Keep Fighting Against Over-development

Dear Framlinghamians

Those that lodged objections earlier in the year against the planning application for 100 new houses on Mount Pleasant, will have received notification of a new planning application by Persimmon Homes for 95 houses on the same site, land south of Mount Pleasant.

This is NOT the same application. This is a NEW one. And apparently, according to SCDC, this is quite commonplace for a developer to lodge another planning application even though one for the same site is going to appeal.

In fact, this is when we most need to muster resistance. The developers have deep pockets and even deeper patience to play the 'long game'. It is after all what they do. Whereas for the rest of us, this is on top of everything else that we do....caring for our families and trying to earn a living!  Also, the timing is quite deliberate, bang in the middle of the holiday period. So we have to start again... and register our objections. Otherwise the developer will claim that resistance to scheme has evaporated now they have revised the plans.

So FRAm has read through the report and surmises the following:

1. The revised plan is clearly being used to try and address the issues cited by SCDC when the original application was rejected. The covering letter confirms this and refers to a Socio-Economic report which they claim addresses the reasons for rejection. This is clearly a ploy to get in ahead of the appeal and thus influence the outcome. 
2. The new plans are for 95 dwellings rather than 100 but it is very difficult to spot the differences.
   - amended the two rows of terraced houses near the northern boundary to be 10 standard units rather than 11 affordable houses
   - changed the paths and added a few more trees
   - removed two dwellings from the main access road (one from each side of the road)
   - re-sited the affordable homes that were located at the north of the site to the south which has resulted in a slightly different mix of units
   - added some chimneys to the houses fronting Mount Pleasant.
    
3. Employment: The applicants use a Socio Economic report to address the infrastructure issues cited by SCDC in their reasons for rejecting the original application. The report concludes Framlingham has almost full employment, a good level of employment provision with increasing opportunity for more jobs via the Technology Centre and further 3.32ha of employment land allocated in the local plan. It also notes that half of all residents either work from home or travel less than 5km to work. It does not note that if the home workers are ignored then 425 people work within 5km but 648 travel more than 5km, and of those 593 travel more than 10km to work. This actually shows that Framlingham does not have a big employment offer and unless you run your own business and work from home you are more likely to travel over 10km to work than you are to work in the town. High levels of self-employment and homeworking are normally an indication that other employment opportunities are sparse rather than plentiful and we think this is actually a more realistic picture of Framlingham than the report suggests.
   
   Para 6.10 of the report says the development will lead to an additional 111 working age residents but as new developments tend to attract younger people it is likely to be a larger figure and this will boost the economy of the town. The fallacy in this argument is that while the developer can guarantee the 95 new homes in two years, they do not say where the 111 new jobs are going to come from. Given the large proportion of self-employment and homeworking; the cost of the homes relative to local incomes and the lack of any large industry in the town it is certain that the new working age residents will work out of town rather than in it.
   
   We note that developer's own The Interim Travel Plan contradicts the Socio-Economic report when under the heading 'Barriers to Sustainable Travel’ it highlights ‘Constrained catchment of employment within sustainable travel distance’. This highlights how the report has been designed to present an unrealistically rosy view of local employment.
    
4. Healthcare: The report concludes that with the reduced number of dwellings a smaller S106 developer contribution is required and that, based on the NHS England figures from the original application, a revised figure of £31,200 will suffice. The reality is this - Consultants LPP working on behalf of NHSE (National Health Service East) report that the Framlingham Surgery is already 2540 patients over capacity. Using the NHS optimum list size per GP the practice will need approximately 1.9 new full time GP’s to make up the existing deficit and accommodate the confirmed developments in Station Road plus the proposed developments in Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road. This equates to 247m2 of additional floor space – again using the NHS ratios from the LLP paper. The planning permission granted in January 2013 provides 128m2 of additional space so even if this was built then the surgery would still be constrained. The Framlingham Medical Centre Practice Manager has said ‘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’ and ‘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.’ The S106 or CIL monies do not provide the total cost required for the expansion of our medical facilities and as the Practice Manager points out additional funding is not readily available. Given the constrained nature of the site and the current economic austerity it is highly unlikely that the existing facilities will be expanded in time to cope with the existing deficit let alone any additional demand from the Station Road new homes and Mount Pleasant. The truth is that at the moment there are no fully funded plans in place to accommodate the over-capacity and any such plans, if they ever materialise, are very unlikely to be in place before the burden of the new proposed developments is upon us.
   
