ipswich.gov.uk
Object
Draft Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document
Representation ID: 116
Received: 05/03/2014
Respondent: Mr Dennis Page
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to the site because:
- it was rejected before in 1980/81 on noise and air pollution grounds which are worse now
- a wider distribution of sites across Ipswich is needed
- the Council has not considered alternative sites
- I am concerned about future expansion of the site
- I am concerned the use could impact on nearby homes and businesses;
- I am concerned about site management.
I am writing to inform Ipswich Borough Council of my strong objections regarding this proposal, with reasons listed below, but firstly I wish to refer back to years 1981/82 when the same site was proposed for a Gypsy and Travellers site, either by County or Borough Councils, after discussions it was rejected for the following reasons:
A. It was considered wrong to expose the Gypsies to traffic noise, fumes and risks of lead pollution. With a vast increase in the volume of traffic generated since those years and with great expectations of considerably much more, it now certainly appears to expose a complete contradiction of policy from the appropriate council, suggesting they are totally disregarding the above mentioned possible health hazards?
Referring back to the meeting held on February 13th 2014 and my reasons for objecting:
1. Almost all of those present verbally requested a much fairer distribution of sites by spreading, if necessary, over a much wider area of Ipswich, not all in close proximity of Bramford, which appears the current policy.
2. The negativity of well paid council officials present was a total embarrassment when pressed for answers regarding alternative sites or other issues . My view is that the approach is to put it as near to Bramford as possible to keep Ipswich residents happy. I guess the same officials will be responsible for planning the Northern fringe?
3. Although the proposal reads for 5 pitches, few remotely believed it would remain at this figure and neither do I.
4. Most interestingly Ipswich Borough Council's core strategy vision is to improve the quality of life for all who live and work in Ipswich. Even reading with tinted spectacles I fail to see how this new development proposal falls into this category. I am concerned it will be detrimental to nearby homes and well established popular businesses which provide excellent services and much needed employment opportunities so desperately pursued during these dismal austere years.
5. I am concerned about site control being non-existent.