Comment

Representation ID: 24649

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: RSPB

Agent: RSPB

No. Any proposal to reallocate countryside as housing, will first need to map the presence of any priority habitats and species.
Mitigation for certain farmland bird species, e.g. skylark is likely to be impractical within developments so will need to be secured off-site.

Comment

Representation ID: 24663

Received: 16/10/2017

Respondent: Alice Martin

Again apparent lack of land in Ipswich? Agree P/O/N/M should not be developed as it is the other side of the A14/A12 and would be an odd fit with the town. I can think of no sane reason why E/F/G and H through to L shouldn't be developed especially given the shortage of land in Ipswich. C looks appropriate if the current gypsy site is kept as it is.

Comment

Representation ID: 24817

Received: 19/10/2017

Respondent: Ministry of Defence

Parcels A to D fall within the 91.4m height consultation zone surrounding Wattisham airfield: any proposed structures in these areas which may exceed 91.4m need to be reviewed by this office. Parcels E to G fall within the 91.4m height and birdstrike consultation zones: any proposed structures in these areas which may exceed 91.4m or include the development of open water bodies or wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites need to be reviewed by this office. Parcels H to R are all Sites outside our Safeguarding Areas (SOSA). The MOD has no statutory safeguarding concerns with development within these locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 24825

Received: 20/10/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group

The existing countryside areas form a green buffer between settlements, providing welcome areas of exercise and relaxation for residents and valuable habitat for wildlife.

A - A small-scale development that included habitat for reptiles and other wildlife could be part of the desired green rim.

B - This area alongside the A14 main wildlife corridor is woodland, therefore unsuitable.

C - This area is also in the A14 wildlife corridor and would need a habitat survey to identify existing wildlife value before any development could be considered.

D - This is a small area of an arable field - not feasible on its own.

E and F - Wildlife and habitat surveys would be needed to establish the value of the site. The site is located in the green rim and a major wildlife corridor, so any development should enhance wildlife value and create new semi-natural open space as part of the green rim (with links to the new Garden Suburb country park).

G - This site requires wildlife and habitat surveys. It would be the most suitable extension to the new Garden Suburb country park.

H to L - The hedgerows on this site should be protected. Small-scale development should include a semi-natural open space as part of the green rim.

M to O - Currently arable land so there is scope to create new natural habitats and green space that would add to the wildlife corridor and green rim.

P - Part of Orwell Country Park and A14 wildlife corridor, so not appropriate for development.

Q - Part of Belstead Brook Park and Local Nature Reserve status so not developable.

R - Unsuitable as adjacent to Belstead Brook an important wildlife corridor and likely to flood.

Comment

Representation ID: 24886

Received: 28/10/2017

Respondent: Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council

Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council consider the areas annotated H, I, J, K & L should remain as countryside in order to preserve the very long standing (1997) policy of maintaining the separation of RSA village from the town in order to maintain its own identity. We are concerned about additional traffic that would be generated around the north Ipswich to Martlesham rat run corridor (Humber Doucy Lane, The Street, Playford Road) that would be generated by any further development in the north/north-east corner of Ipswich.

Comment

Representation ID: 24977

Received: 25/10/2017

Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group

No. It is not realistic to release areas of protected open spaces within the Borough to residential development, given the current large shortfalls of Open Space in Ipswich. Continuing protection of the Ipswich recreational and wildlife corridor 'green rim' around the town based on the earlier Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy is required. We strongly oppose any attempt to use what little remaining countryside there is in the Borough for homes, especially as neighbouring authorities are using up their countryside adjacent to Ipswich Borough boundaries to deliver large amounts of homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 25005

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust

We would object to the allocation of greenspaces for new development. As recognised by the council, such areas are essential for the health and wellbeing of residents, the town's biodiversity and wildlife network, climate change mitigation and adaptation and to create an attractive environment.

An integrated, landscape scale approach is key to conserving wildlife, even where it is demonstrated that a site is of no ecological value in its own right, it may contribute to the green infrastructure of the area as part of a network.

Comment

Representation ID: 25055

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces

No. It is not realistic to release areas of protected open spaces within the Borough to residential development, given the current large shortfalls of Open Space in Ipswich. Continuing protection of the Ipswich recreational and wildlife corridor 'green rim' around the town based on the earlier Haven Gateway Green Infrastructure Strategy is required. We strongly oppose any attempt to use what little remaining countryside there is in the Borough for homes, especially as neighbouring authorities are using up their countryside adjacent to Ipswich Borough boundaries to deliver large amounts of homes.

Comment

Representation ID: 25300

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

E, F & G could be considered for housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 25346

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project

Agent: Mr James Baker

As a general principle, all of these existing 'countryside' areas form part of the 'green rim' concept, providing much needed breathing space between settlements - both for people and wildlife. Comments made on each site, see attached document.

Comment

Representation ID: 25369

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd

The remaining areas of countryside are difficult to develop and will not deliver significant housing. The Inspector who examined the adopted Local Plan amended policy DM34 to ensure that proposals for the development of the remaining unallocated countryside around the town would be looked on favourably. Despite making this change to the plan the Inspector still concluded that there was not sufficient land within the Borough boundary to deliver significantly more than the Boroughs interim housing target of 9,777 homes to 2031.

Comment

Representation ID: 25410

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

Land identified as countryside and open space should remain as is.

Comment

Representation ID: 25455

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Access to the natural environment and open space improves health and wellbeing by providing opportunities for physical activity, being beneficial to mental health and reducing health inequalities. If IBC does choose to re-allocate open space for housing, the need for people to access the outdoors should still be met. For all sites indicated in the plan, development proposals would need to be considered in relation to policies relating to archaeology. Factors to consider may be that for A, 3 skeletons were found in 1912, which may be evidence of more extensive burial, the site of St Botolphs Church lies between E and F, which may have implications for development, Sites M, N and O are in areas of cropmarks relating to historic settlement.