ipswich.gov.uk

Policy DM41 Land allocated with Gypsy and Traveller sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

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

Representation ID: 53

Received: 15/02/2014

Respondent: Mrs Beryl Sims

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to policy DM41/site IP261. The entrance to the site is dangerous being on a bend on a very busy road and the position of the site is unsuitable, lying immediately beside the A14 - not suitable for any residential use. The entrance to the site is in a potentially dangerous situation, already a place of many near-misses with vehicles and for that reason no other hazard should be added. A better site would be on the Ipswich side of the A14 with a through road from Bramford Road to the roundabout near Morrisons store.

Full text:

The site at River Hill is potentially quite dangerous and in my view should not be made available for residential use of any kind. It is directly adjacent to the A14 dual carriageway which has constant use day and night. Added to this the entrance to the site is in a potentially dangerous situation on a bend with parked cars just round the curve, beside the pillars of the A14 & opposite the entrance to several businesses. This is already a place of many near-misses with vehicles and for that reason no other hazard should be added. In my opinion a better site would be on the Ipswich side of the A14 between Bramford Road and the railway, also with a through road from Bramford Road to the roundabout near Morrisons store. This would help to relieve the congestion in the present road and improve road safety.

Object

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

Representation ID: 65

Received: 18/02/2014

Respondent: Kelvin Dakin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I believe this proposal (DM41/IP261) is flawed, inappropriate and ill-considered, and, as such, should be urgently reviewed. It is a greenfield site that provides a narrow 'green belt' between Ipswich and Bramford. It is close to a busy, noisy major road. The vehicular access is poor. The proposal appears to be a "quick fix" box-ticking exercise that has not been properly thought through. If such sites are necessary then they should be spread evenly around the wider district and provided in physically and environmentally sound areas.

Full text:

The proposed site is an inappropriate and unnecessary development of a green-field site that currently provides a narrow "green-belt" between Ipswich and Bramford. The reasons for eliminating other sites under consideration seems to be because they are required for "housing need". This is a spurious argument as surely a travellers site is a form of housing need? The study also seems biased towards the west side of Ipswich as only one site has been looked at on the east. I cannot believe that there are no other sites better positioned on "brown-field" or other sites within the Borough of Ipswich.
The plan also emphasises that this side of Ipswich already has two travellers sites one on the boundary of Bramford village and in Henniker Road but ignores the fact that planning permission has been granted for a private family site within Bramford itself (B1113 opposite Runcton Farm). I feel that this village (and this part of Ipswich) is having to bear too many travellers sites and therefore any further provision should be placed elsewhere.
The proposed site is not only very close to a busy, noisy major road but also in it's shadow. No housing development would be ever be allowed here so I cannot understand how a permanent residential caravan site can be seen to be appropriate.
The vehicle access to this site has poor visibility due to the bend in the road and the position of the flyover supports. The road is a busy one especially at rush hour and, in addition, a number of vehicles access the two entrances to businesses just opposite.
Finally I consider the social impact on the community is likely to be significant and cannot be ignored. There is a fear of anti-social and criminal behaviour and that there are no realistic or effective controls over who may visit this site and wish stay in the immediate area. In short the concern is that it would increase the risk of illegal encampments as have already been experienced in this area recently.
While Ipswich Borough are now doubt trying to meet their responsibilities under this policy I see no evidence of "working together" with other planning authorities. In fact I can see little evidence of any efforts being made by neighbouring authorities to help meet this provision.
Babergh and Suffolk Coastal District Councils in particular should be urged to contribute their share to this issue. It can be argued that Mid Suffolk have at least made some contribution albeit by allowing a private development in Bramford.

Object

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

Representation ID: 76

Received: 20/02/2014

Respondent: Mr Paul Backhouse

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I am concerned and alarmed that you are considering to allow people to live so close to the a14, which produces not only pollution from the thousands of vehicles, but the noise is deafening.
About 2 yrs. ago Bypass nursery applied for permission to turn the Bramford site into a Natural burial site. The application was turned down because of the noise of the a14, so if dead people cannot put up with the noise, HOW CAN THE LIVING ?

Full text:

I am concerned and alarmed that you are considering to allow people to live so close to the a14, which produces not only pollution from the thousands of vehicles, but the noise is deafening.
About 2 yrs. ago Bypass nursery applied for permission to turn the Bramford site into a Natural burial site. The application was turned down because of the noise of the a14, so if dead people cannot put up with the noise, HOW CAN THE LIVING ?

