would exacerbate these impacts and no acceptable
    justification has been given for the increase in height and bulk of the two most
    prominent elements of the development.

    Do not agree that the additional units would enhance the vitality or viability of
    the waterfront area as suggested. Furthermore the already overwhelming
    impact of block C on the Old Custom House would be intensified. The
    submitted CGI images confirm this assessment.

    The visual role of the retained waterfront warehouses would be compromised
    and the overall impact on the conservation area of a sequence of unrelated
    towers would be unsatisfactory.

    CABE: Due to limited resources are unable to comment on the scheme.

    EA: Owing to the nature of the previous planning permission granted, we have no
    objection to the proposed amendments in flood risk terms. Recommend a similar set
    of conditions as attached to the previous consent.

    SAU: As the proposals involve no new ground disturbance no archaeological
    condition will be required.

    CED (comments on original proposal): Local catchment primary and secondary
    schools are already over capacity. On the basis of forecast child yield from the
    additional residential units additional contributions of £60,166 are therefore required.
    This figure will change if the mix or number of units changes.

    Representations: Two comments have been received from the Ipswich Society and
    Suffolk Rights of Way Ltd raising the following concerns:

    The 14-storey block (application for 17 storeys) replaces the R&W Pauls
    1960s silo that was too close to the customs house. 14 stories pushed the limit
    of what been on the site previously but the developer moved the block further
    west to make the building acceptable. Increasing height could be possible,
    changing the slenderness ratio of the tower could provide visual enhancement
    and the termination could be considerably improved, but we would need to see
    these as firm proposals and measure the impact of increased height when seen
    from afar.

    Society has less concern about block A as this is in the centre of the site and
    has harmony with the Cranfields Mill adjacent. Officers should however pay
    careful attention to detailing.

    To grant planning permission would be unlawful behaviour. Ipswich dock act
    1837 states that there must be a space of 30ft between the dock and any
    buildings. The applicant is already unlawfully blocking Albion Wharf with the
    construction. .

    Urban Design background:

    The principle material consideration of these applications is the impact that the
    proposed increased building heights will have on the appearance of both the Albion
    Wharf scheme itself and the wider waterfront. It is therefore necessary to look again
    at the rationale behind the design of the previously approved waterfront

    The northern Quays was previously a working port was characterised by a variety of
    robust building forms of contrasting scale and period, from Victorian warehouses to
    massive post-war concrete silos. The two major approved developments in the
    northern quays are the Cranfields Mill site and adjacent Albion wharf.

    The approved schemes attempt to respond to the waterfront context by comprising a
    variety of medium height (5-8 stories) building forms fronting the quayside and Key
    Street, punctuated by larger tower elements rising from behind the frontage
    development. At the Albion Wharf site the two tower elements related to two previous
    massive concrete silos, which were significant features in the wider townscape.

    The adjoining Cranfields Mill site is a more prominent location close to Stoke Bridge
    and is characterised by a 23-storey tower, which is intended to be the main ‘landmark’
    feature dominating the waterfront townscape. The approved Albion Wharf towers
    were significantly subservient in scale / height to the Cranfields Mill tower.

    The waterfront to the east of Albion Wharf reduces in scale and is characterised by
    domestic scale more historic buildings such as the Custom House, Wherry Quay and
    Isaac Lords Complex.

    Block A

    Block A is sited towards the western corner of the site and comprises 10 storey
    buildings fronting the Quay, a 3 storey block supported on columns over-sailing the
    dock road, a 14 storey tower set back from the dock road and Key Street, and a 7
    storey building fronting Key Street. These building elements enclose the car stacker
    car park. The proposal is to insert an additional storey through the whole of the block
    at second floor level and an additional storey at twelfth floor in the tower element.

    The additional floor at 2nd floor level will raise the buildings fronting the Quayside
    and the over-sailing block to a similar height as the adjoining Cranfields Mill Scheme.
    In addition the additional floor would increase the scale of development on Key Street from 8 to 9 stories.
    This would still be comparable to the existing retained 7 storey building on the adjoining Cranfields Mill site.

