Comment

Representation ID: 24645

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: RSPB

Agent: RSPB

Any actions taken on this matter needs to pay full consideration to the Green Infrastructure network and assess how any decisions may impact upon it.

Comment

Representation ID: 24655

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

No. Any area within the A14/A12 should be open for development. Kesgrave etc is part of Ipswich and the residents should deal with it.

Comment

Representation ID: 24682

Received: 18/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Chris Wheeler

I would support expanding sustainable settlements but not merging minor villages by infilling unless they can be made sustainable in their own right.

Comment

Representation ID: 24700

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

SPS would always seek to protect distinctive settlements and sensitive landscapes while recognising that in some instances sustainable locations should be brought forward in preference to encroaching into countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 24775

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter

Physical separation of villages should be maintained.

Comment

Representation ID: 24821

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group

The continued separation from neighbouring villages is highly valued and should continue, maintaining the valuable green rim open space around the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 24844

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Yes. Without those spaces everyone's quality of life would be affected. Children and young people would have no-where to play and the recreational and mental health benefits of the open spaces would be lost.
Less allocated open space could lead to further conflicts when a higher volume of people try to co-exist without that 'breathing space'.

Comment

Representation ID: 24902

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Historic England

It is important that the historic pattern of settlement in Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal is maintained through a physical separation of settlements, in particular preventing coalescence between Ipswich and the surrounding villages. The issue of coalescence does not just affect larger towns and cities but we have seen proposals in the region proposing coalescence between market towns and villages. Acceptance of such a principal undermines the setting and purpose of each individual settlement and places pressure on numerous heritage assets which lie in the countryside.

Comment

Representation ID: 24924

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Tuddenham St Martin Parish Council

The policy approach should continue to maintain the physical separation of villages from Ipswich. The source of housing land in infill gaps between settlements should not be considered and preference should be given to developing brownfield sites within Ipswich before developing areas outside the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 24969

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

The policy approach of maintaining the physical separation of villages from Ipswich should be continued.

Comment

Representation ID: 25007

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

Any decision to look at infilling of gaps between settlements must consider any likely impacts on the green infrastructure network of the area. Gaps between settlements are likely to contribute to this network, providing connectivity between greenspaces within the town and those on the urban fringe. These connections must be protected, reinforced and enhanced through the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 25061

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

The policy approach of maintaining the physical separation of villages from Ipswich should be continued.

Comment

Representation ID: 25224

Received: 27/11/2017

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Whilst the merit of protecting the identity and distinctiveness of settlements and communities is acknowledged, the Local Plan should avoid applying an arbitrary and overly simplistic approach through which development on the edge of Ipswich within Suffolk Coastal District is seen as harmful to such objectives. Such an approach could severely weaken opportunities to promote sustainable patterns of growth, potentially forcing development away from the most accessible locations and further into the open countryside. Instead, such policies should be specifically focussed on protecting landscape of particular value.

Comment

Representation ID: 25288

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Infill gaps between settlements should be considered for developments where appropriate e.g. Ipswich & Claydon. We believe that villages should retain their identities but there are several areas around Ipswich where there is virtually no separation gap, so this must be considered on a case by case basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 25342

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project

Agent: Mr James Baker

We support the continued separation from neighbouring villages. This helps to define the very important 'green rim' of open space around the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 25484

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

Whilst we recognise that existing villages will wish to preserve their character and independence, close to Ipswich - particularly where distances to the town centre are modest - there is an advantage in using land efficiently. This means recognising the setting and character of villages without establishing disproportionate cordon sanitaire.