Object

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

Representation ID: 79

Received: 22/02/2014

Respondent: Mrs Veronica Hall

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This policy is badly drafted and illogical. When identifying sites to be found in Ipswich Policy Area for years 6-15, "the existing level of local provision and need for sites" is an important criterion. Why is it not so for years 1-5? IP261, the draft Allocation for years 1-5, ignores the existing level of local provision: the River Hill site put forward, (nominally in Ipswich but adjacent to Bramford), is very close to the existing provision in Ipswich. Ipswich policies to 2031 should be consistent and not vary in principle from year to year.

Full text:

This policy is badly drafted and illogical. When identifying sites to be found in Ipswich Policy Area for years 6-15, "the existing level of local provision and need for sites" is an important criterion. Why is it not so for years 1-5? IP261, the draft Allocation for years 1-5, ignores the existing level of local provision: the River Hill site put forward, (nominally in Ipswich but adjacent to Bramford), is very close to all 43 other gypsy sites in Ipswich. Ipswich policies to 2031 should be consistent and not vary in principle from year to year.

Object

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

Representation ID: 100

Received: 03/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Barry Hall

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposal is bad policy, as it leads to a concentration of sites. The site is too close to the existing 41 pitch site at West Meadows and the 2 pitches at Henniker Road, and would result in a concentration of sites circling the rural village of Bramford, where permission has been given by MSDC for a family pitch on the B1113. The Local Plan of which this policy is part is supposed to last to 2031, but the current proposed allocation for years 1 to 5 is inconsistent with the policy for years 6 to 15.

Full text:

The proposal is bad policy, as it leads to a concentration of sites. The site is too close to the existing 41 pitch site at West Meadows and the 2 pitches at Henniker Road, and would result in a concentration of sites circling the rural village of Bramford, where permission has been given by MSDC for a family pitch on the B1113. The Local Plan of which this policy is part is supposed to last to 2031, but the current proposed allocation for years 1 to 5 is inconsistent with the policy for years 6 to 15.

Object

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

Representation ID: 149

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Miss Joanna Wignall

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I object to river hill being used as a traveller site.
I feel the land use would decrease my house value and affect businesses.
The site entrance is unsafe.
An alternative site that will only fit 5 pitches must be found.

Full text:

I object to the plan for a site at River hill. I live at Bramford Road and feel my this would seriously decrease the value of my home. Having a had a mortgage for 9 years and putting all my time and money into a house that I would no longer want to live in would be devastating.
I have recently joined clarice house I would be cancelling my membership if these plans went ahead.
There are safety issues concerning the site entrance, the link to West Meadows site, and the concern about unwanted arrival of travellers exceeding the 5 pitch allocation.
Having endured the illegal camp that took over our park in the summer, I can say I was afraid to even leave my own home unless absolutely necessary, I'm shocked I could actually be forced into this situation [it] has caused extreme stress already.
I feel another site must be found in place of this one and the land used to provide for the surrounding community, there should be no traveller site at river hill,

Object

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

Representation ID: 157

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Dr Benedict Cadet

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I have objections to DM41 on the following grounds:

Non-observance of national policies.
No evidence of the consideration of other sites is published.
Failure to observe criteria set out by CS11.

Full text:

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.

Object

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

Representation ID: 223

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: miss caroline gladwell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

IP261 (Riverhill) is not suitable for Traveller pitch site allocation.

The site is too close to the A14, which is very noisy and polluting.

Bramford road on the approach to the proposed site is very fast and busy, and it may be unsafe if children or animals are living close to the road.

I do not think this policy or site allocation has been properly thought out or discussed with either the local community, the police, the highways agency or local planning officials.

Full text:

IP261 (Riverhill) is not suitable for Traveller pitch site allocation.

The site is too close to the A14, which is very noisy and polluting.

Bramford road on the approach to the proposed site is very fast and busy, and it may be unsafe if children or animals are living close to the road.

I do not think this policy or site allocation has been properly thought out or discussed with either the local community, the police, the highways agency or local planning officials.

Object

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

Representation ID: 228

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs Colleen Cadet

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There are many reasons why Riverhill is not suitable for Traveller sites.

Safety is my main concern.

Bramford Road past the A14 bridge is too dangerous - cars travel along it quickly. Also the site next to the A14 is very noisy. Access to basic services is very poor from this location.

Full text:

Riverhill is not suitable for a traveller site.

Bramford road, past the A14 bridge is too dangerous. Cars go up and down that part of the road above the speed limit all the time.

There is bound to be a nasty accident if there are children and animals running around.

Also, I would not want to live SO close to the A14 - it is very very noisy that close, as I am sure you would agree. Does this really comply with health and safety rules?

Furthermore, access to basic services is very poor from this location: there is little in the way of public transport, there is no GP or secondary school nearby.

