1. Why do travelllers need a permanent site?
2. Do they already have one by asda?
3. With council representatives not knowing what other sites were considered i doubt the council have looked at other sites.
4. 5 pitches could become more.

I object to the proposed development as a GRT site due to the following reason:
The site would be considered unsuitable for housing development due to the un acceptable noise from the A14. I therefore feel that we should not expect members of the GRT community to live in an area were noise levels would be considered unacceptable in housing never mind in a caravan were soundproofing is not good.

I also have concerns regarding access to the site as the vision onto the road is poor and the site entry point is concealed. I also feel that as the west meadow site backs onto the other side of the A14 and I feel that this is a accident risk as people try to cross between the two sites.

Finally when I purchased my property I wanted to live in a village ( for which I paid a price for my property which reflected this village location). I feel this development will erode further the boundary between Ipswich and Bramford therefore leading to the identity as a village disappearing. Ipswich as traditionally maintained a greenbelt around it's boundaries and I feel this should be retained.

I am concerned about safety and traffic issues.

I am concerned that 5 pitches would only be the start with unofficial travellers also coming to the site (Dale farm?)

Concerned that the damage this would bring to the area would outweigh any benefits the site would bring - who would pay for it?

We have concerns of it also being near west meadows (West Meadows consists of 41 pitches, 12 single and 29 double) and the tensions it may bring between families).

Why is there a need for more permanent pitches?

Due to the fact there a site near asda,I feel it would be inappropriate to allow a second site so close.
The proposed site is for a few pitches only but what is stopping the area getting bigger and therefore allowing more travellers to pitch, also what is stopping more and more pitches being set up in and around the area.
I am worried about security [and that] house values in the area would go down and would also be harder to sell.
There are many more sites in and around ipswich where they could go.

Feel another site unnecessary when we have an existing site suitable for expansion. Concern about risk to property, probable reduction in property prices and also that existing businesses will likely suffer issues from the development. You would also need to staff a further site, something which would be avoided by expanding west meadows site

1. Noise levels appear to be too loud from the A14 for a modern residential development.

2. Possible poor air quality from the A14 for a modern residential development.

3. Poor access to the site.

4. Integration into the village community has not worked in the past. Concerned about crime.

The site proposed sits very close to the A14: so close in fact that houses cannot be built on this site. If the land is unfit for humans in bricks and mortar, it cannot be fit for those who reside in caravans. Housing developments are subject to noise and sound pollution controls; the same should be applied to sites such as these which are proposed to inhabit the travelling community.

The access to the site is another objection; coming out blind onto the existing road is unsafe to both existing road users and pedestrians. This road is also already extremely busy for the communities in which it serves; adding further development is likely to worsen this situation.

The site is also very close in proximity to the existing travellers site near Asda. Therefore, it is questionable as to why another site is needed so close to those existing.

Facilities: Bramford facilities are already stretched to capacity. With no further facilities on the horizon, I cannot see or support developments which increases capacity to the village population.

Clarice House - this business is an integral part of the community and as such, has offered to buy the land for community usage. As the land cannot be used for housing (and travellers - refer to point above) this seems more logical and applicable to the existing community.

Lack of following due process - Ipswich Borough have already held three meetings on this subject and the matter of consultation was somewhat delayed in this process. The process is therefore, fundamentally flawed and cannot be considered a true consultation process.

As a resident of Bramford Road, living not some 500 yards from the proposed site, I stronglly object because of the following reasons.

Concern about closure of local businesses.
Road safety issues due to access route.
Concern about crime.
Concern about effect on property prices.

Why can't west meadows be extended , as a local to the area , we have heard nothing of this , we should of been clearly informed that this was being considered .

The proposal is bad policy. It erodes the environmental 'green rim' currently championed by Ipswich, threatens an established spa and health business - enjoyed by Ipswich and suffolk residents - with subsequent loss of local employment, and would result in the loss of 'separation' between the town of Ipswich and the rural village of Bramford.
In any event the site is not suitable for occupation having regard to access, traffic, noise and pollution from the A14.

I object to the usage, as the area already has 2 traveller sites. 1 at west Row, and 1 private one in Henniker Road, and that this puts a unnecessary addition burden on a already overloaded main infrastructure road (Bramford Road), Additional schooling and local amenities will be further stretched. I fear it will also have a further adverse impacts on local housing prices AGAIN!
The costs to provide sewage water and power together with access, together with additional policing costs , are disproportional for 5 pitches on 0.3 Ha (very low density of 15 dph), where if the council think that it is ok to over-load roads, schools etc. Then they should sell the land for normal development and at least make the local tax payers some capital realisation and benefits, rather than impose additional costs, and devaluation to the local population.