   The report also notes that Framlingham has a higher than average number of retired and older residents and elderly people require higher demand for healthcare. Consequently the impact of even a small population increase will be of great detriment to a large proportion of existing residents.
    
5. Education: The applicant notes that ‘In preparing the revised application, discussions have been held with County Council Schools department and they remain committed to bringing forward additional capacity at Sir Robert Hitcham’s Primary School through extensions and improvement. In other words they acknowledge that there is insufficient primary education capacity. They do not however address how those additional places will be provided. SCC has previously said pupils may have to be bused to out-of-town facilities for the ‘short-term’. Once again this is putting a false gloss on reality. When we consider the CEVA status of the school, the site constraints and general economic austerity it will be a long process to agree any permanent expansion of the school so busing school children to out-of-town facilities is likely to be a long-term solution not a short one. It is irresponsible of the developer to misguide the public by implying that all the above problems are simply resolved by an S106 or CIL contribution.
   
   No mention is made of the development’s impact on pre-school provision or any additional resources in that area.
    
6. Economic Benefits – The report identifies that the 201 new residents will generate £1.886M per annum from incremental consumer spending. This figure does not take into account an earlier observation (para 3.6) that the local retail offering was limited and that residents would have to travel to out-of-town sites such as Ipswich, Norwich and Bury St Edmunds to satisfy all but their daily shopping needs. We can therefore assume that this figure is grossly inflated and can be largely discounted.
    
7. The report is interesting in what it does not address. Roads, parking and public transport are all major concerns for local residents but are not addressed.
    
8. The Interim Travel Plan is basically the same as the Taylor Wimpey one for Fairfield Road i.e. we will give new residents a £50 bicycle voucher, a £50 bus pass and make sure they get a new timetable bi-annually to stop people using their cars. It notes that there is a good supply of bus stops around the site but omits to mention the very poor supply of buses.
    

So Persimmon have produced a report that concludes that a S106 contribution will solve all healthcare and education infrastructure problems, whilst the economic benefits will be huge despite the contradictions regarding job opportunities and limited local retail/leisure offering to attract that income.

One of our members has kindly sent us his letter regarding Mount Pleasant which he is happy to share with others (please click here for a copy:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/4b7e58442edd492d51c478ba8/files/Mount_Pleasant_objection_letter.pages).  There are some key points regarding the road and traffic which would be good to reinforce in our objection letters.

It is also worth noting that SCDC have altered their planning committee structure. There is now one amalgamated larger committee that has members from all over the district sitting on it. Therefore planning applications affecting Framlingham will be decided by committee members who come from.... say Felixstowe. Yep, think about it.

So letters off and lodged by Tuesday 25 August 2015.
Don't Delay - Do it Today!

 

In the meantime, any questions please email us at:

framresidents@gmail.com


Continue to help us make a difference.

Please e-mail by Monday

Dear Framlinghamians

This is it now. Any comments must be with The Planning Inspectorate by               
MONDAY 20 JULY.

Please encourage family and friends to write as well.
 

EMAIL:

helen.skinner@pins.gsi.gov.uk

FAIRFIELD ROAD
Reference: APP/J3530/W/15/3011466

MOUNT PLEASANT
Reference: APP/J3530/W/15/3011493


BACKGROUND

 

·         The original planning applications from Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon were refused on a number of grounds including matters relating to employment transport and infrastructure (not least health and education); failure to protect the sensitive setting and edges of the town; matters relating to design; and, in the case of Fairfield Road, failure to maintain and enhance a sense of place. 

 

·         Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) Head of Planning, Philip Ridley, recently announced that by the end of the month of July the Council expects to have a 5.18 years supply of land. Developers can no longer, therefore, argue for an automatic presumption in favour of sustainable development absent a 5 year land supply.

 

·         Taking in to account completed developments and outstanding/pending planning permissions in Framlingham, SCDC have a “suggested residual requirement” of between 75 and 150 homes for the Town between 2014 and 2027. Combined, Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road would deliver 270 new homes in the next few years.  

