There is already 1 traveler site very close to here this is to close to Bramford village the site is large and I can see more than 5 sites will end up here

Bramford already has a traveller site near Asda, I don't see we need another one so near to our village, adjacent to Clarice House isn't appealing, parking along Bramford Road is not good at the best of times and an access there would be dangerous. Security concerns for businesses adjacent. Bramford is a village and should remain so, it would be devastating to see Ipswich try and swallow it up and make it part of the town. Bramford has a village school and should remain a village school and not have to take extra pupils as I know it is already crowded and I could not even get my son in and we live in the village!

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.

I object to the site due to the economic effect I consider this will have on our village property prices and buisineses, local infastructure isn't present to support these people the site itself has dangerouse access and concern about unrest/crime. This is going to kill the village comunity that's the reason i live in bramford. Also this site should not be considered for any accomodation due to the proximity of the A14 with polution and noise levels. one site on our boundries that should be enough for the area.

- I am Stuart King and I am one of the directors of Clarice House Health Club and Spa, which is located directly next to, and west of, the proposed site.
- I have two points I would like to make with regard to this proposal.

1. The Effect it Would Have on our Business

- Clarice House was established 20 years ago when Colin and Thila King purchased the then Bramford Lodge in a dilapidated condition. The property had been empty for some time and the site had been occupied by Gypsies and Travellers and the property was damaged.
- After a year of renovation and building works Clarice House was opened and has gradually been developed since.
- Today, the Clarice House Group, which has sites at Bramford, Bury St Edmunds and Colchester employs 270 people, of which 49 are employed at Bramford.
- The major part of the Clarice House Unique Proposition is that we provide excellent facilities in a tranquil location, close to houses but far enough away to provide the right environment for relaxation.
- If the proposed site progresses we believe that the business will fail. Our customers buy into the independent offering we provide and they come to "escape the real world" at their "oasis of calm". We believe our customers and staff will be in fear of crime and conflict. As result we believe our customers will cancel their Health Club memberships and will not visit for Day Spas. This week our customers have been commenting on the proposal, having seen it in the local paper. The two main things they have been saying are, 1 we will leave & 2 you will go bust. So I believe our fears and concerns are real.
- We believe it will be impossible to attract new business. Ultimately this will lead to the failure of the business, with the loss of all 49 jobs and other significant contributions to the local economy; for example we pay in excess of £87,000 in rates each year alone.
- We would be left with an unusable, unsaleable, blighted site.
- The burden this would place on the rest of the Clarice House group would most likely be that the other two locations would be dragged down and forced to close, with the loss of all 270 jobs.

2. We have an Alternative

- Recently we became aware that the tenant of the land had given up his tenancy so we have been talking to IBC to discuss options for us to take it over - I met with them this week to discuss our proposals.
- Our proposal is to create a country park and exercise area that will be open for all to use without charge.
- In addition we would improve the facilities we offer to our members.
- Our proposal includes:
o A "running track" / "exercise circuit" constructed around the perimeter of the site.
o A "park gym" / trim trail
o The balance of the site would be landscaped to provide a small "country park".
o To confirm the "exercise circuit", "park gym" and "country park" would all be accessible to the public without charge or the need to be a member of Clarice House.

- We believe such a development would:
o Preserve and enhance the green boundary of Ipswich.
o Strengthen the future of the business, thus securing the 49 existing jobs.
o Create another 4 full-time positions and provide 70 hours per week of "freelance" employment for professional instructors.
o Provide an enhanced outside space with exercise facilities available free of charge to all.

Clearly, we oppose this proposal for a Gypsy & Traveller site on River Hill.

I object to this as I consider it will effect the local economy buissinesses and property prices. people will fear to walk past this site leaving the village cut off.There is no infastructure to support them and I fear disruption in the village at the school/shops and buissineses. The Council does not move on illegal camps. This site isn't suitable for housing and shouldn't be for travelers unsafe access, the A14 being present noise/pollution and road users having obstructions on the road.

Both myself and my wife attended a meeting in Bramford last night regarding this proposed development, while neither of us now live in the village, we both run separate businesses at the Riverhill business site directly opposite so have a direct interest in this development.

Unless we had been made aware of this development by local people we would have been unaware of the proposal, as business owners directly opposite this is very disappointing.

From our point of view the major concern is the impact on not only our business, but others that border the site. A gentleman from Clarice House made it quite clear that his business is unlikely to survive the impact of a gypsy site next door and he considers that the sight will blight the area Should they close it will mean the loss of 49 jobs and make the property unsaleable. He indicated that many members have already told him they will stop membership if the development takes place. My wife is a member and often visits when we finish work. Usually she will walk across the road and back afterwards, in the winter this will be in the dark, but even in daylight she has said she would not make such a walk and would be unlikely to continue her membership.

