ipswich.gov.uk

My wife and I object to the allocation of site IP261 Land at River Hill, adjacent to Bramford as a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site on the following grounds:
1. Pollution
a. The site is not suitable for living accommodation in mobile homes or caravans due to the noise levels from the nearby A14. BS8233 gives 'good' (30dB) and 'reasonable' (35dB) LAeq, 8hr noise levels for residential accommodation, neither would be achieved this close to the A14 with the lightweight materials used in the construction of mobile homes and caravans. The World Health Organization publishes guidelines for community noise levels. The recommended noise levels to prevent sleep disturbance are an LAeq,8hr, of 30dB and LAmax of 45dB. As with the BS8233 levels these will not be achieved in mobile homes and caravans. Furthermore, to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level on balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq for a steady, continuous noise. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed during the daytime, the outdoor sound pressure level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq. The external noise levels at the proposed site will exceed the WHO external noise level recommendations.
b. In addition to the noise pollution at the site there will also be air pollution due to the proximity to the A14.
2. Road safety
a. The proposed site is just off the main road from Bramford to Ipswich. The road has several bends and rises in it. The existing entrances in to Lumberjacks and Clarice House have poor visibility. The entrance to the proposed site will suffer from a similar lack of visibility with the supports for the A14 bridge severely restricting visibility towards Ipswich.
b. I believe the size of the field at River Hill will encourage the keeping of horses which could escape onto the A14 and lead to fatalities.
c. The playing fields at Bramford Lane would be just a tempting hop over A14 for children from the site.
3. Concentration of Gypsy Sites around Bramford
a. Currently the main Gypsy site in Ipswich (West Meadows) is on the boundary of Bramford and the only other site a short distance away at Henniker Road. Mid Suffolk Council have recently granted planning permission for a further site within the boundary of Bramford itself. This concentration is disproportionate to the size of Bramford. The proposed site is part of a larger field that I fear will attract friends and family to come and stay, so rather than being the five plots proposed it could grow into a much larger site. It is no coincidence that in summer 2013 a large illegal site was set up at the Bramford Lane playing ground, close to the existing gypsy community in the area. There is also a direct link across fields from the proposed River Hill site to the existing West Meadows site, once again I consider this would promote the growth of the site from 5 pitches. You only have to look at the recent problems at Dale Farm in Basildon to see the problems this can cause.
b. This concentration of sites does not promote integration into the local community, why integrate when you have all your friends and family just a short walk away. Surely it would be better to provide the 5 plots within one of the proposed housing developments within Ipswich further away from the existing Gypsy site. As well as providing separation between the gypsy site this would allow for integration as the new community was developed and populated.
c. There is already a disproportionately high concentration of Gypsy sites close to Bramford. Ipswich seems intent on pushing sites out of their area as far as possible. We have 95% of Ipswich sites on our boundary.
d. The amount of Traveller sites around Bramford is already, and will be even more disproportionately high to population density of Bramford. This contravenes the Government's planning policy for Traveller sites, clause 12, which states that the scale of Gypsy sites should not dominate the nearest settled community.
e. Ipswich Council have failed to put forward alternative sites. An unacceptable site of 5 plots will become an even bigger burden to the residents of Bramford when it becomes the required 18 plots by 2027. It is obvious that they are intent on pushing through planning for this site against all reasonable and valid objections. This is in no way acceptable. Ipswich BC must consider other sites, even if they do not currently own the land. The cheapest option is not always the best option.
f. Why isn't Ipswich BC planning Gypsy sites in the proposed Northern Fringe development? This would be far more sensible.
4. Loss of green boundary between Ipswich and Bramford.
a. Locally the A14 is perceived as boundary between Ipswich and many of the surrounding villages. Currently the proposed site at River Hill forms part of a green boundary between Ipswich and Bramford. Any encroachment into this acts as a loss definition between the Town of Ipswich and the Village of Bramford. As Bramford residents we want to retain a clear separation of Ipswich and Bramford, to retain a village 'feel' to Bramford, and prevent it from being swallowed up by Ipswich Town. Adding a gyspsy camp will only serve to narrow the gap between the two. The 'separation' policy used for the Northern Fringe development should also apply to Bramford.
b. It seems ridiculous that in these times of food shortages farmable land is being proposed for housing as opposed to 'brownfield sites'.
c. A tract of attractive countryside will be destroyed to be replaced by unattractive pitches.
d. Clarice House has already requested permission to turn the area into one that can be used for leisure by their guests and Bramford residents alike. This would enhance the green rim around Ipswich and contribute to 'Aim HW2'. People's lives would be enhanced by such a facility.
e. The infrastructure that would be required to be put in for the five plots on currently un serviced green land is disproportionate both in terms of cost and effort. Once again surely it would make more sense to include the five plots in one of the proposed 'brownfield' housing developments where water, gas, electricity and drainage would already need providing.
f. The ecology of the River Hill site and the Green Rim have been ignored by Ipswich BC in this planning request. They themselves said in 2007 that the area "should be open space in recognition of the proximity of the A14 and railway line and the importance of this site in creating the Green Rim around the town".
g. Ipswich BC acknowledge that soil contamination may take place. This is not acceptable when NPPF 114 states that local authorities should plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure. The proposed Gypsy site goes directly against this.
5. Cost to the local community
a. There are several successful local business nearby that I feel are very concerned about the loss of business if the proposed development goes ahead. Customers at Clarice House have clearly communicated that they would cancel their membership. I believe Clarice feel that this and then the difficulty of attracting new customers would end up in the business going under and the loss of local jobs and Lumberjacks are equally concerned about the loss of business.
6. Fear of increase in crime levels
a. Whilst the Bramford Lane playing occupied by gypsies and travelers last summer local residents and businesses experienced problems.
d. A serving police officer living at Bramford stated at the recent public meeting that the perceived link to crime and the Gypsy community was in her experience very real.
e. With a reduced bus service, residents of Bramford will need to either walk past the site to get to Ipswich Town, or wait for a bus service at Gables Corner. I am concerned many residents would not feel safe doing this.

7. Economic, Social and Environmental sustainability planning requirements are not met in the following ways:

a. A peaceful co-existence between Gypsys at the site and the settled population of Bramford is in no way promoted by the location of the site.
b. Bramford does not have any access to health services.
c. Bramford school is oversubscribed already.
d. Environmental damage will take place.
e. Detrimental effects to Gypsies' health due to the location of the site.
f. A detrimental increase in pressure on the local road infrastructure.
g. Damage to the environment due to living and working in the same location.

8. Non-adherance to obligations by Ipswich BC
a. Notices informing people of the proposed planning request were not posted at Riverhill.
b. Ipswich BC did not inform Bramford Parish Council of the proposed planning request.
c. Ipswich BC did undertake any communication to inform residents of Bramford of the proposed planning request.
d. Bramford Parish Council was not invited to comment on the production of the Local Plan, as is required.
e. Mid-Suffolk District Council were not made aware of the proposed planning requests by Ipswich BC, as is required.
f. Alternative sites are required as part of the process. Non have been put forward. This is a complete breakdown of a supposed consultation process.
g. Just because Bramford is within the Ipswich Policy Area, does not mean it has to accept the developments which Ipswich do not wish to be within the Town's own physical borders.
h. There has been no consultation in the consultation process. It appears that all decisions have been made within closed confines of Ipswich BC, and that they would have been content to keep MSDC, Bramford Parish Council and Bramford residents without any knowledge of their schemes until the 'consultation process' was at an advanced stage. This happening despite their obligations to notify all these parties at an early stage.
To be sure this is causing great upset to Bramford residents.