 

·         SCDC recognise that “The numbers of homes which the two sites would provide would more than meet the numbers of new homes that the district council would be looking for Framlingham to contribute to the overall district housing total”. This suggests that the total number is in fact excessive and disproportionate both relative to the existing size of the Town (30% increase) and as a percentage of housing earmarked for the five Market Towns (25% v 19%).  This will have a material impact on the Town’s infrastructure and is unsustainable.

·         In January this year, Lord Rogers (Richard Rogers, the architect) stated in the House of Lords that there were enough brown-field sites available within the UK to build 1.2 million houses, right now. In light of this, surely any proposed housing developments should be preferentially considered on brown-field sites rather than prime agricultural land, particularly if there is no perceived benefit to the local community?

·         Also very limited attention has been paid by the developers to preservation of natural habitat with no plans on how to mitigate adverse impacts, let alone how to promote biodiversity.
 

 

General Points Applicable to Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road

 

         ·            Contrary to Strategic Policy SP23, the proposed developments on Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road do not demonstrate that they will support the Town “as a tourist destination”. Indeed, it may well detract from the Town’s “high quality historic character” and not “retain its role as a tourist centre”. 

 

         ·            With regards to Employment, there is little if any comment about how the proposed developments will benefit the Town. The proposed sites are to be used purely for residential purposes. It does not provide for employment. There is nothing in the proposed planning documents to suggest that local people will be employed in the construction of the development, nor its maintenance. In any case, what local employment opportunities might arise will be short-lived, ad-hoc and unsustainable. Local employment opportunities are limited and those opportunities that do exist are mostly insufficiently well-paid to fund a mortgage for the types of property proposed by the applicants.  Therefore most new residents of working age will have to commute. Contrary to Strategic Policy SP23, therefore, this proposal does not “increase the scale and range of the (sustainable) employment offer”.

 

         ·            With regards to Education, the County Council point to the fact that, the local primary school is likely to exceed capacity in the near future and that any additional increase in pupil numbers arising from new housing developments (estimate: 93 children) will most likely lead to pupils in Framlingham and the wider catchment area having to travel to other schools and quite possibly having to be schooled in temporary buildings. Quite how many years for is unclear but evidently, the proposed developments will severely impact educational infrastructure in the Town in a way that is unsustainable.  In addition, there appears to be no mention or consideration of the impact of increased pupil numbers on pre-school provision which is already severely limited.    

 

         ·            With regards to Health, the GP Surgery’s Practice Manager’s has previously commented “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”. 

 

         ·            With regards to Transport, Framlingham is far from being a so-called transport hub; enhancements such as new bus stops, ignore the fact that most households drive to work, school, the supermarket (often out of Town) and so on. The development of new homes, where many households will have more than one car, will only add to increased traffic in the Town and surrounding villages.   

 

         ·            Overall, the adverse impact of these schemes on what is a quintessentially English historic market town is not outweighed by the socio-economic benefits.

 

 

Site Specific Comments (Fairfield Road)

 

         ·            With regards to Topography the Suffolk Preservation Society “... considers that the proposal for a large housing development on this site will impact on the setting of the conservation area and therefore, by failing to enhance or better reveal the significance of a conservation area or heritage asset, the application is contrary to para. 137 of the NPPF. It is also not in line with local plan policy SP23 which, in setting out its vision for Framlingham, aims to maintain the high quality historic character of the town and retain its sensitive setting and edges”.
Because of the nature of the site, and to mitigate the problems of flooding (see Drainage below), Taylor Wimpey have had to position the development further up the site which rises steeply from Fairfield Road (see the Senior Design and Conservation Officer's comments below). The net result of this development will change the views towards the numerous heritage assets of Framlingham, all of which read strongly on the skyline and will be lost forever.

