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

Town Council Meeting 6^th 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 6^th 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

framresidents@gmail.com

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.

The Story So Far

It's only a few weeks since the inception of our residents association but already we've caused a stir in the town and attracted hundreds of people's attention to our cause. But we need that to be thousands and for each and every resident of our lovely town to be aware of what is going on in Framlingham's development and to have the opportunity to voice their views.

So who are we? 

We started as a small group of individuals who felt that the number and scale of housing developments being proposed for Fram were beginning to get out of hand and that these plans threatened the delicate balance of our community. Our group ranges from those who are Framlingham through and through and can trace their ancestors back through many generations on the headstones in St Michael's churchyard to those who have moved here more recently. Despite this diversity all share a common love of Fram and a desire for it to develop sensibly and organically.

Are we NIMBY's

Those who object to development on their home ground are often seen as doing so purely out of personal interest. This is not the case with Fram Residents Association as we all understand the need for housing within the UK and realise that progress must be made.

If the proposed Fairfield Rd development goes ahead, this view of Framlingham will be lost forever.

How can you help?

In the first instance, whether for it or against it, please write to your district councillors and voice your opinion on the proposed development in Fairfield Road. The plans will soon be under discussion so your contribution is urgent. Details above. Secondly, if you aren't already on our email list please email fairdevelopmentinfram@gmail.com or leave a comment below to ensure that you are kept up to date with our news. We hope to publish regular blogs highlighting our concerns for the future of this unique Suffolk market town