If travellers DON'T commute to work, will they be needing planning permission for business premises onsite? I don't think any further businesses have been allowed on Riverhill, so this may not suit them.

Object

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

Representation ID: 260

Received: 21/02/2014

Respondent: Mr Stewart McGinty

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the allocation of site IP261 Land at River Hill as a permanent site for Gypsies and Travellers, because it is morally wrong to provide pitches where you would not build houses next to the A14; there is already a travellers' site in the area and a better distribution around Ipswich would aid integration; and the proposal could affect Clarice House.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

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

Representation ID: 294

Received: 07/03/2014

Respondent: Debbie Welham

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There are other sites that may be better suited. The existing West Meadows site could accommodate additional pitches and may be cheaper to expand rather than create a new site. The proposed site is adjacent to a narrow and busy road which creates safety concerns relating to access and visibility. Concern about the concentration of sites in west Ipswich.

Object

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

Representation ID: 303

Received: 28/02/2014

Respondent: Mr Colin Young

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the allocation of site IP261 Land at River Hill for Gypsies and Travellers. Bramford already has sites for this use. The use could expand in future as the land extends to 6 acres. Animals could get onto the A14. The use could affect businesses. The access is poor and will be a danger to motorists and residents. The field has noise and air pollution and is not a suitable environment; and other sites have not been properly assessed. It should be left as green corridor.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

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

Representation ID: 306

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Ivan Thompson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Only Ipswich amongst local Council's has any Travellers site and these are all in the west of Ipswich, they should be more widespread.

Full text:

see attached

Object

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

Representation ID: 307

Received: 11/03/2014

Respondent: Mrs S Buxton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Only Ipswich amongst local Council's has any Travellers site and these are all in the west of Ipswich, they should be more widespread.

Full text:

see attached

Object

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

Representation ID: 431

Received: 09/04/2014

Respondent: Mr Peter Benson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the allocation of the River Hill site (IP261) for Gypsies and Travellers. It will not aid community cohesion providing all sites in North West Ipswich. It will not be safe for those families as it lies immediately adjacent to the A14. This would be inappropriate development.

Full text:

Object to the allocation of the River Hill site (IP261) for Gypsies and Travellers. It will not aid community cohesion, as you are simply proposing to make North West Ipswich a ghetto for Gypsy and traveller families by placing all your solutions in that area. It will not be safe for those families as it lies immediately adjacent to the A14. I can testify to the impact such an increase in population would have on the area following the recent unofficial occupation of the recreation field. This would be inappropriate development.

Object

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

Representation ID: 444

Received: 10/03/2014

Respondent: Mr Phil Bellwood

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the plan for a site at River Hill (IP261). I feel the use could decrease the value of my home and affect local businesses. There are safety issues concerning the site entrance and the link to West Meadows. Also concern about exceeding the 5 pitch allocation. Another site must be found in place of this one and the land used for the surrounding community.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

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

Representation ID: 449

Received: 17/02/2014

Respondent: Mr David Chappell

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to the site. Why with West Meadows is another site is needed?

Full text:

I am disappointed IBC did not see fit to include Bramford people and the Parish Council early enough in this debate.
In this area there is already West Meadows so we are at a loss to know why another one in the same area is needed.
In Bramford there has been planning permission granted for a similar site on the B1113.
Can you give me a categoric assurance that the River Hill site indicated is not just the beginning?
I accessed the IBC website with great difficulty. It was very convoluted and I had to telephone IBC to get an explanation on how to find the relevant part of the IBC plan. I am computer literate and I found it extremely arduous.
Why can IBC not find a suitable site elsewhere in the Ipswich envelope (inside the A14 boundary)?
Strongly object.

Object

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

Representation ID: 570

Received: 27/03/2014

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This site lies in the vicinity of Roman (IPS 242, IPS 233) and Prehistoric (IPS 018) sites. No objection in principle to development but it will require a condition relating to archaeological investigation attached to any planning consent.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

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

Representation ID: 617

Received: 02/04/2014

Respondent: Babergh District Council & Midsuffolk District Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to site IP261. A need for 18 pitches has been identified for Ipswich but it would be poor practice to provide them all on one site. It would dominate Bramford parish. If planned as an affordable site (rather than private) fewer than 10 pitches is unlikely to be financially viable. The Council is not aware of any discussions with Gypsies and Travellers or Mid Suffolk to date, contrary to the NPPF and CS11. It abuts Mid Suffolk and is perceptually connected to Bramford. The land area exceeds the allocation site with no barriers to on-site expansion, which causes concern.

Full text:

See attached.