ipswich.gov.uk

Object

Draft Site Allocations and Policies (incorporating IP-One Area Action Plan) Development Plan Document

Representation ID: 44

Received: 13/02/2014

Respondent: MR J SMITH

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is already provision nearby. Concern that the 5 pitches could become more. Safety concerns on a main route also used by pedestrians and cyclists. Effects on local businesses. The rest of Suffolk should make better provision (not just Ipswich/Bramford). Bramford has had enough planning issues e.g. the Great Blakenham incinerator. The site would create additional traffic and may need additional accesses. Infrastructure is already at breaking point.

Full text:

I refer to the above site which I understand IBC is planning to allocate land for inclusion into its Local Plan.
I am emailing you to urge that this land is not allocated for this purpose, my reasons being
1. There is already provision nearby at West Meadows
2. There is a common perception that what starts out as space for reportedly five pitches, can easily snowball into a far greater volume of pitches . I fear regulation of the site would be minimal at best, if at all
3. Safety concerns as this is the main transport route connecting Ipswich and Bramford - this is frequently used by both cyclists and pedestrians
4. This is not solely an existing residential area - there are nearby businesses which I am sure will have concerns about this issue
5. Although I realise SCC has a duty to provide a provision for these persons, why does it always have to be Ipswich or the surrounding Bramford village area - Suffolk is a large county with plenty of more rural sites that could and should be considered
6. This and the surrounding area has already suffered with several planning issues such as Landmark House, the incinerator at Gt Blakenham and a smaller travellers site on the B1113 between Sproughton & Bramford. This latter site attracted a colossal amount of relevant reasons for MSDC to reject planning permission but they still approved permission. I wish to avoid the same thing occurring again on my doorstep.
7. Extra vehicular access may be needed and the resultant likelihood of the extra traffic it would generate
8. There are many concerns about anti-social behaviour.
9. The locality already has existing issues in terms the infrastructure being at breaking point without putting it under further strain.
10. Would you approve of such a site in your immediate vicinity? - I doubt it.
For the above reasons, I urge you to reject this site being allocated for this use.