The Society's responses to these proposals:

85-87 Fore Street: new 3 & 4 storey building, accommodation for 58 students.

"This vacant site is at the heart of Ipswich's medieval core. It is surrounded by warehouses, merchants' homes, a pub and a church which are listed Grade I, II* and II. Clearly the new building must be very high quality, visually, functionally and in build standards.

"The proposal for students' accommodation is entirely appropriate. We believe that this second application fulfils the above criteria. Because of flood risk, living units on Fore Street have had to be raised to the level of the middle of the first floor of the Lord Nelson PH. This accounts partly for the height of the Fore Street elevation. However, it is now less than two metres higher than the pub and the same height as Minerva House to the east; the faade is broken by a cedar-clad gable. Materials and palette are modern but will match the surroundings well.

Consideration of superimposed outlines on the street scene suggests that St Clement's church tower will be able to be seen from the quayside. We support this application"

19 Neptune Quay: revised part landscaping scheme

"This alteration of the original planning permission appears at first sight to improve the landscaping of the university courtyard and also of security management. However, on closer inspection it will deprive the south-east entrance doors and the plant room doors of direct vehicular access from a relatively easy route from Coprolite Street to a more difficult route.

"If the University and its architects have changed their intentions of how the building is to be serviced, this should be made clear in the application. It will make traffic management hazardous in this area and thus should be modified."

73-81 St Matthew's Street, Alexander House: erection of 3 storey side addition and alterations to rear block for conversion of offices to student accommodation.

"We supported the previous application to convert this important building from offices to student accommodation. However, the addition of a further seven units has necessitated design changes which we feel are unacceptable. The loss of the camera obscura and its replacement by a perforated metal structure is the removal of a historic artifact built for the original owners, the Alexander family. The new addition is unworthy of the architect's previous changes and obscures the graceful curve at the west end of the building. We feel strongly this amendment to the original grant should be refused."

The Great White Horse Hotel: external and internal alterations to convert part of the hotel into two units

"We realise that the hotel appears to have limited appeal as retail units but we do not feel replacing the Georgian style windows on the Tavern Street faade will make the difference between success and failure, whilst it will materially damage the appearance of the building. We feel this part of the application should be refused, the remainder being acceptable".

The Corn Exchange: stone and brickwork repairing, removal of existing canopy, re-roofing, etc.

"We are delighted to see that the Borough Council continues to restore its original glory. The current scheme includes the removal of the late 1960s canopy over the entrance from King Street, with stone cleaning and restoration of some architectural ironwork. Whilst we are happy to see the removal of the canopy, we feel that further thought should be given to the protection of patrons of the Corn Exchange against the elements."

The outcome of previous applications we commented on:

• Gym and Trim, Lower Orwell Street -- planning permission was granted despite our criticisms.
• 34 Foundation Street -- planning permission was granted despite our two reservations.