We are concerned that Ipswich is being asked to provide an unfair share of the travellers' sites required across the whole of Suffolk, while other districts are failing to play their part.

This is a matter that needs to be considered in a Suffolk-wide context. Ipswich should not be allocating additional spaces on a stand-alone basis. All Suffolk local authorities - most of whom have a much greater supply of undeveloped land - should identify their preferred site locations at the same time to ensure each is taking their fair share.

There should be a full evaluation of the utilisation of existing pitches at West Meadows.

If it is satisfactorily proved that additional spaces are required in Ipswich, there are sound reasons why adaptation or extension of the existing West Meadows site should be the preferred location.

The Bramford Road site should not be allocated as a Gypsy / Travellers site in the Local Plan.

Cllr Colin Wright

1) This site is unsuitable for human habitation with the noise and pollution from the adjacent A14. Even for conventional housing the provision of adequate sound attenuation is problematic. For caravans it is impossible. The outdoor lifestyle also makes worse the need for external amenity work/leisure/play space in a reasonable environment.
2) Ipswich council are meeting this requirement for traveller spaces outside the effective boundary of the A14 onto Bramford, with no regard for businesses and residents.
3) At the meeting in Bramford Planning officers omitted to mention the anticipated need for more sites in the later stages of the 15 year plan. Again a disregard for the village.
4) Concern about the difficulty of controlling the expansion of the site.
5) The destruction of the Green Margin around Ipswich and the creation of a gypsy corridor between this site and West Meadows
6) We are told that more travellers are moving into permanent homes. I therefore dispute the need for any additional sites in the area. Figures on IBC website show overall van numbers steady or falling.
7) This was the only site included in the draft plan.Officers were unable even to name alternatives that had been considered. This is the very opposite of open government and community involvement. IBC stated that only Council owned land would be considered. There is no such requirement.

I oppose further gypsy traveller sites being agreed in our area.
It does unfortunately look as if councils are blinded by meeting government targets for gypsy traveller sites and simply focus less and less on the importance of our rural villages and its needs.
Why choose a site so close to the West Meadows site??? The other gypsy traveller site based in Henniker Road is also only a stone's throw away from our village.
Ipswich town surely has one or two areas which can be reviewed. Around a mile away West Meadows gypsy traveller site already has 41 agreed pitches. They are based right next to the busy A14 with the high volumes of traffic and noise levels and increasing pollution.
I am concerned about the security of my property and effects on our community.
I feel this plan is untenable and has been turned down in the past. Any further work on this proposal is a direct waste of tax payer's money.
With all the councils resources I'm confident other possible sites can be reviewed.
A concern would be if the River Hill site was to be granted and issues arose with nearby residents or businesses which affected community cohesion.
This is 'forward thinking' which is a good thing and more of it should be done reference this proposal.
I have reviewed the IBC core strategy vision and improving the quality of life for all who live in and around Bramford / Ipswich is exactly what should be achieved. This is of paramount importance.
I agree with another part of the vision and hope that the council ensure amenities such as Clarice House and Lumberjacks can always be enjoyed by local residents as well as visitors. Ensuring all local businesses continue and are not affected in any way.

there is already a travellers site in the whitehouse ward.

I am writing to inform Ipswich Borough Council of my strong objections regarding this proposal, with reasons listed below, but firstly I wish to refer back to years 1981/82 when the same site was proposed for a Gypsy and Travellers site, either by County or Borough Councils, after discussions it was rejected for the following reasons:
A. It was considered wrong to expose the Gypsies to traffic noise, fumes and risks of lead pollution. With a vast increase in the volume of traffic generated since those years and with great expectations of considerably much more, it now certainly appears to expose a complete contradiction of policy from the appropriate council, suggesting they are totally disregarding the above mentioned possible health hazards?
Referring back to the meeting held on February 13th 2014 and my reasons for objecting:
1. Almost all of those present verbally requested a much fairer distribution of sites by spreading, if necessary, over a much wider area of Ipswich, not all in close proximity of Bramford, which appears the current policy.
2. The negativity of well paid council officials present was a total embarrassment when pressed for answers regarding alternative sites or other issues . My view is that the approach is to put it as near to Bramford as possible to keep Ipswich residents happy. I guess the same officials will be responsible for planning the Northern fringe?
3. Although the proposal reads for 5 pitches, few remotely believed it would remain at this figure and neither do I.
4. Most interestingly Ipswich Borough Council's core strategy vision is to improve the quality of life for all who live and work in Ipswich. Even reading with tinted spectacles I fail to see how this new development proposal falls into this category. I am concerned it will be detrimental to nearby homes and well established popular businesses which provide excellent services and much needed employment opportunities so desperately pursued during these dismal austere years.
5. I am concerned about site control being non-existent.

