Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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.

Comment

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

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."

Comment

Representation ID: 25411

Received: 30/12/2017

Respondent: Ipswich Limited

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

Comment

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.