    The additional stories to the tower element will increase its height to 16 storeys and
    accentuate its height in relation to the surrounding lower scale development. However
    this was intended by the originally approved design. The vertical emphasis provided
    by the additional storeys gives the tower more elegant proportions which enhance the
    appearance of the development. In addition the submitted images demonstrate that
    tower A would remain significantly subservient to the much larger Cranfields Mill

    It is therefore considered that the additional floors to block A could be accommodated
    without harming the overall appearance of the Albion Wharf development, or the
    wider waterfront townscape. It should also be noted that this officer view has been
    supported by consultation responses, which show that additional floors to tower A
    were viewed with less concern than the increase in height of block C.
    It is not considered that the relatively small increase in residential units in addition to
    which has already been agreed, would result in such an increase in vehicle movements
    that it would cause any highway safety concerns.

    The increased number of car parking spaces is to be for use by residents of the flats,
    although it may be the case that the additional units proposed as part of this
    application may not necessarily have allocated spaces. Cycle parking is also required
    by a condition of the original consent and will extend to the units, which are proposed
    as part of this application.

    The planned waterfront shuttle bus would also have the potential to the benefit the
    development. The applicants have agreed to provide a contribution to this service, as
    outlined below.

    Affordable Housing:

    The total number of proposed units in both blocks A and C has been combined to
    calculate the proportion of affordable housing. A total of four affordable units are
    proposed with at least 3 of these for social rented purposes. Additional off site
    provision is also proposed. This would accord with the Councils affordable housing
    policy for the wet dock of 15% on site provision and 10% off site contribution.

    Educational contributions:

    The County Council have stated that on the basis of the originally proposed scheme a
    contribution of £60,166 is required to meet anticipated demand at local catchments
    schools. A revised figure has been sought from the County Council on the basis of the
    revised design to block C. This figure will be included in the S106 agreement.

    Other community and environmental contributions:

    A similar level of contribution as secured in the approved scheme (£2000 per unit) has
    been sought from the applicants to meet the requirements of the development and
    facilitate the wider regeneration of the Waterfront.

    The negotiated package has the following contributions, which are similar in many
    respects to the S106 agreement for the approved scheme:
    · £10,000 contribution for the waterfront shuttle bus
    · £10,000 for the repair and refurbishment of the adjacent St Mary Le Quay
    Church £10,000 for public art provision in the waterfront area
    · £10,000 off site contribution open space / play space provision
    · £10,000 for visitor interpretation provision in the waterfront area
    It is considered that these heads of terms are an appropriate level of contribution,
    which is similar on a contribution per unit basis to other developments in the
    waterfront and are a welcome contribution towards future regeneration in the
    waterfront area


    In conclusion officers consider that the revised proposals would not detract from the
    appearance of the approved Albion Wharf scheme or the wider waterfront townscape.

    The increased number of units would deliver community benefits and contribute to
    the ongoing regeneration of the Ipswich Waterfront.

    Both applications are therefore recommended for approval, subject to completion of a
    S106 agreement with heads of terms as discussed above. However should the S106
    not be completed within the 13-week expiry of the application, authority is sought for
    the Head of Planning Transportation and Regeneration to refuse the applications
    under delegated powers.

    The above snippets only include “Block A” (the wine rack, unless I am mistaken!) other parts are left out.

    Ipswich Society’s representation is attached to this topic.

    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #3761 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Ipswi
    • New Topics: 85
    • Total Replies: 189
    • Contributions: 274

    Martin I have been looking into it but haven’t discovered why this happens. The WYSIWYG editor causes similar problems for me sometimes in Google Chrome. I have searched Google for bugs in the software and looked through the code without any success.

    #3765 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Mart
    • New Topics: 9
    • Total Replies: 278
    • Contributions: 287

    yyyyy, working today! go figure…!  yesterday didnt work on two different machines.

    but surely the scheme to complete the WR must be significantly different from those original planning consents. I’m sure we’ve been told that, so has the current developer not had to submit a full application for the changes or has it been done as a non material change?  Just seems odd that we are told its going to be completed, we know what the original intent was but as it stands i have no idea how its going to be completed?  Areas around it have now been changed, the car park behind the gym etc. was going to be built on etc. There should be plans available now in the public domain for the completion, but it seems not. I have had £20m of my money pledged towards it, I dont have clue what I will be getting..  Was this not the block that was going to be the new home of the Red Rose Theatre who in the mean time have moved to Gypswic Hall… ?

