Sunday, 21 December 2014

A Very Happy Christmas To All Fram Residents

This beautiful frosty scene is posted courtesy of Steve Docwra Photography (
As we wind down for the holidays the committee of Fram Residents' Association would like to say thank you to everyone who has joined us in our campaign to save our home town from over development. Great oaks from little acorns grow and in just a few short months our association has snowballed and grabbed the attention of hundreds of Framlingham residents many of whom have joined our cause.

We won't be blogging again until 2015 but ,in the meantime, we hope that all Fram residents, members and non-members alike, have a wonderful, happy and peaceful Christmas.

We look forward to your continued support in the forthcoming year.

Wednesday, 17 December 2014

A FAB Fram Christmas Fest Thank You

If you went to the FAB Fram Christmas Fest on Friday evening you will have enjoyed a wonderful night of Christmasy fun. The shops opened late and were offering customers glasses of fizz or mulled wine along with mince pies and sausage rolls aplenty. The shops and market stalls were buzzing with visitors and centre stage we were entertained by excellent Ipswich pipers piping, Rabble Chorus singers singing plus a young man with a harmonica and much much more. Bill Bulstrode's machine filled the night with snowflakes adding a magical atmosphere to the event. 

Not quite topping the bill but there with grateful thanks to the organisers were members of our residents' association paying a humorous tribute to the season with our carol "The Twelve Days Of Planning".

We might not win any prizes for our singing but our short performance was well received and we are grateful to have been given the opportunity to make our point in a festive and fun way. 

Tuesday, 16 December 2014

Planning By Numbers

There are 117 towns and civil parishes in Suffolk Coastal district. and Framlingham is one of those. 

Nobody will deny that the number of houses in the district must increase in forthcoming years to cope with population growth and the council has worked hard to prepare forecasts on just how many new homes will be needed to cope with demand. 

This report , which is the result of that work can be viewed on the council's website by clicking this link.

It is a thorough, comprehensive and lengthy document and covers fifteen years from 2013. Within it is the following table:- 

This table indicates that the Suffolk Coastal region will need 7,560 new homes in total or 500 every year between 2014 and 2028 to meet forecast demand.

The last census reported a population of 124,600 in Suffolk Coastal. Framlingham's population was in the region of 3,100. This means that Framlingham represents around 2.5% of the region. If the entire district grew at an equal rate to accommodate the new homes needed Framlingham would need 189 new properties - between now and 2028. 

This should put into perspective the applications that are currently in the pipeline to build 400 new homes in Framlingham in the immediate future. This number of new houses is completely out of line with the district's requirements and, even if Framlingham had double its fair share of new homes it would be fourteen years before we needed the quantity under consideration.

Developers are possibly  targeting Framlingham due to its status as one of the country's best places to live in the Country Life and The Sunday Times' surveys - that will look good on sales literature. But building on this scale would soon destroy any possibility of Fram continuing to score highly in surveys of this type.

Thursday, 11 December 2014


7.40pm Friday 12 December 2014, Market Hill, Framlingham
performed by FRAm (and you). THE 12 DAYS OF PLANNING

On the first day of Christmas the planners gave to me, a small town in the country.

On the second day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the third day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the fourth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the fifth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the sixth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the seventh day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 7 roads a-queuing, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the eighth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 8 years of chaos, 7 roads a-queuing, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the ninth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 9 skylarks fleeing, 8 years of chaos, 7 roads a-queuing, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the tenth day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 10 fields of tarmac, 9 skylarks fleeing, 8 years of chaos, 7 roads a-queuing, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the eleventh day of Christmas, the planners gave to me, 11 ruined views, 10 fields of tarmac, 9 skylarks fleeing, 8 years of chaos, 7 roads a-queuing, 6 hundred cars a-beeping, 5 stressed G P s, 4 hundred houses, 3 schools-a-heaving, t’many building sites for a small town in the country.

On the twelfth day of Christmas: (shouted) THE PLANNERS GAVE UP... (pause) & WE ALL WENT HOME (then sung) to our small town in the country. 
© Framlingham Residents’ Association 2014

Tuesday, 9 December 2014

Crikey, it's Christmas

Crikey, it's Christmas

Join Fram Residents' Association and the festivities

Our first Christmas and we wanted to say a big thank you to all of you who have supported this initiative, written to your district councillors, joined Framlingham Residents' Association (FRAm) and sent donations.