The business she runs regularly includes workshops some of which are in the evenings. These are mostly attended by women on their own and I have no doubt the gypsy site would impact on their willingness to attend, especially on dark evenings.

Any impact of this type would place the site for both our businesses in jeopardy and could easily result in closure or relocation. We do support the local shops, while I suspect our landlord would also suffer with trying to relet the premises we use.

There were two other points raised last night which I feel require clarification.

This is the only site that is being proposed, despite "many others being looked at" we were told, but it was very disappointing that the councillors seemed to have no idea where these were, or why they had been discounted. The alternatives and the reasons for discounting these should be widely available. I was certainly left with the impression that this site was deemed suitable as it in a far corner of Ipswich and could be used as a dumping ground as far out of sight as possible.

The site is dangerous for access, while placing young children in accommodation next door to the A14 with easy access is just asking for an accident. Is this a price that is willing to be paid again with this proposal?

I also understand from the meeting last night the site is deemed unsuitable for housing due to noise pollution from the A14, if this site is not suitable for housing because of noise pollution, why should it be suitable for gypsy sites, I am no great defender of gypsies, but surely if a site is provided for them they should be given the same consideration about facilities as anyone else in the community, dumping them in a second class site it is obvious nobody else wants, just leads to more issues about them being treated as second class citizens, hardly helpful for any integration policy.

We have lived near the proposed travellers site since 1969. The old Bramford Lane runs up to the A14 and would connect with the pathway from the new site to West Meadows. Prior to the building of the A14 this pathway was used daily. We were burgled regularly. We are worried that:- 1. increased activitiy in our area will generate crime. 2. the value of our house will decrease particularly if Clarice House closes down and falls into disrepair as it did before it became Clarice house.

1. Although on borough land, it is situated in the parish of Bramford, we already have one Borough owned/run traveller site within the parish.
2. not a good place for families, it is far too close to the A14 (noise and pollution) on a sloping site, on a difficult and already busy road.
4. concern it will be detrimental to the businesses already established, leading to a loss of employment in the village.
5. it is an erosion of the existing boundary between town and village.
6. concern that crime rates in the village will rise.
7 there must be better places than this.

My wife and I attended meeting at Bramford Victory Hall 13 Feb 2014, and strongly object to the proposal of an additional gypsy settlement on this site.

We support all the objections that were raised at the meeting, that councillors are aware of.

We do not feel that this is a consultation it feels more like a foregone conclusion and that we are being dumped on. There is already a site at West Meadows and like many others we have experience of the issues that brings the area so this one even closer makes us very anxious. I regularly visit Clarice House but will be reluctant to do so as I consider security is likely to be compromised. In addition to these issues I fear it will make our property very difficult to sell. Also, although you state 5 pitches at the moment there can be little doubting that the requirement that Ipswich faces (Ipswich not Bramford) for years 2016-20 will also be met by this same site for after all, all the other potential sites that you have in theory looked at and dismissed as unsuitable will doubtless remain unsuitable for these future requirements. Just as with the West Meadows site this is Ipswich Borough Council placing their provision to the West of the natural boundary made by the A14 bypass where they are out of sight and out of mind except to those who live in Bramford. This is at best sneaky and at worst skulduggery and you should be ashamed.

I strongly oppose the proposal to turn this land into a Traveller Site! I was unable to attend the meeting at Loraine Victory Hall on Thurs 13th Feb '14 regarding this issue, but I understand that the overall majority were also opposed - Not only do I consider it will impact on ALL our lives in the village, it will reduce the value of our properties and damage local businesses - if not causing them to close completely. This is not 'guessing'. Local services are constantly being affected by cut-backs, but you can find money for this proposal?! I am also concerned about the availability of school places . . . and that is just the tip of the iceberg! Please listen to the tax payers of the area and try to support us in what we want to happen for a change !

As a local home owner we feel strongly against this proposal. We feel it will under value our property and be very difficult to sell in the future. Also we have children who walk to school past this site and do not feel it would be safe for them to do so as the prospect of traffic exiting the site will be dangerous, and the impact to local business will be devastating and trade effected leading to job losses. It was well indicated at the public meeting on the 13/02/2014 that local opinion is totally against this proposal and feel it will change the whole ethos of the village. We already have the development at West Meadows which is right on our doorstep Bramford Village is becoming a dumping ground for the Councils inability to look elsewhere for other alternatives for such proposals.

The land should be retained for agricultural use.Although set aside at present recent weather events have shown that all agricultural land not at risk of flooding will be needed in the future.
There is the risk of livestock straying on to the A14 with potentially very serious consequences.
The position of the entrance will create a traffic hazard at what is already a difficult point on the Bramford Road.

