Question 38:
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 24678
Received: 30/10/2017
Respondent: RSPB
Agent: RSPB
The RSPB considers that open space should not be re-allocated to housing.
For all ages, "access to green spaces is associated with better mental and physical health across socioeconomic groups" (Healthy lives, healthy people: our strategy for public health in England' - Dept Health White Paper, November 2010; paragraph #3.36)
We commend the Council and its partners for mapping the Ipswich Wildlife Network and endorse that Core Strategy policy DM31 sets out that development proposals will be required to have regard to existing habitat features and the wildlife corridor function, through their design and layout, and achieve net biodiversity gains.
No.
For all ages, "access to green spaces is associated with better mental and physical health across socioeconomic groups" (Healthy lives, healthy people: our strategy for public health in England' - Dept Health White Paper, November 2010; paragraph #3.36)
We would urge the Council to include Natural England's Accessible Natural Green Space Standards (currently under review) or Design for Play, which explains how good play space can give children and young people the freedom to play creatively, while allowing them to experience risk, challenge and excitement.
We commend the Council and its partners for its positive approach in mapping the Ipswich Wildlife Network and endorse that policy DM31 of the Core Strategy sets out that development proposals will be required to have regard to existing habitat features and the wildlife corridor function, through their design and layout, and achieve net biodiversity gains.
Evidence in England shows that proximity to green space can add £2000 to the capital value of houses, emphasising the economic and social benefits of such amenities.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 24777
Received: 30/10/2017
Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter
Open spaces should not be allocated for housing otherwise the character of the townscape will become one long continuous belt of residential building. The townscape needs to be dissimilar through breaking up areas with mixtures of uses and retention of open spaces.
Open spaces should not be allocated for housing otherwise the character of the townscape will become one long continuous belt of residential building. The townscape needs to be dissimilar through breaking up areas with mixtures of uses and retention of open spaces.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 24818
Received: 19/10/2017
Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Open spaces on the western half of the town fall into the Wattisham station Safeguarding zone aerodrome height 91.4m:
9-11, 16, 18-28, 46-54, 57 and 58. The MOD would require consultation for any proposed developments within these zones which may exceed 91.4m in height. Areas on the western half of the town fall into the Wattisham station Safeguarding zones aerodrome height 91.4m and Birdstrike: 1-8, 12-15 and 17. The MOD would require consultation for any proposed developments within these zones which may exceed 91.4m in height or include the development of open water bodies/wetland habitat, refuse and landfill sites.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 24826
Received: 20/10/2017
Respondent: Ipswich Wildlife Group
Strongly against re-allocation of existing open space, due to the benefits they provide for public and wildlife.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 24978
Received: 25/10/2017
Respondent: Northern Fringe Protection Group
No. There is already a deficit of Open Space across Ipswich and it should not be allowed to deteriorate further. It is worth noting that with the proposed growth under the current Local Plan, the demand for Open Space per head of population will increase further.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25006
Received: 30/10/2017
Respondent: Suffolk Wildlife Trust
We object to the re-allocation of open space for housing.
The loss of such sites to development would not only result in local biodiversity losses, but would also decrease connectivity and fragment the network of greenspaces throughout the town.
The 2012/13 Ipswich Wildlife Audit identified the ecological value of the majority of the greenspaces within the town and provides a good evidence base for the value of these sites.
In addition it could significantly increase visitor pressure on other sensitive designated sites, such as the Stour and Orwell Estuaries, by displacing people from the areas they currently use for recreation.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25054
Received: 31/10/2017
Respondent: Save Our Country Spaces
No. There is already a deficit of Open Space across Ipswich and it should not be allowed to deteriorate further. It is worth noting that with the proposed growth under the current Local Plan, the demand for Open Space per head of population will increase further.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25178
Received: 30/10/2017
Respondent: Environment Agency
If open space sites are to be reallocated to housing, it is vital that the social, environmental and economic value is not lost. Instead, new housing development can be used as an opportunity to make local areas of open space more accessible. A network of sites is preferable for urban biodiversity, and any reduction will put additional pressure on sites that are more sensitive to recreational disturbance such as the Orwell Estuary SSSI.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25347
Received: 26/10/2017
Respondent: Greenways Countryside Project
Agent: Mr James Baker
Strongly oppose re-allocation of existing limited open space, allotments etc because of their public and wildlife benefit. Playing fields, if not required for that purpose should be considered for change to wildlife open space to meet increasing needs, especially where located in or near to the ecological network.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25370
Received: 30/10/2017
Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management Ltd
To change land such as parks, sports pitches and allotments to housing should be resisted. As the population grows, the facilities and open space have to grow as well. Reducing the levels of facilities and open space while growing the population places strain on existing facilities. The National Planning Policy Framework emphases the importance of such facilities in section 8 "promoting health communities."
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25411
Received: 30/12/2017
Respondent: Ipswich Limited
Land identified as countryside and open space should remain as is.
See attached.
Comment
Issues and Options for the Ipswich Local Plan Review
Representation ID: 25442
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. Ipswich Borough Council should ensure that if it does choose to re-allocate open space for housing that the need for people to access the outdoors is still met, so that the benefits to health are available to everyone.
See attached.