ipswich.gov.uk

Objections to Policy DM41: Land allocated for Gypsy and Traveller sites
I have a number objections to this policy

With regard to the policy's adherence to national 'Planning policy for traveller sites':

With respect to Policy A: 'Using Evidence'

There has been no regard to 'early and effective community engagement'

The local residents around Riverhill had little warning of the proposal.

Communication via the council planning website is very confusing to use, with a 'blank' instruction page - making it VERY hard for people to read and understand these policies.

Additionally, I understand there has been no communication with the highways agency - who have previously had concerns about the road adjacent to the site.

Nor were the Mid Suffolk District Council planning officers aware of the Riverhill proposal.


Policy A also suggests the need for 'ROBUST EVIDENCE' in the preparation of local plans.
The main evidence used in policy DM41 is the GTAA(2013) which at present is only a DRAFT document, and I was unable to find a complete version of this, suitable for detailed review.

This can therefore not be regarded as ROBUST evidence.


With respect to Policy B: Planning for traveller sites

The national policy states that:

"Local planning authorities should, in producing their Local Plan...protect local amenity and environment"

Once again, I see no evidence of this in policy DM41.

Also, again with regard to national policy, local planning authorities should ensure that policies:

"promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the
local community".

To finalise, it strikes me that policy DM41 pays little attention to national policy, and should be reviewed accordingly.

Additionally:

With respect to DM41 and IP261:

(5.20) No other sites have shown to be considered. Is it possible for the evidence of the councils considerations of other sites to be published?

(5.21) This suggests that Traveller sites would be of mixed residential and business use - or have new business allocation nearby. I note that previous business planning permission applications in this area have been denied - why would this policy change?

(5.22) Ipswich Housing Strategy indicates the preference for allocation of small family groups - and I note the allocation of only 5 pitches however, I also note the size of the entire site would allow the physical allocation of MANY more pitches. Will such encampments be expressly prohibited?

(5.23) With respect to CS11 - see separate objection to CS11 itself.