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Profile photo of Mart Mart.

    very angry now, don't like inappropriate censorship,

    #3769 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    It took ages to explore that planning application and I am sure there might be other tweaks of consent. Each change I assume restarts the time for development. Not my area of expertise but don’t you have 3 years before planning permission lapses? I think local authorities can extend this under certain circumstances…

    Edit: I looked at the Decision Notice.

    Ipswich Borough Council, as local planning authority, hereby GRANT Full Planning Permission

    Retrospective amendment to the development approved by planning permission reference
    IP/07/00357/FUL in Block A (adjacent to Cranfield Mill) to provide 6 additional apartments by
    the provision of an additional floor within Block A (NEW DETAILS SUBMITTED)

    at: Regatta Quay Key Street Ipswich Suffolk
    in accordance with your application reference number IP/09/00130/FUL received 26.02.2009 .

    By virtue of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 this permission is granted
    subject to the condition that the development to which it relates must be begun not later than
    the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this notice.

    I would guess the building requires planning permission again (this time round I will be making a representation!)

    How can you secure £20m of funding for a development project without planning permission? I will look further into it to see whether a new application had been made since. I believe the planning application would need to be from scratch for the “Block A”.

    I did learn something on my endeavours though… I didn’t understand why they kept those ugly pillars and built over the road… The Ipswich Dock Act 1852 is still law which prevents development 30 feet from the water around the wet dock and with minimum height restriction allowing buildings or cranes etc. to not restrict access. Some of the modern buildings look a bit low, be interesting if these were in fact legal or not. lol

    Ipswich Dock Act 1852

    (The Ipswich Dock Act 1852: Read from line 15)

    #3770 Score: 0
    Profile photo of Dan
    • New Topics: 64
    • Total Replies: 485
    • Contributions: 549

    They have planning permission… Last year they did the following variation of condition application IP/16/00632/VC – I did exactly the same search as I did yesterday on that sh!t IBC planning website and today found it. I searched “Regatta Quay” and found it. I knew it had to be the case in order for them to get the funding. Absolutely no resistance.

    Ipswich Waterfront Wine Rack Regatta Quay Block A

    It is good for the Ipswich Waterfront – assuming anyone wants to live there – however, bolting on housing making an already congested Star Lane gyratory worse and limiting the remodelling ability as they need vehicular access for these developments; just extends the lack of planning common sense the town council has. Money talks. The same organisation (despite different people over the years) behind Suffolk Retail Park, Lidl and Lidl store expansion on an important route into the town (1 of 5 historic routes)… well I won’t list them all!

    They won’t be able to remove the traffic from the gyratory over the vanity project Ben bridge… which isn’t good for people coming from the town centre to the waterfront. The pollution, inconvenience, noise and danger remains.

    Ipswich Borough Council, as local planning authority, hereby GRANT approval for:

    Variation of condition 1 and 2 of planning permission IP/09/00130/FUL in respect of Block A, for the
    alteration of roof and elevational design together with specification of proposed cladding materials
    and provision of backup generator enclosure (no increase in number of dwellings)(site in floodzones 2
    and 3).

    at: The Velsheda Site Regatta Quay Key Street Ipswich Suffolk
    in accordance with your application reference number IP/16/00632/VC received 04.07.2016.

    By virtue of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 this permission is granted subject
    to the condition that the development to which it relates must be begun not later that the expiration of
    three years beginning with the date of this notice.

    #3779 Score: 1
    Profile photo of Mart
    • New Topics: 9
    • Total Replies: 278
    • Contributions: 287

    You have three years to start a project once you get planning but so long as you make a material start the consent is implemented and the timescale no longer applies. So for instance you will see developers putting in a small section of foundation on projects, getting that approved by building control, and development is then started. You can then sit on it as long as you like and not worry about the three year limit any more.. I believe you do need to clear any pre-commencement conditions however before you make your token start..




    Profile photo of Dan

    very angry now, don't like inappropriate censorship,

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Upper Orwell Crossings (Public Consultation Comments) | Ipswich Planning Applications | Sitemap | Orwell Bridge | Northern Bypass | Popular Ipswich Topics A-Z

Original Theme (modified) by