I also object to paragraph 8.240 here as there seems no way to do it against the paragraph as it does not have a 'Respond' pencil next to it. The following comments relate to both paragraphs. Throughout the Northern Fringe documentation and elsewhere great comfort is given with assurances that the current road network will be able to cope with the increase in traffic generated from the Ipswich Garden Suburb development etc. But from this positive stance an extremely contrary position is taken by the council committing to investigate a northern bypass. How can these two completely different messages be present in the same documentation (NB the answer to FAQ 40 in the Ipswich Garden Suburb SPD Frequently Asked Questions document uses different wording to that in paragraph 8.240 above to add to the confusion)? I do not understand why there's a desire to turn Ipswich into roundabout and cut off its green lung by the building of a northern bypass. It would an environmental disaster and I think the 'excess' of 'in excess of £100 million' suggested for the cost of the bypass in the FAQ answer would be a very big number. I expect the inclusion of such a commitment is as a result of all the angry comments from motorist who are held up for a few minutes once in a while when there's an incident near the Orwell Bridge and see the additional northern fringe population and other Ipswich expansion plans extending their delays on such occasions. I do not understand why people seem to think that Ipswich is such a unique case as any major road closure always causes nearby places to become gridlocked and you cannot bypass everywhere. There appears to be something particularly wrong with the A14 around the bridge judging by the number of accidents there compared to other roads so action should be taken to resolve this. People do not want pylons, wind farms and solar farms in the countryside but a lot seem to be shouting for an 8 mile northern bypass dual carriageway through the quiet villages north of Ipswich and the wonderful Fynn Valley landscape. This road, along with the associated retail parks and fast food outlets that would come with it, would be the ultimate blot on the landscape visually and environmentally, with plenty of noise and other pollution thrown in for the long term residents of north Ipswich and the villages from the A14 Claydon to the A12/A14 Woodbridge/Martlesham. No agreeable route was found when this was investigated years ago and presumably it would now have to go a fair distance north of Westerfield to prevent the village having the double blight of Ipswich housing on its doorstep to the south and being hemmed in by a bypass to its north. If the bypass was a good distance north of Westerfield, or even north of Witnesham which isn't far away, would a road so far out of town actually help any Ipswich congestion problems and no northern route would help traffic for Ipswich docks? I think the commitment to investigate such a bypass should be removed from the Core Strategy document. I also suggest that the East Bank road option should be the one for further investigation instead of this being dropped, especially with tunnels and bridges to avoid Pipers Value Country park, local housing and to get across the Docks. This has been talked about in some quarters and could be turned into a 'central bypass'. No new junction would be required if it ran from junction 57 at Nacton and it could potentially follow the railway out of town to junction 54 at Sproughton using a lot of brownfield land rather than 8 miles of greenbelt around the north.

see attached