And if you haven't joined FRAm yet, don't worry, we are happy to accept members whenever. However, it is important that you formally join the Association. We need to continue to build our strength through numbers.

Fairfield Road Planning Application

To business first. It seems that the Suffolk Coastal's North Area Development Management Sub- Committee will not discuss the Fairfield Road planning application until January at the earliest. We should know by 16th December whether it will be on the agenda for the January meeting and will keep you posted. It is our intention to have our three minute say as Fram Residents' Association whenever this application is considered. It will therefore lend more weight to our case if we can say we represent 'x' amount of Framlingham residents. So this is a heartfelt PLEA for you to join us in this fight - formally. Please send in your membership forms as soon as you can. It would be fantastic to say we represent over half the community's views! You can find membership forms hanging on the Co-op's notice board, or on our Facebook page. You can always email us at and we will send you a membership form and the constitution. We also have the membership forms under our Christmas tree at St Michael's Church Tree Festival, which opened today.

Christmas Tree Festival and Fabulous Framlingham Christmas Festival

So we've decked our tree in houses, hearts and doves, been practising our carol singing for Fabulous Fram on 12th December. Now, this isn't any ordinary, run of the mill carol singing. And in fact, it is only one carol which has been amusingly re-written by one of our members for a bit of festive fun. We will be singing somewhere in the town and would love you to join us singing "The twelve days of Planning!".

Looking forward to meeting you and we wish you all a Happy and Peaceful Christmas.

Framlingham Residents' Association

Sunday, 30 November 2014

Framlingham In The News

Some of our members have been tracking items relating to Fram in the local press and you will find below a few of the many articles that have been published this year in relation to development in the town.

In March Framlingham appears in The Sunday Times' list of great places to live. 

The approval of ten new houses opposite Thomas Mills High School is reported in Coastal Scene in March. 

In October the EADT writes about Framlingham's Town Clerk Eileen Coe's pleas for more residents to be involved in the development of the town plan. As Eileen pointed out, hundreds have turned up to public meetings over the proposed new housing developments but interest in the town plan has been relatively subdued.

In November,  local councillors comment on The Infrastructure Levy which aims to ensure that developers make significant contributions to communities in which they build new homes.

This report in the EADT in October demonstrates how the Infrastructure Levy works by suggesting that Taylor Wimpey contribute £500,000 towards new school places if their development goes ahead.

The EADT's Andrew Hirst reports on the founding of Fram Residents' Association.

And follows this up with a report on the successful launch of the association outside the Unitarian Meeting House when hundreds signed up to the mailing list.

The prospect of 400 new homes in the town is reported. 

Andrew Hirst reports on the Taylor Wimpey public consultation meeting held in April/

 The public meeting held at the Westbury Centre in early October is given full coverage.

Tuesday, 25 November 2014

Minister Calls On Councils To Prioritise Development On Brownfield Sites

On 24th November, Housing and Planning Minister Brandon Lewis called on councils to prioritise the development of brownfield sites to enable more homes to be built whilst protecting the countryside.

It appears that in order to keep up with population growth in England we need to build around 230,000 new houses every year. The Campaign To Protect Rural England claims to have identified enough brownfield land in England to build 976,000 new homes - sufficient  to cover over four years' worth of England's new housing requirements. Mr Lewis's sensible approach supports the arguments we made in our recent blog post  when we compared the debris strewn Station Road brownfield site to the proposed greenfield site in Fairfield Road and we must hope that the minister's words carry weight with our district councillors when the Taylor Wimpey application is considered in the near future.

At present there are in the region of 22.1 million households in England. 230,000 new houses per year represents a growth of 1.04% per annum. If Framlingham was to grow at this rate we would be looking at around 14 new houses in the town per year - a sensible and manageable figure. Few would complain about growth at this level but there are planning proposals agreed or under consideration that would result in Framlingham increasing in size by almost 30%. This is one of the reasons why we object to the Taylor Wimpey proposal. If you agree please write to your local councillors:- you can find their names and addresses and a template letter by clicking this link.

