This site is wholly unsuitable for the purpose of a Gypsy site. It will have a devastating effect on local businesses, causing loss of jobs and revenue to local councils and HMRC. The proposal for this Gypsy site has only come to the attention of the good people of Bramford and the local area, by sheer chance, and only within a few days of the consultation meetings. I would be obliged to Ipswich Borough Council for a full written statement as to exactly, when, were and by what means, they have communicated their intentions for this planning proposal, to the population and local businesses most likely to be affected by this plan?

Having experienced the travelling community and the issues that impact on the local community I feel that it is not a good idea. The location is impractical in terms of the road network between Bramford and Ipswich Town. The relations between travellers and the local community would deteriorate as a result of a site so close to this rural community. Feelings are already running high without antagonising residents further. There is already 1 site in our locality and the commitment should be shared equally accross other areas.

I am a tenant in a street very close and strongly object to these proposals, it will bring property prices down, the crime rate will go up and all manner of other undesirable occurrences. Do you people not remember when travellers occupied the park last year? Three Wetherspoons public houses had to be closed as a direct result of these people causing fear and disruption for everyday law abiding, tax paying citizens.

We in Bramford have recently, against almost overwhelmingly objections from both residents in Bramford and Sproughton already have a site for gypsy and travellers that was passed with total disregard to the opinions and objections of residents. Surely then we have provided a site. What about Ipswich itself. There is numerous vacant land. Bramford has a future development of houses etc in Papermill Lane. There is very poor road conditions and no public transport there. The massive waste plant at great Blakenham has also impacted on traffic and the huge towers dominate the skyline as well will pollute the local air. The road conditions are dangerous on that road if there is traffic coming in and out. It is not possible to see clearly and there is a real possibility of accidents. Surely Bramford has provided a gypsy site already.

This location is in no way suitable for a permanent traveller site. The approach road from the Ipswich direction is difficult to use even at quiet times whilst at peak times trying to negotiate around all the residents parked cars is at times impossible!
From the Bramford end the railway bridge is a bottleneck and causes many problems. This is not an easy stretch of road to use.
Travellers by their way of life do not in general use cars like most people, preferring to rely on much larger 7.5 tonne trucks or large fwd vehicles to move around.
This proposal will only add more difficulties to what is now a bad enough situation.
Lastly we in this part of Ipswich are only just now recovering from the influx of travellers we experienced last year on the recreation ground at the end of Lovetofts Drive.
It made life in the area intolerable and very frightening.
Therfore I fervantly object to the proposal to turn the land into a permanent traveller site.
I consider that that their representatives will assure the council that 'they will not cause any problems and that their conduct will be good at all times' but it could prove untrue.

This site is only just the other side of the A14 from the existing travellers site. Please consider extending the existing site. Assuming there would be school age children on this new site, the local primary school is near to capacity already.

I object to the site being used for Gipsy/travellers. The road is too narrow and blind and is opposite a well used timber merchants that will be hazardous for motorists with extra vehicles entering onto the road.

i believe this proposal is flawed in a number of ways.
The land in question is farm land, set aside or otherwise it is still farm land and unsuitable for this a very non agricultural development.

The development is not in keeping with stylistic context of the local area.

Availability of essential services are not good.
with mains sewerage access quite some distance from the proposed site.

Site access is on the concave of a bend / curve, requiring vehicles to pull onto the road to gain full visabilty in both directions.

Should this be allowed to proceed two things are likely to happen, firstly it will set a precedent making it very difficult to object to similar proposals. Secondly the temptation could be strong to bring into use the balance of the remaining area, an area far greater than the proposed plot.

Do not feel there is any need for a travellers site at this location

I OBJECT TO THIS PLAN OF ACTION AS FROPM PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN ESSEX, WICKFORD TO BE PRECISE WHERE IN THE END THEY HAD TO CLOSE THE SITE. HERE THEY EXPANDED THE SITE . IF MY HOUSE PRICE FALLS BECAUSE OF THIS I WILL SUE YOU. SECONDLY SHOULDNT YOU CONCENTRATE ON HALF BUILT SCHEMES IN THE TOWN CENTRE. FOR EXAMPLE THE WATERFRONT. ROAD SAFETY ISSUES ON A14 (LOOSE HORSES).

