Comment

Representation ID: 24656

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

I am not convinced that the housing need cannot be met in Ipswich alone. Large parts of brownfield land should be developed before shipping the need to less sustainable villages/towns. If it is truly evidenced that the needs cannot be met within IBC boundaries this should be accommodated from Copdock/Washbrook to Sproughton to Claydon to Martlesham then running within the A12 / A14 to the Orwell Bridge where appropriate. This should exclude any environmental aspects i.e. Pipers Vale.

Comment

Representation ID: 24701

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: 24724

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Wrathall

A principal criterion for selecting development sites should be the alleviation of pressures on the town centre. There is already too much traffic circulating around the town centre and it is damaging the environment and endangering health. There should be scope for developing housing and additional infrastructures on the periphery of the urban area and beyond, and it should be possible to do this in a sustainable way.

Comment

Representation ID: 24811

Received: 14/10/2017

Respondent: East Suffolk Travellers Association

The key to maximising sustainable travel will be to focus development in and around towns with good access to the rail network. Three obvious examples are Woodbridge, Felixstowe and Saxmundham. Leiston also has potential access to the rail network if the branch is again served by passenger trains. Framlingham is 6 miles from the nearest railhead by a secondary road and is thus less of a candidate for growth. A study of estate agents' websites has revealed that "distance to nearest rail station" has overtaken "school catchment" as the most important consideration when choosing where to live.

Comment

Representation ID: 24970

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

As these authorities appear to be concentrating new developments on the boundaries of Ipswich, placing pressure on Ipswich's infrastructure we believe it is reasonable for some increased development beyond the Ipswich Borough boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 25014

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Railfuture East Anglia

Of the options presented the best seems to be a blend of options 4&5. Key to maximising sustainable travel will be to focus development in and around towns with good access to the rail network. Woodbridge, Felixstowe and Saxmundham are on the rail network whereas (for example) Framlingham is not. A study of estate agents web sites reveals that 'distance to nearest rail station' has overtaken school catchment as being the most important consideration when choosing where to live.

Comment

Representation ID: 25041

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Ashfield Land Limited

The Local Plan Review should, in the first instance, focus development that cannot be accommodated within the Borough in those areas closest to the Ipswich urban area. Such areas are more closely aligned to the services, facilities and employment opportunities available within the Ipswich urban area. It may also be appropriate to accommodate lesser levels of growth within the wider HMA.

Comment

Representation ID: 25060

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

As these authorities appear to be concentrating new developments on the boundaries of Ipswich, placing pressure on Ipswich's infrastructure we believe it is reasonable for some increased development beyond the Ipswich Borough boundary.

Comment

Representation ID: 25289

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

New developments should take place as close as possible to Ipswich but within the neighbouring districts. As the tax revenue for new developments would be lost to Ipswich it is vital that these developments rely on the main economic services of Ipswich which will bring a benefit to the town.

Comment

Representation ID: 25364

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

Ipswich Borough Council should look to sustainable locations with good infrastructure, high accessibility and connectivity to Ipswich. For example neighbouring satellite villages around Ipswich such as Claydon, Sproughton and Wherstead can assist in delivering the housing growth to meet the objectively assessed need for housing in the Borough. These areas are well connected to the town. Another example is the need for liaison with Suffolk Coastal District Council on the potential of growth corridors to the Felixstowe Peninsular, and along the A12 corridor around Saxmundham which can deliver housing growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 25485

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

We support the need to look beyond the Ipswich administrative area to meet Ipswich's housing need. We therefore support distribution options 2 and 5 in combination. We also support focussing on communities close to Ipswich, particularly where those communities are well connected to the town centre, either in distance or transport terms. The IGS, whilst in parts
abutting the Ipswich administrative boundary, remains relatively close to the town centre and will be well served by public transport. It would be logical to look beyond this boundary to continue to meet Ipswich's need.