Concerned that this development would completely decimate several small but important local businesses immediately adjacent to and opposite the site and adjacent property would be severely de-valued, suffer significant increased security risks together with lost employment opportunities current and future and loss of important business rate revenue.

The site is too large for the intended 5 pitches and could result in unauthorised use over the whole area by additional incoming travellers. It would also create an unauthorised link to the present site at West Meadows.

The Access to the site is on a blind bend and would create an unacceptable increased road safety risk to existing and future traffic and in particular to vehicles exiting and entering the site.

The site is too close to the A14 trunk road for housing development so should not be considered suitable for Travellers. Without proper and expensive fencing there would be road safety risks.

In my opinion having been a resident in Bramford for 47 years 30 of which I served on the local Parish Council, this development should not even be considered as the site is totally unsuitable for anything other than agricultural or recreational use.

I wish to register my objections to the proposed gypsy site (ref.ip261) with regard
to the following:

1. Hazard of site entrance/exit to/from busy highway,on bend opposing entrances to business premises and attendant safety issue re pedestrians who use the footpath for access to Town and Bramford Village.

2. Impact upon ongoing employment of thriving leisure amenity business in close proximity to proposed site.

3. Site linkage , via footpath and designated cycle way,to an existing gypsy settlement.

4. Attraction to site of unauthorised elements,with particular regard,that the proposed site forms a small part of the land package owned by the Borough.

5. Relaxation of the planning rules,which would otherwise apply to persons wishing to develop the site, with regard for noise, proximity to the A14,availbility of amenities etc.

6. Environmental impact upon adjoining residents welfare,as reported at Bramford Consultation Meeting,whereby last Autumn,the nearby playing field was taken over by travellers, affecting persons going about their everyday business.

7.Lack of evidence presented to the Consultation Meeting to show due efforts had been made to investigate/persue other more suitable sites..

Site ref: IP261 Land at River Hill

We wish to register our strong objection to the proposed site on the grounds of:
loss jobs at the adjacent businesses,
concerns about crime and safety,
provision of links to existing site at West Meadows,
size of site will allow significant expansion over the 5 pitches,
loss of value of property,
safety of access onto Bramford Road,
noise levels and pollution for Gypsies and Travellers next to A14,
impacts on Bramford.

The site location will ensure closure of very successful Clarice House gym and spa with the loss of about 49 jobs and loss of facilities enjoyed by ourselves and many others in Bramford and Ipswich. The small businesses opposite including Lumber Jacks will also be adversely affected.

It is possible on foot to follow the side of the A14 to reach the very close site of West Meadows. The travelling community will make use of this effectively linking the two sites.

We are concerned about safety and crime. The main route for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles from Bramford to Ipswich goes past the entrance and would become unsafe, particularly for pedestrians. The National cycle route 48 also passes the entrance.

The access from the site onto Bramford Road will have to be altered but it is difficult to see how can be safe. The entrances for Clarice House and Lumber Jacks are already a safety risk, making another is unacceptable.

Bramford has recently taken over the management of the water meadows alongside the Gipping. The south part of the meadows joins with Hazel Wood, and close to proposed site on the opposite side of the Bramford Road. The efforts to manage this area as walking area for Bramford and east Ipswich residents are threatened.

The separation between Ipswich and Bramford is becoming eroded with this proposal.

The proposal is stated to be for only 5 pitches, but there is significant room for a vast increase. Looking at a satellite view shows at least 40 houses in a similar area only yards away on the other side of the A14. The council may intend to keep the number of pitches to 5 but the number could increase to fill the plot. In the current demand for housing it is inequitable to provide such a large amount of land to a special part of the community.

For the Gypsies and Travellers themselves this is poor site being next door to the A14 and the railway. If houses were built on the site they can be made with sound proofing, but this is unlikely to be provided with the permanent caravans proposed. The site is lower than the A14, particularly near the entrance, so traffic fumes and pollution will making very unhealthy for the residences of the site.

Bramford already has the Incinerator, power cables, Landmark House and Gypsy and Traveller sites which affect the environment of the village.

we don't need another gypsy site as there is one opposite clarice house, another in Henniker road. there is also land bought by gypsies on Lorraine way and the large one on west meadows. I believe it will be a health and safety issue as it so close to the A14 noise and pollution. Access to the site could be a danger for people travelling to and from bramford. People would feel very vulnerable walking past it at night and also there would be concern about crime. Businesses could be affected. I feel this site should be located elsewhere and not in Bramford.

A gypsy and traveller site at river hill has not been thought out very well, noise and air pollution would not be good for the proposed residence also its the only route through to ipswich and people would feel very vulnerable, as well as being on the national cycle route for bikers comming along there with vans and 4x4's comming out onto the raod would be very dangerous. There is also a very good thriving business next to that site at the moment and it would be a shame to see this go bust, putting people out of work.