Monday, 24 November 2014

The Latest SHLAA Map For Framlingham

Every local authority has to prepare a SHLAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment). It is a technical exercise to assess the amount of land that could be made available for housing development. It is part of the evidence base that will inform the plan making process. It must be prepared with involvement of external interests, including house builders, in a "Partnership". Government advice makes clear that areas of countryside and the green belt should not be ruled out of the assessment.

This map (Plan 2) shows all the sites submitted to the District Council. These were subject to discussion and the results of those discussions are noted on the following table which lists each site and its suitability or otherwise for housing together with potential housing capacity and justification.

This leaves us with Plan 3 (below) which shows the sites that are considered theoretically suitable for potential housing by SCDC following consultation with local Government authorities. It excludes sites which have existing Planning Permission or Planning Permission subject to Section 106 agreement (S106 agreements are often referred to as 'developer contributions' along with highway contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy). 

Thursday, 20 November 2014

"We have got to make sure we don't destroy what we've got"

The Framlingham Residents Association is not against development in the town. We are united in our aim for our businesses to thrive, our shops to prosper and our residents to enjoy living in the place that was voted Best Place To Live In Britain by Country Life in 2006 and featured in the 2014 Sunday Times best places to live survey.

When that Sunday Times survey was published, Suffolk Coastal District Councillor Christopher Hudson was quoted in the EADT  “I agree with them." he said "I’d put it in the top 10. It deserves its place and it’s a jewel in the crown of Suffolk. We have got to make sure we don’t destroy what we’ve got.And we totally agree with that sentiment.

Visitors approaching Framlingham from the south on Station Road will pass this vast undeveloped site. The current owners were recently given three years in which to develop the site. There is no sign of work starting on the land and there is currently a For Sale sign on it.

Meanwhile on the other southern entry road, Fairfield Road, there are plans to build a large housing development on this greenfield site. 

Sensible and sympathetic development of the debris strewn site would be beneficial to the town and improve first impressions of Framlingham for those visitors arriving via Station Road. Nothing could better the views of the town across the Fairfield Road site and it would be a tragedy to see it disappear while the other site remains an eyesore.

If you agree with these sentiments there is still time to tell the decision makers. We have prepared a template letter objecting to the greenfield development together with a list of all the relevant planning committee members. Both documents are available to download from   this link. Please use this template to create your own letter and send it to as many NAPC members as possible. The meeting could be as soon as 12th December so please do not delay. 

Tuesday, 18 November 2014

A little bit on land for possible planning use: recent EADT archive.

For those of you that do not read the East Anglian Daily Times here is a useful article that appeared on 5th November:  

Monday, 17 November 2014

Can Our Surgery Cope With Over Nine Hundred New Residents?

That's a question asked by many living in the town but, rather than speculate on the local surgery's ability to look after all of the new residents from potentially four hundred new homes, one of our members asked for the opinion of Framlingham Medical Practice. 

This letter was received in response. The text is shown in full below without comment.

"The GP Partners at Framlingham Medical Practice are aware of several planning applications relating to the potential construction of a large number of new homes within the Framlingham and Earl Soham areas. Should any of these applications be approved, this would have a significant impact on both the current and future provision of primary care services within the local community.

Unfortunately, General Practice throughout England is already under tight financial constraints and assessing how it can suitably handle the growing demands from the existing population. In order to meet the increased demand resulting from any new property developments, there would be a need to provide additional surgery time. Framlingham Medical Practice have neither the resources in terms of GP’s and associated support staff, nor the capacity of clinical rooms to cope with any such increase.

Framlingham Medical Practice has previously submitted plans to expand the existing surgery site. However, due to the current economic climate the NHS is unable to support or provide any funding for surgery extensions.

In summary, without additional funding to expand our site and range of services, any large housing development application approved in Framlingham will place a great strain on our existing infrastructure. This increase in demand will have a significant adverse impact on our ability to meet the needs of our patients and capacity to deliver a high standard of health services.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Lindsay
Practice Manager
Framlingham Medical Practice"

Sunday, 16 November 2014

Can we Trust the Developers?