It is a pity that Gypsies and Travellers are not required to live by their title. They are NOT Travellers if they stay permanently on site.
On British Waterways moorings the maximum stay is 14 days and then the boats must be moved at least a mile on. The same requirement to move a minimum distance - 5/10 miles - would make them appear more true to their title.

This seems an ideal location for permanent location of Traveller/Gypsy site.
Councils have an obligation to provide these facilities and at last IBC are making a positive move in right direction.
There will of course be objectors but nimbyism will probably be the main reason for objections.

strongly object

I believe that if we were to just have 5 pitches it might be ok. But I believe that once the residents are in it will be very easy for them to add on and develop outside their boundaries.

* As a local resident and member of Clarice House, I am amazed that Ipswich Borough Council could ever contemplate converting the use of this land from farmland to a permanent gypsy/traveller site give the danger of introducing a new access to the highway on what is already a dangerous road with poor visibility and often fast-moving traffic.

* Having witnessed first-hand the encampment at Bramford Lane Recreation Ground last summer (2013), we have no wish for a repeat, apart from which there is already a permanent site at the Norwich Road junction off the A14, within a mile to the north.

* The establishment of a permanent site so close to Bramford Lane Recreation Ground could again prevent council tax paying local residents from using these important local facilities.

* We would be interested to learn if any of the decision-makers at Ipswich Borough Council actually live in this local area? This ill-conceived proposal would suggest otherwise, since any permanent local resident will be fully aware of the above issues which make a nonsense of this proposal.

* Last summer we enlisted the assistance of our local MP, Dr Daniel Poulter, to help resolve the issues presented by the gypsies/travellers on Bramford Lane Recreation Ground. We will have no hesitation in approaching Dr Poulter once more if there is any serious prospect of the above proposal being entertained.

I wish to register my objection to this proposal.

I do not believe it is the interests of home owners in the Bramford Road, Henniker Road, High View Road area to situate this proposed site so close to residential housing. The only other site, at West Meadows, is nowhere near any established housing development.

House prices will be affected .

I can only end by reiterating my second paragraph: I wish to register my objection to this proposal as a private home owner and full council tax payer who will be living in the vicinity of this proposed site.

I understand that government policies must be fulfilled, however I feel that the land at River Hill would be better used as proposed in the public meeting (as an outdoor gym and running track for all to use) which took place on 13/02/14. In my opinion, and that of many other residents, this would help to create and maintain a sense of community between current residents. In addition, it would promote healthier and more active lifestyles (which I believe is also a Government policy).
However if this proposal is not possible for whatever reason, instead of being allocated as a gypsy and traveller site, I feel that the land would be better used as a
base to construct affordable housing for working families. This would help
rejuvenate a run-down area (Whitehouse area was defined as an area with "low levels of qualification at all levels and long term unemployment and crime") and create more diversity in the area. I also feel that if affordable housing was built, it would serve a wider demographic, whereby everybody would have the right to rent, buy or bid for these houses, including gypsies and travellers if they wish to have a
permanent base. Thus your proposal appears to discriminate against the majority, as the general public would not be able to populate the land because they would not meet the definition of a gypsy or traveller. In addition, putting this land forward as a gypsy and traveller site does not appear to make economic sense because 1) construction of affordable housing would lead to increased revenue to local council via a greater number of council tax payments each year; and 2) because of likely loss of revenue received by yourselves from Clarice House if the site goes ahead as
reported in the public meeting.
There is currently a large concentration of gypsies and travellers in Whitehouse and surrounding area and it appears to be the general feeling amongst residents that alternative locations out of the immediate area should be considered. As discussed in the public meeting, there is already a large gypsy and traveller site at West Meadow (near ASDA), as well as a site situated on Henniker Road (approx 0.5 miles from the proposed site). It was highlighted that the proposed site is linked to the existing site via pathway. It is my worry that there is potential for unrest and in-fighting between gypsy and traveller communities.
I am sure you will remember the events of summer 2013, when travellers populated the playing field between Bramford Lane and Henniker Road. The playing field was in effect, out of bounds for residents (who pay for the upkeep of this park via council tax) for the majority of the summer holiday. As you can imagine, this was frustrating and very saddening for many families in this area who cannot afford to go away on holiday. Concern also about litter. I felt 'on edge' for a large part of this time. We now worry that if you were to go ahead with the proposals, such feelings and events would become more commonplace. The issue of policing worries me. This would be likely to lead to low morale and may even lead to increased tensions between current residents and those residing on the site if it were to go ahead.