Bramford Parish Council object to the allocation of site IP261 Land at River Hill, adjacent to Bramford, for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site, under Ipswich Borough Council's policy DM41.
The proposal is unsustainable socially, economically and environmentally. The proposal and the conduct of Ipswich BC also fail to meet the requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement.
SITE ALLOCATION IP261 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE SOCIALLY BECAUSE:
1) THE SITE IS NOT SUITABLE WITH REGARD TO THE GYPSIES' OWN SAFETY:-
a) There are many hazards nearby for unsupervised children: the A14 just up the bank from
the site; the superstructure of the A14 bridge with its concrete pillars and sloping concrete sides where children already play and are in danger of falling into the path of traffic on Bramford Road; the railway line a short walk away; the river a short walk away; a large site full of derelict glasshouses with broken glass and unstable structures very nearby; the lure of the large recreation ground directly over the A14, and the old footpath at the north of the proposed site on the boundary, which has been a crossing point for pedestrians over the A14. As further evidence of the unsuitability of the site, we refer to the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment p32, which includes among the main reasons that current sites do not meet the gypsies' needs: the lack of a play area for children, and the lack of safety of the site.
b) There will be harmful effects on the health and wellbeing of the gypsies from the noise and poor quality air (traffic fumes) from the adjacent A14. The proposed Site Allocation therefore contravenes NPPF 109, which says that new development should not contribute to or be put at risk from, or be adversely affected by noise or air pollution. It contravenes Planning Policy for Traveller Sites clause 11e which obliges local authorities to consider the effect of noise and air quality on the health and wellbeing of the gypsies and travellers. The structure of caravans compared with houses does not allow for the possibility of insulating against noise. The likely noise level at this location is 70 Decibels, and Ipswich BC should not expect gypsies and travellers to live with noise pollution, or air pollution which would be unacceptable to the population in general. It contravenes Ipswich's policy CS11 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation which says gypsy sites selected should be safe and free from pollution. It also contravenes policy DM26 which says that new development which could itself be significantly affected by the conduct of established or potentially noisy uses nearby will not be permitted: the A14 is adjacent.
2) THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SITE POSES DANGERS TO THE PUBLIC :-
a) Reference to the map shows that there is a physical link to the existing 41-pitch gypsy site at West Meadows alongside the busy A14 which could mean that horses, pedestrians and children stray onto the A14 endangering their own lives and the lives of others. A member of the public was recently killed on the A14 in an accident involving a horse. Bramford already suffers a nuisance from horses left on private land in the village. The Ipswich land goes back beyond the proposed Site Allocation, giving scope for unauthorised expansion and unauthorised land uses even if only 5 pitches of the possible 20 are developed. Motorbikes may also use unsuitable routes overland between the gypsy sites.
b) This proposed development poses a real hazard to road safety. The location is hazardous because it is close to the A14 bridge which will limit views for oncoming traffic; it is close to the busy exit from Clarice House Health Club; it is opposite the entrance to Lumberjacks and the small and medium size commercial enterprises located there; Bramford Road via River Hill will become even busier as more traffic will use this route into Ipswich when the Fisons development of 176 residential dwellings and commercial units at Paper Mill Lane, Bramford is built; it is close to Bramford Road where two cars cannot pass because of parked cars; it is close to site IP029 (land opposite 674-734 Bramford Road) which is a proposed Site Allocation for 71 dwellings with their vehicles and associated extra traffic; there are dangers to the public from mud and debris on the road and large vehicle manoeuvring on sloping ground close to all these other road hazards. It is as if Ipswich are intent on locating the gypsies in the most dangerous place for the gypsies and the community.
c) The proposed Site Allocation does not prevent existing development, such as the adjacent Health Club and the commercial development opposite on lower ground, from being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air or water pollution (NPPF109). We are concerned that pollution is likely to occur as the site is large enough to allow gypsy business activities to be carried out, which is recommended in policy CS11b.
3) IT REPRESENTS AN UNREASONABLE CONCENTRATION OF GYPSY SITES NEAR BRAMFORD:-
a) It does not represent a fair or rational allocation of sites across Ipswich or the Ipswich Policy Area. The proposed Site Allocation contravenes the recommendation in the 2013 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, page 18, relating to Ipswich Borough Council, which states that there should be more equity in distribution of provision of sites across the authorities. Bramford already has 95% (ninety five percent) of the Ipswich gypsy sites next to Bramford's boundary, on the Bramford side of the A14 at West Meadows. The proposed site IP261 is within walking distance (less than 1.5Km) from West Meadows, and there is also a gypsy site with planning permission in Bramford itself, 2Km away.
b) Bramford is only a small corner of Mid Suffolk District Council's large administrative area, and is also adjacent to Ipswich Borough, but Bramford already has 29% (twenty nine percent) of the total existing gypsy sites over the whole of Ipswich and Mid Suffolk. Therefore, there is already a disproportionately high concentration of gypsy sites close to Bramford.
c) Ipswich BC have put forward no other alternative proposed gypsy sites. Ipswich BC Policy DM41 which is mentioned in the Site Allocation notification, makes clear that the land at River Hill is the only land allocated for the first 5 pitches. Ipswich has to provide 5 pitches by 2017, a further 6 by 2022, and a further 7 over the next 5 years, totalling 18 by 2027. River Hill site is large enough to provide for expansion. It appears to be Ipswich Borough Council's intention that all 18 pitches should be provided on the River Hill site by 2027. In fact they specifically consider in their section on alternative uses of the River Hill site (see Appendix D Alternatives in the Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal): "allocating a larger area of the site for a greater number of G&T pitches (approx 20 pitches on up to 1 hectare)".
d) The government's Planning Policy for Traveller Sites clause 12 says that the scale of gypsy sites in rural or semi-rural settings should not dominate the nearest settled community, and clause 9d says that in producing their Local Plan, councils should relate the number of pitches or plots to the circumstances of the specific size and location of the site and the surrounding population's size and density. The proposed addition of 5-18 or even 20 pitches to the nearby 43 pitches around Bramford is unreasonable in this policy context.