  • NO!  Below are a couple of bullet points from Gill Clare's speech at last week's Town Council Meeting and below that just a little bit of information on the industry that has grown up to help and abet Developers from sneaking out of their responsibilities for S 106 and this will hold good for The CIL (Community Infrastructre Levy) as Well.

  • Taylor Wimpey has promised very little or nothing to support infrastructure and the interest in sustainability is questionable. This is a commercial opportunity and the company has no interest in the long-term future of the Town.  
  • The applicant is likely to deliver less, rather than more, than appears to have been promised.  Recently Hopkins Homes successfully reneged on commitments to provide affordable housing.  
The system has spawned a whole industry of S106 avoidance, with consultancies set up specifically to help developers get out of paying for affordable housing at all scales of development. Section 106 Management, set up by solicitor-turned-developer Robin Furby, is one such company that offers a service to small-scale developers, promising “to establish the profitability of your project and thereby reveal unviable Section 106 obligations”. Its website displays a list of case studies proudly showing how much they have helped developers dodge, and boasting of planning permissions achieved “without any contribution towards affordable housing” at all, saving “tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds”.So what exactly does it mean when a property developer pleads poverty? “If the profit margin for your scheme is pushed to below 17.5% by Section 106 payments, you should talk to us,” says the website. Other consultants promise to safeguard 20% profit margins and upwards, before any Section 106 contributions are even considered. If a scheme is declared “unviable”, it simply means “we’re not getting our 20% profit so why should we bother”.

Can Fram Cope With 400 More Homes?

If you study the last census statistics on UK Census Data you will see that there were 4,744 residents living in the district in 2011. If you study this further and remove the figures for the outlying parishes such as Saxstead, Dennington and Badingham the total was 3,342. Of these, 240 were living in communal accommodation leaving 3,102 residents living in private households in the town. The average household size was 2.3 persons. This equates to approximately 1,350 households.

At the moment there are plans either approved or under consideration to construct in the region of a further four hundred homes in the town. If all were approved and built this would increase the number of households in the town by a staggering 29.6%. 

This was the scene in the Framlingham Co-op car park one recent Saturday. Cars were circling and leaving without finding a space. Does this indicate that our town can cope with 30% more homes? If each new household has just one car that would be another four hundred cars on already busy roads. A recent survey by Direct Line suggests that the true figure is closer to two cars per typical household - gridlock would be inevitable.

If you agree that Framlingham does not have the capability to accommodate almost another thousand residents, we have prepared a template letter objecting to the Taylor Wimpey development together with a list of all the NAPC members. Both these documents are available to any resident to download from  this link or you can request a copy by emailing us at We urge you all to use the template to create your own letter objecting to the development and send it to as many NAPC members as you are able. The NAPC meeting might be on 12th December so please do not delay.

Fram Residents Membership

We want as many residents as possible to join us in our efforts. Please complete and return our membership form. You can download it by clicking here.

Friday, 14 November 2014

The Community Infrastructure Levy

So what is this thing called CIL?  
If you go to the Government’s own website  and look up government policies you will come across Community infrastructure levy and a good description of what it actually is - If like me, you had been wondering what exactly it was or will do, read on:  

"The community infrastructure levy is a new levy that local authorities in England and Wales can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The levy is designed to be fairer, faster and more transparent than the previous system of agreeing planning obligations between local councils and developers. 
In areas where a community infrastructure levy is in force, land owners and developers must pay the levy to the local council.
The charges are set by the local council, based on the size and type of the new development.
The money raised from the community infrastructure levy can be used to support development by funding infrastructure that the council, local community and neighbourhoods want, like new or safer road schemes, park improvements or a new health centre.
The community infrastructure levy:

  • gives local authorities the freedom to set their own priorities for what the money should be spent on
  • gives local authorities a predictable funding stream that allows them to plan ahead more effectively
  • gives developers much more certainty from the start about how much money they will be expected to contribute
  • makes the system more transparent for local people, as local authorities have to report what they have spent the levy on each year
  • rewards communities receiving new development through the direct allocation of a proportion (15% or 25% depending on whether a Neighbourhood Plan is in place) of levy funds collected in their area".

