Comment

Representation ID: 25282

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

We do not believe it to be prudent during these uncertain political and economic times to plan for anything other than growth scenario A. Brexit on the horizon could bring many changes to housing needs especially due to immigration factors, so we believe a more cautious approach is needed now with the potential to look at this again when the future looks more stable.

Comment

Representation ID: 25283

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Invariably communities are resistant to new development for obvious reasons, but this can be, and must be, mitigated by enhanced infrastructure. Too often we see developments being granted planning permission without the proper infrastructure in place which leads to increased objections from the residents. This is currently happening with several community groups complaining about lack of sufficient roads, drainage and sewers within the Ipswich Garden Suburb development.

Comment

Representation ID: 25284

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

The Conservative group are in favour of a Northern Route for Ipswich as well as significant upgrades to the Copdock interchange. Whilst we maintain a focus on sustainable public transport more must be done for the car driver who has been virtually ignored over the past few years. It cannot be ignored that despite environmental concerns car driving is more popular than it ever has been and journeys, especially those under 3 miles are increasing - these matters must be addressed rather than ignored.

Comment

Representation ID: 25285

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

IBC should explore every possible avenue in partnership with other agencies to address the issues caused by closures of the Orwell Bridge.

Comment

Representation ID: 25286

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Option 2 is the preferred choice of the group. We must face facts that our Borough boundaries constrain our development in many ways. Ipswich contributes greatly to the surrounding areas and provides many of the main services for the region. What it cannot provide, due to space, is housing so it makes sense that the other areas take a higher proportion of the new developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 25287

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

We are against any high-density developments.

Comment

Representation ID: 25288

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Infill gaps between settlements should be considered for developments where appropriate e.g. Ipswich & Claydon. We believe that villages should retain their identities but there are several areas around Ipswich where there is virtually no separation gap, so this must be considered on a case by case basis.

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: 25290

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Conservative Group

Employment land is vital to the economy of Ipswich but drawing lines on a map is never an exact science. Consideration should be given, where appropriate, for change of usage for any piece of land within the Borough on a case by case basis.

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.