4) IT HAS A HARMFUL EFFECT ON LOCAL AMENITY:-
a) The proposal does not protect local amenity and environment, contrary to Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 9e. It would destroy a tract of greenfield countryside, replacing it with an unattractive development, as acknowledged in Appendix F, ET10, of the Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal, which says: "IP261 has the potential to impact landscape character since it is identified as countryside and a Gypsy and traveller site would have mobile homes, touring caravans, cars, amenity blocks, etc". The Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer has confirmed that each pitch can consist of one or more static caravans, a touring caravan, amenity block and parking for various vehicles. Five such pitches are initially considered for this site, but Ipswich contemplate up to 20 pitches as stated above. The proposed Site Allocation would result in traffic problems restricting free movement to and from Ipswich, and would damage local ecology.
b) It does not guard against the unnecessary loss of social and recreational facilities (NPPF70). Ipswich BC have been presented with the opportunity to enhance the western approach to Ipswich by selling the parcel of land in question to the adjoining owner, Clarice House Health Club, for use as a landscaped public park with an exercise area available to everyone, at no expense to Ipswich BC. This would have the double benefit of enhancing the green rim around Ipswich and contributing substantially to Ipswich BC's "Aim HW2", which is "to improve the quality of life where people live and encourage community participation".
c) It does not provide a safe and accessible environment where the fear of crime does not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion (NPPF 69). We are concerned the site would have a significant adverse impact on the physical and social infrastructure of local settlements contrary to CS11c.
5) IT DOES NOT SUPPORT INTEGRATION:-
a) The proposal does not promote integration and community relations as required in clause 11 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites. Although this site is located on Ipswich land, the gypsy families will not integrate in Ipswich when concealed behind a major bridge and A14 trunk road which places them apparently in Bramford. The new gypsy residents are more likely to look to their gypsy neighbours to the north and across the village. Permitting Bramford village to be surrounded by gypsy sites will not help to achieve integration.
b) With small, well separated sites, the gypsies can integrate more easily, but this proposed Site Allocation, even if limited to 5 pitches, defeats that object especially in view of the large site at West Meadows. It does not support community cohesion as required by CS11b.
6) IT IGNORES LOCAL PERCEPTIONS OF IDENTITY:-
a) The constraints listed on the Site Allocation details for the River Hill site include the need to maintain the separation of Bramford village from Ipswich, but this proposal does the opposite. It would link the village to the town, whereas the Hyder Consulting Sustainability Appraisal document says at p19 that "when allocating sites for development, it is important to maintain the gap between Ipswich and adjacent villages to preserve local distinctiveness". Villagers are adamant that the town and village be kept separated. We note that Ipswich Borough Council intend to use their "separation" policy for their proposed Northern Fringe development, which they say "will maintain appropriate physical separation" of village from town. The same policy should be applied to the separation of Bramford from Ipswich.
b) The proposal does not take account of local experience and perceptions. The public perception is that this site is in Bramford not in Ipswich, as the A14 is the physical boundary. Ipswich Borough Council appears to be aiming to unburden itself of its obligation to find gypsy sites in Ipswich by locating the site out of sight of Ipswich behind the A14 bridge in an area regarded as Bramford.
THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ECONOMICALLY BECAUSE: -
a) We are concerned it will adversely affect local businesses. These include Clarice House Health Club and Day Spa, established for over 20 years and employing over 40 people. One of its attractions is its setting in parkland. Development of a gypsy site on land which adjoins Clarice House to the right and to the rear is contrary to NPPF 28 which requires Local Plans to promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as shops and sports venues. Opposite the site is a timber merchant which also sells garden hardware. There are several small and medium size commercial enterprises on the same development. NPPF 70 says that planning policies should ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and to be retained for the benefit of the community. The local businesses will make their own representations.
b) The proposal contravenes policy DM26, protection of amenity, which says that development that could lead to significant adverse effects on the amenity or environment of neighbouring uses - clearly including local businesses - will not be permitted.
c) Given the sloping nature of the site and its configuration and location, doubts must arise over whether the site is capable of being cost effectively drained and serviced as required by policy CS11.