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Deferral = Non Decision

Last Thursday evening the Town Council decided to defer their decision on whether to support or object to the Taylor Wimpey application to build 163 houses on the greenfield site in Fairfield Road. 
We understand that they had previously been supportive of the plan so this is a great achievement by the residents in raising their collective voice to the Council and making a difference. As the Residents' Association we thank you for your support.
This is a small step in the right direction by the Council but the reality is that they have deferred their decision until the completion of the Neighbourhood Plan and that will not be complete until next May at the earliest. The Council is therefore in a state of non-decision until such time as the Neighbourhood Plan is accepted and is pushing responsibility for the decision up to Suffolk Coastal District Council Northern Area Planning Committee (NAPC).
NAPC do not have the luxury of deferring a decision and must decide either for or against the development. The SCDC Planning Website is no longer taking comments so it is important that we now campaign direct to the district councillors who make up the NAPC. We are not sure if the Taylor Wimpey application will be discussed at the SCDC meeting in December or January so we are asking residents to act now.
We have prepared a template letter objecting to the Taylor Wimpey development together with a list of all the NAPC members. Both these documents are available to any resident to down load from this link or our blog/website or request a copy by emailing us at We urge you all to use the template to create your own letter objecting to the development and send it to as many NAPC members as you are able. The NAPC meeting might be on 12th December so please do not delay.
FRAm Membership
We have started to distribute membership forms and these are available via this link or the blog/website or on request from our email The more members we have the louder our voice will be and we ask you to please join and support us. We are asking for a minimum £5.00 membership fee to cover the costs of running the campaign. We have managed so far on the generosity of the founding members of FRAm and the Unitarian Church Trustees and but we need to scale up our campaign and this needs funds for items like paper, ink, postage, venue hire, poster printing, liability insurance, the list goes on.

We also need help and support to run and manage the Association across the whole spectrum of skills; from minute taking to leaflet distribution, planning expertise to creative writing, event management and volunteering. Please do not be shy, we need your talent. If you would like to help us save this lovely town then please get in contact via email, post or any other means. We need you.
Once again I thank you all for your support.
Christopher Sharpe
Framlingham Residents' Association

Copyright © 2014 Framlingham Residents' Association, All rights reserved.

Friday, 7 November 2014

Speech by Chair of FRA, Chris Sharpe at Town Council Meeting

Town Council Meeting 6th November 2014 

Lady Chairman I speak as the Chairman of the Framlingham Residents Association.
The Framlingham Residents Association was born out of a frustration and anger with how Taylor Wimpey and the other developers thought they could just roll up in our town, cram it full of unaffordable houses and leave us the residents to pick up the tab.
We started on October 6th with just 11 people and at the last count we had 328 people register for more information on how they can fight the developments. That is 328 people in just 4 weeks. You cannot ignore this level of feeling in the town. The town clerk has said that some people are in favour of the development but if you look at comments registered on the Suffolk Coastal planning site you will see 76 objections verses 1 supporting and 1 qualified support.