I am a local resident who will be in very near proximity to the site. I object to the site being set up, as my recent experience in 2013 when travellers set up an illegal site on the playing field at the entrance of the Bramford Lane/Lovetofts Drive, was intimidating. I fear that same situation occurring again. I feel that the fact that I pay my local council tax bill entitles me and my family to use the local area and feel safe. I am concerned that visiting travellers could come to the proposed site and impact on local people.
We already have a traveller site at West Meadows which should be looked at first to try and accommodate the 5 places needed. Also concerned there would be an impact on the local school/amenities where extra places would be needed. This would be a strain on the already oversubscribed school.

You will have received the objections from Bramford Parish Council which I endorse and will not repeat here.
West Meadows is a neighbour and we try to get along but there are issues you are well aware of. This site is overlarge and there are tensions within the community which spill over into Bramford, they are Bramford residents in effect.
I am concerned a concentration of gypsy and traveller sites on the border with Bramford will exacerbate these tensions and create new ones as there will be interaction between these sites which will impact on the settled community. We fear crime and antisocial behaviour.
Goernment policy is for small family sites which can more easily be accepted by the local community and benefit from better health and education provision. This policy is negated by creating sites which are within less than 2km of each other (I include three of the other four sites considered). This allocation is unsound on social inclusion grounds.

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, we are concerned 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.

There is no need for another gypsy site in our area entend the one near adsa that they already have.
I am worried that our house price will go down and we will have security issues.

Not sure what you mean. I'm objecting on the grounds that I use Clarice House because of it setting and would not go if a travellers site is next door.

My house is near the recreation ground at the end of Bramford Lane. I experienced issues when the travellers were on the rec last year (i am aware this was not an authorised site). I am sure you are aware of the problems. Why on earth would you propose a site? There is already a site near Asda and we do not need another on this side of town. I am concerned the local area will suffer as a result in terms of investment in the area and therefore jobs. As you are aware Clarice House has already predicted the loss of many jobs there.

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 have a son with learning difficulties. He is classified as a vulnerable adult and I am concerned about his safety. He has a full time job and often works late hours in Ipswich. He cannot drive and would have to either cycle or walk past the proposed gypsy/travelers' site to get to and from work, as would others. NB Sustrans National Cycle Route 48 also goes past this site.

I am concerned the gypsy site would have a significant adverse impact on the physical and social infrastructure of local settlements contrary to CS11c.

There are several businesses opposite and adjacent to the proposed site, which I consider will undoubtedly suffer loss of custom as well as other possible detrimental consequences if this site goes ahead. I am concerned that this would cause loss of local employment, business, rates etc. adversely affecting the local community and livelihoods of those concerned.

I wish to lodge the following objections to the proposal to allocate this site for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site:
1. It is not apparent that Ipswich Borough Council has explored the full utilisation of current sites on the West Meadows site which could negate the need to create a new site.
2.There does not appear to have been consultation with neighbouring district councils to indentify need across district boundaries. In addition there is already a large allocation of sites for this group in north west Ipswich and in Mid Suffolk, while there is little provision in Babergh for example.
3. Opinion Research Services 2013 indentified that 34% of travellers would prefer sites to be located in open countryside, I do not consider a site which is immediately adjacent to the A14 to meet this.
4. The research study by Rok Ho Kim Occupational Health Scientist for the World Health Organization (WHO) found that exposure to excessive noise pollution was detrimental to health causing sleep disturbance and cardiovascular disease. It is estimated that highway traffic creates noise levels at 75-78 decibels , noise levels greater than 30 can induce sleep disturbance and at night it is recommended that to be able to sleep with a window open decibels should not be in excess of 45, with traffic movement on the A14 exceeding 40.000 per week clearly these levels will be exceeded and expose the site occupants to unacceptable and health adverse levels of noise pollution.
5. Similarly a site next to the A14 will expose the occupants to high levels of air pollution, the 2005 WHO study Health effects of Transport Related Air Pollution stated that time activity patterns showed that residents who lived near a busy road are exposed to critical levels of air pollutants and particularly vulnerable to the adverse health effects of particle matter emmissions from particularly diesel vechiles. Of the traffic movements on the A14 in excess of 27% are HGV's most will be diesel fuelled
6. The access to and from this site is dangerous in that there is a bend in the road which gives restricted visibility for traffic egressing from Ipswich.
7. I would wish to support the alternative proposal put forward by the management of Clarice House for this site to become a open green space for physical activity which can be accessed by Clarice House members and the general public, thereby protecting the green space between Ipswich and Bramford, enhancing the locality and offering health benefits to local residents and especially as there are possible plans to build more housing on sites adjacent to Bramford Road.