THE PROPOSAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTALLY BECAUSE:
a) NPPF 114 says that local authorities should plan positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure (green rims, ecological networks). Policy CS16 relating to Green Infrastructure says Ipswich BC will work with partners to improve green infrastructure provision and link radial ecological networks with a publicly accessible Green Rim around Ipswich. Both the Ipswich Key Diagram, and Ipswich Local Plan plan 1 "Green corridors" show a Green Rim separating Bramford from Ipswich. Yet Ipswich BC propose an incursion into this Green Rim with consequent degradation of the ecological network of the Gipping Valley by developing a gypsy site which as Ipswich themselves acknowledge in their site constraints, may lead to soil contamination.
b) The ecology of the River Hill site IP261 and the Green Rim have been ignored by Ipswich BC in the River Hill Site Allocation. This contrasts with Ipswich BC's treatment of site IP029, land opposite 674-734 Bramford Road, which is just the other side of the A14 and on the opposite side of Bramford Road to this site, so shares similar characteristics. Site IP029 is said by Ipswich BC to have potential wildlife interest - a reptile survey will be needed, with mitigation where appropriate, and the design and layout for that housing site would need to support the wildlife corridor function of the railway and A14. Ipswich BC's comments made in 2007 for site IP029 said that the area next to the A14 "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". Yet no such constraints regarding ecology and the Green Rim are mentioned in relation to the River Hill site.
c) Bramford lies within Mid Suffolk district. MSDC's Core Strategy p18, Suffolk Vision, refers to establishing a network of open spaces and green corridors across the subregion. MSDC are known to discourage coalescence between villages, and therefore would not favour the joining up of Bramford and Ipswich by building over the Green Rim.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN PLANNING POLICY FOR TRAVELLER SITES CLAUSE 11 ARE NOT MET (WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 11g)
a) It does nothing to promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community (11a).
b) The site is effectively in Bramford, where there is no access to health services (11b).
c) The primary school in Bramford has no spare capacity and there is no secondary school (11c).
d) The development of a permanent site poses a threat of environmental damage contrary to 11d.
e) The proposal ignores the effect on the gypsies' health from the noise and fumes from the A14 (11e).
f) The proposal would place undue pressure on local road infrastructure in Bramford (11f).
g) If the site allows for living and working in the same location (11h), there is concern that damage to the environment will occur.
h) There is only one aspect which complies with the sustainability requirements in this policy: the site is not itself in a flood area (11g).
SITE CONSTRAINTS IDENTIFIED BY IPSWICH BOROUGH COUNCIL:
Although Ipswich Borough Council has not considered any possible alternative gypsy sites, they have considered alternative uses for the River Hill site: to retain the existing use as grazing land, or to develop the site for housing or to allocate more of the site for up to 20 gypsy pitches. Ipswich BC themselves identify the following site constraints for River Hill in their Site Allocations Sustainability Appraisal Appendix D: use as a gypsy site may cause disturbance to land and lead to drainage problems, and result in potential contamination of land if there are business activities on the site. Ipswich BC also identify problems of extra traffic, poor visibility for traffic, and the impact on air quality, noise and access constraints. They state that allocating a larger area of the site for a greater number of pitches would increase negative impacts on soil and drainage, and increase traffic and air quality impacts but would provide more homes for gypsies and travellers.
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE SITE?
No alternative gypsy sites are offered by Ipswich BC. However, the proposed Northern Fringe development is a suitable location for gypsy sites as it will have all the infrastructure and facilities listed in Ipswich's Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation policy CS11, delivered within the required timeframe. Incorporating 18 gypsy pitches in 3 sites on the Northern Fringe development in a scheme of over 3000 houses (the Northern Fringe is divided into 3 regions) from the outset would we consider cause less friction than imposing it on an existing development now or later. The gypsy sites could be counted towards the 35% affordable housing proportion to which Ipswich is committed. The GTAA clause 2.3 says that public sites for gypsies are a direct equivalent to social housing among bricks and mortar tenants.
The Northern Fringe is in fact an opportunity for Ipswich BC to demonstrate how to successfully establish Gypsy and Traveller sites which work well because they comply with all the necessary requirements for the gypsies' welfare and the gypsies would be integrated from the outset. Instead, Ipswich BC have selected an unsafe site by putting forward the River Hill proposal, while the site clearly does not comply with the required standards.