 

         ·            The Senior Design and Conservation Officer’s own report states “It is unusual and still, for me, problematic, that the countryside edges to this site are fully built up to – where more open green space of the nature proposed at the front would have been welcome as a buffer or looser edge – and the key long edge to the site that abuts a road - which would have benefited from the creation of positive streetscene, enclosure and buildings addressing it - has an open green wedge behind it. This, perhaps, draws into question the suitability of the development of the density and nature proposed as the proposed layout relationship to the frontage and countryside edges are the reverse of what I would usually describe as good urban design. Such an inversion, incidentally, has increased the visual impact of the scheme with more development set back and, therefore, higher up”. 

 

         ·            Fairfield Road falls within the Conservation Area and forms part of the character areas within the Town that has developed and grown over a considerable period of time. SCDC’s own documents relating to the location and design of residential developments (SPG7) note that “While the area is small, the character is strong and diverse. A rural feel is apparent on Fairfield Road from the junction with Fore Street, and exists to the southern boundary. This character is established by the lack of pavement to most of the east side of the road...Street furniture is at a minimum on Fairfield Road, with the exception of lamp posts which, although beneficial features to the raised bank pavement, do detract from the rural character of the road”. The proposal to build 163 new homes along Fairfield Road will remove forever its “rural feel” and “rural character” and blight the conservation area and wider character of the Town.     

 

         ·            With regards to Drainage on Fairfield Road, the Case Officer writes that “The current flooding issue cannot therefore be attributed to the site and the consideration of this application should be limited to the demonstration that this proposal will result in “Nil Detriment” to that current position. Inevitably any flooding events on Fairfield Road would prohibit occupiers of the development gaining vehicular access via the southern end of Fairfield Road but this would be a temporary issue and it would not cut the development off from the highway network”. This is incorrect on a number of counts. Firstly, current flooding can be attributed to the site as excess rainwater does run-off the land (and not, as the Case Officer suggests from the River Ore overflowing). Secondly, the planning application does not demonstrate that this proposal will result in “Nil Detriment”. In any event, this is contrary to NPPF paragraph 100 which states ‘Local plans should use the opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding. The development should and could reduce the causes and impacts of flooding in Fairfield Road but it doesn’t. It therefore does not meet NPPF requirement so should be refused.

 ·            With regards to Infrastructure, the route out of the Fairfield Road development will be either north towards Fore Street junction, or south towards the B1116, Woodbridge Road/Station Road junction. Both routes result in 'pinch points' which will potentially lead to problems of congestion and safety. This will be further exacerbated if Fairfield Road floods, making exit to the south impassable. The southern access has at its junction a narrow bridge and a sharp bend to Station Road. And if residents exit Framlingham using Brick Lane on it's southern boundary, they will encounter a narrow country lane with few passing places, a sharp bend and a difficult and dangerous junction with the B1116. With few employment opportunities in Framlingham, we can expect that most people will have to commute and therefore these potential problems will all too quickly become reality.

 

Site Specific Comments (Mount Pleasant)

 

         ·            Paragraph 1.20 of the Appeal papers presented on behalf of Persimmon Homes suggests that financial contributions to education, healthcare and community facilities will “mitigate” any impact ie of the Mount Pleasant housing development on the Town. The proposals do nothing to enhance the Town on a longer term, sustainable basis.   

         ·            With regard to Sustainability, the Suffolk Preservation Society notes that the affordable housing is spatially separated from the open-market housing and has a distinctly higher density. This is contrary to the design guidance on developing inclusive sustainable communities, and directly opposed to the policy SP1 (Sustainable Development).
        ·            With regard to the Location, as stated in the Council’s refusal of this Application the local plan policy SP23 (Framlingham) specifically requires that “developments retain the sensitive settings and edges of the town…  The site has intrinsic countryside qualities in its appearance and character which make a positive contribution to its surroundings: the development proposed would result a significant urban intrusion into this important landscape on the edge of this settlement.” This greenfield site should not be built on.

         ·           The Senior Design and Conservation Officer’s own report states “I would have preferred that the applicant (supported, ideally, by the landowner’s agent) had been much more responsive to our requests for proper consideration to be given to the ambitions of the NPPF; and had provided a raised standard of house design throughout the entire layout.”

        ·            With regard to Infrastructure, from the developers transport reports it can be seen that the junction of Mount Pleasant with College Road is one of the busiest in Framlingham.  This development will result in more traffic and significantly longer queues and delays.  The whole stretch of the road from this junction down to the junction with Fore Street will risk becoming grid-locked.