As this is a nearly 6 acre site and outline planning is for five plots, I am concerned that the number of plots will increase either legally or illegally. This could result in the same issues that the council covering the Dale Farm site faced with evictions. Experience has shown us that the Essex evictions has resulted in huge costs for local tax payers and a large amount of local resentment and poor publicity for the area. An experience I do not wish to see repeated in our local area.
As my property is very close to the site I also have concerns about the impact a site would have on the value of my property.

Myself and family who have lived in the area for over 40 years strongly object to the planning of a Traveller site at River Hill.
We are already a diverse area, which is fully embraced and we are proud of the strong community. There has always been travellers in our road, which we are good neighbours with, and we have nothing against their community, we also live in close proximity to the site at West Meadows . However being a part of a economically poor part of Ipswich, with a social housing and a poor demographic. Why are you proposing a site, that I fear will put the successful adjacent businesses of Clarice House and Lumberjacks out of business? Would it be more important to invest in this area and fairly share the traveller sites, rather than putting them all in the same area, where the community is no longer diverse, but dominated by certain groups. Why is nothing like this proposed in the economic richer area of north and east Ipswich? You are going to make a poor area, poorer, rather than raising the expectations of the youth. No chance of social mobility etc...

I wish to object to the proposal of 5 pitches for travellers on the river hill site.I feel that Bramford village has once again drawn the short straw.We have been threatened with the monstrous Snowasis developement for several years, we have to endure daily the eyesore that is the Landmark house.We now have the incinerator and the subsequent increased volumes of traffic. We already have the travellers site at West Meadows now you want to impose another site on our doorstep.
I would like to now what other sites have been looked at in the Ipswich borough other than the north/west area. This site appears to be totally unsuitable for travellers to live on. With the close proximity of the A14 the noise pollution and air pollution would be unbearable as well as very poor access to the site from Ipswich or Bramford.Also a thriving local buisiness Clarice House employing 49 people has stated that if the proposal was to go ahead they may well be forced to close making 49 people unemployed, due to members leaving the club.Clarice House has also proposed using the land as a recreation area for the general public. I would ask that you reconsider this site and choose somewhere much more suitable.

Why were residents not made aware of this meeting. I have never received any notification of this plan. After waiting five years for my property to rise in value so that I can sell it I fear we will now have our properties devalued again.
Has anyone who wishes this plan to go ahead ever regularly used Bramford Road? It is not suitable for the sort of transport that travellers use eg: Lorries,vans and 4x4's and of course their caravans. This will be another accident waiting to happen.

I object to yet another site in such close proximity to two other sites, especially given this is such a small village. In addition the local schools are hard enough to get our children in without adding what I consider will be a dramatic increase in local families.
I also feel that the local business claric house will suffer as a consequence to this site and given the fact that this local employer is willing to purchase the land o further increase their business and employ more local people I feel this will be a better use of the land.
There is also the matter of services to the land, currently there is none so some will need to be provided and at whose cost. If its the local tax payer I would prefer my taxes go to local facilities and services, given the already high cuts locally surely this money os better spent elsewhere than on providing services to land when there is none needed. Council housing would be a better use of money and resources.
I also object given my fear the site will not stay the planned size. If the land is needed for housing I suggest building new council properties for the ever growing list of families in need. We have already got two traveler sites in very close proximity and I suggest this piece of land is more suited to either business or bricks and mortar housing development.

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

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

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

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