A number of the other Site Allocations in Ipswich or sites elsewhere in the Ipswich Policy Area may comply with all the requirements of CS11. However, in the Public Meeting held on 13 February 2014, Ipswich Borough Council provided no evidence that they had considered any alternatives to the River Hill site. It is the responsibility of Ipswich BC to put forward sites which are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable and which comply with the NPPF, the government's Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, the Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, Ipswich's policies CS11 Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, CS16 Green Rim, CS6 clause 8.74 Ipswich Policy Area, DM26 Protection of Amenity, and the Statement of Community Involvement. On all these points, the River Hill allocation fails.
IPSWICH BC HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE NPPF AND THEIR OWN STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE:
a) Ipswich Borough Council's Statement of Community Involvement states that where a Development Document identifies a proposal relating to a specific area of land, the Council will post notices in prominent locations within the area. They did not post such a notice at River Hill. Communication originating from Ipswich, directed to the community and the Parish Council, has been non-existent.
b) Policy CS6, Ipswich Policy Area, says at 8.74 that neighbouring authorities including Parish Councils will have the opportunity to comment at all stages of production of the Local Plan (which starts with consultations with the local community about where housing should be built). Bramford Parish Council received no direct notification from Ipswich Borough Council of the proposal to allocate a site which affects us.
c) Policy 6a of Planning Policy for Travellers requires Councils to pay particular attention to early and effective community engagement with settled and traveller communities. There has been no engagement with the community of Bramford.
d) Local authorities are obliged by Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 9c to co-operate on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, and this issue crosses Ipswich Borough and Mid Suffolk District. NPPF says Local Plans should be based on co-operation with neighbouring authorities. Joint working on areas of common interest is to be diligently undertaken for the mutual benefit of neighbouring authorities (NPPF 178, 179), and planning authorities will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively co-operated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts when their Local Plan is submitted for examination by the government (NPPF 181, 182). Ipswich BC has either failed to inform MSDC, or MSDC has failed to inform us.
e) Ipswich BC have made a mockery of the consultation process by failing to put forward any alternative gypsy sites when they published their consultation document. Any further consultation on the remainder of the 18 pitches is equally meaningless until other sites are put forward for consultation. If these sites are to be in the Ipswich Policy Area as suggested in clause 5.19 of policy DM41, then those sites cannot be supported in or adjacent to Bramford which already has adjacent to it 95% of Ipswich gypsy sites and 29% of gypsy sites in the whole of Mid Suffolk. We remind Ipswich BC that GTAA clause 6.5 says that the location where the need arises is not necessarily the same location where the need can be met.
f) One of the requirements of "soundness" for the independent planning inspector to consider is that the contents of the Ipswich BC's plan are justified. The definition of Justified in NPPF 182 is "the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence". Limiting the selection to one site cannot be justified as a decision unless Ipswich can demonstrate to the satisfaction of consultees that the site has been considered against all other possible alternative sites and that all those sites, wherever they occur, have been dismissed using robust evidence which clearly and conclusively demonstrates their unsuitability under the requirements listed in the various planning policies referred to in this objection document.
g) A few years ago, Ipswich imposed onto Bramford's skyline, the tall building known as Landmark House. There was no notification to Bramford Parish Council, either by Ipswich or MSDC, and no consideration of the effect on the village. That building has permanently marred the village of Bramford, and there is great local resentment which was conveyed to Ipswich and MSDC.
h) The fact that Bramford is a village and is within the Ipswich Policy Area should not allow Ipswich free rein to impose any inappropriate developments on Bramford.
Bramford Parish Council's response to IP261 follows a Public Meeting on 13 February 2014 attended by over 300 people when Bramford residents and businesses voiced their opposition to Site Allocation IP261 and their dismay at the conduct of Ipswich Borough Council. Mid Suffolk District Councillors also confirmed the lack of notification to MSDC by Ipswich BC.
We have sent a separate email response about policy DM41, and a response as to whether the DPD is sound.