 

Don't Delay - Do it Today!

 

In the meantime, any questions please email us at:

framresidents@gmail.com


Continue to help us make a difference.

Don't Delay Do It Today

Dear Framlinghamians

Here as promised are the key points on which planning was refused and the basis for which the appeals should also be quashed.

Background 

 

·         The original planning applications from Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon were refused on a number of grounds including matters relating to employment transport and infrastructure (not least health and education); failure to protect the sensitive setting and edges of the town; matters relating to design; and, in the case of Fairfield Road, failure to maintain and enhance a sense of place. 

 

·         Suffolk Coastal District Council’s (SCDC) Head of Planning, Philip Ridley, recently announced that by the end of the month of July the Council expects to have a 5.18 years supply of land. Developers can no longer, therefore, argue for an automatic presumption in favour of sustainable development absent a 5 year land supply.

 

·         Taking in to account completed developments and outstanding/pending planning permissions in Framlingham, SCDC have a “suggested residual requirement” of between 75 and 150 homes for the Town between 2014 and 2027. Combined, Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road would deliver 270 new homes in the next few years.  

 

·         SCDC recognise that “The numbers of homes which the two sites would provide would more than meet the numbers of new homes that the district council would be looking for Framlingham to contribute to the overall district housing total”. This suggests that the total number is in fact excessive and disproportionate both relative to the existing size of the Town (30% increase) and as a percentage of housing earmarked for the five Market Towns (25% v 19%).  This will have a material impact on the Town’s infrastructure and is unsustainable.

·         In January this year, Lord Rogers (Richard Rogers, the architect) stated in the House of Lords that there were enough brown-field sites available within the UK to build 1.2 million houses, right now. In light of this, surely any proposed housing developments should be preferentially considered on brown-field sites rather than prime agricultural land, particularly if there is no perceived benefit to the local community?

·         Also very limited attention has been paid by the developers to preservation of natural habitat with no plans on how to mitigate adverse impacts, let alone how to promote biodiversity.
 

 

General Points Applicable to Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road

 

         ·            Contrary to Strategic Policy SP23, the proposed developments on Mount Pleasant and Fairfield Road do not demonstrate that they will support the Town “as a tourist destination”. Indeed, it may well detract from the Town’s “high quality historic character” and not “retain its role as a tourist centre”. 

 

         ·            With regards to Employment, there is little if any comment about how the proposed developments will benefit the Town. The proposed sites are to be used purely for residential purposes. It does not provide for employment. There is nothing in the proposed planning documents to suggest that local people will be employed in the construction of the development, nor its maintenance. In any case, what local employment opportunities might arise will be short-lived, ad-hoc and unsustainable. Local employment opportunities are limited and those opportunities that do exist are mostly insufficiently well-paid to fund a mortgage for the types of property proposed by the applicants.  Therefore most new residents of working age will have to commute. Contrary to Strategic Policy SP23, therefore, this proposal does not “increase the scale and range of the (sustainable) employment offer”.

 

         ·            With regards to Education, the County Council point to the fact that, the local primary school is likely to exceed capacity in the near future and that any additional increase in pupil numbers arising from new housing developments (estimate: 93 children) will most likely lead to pupils in Framlingham and the wider catchment area having to travel to other schools and quite possibly having to be schooled in temporary buildings. Quite how many years for is unclear but evidently, the proposed developments will severely impact educational infrastructure in the Town in a way that is unsustainable.  In addition, there appears to be no mention or consideration of the impact of increased pupil numbers on pre-school provision which is already severely limited.    

 

         ·            With regards to Health, the GP Surgery’s Practice Manager’s has previously commented “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”. 

 

         ·            With regards to Transport, Framlingham is far from being a so-called transport hub; enhancements such as new bus stops, ignore the fact that most households drive to work, school, the supermarket (often out of Town) and so on. The development of new homes, where many households will have more than one car, will only add to increased traffic in the Town and surrounding villages.   

 

         ·            Overall, the adverse impact of these schemes on what is a quintessentially English historic market town is not outweighed by the socio-economic benefits.