This clearly shows that the residents are not in favour and they are not in favour because they know the town, they know the infrastructure is creaking, they know Fairfield Road floods regularly, they know the surgery is full, they know parking is a problem, they know the roads cannot cope.
The response from some councillors has been that is all very well but we need proper planning reasons to object. Well here are some planning reasons:
  1. The Department of Environment objects to the development, and I have their letter here, on the grounds that the anti-flooding measures are insufficient. The local residents said this when they first saw the plans so it is nice to see the Environment Agency is in agreement. In truth the Council needs no more than this to reject the application but I have some more.
  2. Suffolk County Council Economy Skills and Environment Directorate highlight various infrastructure requirements that must be taken into consideration. They refer to Suffolk Coastal’s Local Plan Strategic Policy SP1 which includes the provision of suitable infrastructure as a key part of the District planning policy and with without the contributions being agreed the development cannot be considered to accord with relevant policies. In particular it says the development will put additional strain on our primary school provision.
    They take into account the fact that the Hopkins Homes site already has permission for 140 homes so these will incremental to those. They estimate that cost to be £499,000 to provide the places and £4.35m plus land if a new school has to be built.
  3. In March this year the Planning Inspectorate refused an appeal for 9 new dwellings in Charsfield on the grounds that National Planning Policy Framework sets out a requirement for sustainable development and that the application did not meet those criteria including in this case car parking, surface water drainage and recreational facilities. The Taylor Wimpey application for Fairfield road makes no provision for sustainable development what so ever.
  4. Traffic Management: The council cannot look at this application in isolation when it comes to assessing the impact on our roads, walkways and parking. When we take into account Hopkins homes, this development, Mount Pleasant and the other smaller developments in the pipeline we have 443 new homes planned for Fram. By the planners own estimates that means a minimum of 660 more cars. Taylor Wimpey say the new residents will walk everywhere. This is insulting and shows their contempt for the town. We believe that the town council should reject this application until it has had time to conduct a proper study on what impact these developments will have on the traffic levels in the town.
  5. One other aspect of this site that hasn’t been considered is that Brick Lane will be used as a short cut to avoid the inevitable traffic build up at either end of Fairfield Road. Firstly Brick lane is a single track road so this will be problematic but more importantly at the other end it joins the main B1116 and this is a difficult junction on a bend where the traffic is going quite fast and visibility is restricted. There have already been accidents here but Taylor Wimpey’s response is to say residents won’t use it. This needs to be sorted before there is a serious accident.
Therese Coffey MP has recently used the Rendlesham Neighbourhood Plan to get a planning application referred to the inspectorate because it went completely against the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan.
This week Suffolk County Council has said it will oppose Mersea  Homes application for the first 815 homes of a 3500 home development north of Ipswich because there was a lack of evidence that developers would provide sufficient infrastructure to make the development a success.
Our own Neighbourhood Plan is still in preparation but the initial consultation highlighted the residents concern that the infrastructure was already struggling to cope with present population needs.  We believe that the council should recognise that this development is not sustainable, does nothing to improve the infrastructure or economic prospects of the town and puts an unacceptable strain on the services, healthcare, roads, parking and recreation.

We already have a site with planning permission for 140 houses. We can see no reason for the Council agreeing this in principle because we have not seen anything to say that the town needs another 163 homes or how it can support another 163 homes. We urge the council to reject the application.

Reasons to oppose the Fairfield Road Development... From our Chair Chris Sharpe

5th November 2014
Cllr Kevin Coe
 Framlingham Town Council Riverside Framlingham

Dear Cllr Coe
Reference: Town Council Meeting 6th November 2014 Item 10 - Planning Application DC/14/2747/FUL - Erection of 163 dwelling houses with associated parking, access, highway works, landscape, open space, drainage and infrastructure including the resurfacing of two existing public rights of way.

I write to you as the Chairman of the Framlingham Residents Association.
As residents of Framlingham we expect the town council to look after the interests of the town and reflect the views of its residents. We believe that to properly fulfil this role the Town Council should consider this application for 163 homes not just in isolation but cognisant of the Hopkins Homes development of 140 homes and the concurrent Persimmon, Omnicorp and Bennett Homes applications for a further 125 homes. Together these developments add up to 438 new homes that the town simply cannot support.
The town councillors will be aware from the results of the Neighbourhood Plan consultations that the residents have described the town’s infrastructure as ‘struggling to cope with present population needs’. They have identified healthcare, traffic management, parking, poor local employment opportunities and an inadequate sewerage system as just some of the infrastructure problems that need urgent attention.
These concerns with the existing infrastructure are shared by the FRA. The Town Council cannot have missed the massive amount of support our organisation has garnered in a very short space of time. It cannot have missed seeing the 150+ residents who turned up at St. Michael’s Halls on 10th October to voice their concerns to the district councillors and local MP. Furthermore it cannot ignore the 76 objections to this application registered on the SCDC website.
Therese Coffey MP has recently used the Rendlesham Neighbourhood Plan to get a planning application referred to the inspectorate because it went completely against the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan.
This week Suffolk County Council has said it will oppose Mersea Homes application for the first 815 homes of a 3500 home development north of Ipswich because there was a lack of evidence that developers would provide sufficient infrastructure to make the development a success.
These two examples show how important it is that local infrastructure needs are addressed as an essential and coherent element of any planning application. The Town Council needs to look at the
above application in the context of the SCDC Local Plan and the views of the residents as expressed via the NP consultation and the support for FRA. I enclose a document (Appendix One) that assesses this application with reference to the requirements laid out in the July 2013 Suffolk Coastal District Core Strategy Local Plan.
I pick up on one aspect of the Taylor Wimpey application which in our view sums up their complete disregard for the town and its residents. They claim that all the new residents of this development will always walk into town and the children will all walk to school and thus the impact on traffic levels and parking is less than 5%. Any reasonable person will tell you that this is a ridiculous assumption. Parents will drive their children to school in the morning and collect them in afternoon. The traffic levels around the primary school and the high school are already verging on dangerous during the morning and evening rush hours. The Town Council needs to resist any further development until the full impact of all the developments on the town’s traffic levels have been assessed and a plan for its proper management agreed and financed.
Finally I quote the vision as expressed on the first presentation page of the Neighbourhood Plan namely; ‘To preserve and enhance the quality of life, heritage attributes, environmental and economic growth of the neighbourhood ensuring the infrastructure is in place to create a sustainable and socially inclusive community for future generations through the empowerment of local people’.
It is clear that this scheme is woefully inadequate in addressing the Town’s infrastructure needs of transport, drainage, retail, healthcare and community support. It does nothing to further the Neighbourhood Plan vision to enhance the quality of life and provide sustainable economic growth within the town. We urge the Town Council to reject the application.
Yours sincerely
Christopher Sharpe Chairman