I am worried for pedestrian's, other road user's and cyclist's who use Bramford road as the enterace to the site is not well lit at night, it is on a bend and would encourage people leaving the site to edge out into the road.
The effect the site would have on local business.
The sound and air pollution from the A14 motorway that runs along the edge of the site and the effect this would have on the families living there.
Last year a family site had been agreed along Lorraine way, as well as the Asda site, 2 sites is enough.

The selection of this site does not give adequate consideration to the commercial implications for adjacent businesses, including security fears, and potential loss of jobs.

I object to the allocation of site IP261 Land at River Hill, adjacent to Bramford, for a permanent Gypsy and Traveller site, under Ipswich Borough Council's policy DM41. The proposal is unsustainable socially, economically and environmentally. The proposal and the conduct of Ipswich BC also fail to meet the requirements of the Statement of Community Involvement.
1) The site is not suitable with regard to the gypsies' own safety
2) The proposed use of the site poses traffic dangers to the public
3) It represents an unreasonable concentration of gypsy sites near Bramford
4) It has a harmful effect on local amenity with the oss of the "Green belt" round Ipswich
5) It does not support integration due to the concentration of travellers on one side of Ipswich and separated from it by a major road.
6) It ignores local perceptions of identity
The requirements for economic, social and environmental sustainability in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites clause 11 are not met (with the exception of 11g)
Is there an alternative site? None have nbeen evaluated apart FORM A FEW FORMERLY USED
Ipswich BC have not complied with their obligations under the NPPF and their own Statement of Community Involvement

I live near here and use the facilities of Clarice house. I am shocked that you would even consider putting into jeopardy the jobs from Clarice house. I would be worried about safety and litter. I feel that as an area we already do our bit for the "travellers" and we should not have to accommodate more, 5 pitches it may well start off at but it could be more. Perhaps the councillors would like to make room in their own back yards!!

The proposal to insert a gypsy site between a Health Club and the A14 is totally inept. [I feel] it would be directly responsible for the closure of a successful local business, the loss of 49 jobs and the erosion of countryside on a western approach to Ipswich. Ipswich BC should understand that consultation implies discussion with interested parties prior to coming to a decision - not notification in a "consultation document" that in Ipswich BC's opinion there is only one suitable site. Clarice House owners have proposed a much better use for this site at their own expense, preserving the countryside and local facilities and enhancing this approach to Ipswich.

I am the manager of the hair salon at Clarice House and I am seriously concerned of the effect to my buisness of a gypsy and travellers site on the designated field. I also feel that this is a very dangerous access for them.

I fully object to the proposal to change the above site into a gipsy/traveler site. The site being so close to the A14 is not conducive to the welfare of the gipsy/traveler community. The noise level would surely be above the recommended tolerance level and the imminent risk of their children or animals gaining access to the A14 pose a significant detriment to their safety as well as the users of the A14. The proposed access to the site from the bramford road could cause problems to the traffic on the bramford road and there is a real danger of collision. The schools in the area are not adequate for the impending increase of children. There is already a gipsy traveler site on this side of Ipswich (West Meadows). I am concerned about crime in and around the bramford village area and this would be detrimental to the residents of the village.

The close proximity to the A14 means the travellers will be exposed to excessive noise and pollution from the road, (37,000 vehicles per day) if this land is not suitable for housing how can it be considered for travellers and their families including young children.
Gypsy, travellers and showmen assessment 2013 - 34% stated they lived in Suffolk for the open country side, this would not be achieved in such close proximity to the A14.
The entrance to the proposed site is on a blind bend putting at risk travellers entering/exiting the proposed site and any traffic travelling to/from Ipswich.
The proposed site for 5 pitches actually allows for 10 caravans in total, this could mean up to 18 residents per pitch meaning over 5 pitches there could be 90 people.
We were told there were no other alternative sites in Ipswich being considered, also there were a further 12 pitches needed in the next few years, if there is no other alternative site it would seem highly likely that the additional pitches would be at Riverhill and could increase population to over 300.
Northwest Ipswich already has the current total of travellers living in Ipswich in its area, 41 pitches at West Meadows and 2 in Henniker Road.
Concern that local businesses would suffer and possibly close resulting in the lose of jobs and money into the local economy and local property value would be affected as potential buyers would be deterred.
I am concerned about the potential for an increase in crime and litter.
Increased costs passed onto residents (council tax) or would council guarantee the money paid by central government to have the site would cover the increased burden and cost of maintaining traveller site?
Share the burden across Suffolk of providing sites, Ipswich already has made provision compared to other areas.
It would appear only one local councillor resides in North West Ipswich and he is opposed to the site.

As a local resident I strongly object to the proposed gypsy travellers site on land at River Hill on the grounds of the effect I consider it would have on local businesses, private property and the local community. I am concerned about social and security effects in the surrounding area. Also local schools and medical recorces are already overstreached beyond their limits. As the application states that land is a "Need to maintain the separation of Bramford Village from Ipswich"

There is a gypsy site already very close to bramford. I live in the village and am a regular user of clarice house feel we don't need any more sites. Creating a country park and exercise area would be much better use of the land for the community.