It appears that there has been no identification and appraisal of all potential sites before decision was made to allocate this site for gypsies and travellers. I therefore object on the grounds that there are almost certainly other more suitable sites in the Ipswich area and Bramford already has 2 such sites in the vicinity.

I object to this proposal and feel the land use would have an adverse effect on established local businesses and nearby property owners.

In the surrounding area we already have the West Meadow site near Asda, which geographically is very near to Bramford. In addition we have had an application for a travellers site on the B1113. I believe we therefore have our fair share of unwanted planning applications, bearing in mind we also have A Waste Incineration Plant within a mile or so of the village, as well as a possible threat from Snoasis. Concern over potential for crime.

Riverhill is the only viable route for pedestrians and cyclists between Bramford and Ipswich. For non drivers going to and from Ipswich when there is no public transport the only option is to walk or cycle up Riverhill. I do not believe people will feel safe to be walking past a traveller site. I have a son who is a vulnerable adult who often works late and sometimes starts work early. He does not drive and will certainly not be happy to cycle or walk past the travellers site in the dark.

We have lived in Bramford for several years and enjoyed the countryside and found it very safe for ourselves and children. Obviously we would be against this proposal on so many levels!! We believe that every Ipswich Borough Council Member would feel the same if a Gypsy & Traveller Site was being planned near to their own property/home. We would be effected by a decision made by your council even though our village isn't under your council.

We live in Bramford and my husband has a local business nearby. We do not wish this to go ahead.

I am an employee of clarice house and feel if this goes ahead many members will cancel there membership an go else where which would result in clarice house having to close which would then mean I would lose my job

I write to register my profound concern over the proposed development of a Traveler's Site at River Hill, on the Ipswich boundary.

Bramford and the surrounding area has been blighted with sufficient unacceptable developments over the past 10 years, the recent waste disposal complex at Great Blakenham, proposed travelers site on Lorain Way (B1113), existing travelers site at A14 Junction, Bury Road and the sky line feature, Land Mark House.

Why are there proposals to develop a further Travelers Site in a domestically populated area situated, approximately 1.5 miles from an existing site on Bury Road and a mere 0.5 miles from a new site off Lorain Way, surly it's common sense to spread these Sites over a far larger area, not create ghetto in one district which is what the 'Planners' appear to bent on achieving.

The proposed development area would be serviced off an unlit narrow road and when approached from both Bramford and Ipswich, visibility is poor, this cannot be good practice and could result in an accident black spot, a good spot for maneuvering mobile homes!

Village life needs to be a stable environment for the residents and I am of the opinion logistically a village the size of Bramford cannot sustain a fluctuating community; it will create long-term problems in all aspects of village life.

A site of this nature will devalue established properties in the surrounding area, which could be catastrophic for property owners and the village as a whole. Will the authority be picking up the financial difference?

This is a disgrace! I have been a member of the Clarice House spa for 15 years and have had absolutely wonderful time, extending the quality of my life and keeping me healthy and out of the NHS hospitals.
If a gypsy camp was next door I would leave the spa immediately.
why does this council put all the Gypsy and traveller provision in West Ipswich? why not East Ipswich eh?
I consider that Property in Bramford, Bramford rd, Sproughton rd would be affected with an inevitable price drop! find a location thats well away from housing. Concern that 5 camps on paper could become 40 in realty!

There already travelers near by so adding more will increase the issues experienced. Distribute as opposed to consolidate due to concerns about anti-social behaviour in bramford

Given the learnings from the flooding across the UK is it wise to concrete over more open land that picks up water run off by the A14?

would it not be more practical to convert the old park and ride bus park by ASDA as it already has hard surface, a facilities block, and potential for growth well beyond the 5 pitches proposed for River Hill?

I wish to object on the grounds that the proposed travellers site would cause me concern about disorder and security. In addition, my wife and I are members of the adjacent Clarice House and are deeply concerned about security there, especially after dark.

I object to the area being used for a gypsy and traveller site. My concerns are
1) crime levels in the area
2) disruption
3) The fact that Clarice House is adjacent to this site. This is a business that supports local people in jobs and also gives members a tranquil peaceful setting for all their health and fitness needs. It has built a good reputation over 18 years but I fear this would not continue should a site like this open.