Comment

Representation ID: 24646

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: RSPB

Agent: RSPB

It is not only essential that the protection of green space is upheld, but also that the overall tone of such a question should be about enhancing these areas. Evidence shows that those who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24% more likely to meet recommended health levels of physical exercise.

Comment

Representation ID: 24658

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

Yes - if Ipswich is really struggling to meet its housing needs then surely a town centre recycling centre should be reallocated elsewhere. Car parks are plentiful within the town. Why not turn a number of the car parks into multi-storey car parks and build on the other car parks. Cheap car parking is plentiful in the town. A reduction in the number of car parking spaces could seek to promote sustainable modes of transport reducing the traffic in the town

Comment

Representation ID: 24703

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

SPS considers that open space in urban areas is valuable to well-being and residential amenity and should be protected.

Comment

Representation ID: 24822

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group

The existing open spaces in Ipswich are vitally important and need to continue to be protected from development for the benefit of the growing population and wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 24877

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England considers that existing open space of community/amenity value (including playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities) should be protected from development, unless replacement provision of equivalent or greater quantity, quality and accessibility is proposed.

Comment

Representation ID: 24972

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

There is an over provision of land allocated to retail space within Ipswich. It was a mistake for the current Local Plan to extend the Ipswich Central Shopping Area to include the Westgate Quarter. This decision should be reconsidered and the land incorporating allocations IP40 and IP41 reallocated for mixed residential and employment use. It is not realistic to release large areas of protected open spaces within the Borough to residential development, given the current shortfalls of Open Space. We strongly oppose any attempt to use what little remaining countryside there is in the Borough for homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 25101

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: AquiGen

Futura Park and the remaining plots that are currently allocated for B-class employment. The plots have been made available since 2012 and yet have not attracted any mainstream B-class developers. This is significantly beyond the current 12-month period for positive consideration of alternative use under Policy DM25. This provides a clear market signal that the land should be considered for
alternative use within the wider 'Economic Development' definition. This will ensure that the Site can continue to make a positive contribution to the local economy through job creation, inward investment and diversity.

Comment

Representation ID: 25109

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: On behalf of Merton College, Oxford

Merton College takes this opportunity to identify its land holdings at Rise Hall, located in the Ipswich Fringe. Whilst the College acknowledges the unfavourable SHLAA assessment Akenham, in the context of the potential link road (Ipswich Northern Route), Rise Hall, can assist in delivering sustainable housing growth in the HMA. The provision of a comprehensive proposal in this location could assist with the delivery of strategic infrastructure associated with the emerging relief road around Ipswich. The site has been submitted to Babergh and Mid Suffolk Councils' and Ipswich Council's Call for Sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 25291

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

The Conservative Group believes in the continued protection of the Borough's open spaces but also recognises the desperate need for housing land. As with other choices development should be considered on a case by case basis. Ipswich is extremely well served with open spaces both large and small. If housing pressures continue to grow, then we would be foolish to deny the opportunity to even discuss the possible change of usage to any piece of land.

Comment

Representation ID: 25343

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project

Agent: Mr James Baker

Protecting existing open space is vital. To meet the needs of a growing population and in light of declining wildlife populations, all the open space in Ipswich is needed and more. Any change of policy to allow building on open spaces would be significantly detrimental and unsustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 25367

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

To achieve employment growth targets a wide range of employment sites are required. There is little countryside in the Borough that is accessible and developable. Given the demand for housing in the last 20 years the delivery of sites in the Borough which have not been taken up over this period should be questioned. The only remaining option to meet the Objectively Assessed Need for housing is to develop land outside the Borough in neighbouring Districts

Comment

Representation ID: 25465

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Community Media CIC

We like the idea of new housing right in the heart of the town and on the waterfront, so there are no ghettos in the town. I.e. - the waterfront genuinely has a mixed economy, rather than just top end flats.
We like the coop becoming a new school - so there is life and youth in the heart of the town.