Appendix One
References: Planning Applications DC/14/2747/FUL (Fairfield Road); DC/14/2276/FUL (Mount Pleasant); DC/14/2573/FUL (New Road); DC/13/3234/OUT(Saxtead Road)
The combined scale of the proposed developments in Framlingham fails to meet many of the district-wide policies of the core plan or the Framlingham specific policies. Specific examples include:
SP1; sustainability - Housing should be close to employment services. There are no new employment areas planned in Framlingham, so the increased population will have to commute elsewhere. The New Road proposal is actually reducing the employment opportunities.
SP1; sustainability, SP23; maintaining historic character - The increase in population and necessary commuting will put a huge demand on the road network that is already strained. The traffic flows modelled in the applications simply do not reflect the current situation. Traffic is already choking Framlingham and destroying the historic character, further development is therefore in direct conflict with Strategic Policy SP23.
SP1; sustainability - The education facilities, including nursery, primary and secondary schools, cannot accommodate the increase in demand if these developments go ahead. See consultation letter from Neil McManus, Development Contributions Manager, Economy Skills and Environment Directorate, Suffolk County Council.
There is only a single GP surgery serving Framlingham and this is already at capacity. The next closest location, at Earl Soham is run by the same practice so provides no additional capacity.
SP18; infrastructure provision, the infrastructure required in order to service and deliver new development must be in place or provided at the required phase of the development. None of the proposals include provisions to meet the infrastructure shortfalls.
SP23 (a); maintaining historic character The requirement to maintain its high quality historic character – this will be ruined by increased traffic and parking on already strained road system
SP23 (b); The requirement for sufficient services (health, education, community (including sports) – as noted above, education and health services are at capacity. The community facilities are privately funded whereas other towns in the area already have council- provided facilities
SP23 (c); land allocation - Re-development of brownfield land should create new mixed use areas to meet the local needs – Development should occur on the brownfield Station Road site before any greenfield sites
SP23 (g); Requirement for improved access to the town centre through improvements to the town centre car parks, linked to improved local public transport – Developers claim their proposal will not have a detrimental impact and rely on toothless travel policies that clearly will have very limited impact given the current level of public transport.
DM21; relation to existing settlement - It is clear from the housing styles and segregation of the affordable element that these proposals have been written by people who do not
understand the fragile nature of Framlingham, and they have simply been designed to maximise the commercial profit from agricultural land outside the town.

If these edge of town developments are permitted to go ahead without due consideration of the infrastructure needed to maintain the unique character of Framlingham, it will set a dangerous precedent and will open the doors to further developments as envisaged by the landowners who have already submitted huge areas of green field land into the SHLAA process.