 

 

Site Specific Comments (Fairfield Road)

 

         ·            With regards to Drainage on Fairfield Road, the Case Officer writes that “The current flooding issue cannot therefore be attributed to the site and the consideration of this application should be limited to the demonstration that this proposal will result in “Nil Detriment” to that current position. Inevitably any flooding events on Fairfield Road would prohibit occupiers of the development gaining vehicular access via the southern end of Fairfield Road but this would be a temporary issue and it would not cut the development off from the highway network”. This is incorrect on a number of counts. Firstly, current flooding can be attributed to the site as excess rainwater does run-off the land (and not, as the Case Officer suggests from the River Ore overflowing). Secondly, the planning application does not demonstrate that this proposal will result in “Nil Detriment”. In any event, this is contrary to NPPF paragraph 100 which states ‘Local plans should use the opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding. The development should and could reduce the causes and impacts of flooding in Fairfield Road but it doesn’t. It therefore does not meet NPPF requirement so should be refused.

 

         ·            With regards to Topography the Suffolk Preservation Society “... considers that the proposal for a large housing development on this site will impact on the setting of the conservation area and therefore, by failing to enhance or better reveal the significance of a conservation area or heritage asset, the application is contrary to para. 137 of the NPPF. It is also not in line with local plan policy SP23 which, in setting out its vision for Framlingham, aims to maintain the high quality historic character of the town and retain its sensitive setting and edges”.

 

         ·            The Senior Design and Conservation Officer’s own report states “It is unusual and still, for me, problematic, that the countryside edges to this site are fully built up to – where more open green space of the nature proposed at the front would have been welcome as a buffer or looser edge – and the key long edge to the site that abuts a road - which would have benefited from the creation of positive streetscene, enclosure and buildings addressing it - has an open green wedge behind it. This, perhaps, draws into question the suitability of the development of the density and nature proposed as the proposed layout relationship to the frontage and countryside edges are the reverse of what I would usually describe as good urban design. Such an inversion, incidentally, has increased the visual impact of the scheme with more development set back and, therefore, higher up”. 

 

         ·            Fairfield Road falls within the Conservation Area and forms part of the character areas within the Town that has developed and grown over a considerable period of time. SCDC’s own documents relating to the location and design of residential developments (SPG7) note that “While the area is small, the character is strong and diverse. A rural feel is apparent on Fairfield Road from the junction with Fore Street, and exists to the southern boundary. This character is established by the lack of pavement to most of the east side of the road...Street furniture is at a minimum on Fairfield Road, with the exception of lamp posts which, although beneficial features to the raised bank pavement, do detract from the rural character of the road”. The proposal to build 163 new homes along Fairfield Road will remove forever its “rural feel” and “rural character” and blight the conservation area and wider character of the Town.     

 

 

 

Site Specific Comments (Mount Pleasant)

 

         ·            Paragraph 1.20 of the Appeal papers presented on behalf of Persimmon Homes suggests that financial contributions to education, healthcare and community facilities will “mitigate” any impact ie of the Mount Pleasant housing development on the Town. The proposals do nothing to enhance the Town on a longer term, sustainable basis.   

         ·            With regard to Sustainability, the Suffolk Preservation Society notes that the affordable housing is spatially separated from the open-market housing and has a distinctly higher density. This is contrary to the design guidance on developing inclusive sustainable communities, and directly opposed to the policy SP1 (Sustainable Development).
        ·            With regard to the Location, as stated in the Council’s refusal of this Application the local plan policy SP23 (Framlingham) specifically requires that “developments retain the sensitive settings and edges of the town…  The site has intrinsic countryside qualities in its appearance and character which make a positive contribution to its surroundings: the development proposed would result a significant urban intrusion into this important landscape on the edge of this settlement.” This greenfield site should not be built on.

         ·           The Senior Design and Conservation Officer’s own report states “I would have preferred that the applicant (supported, ideally, by the landowner’s agent) had been much more responsive to our requests for proper consideration to be given to the ambitions of the NPPF; and had provided a raised standard of house design throughout the entire layout.”

        ·            With regard to Infrastructure, from the developers transport reports it can be seen that the junction of Mount Pleasant with College Road is one of the busiest in Framlingham.  This development will result in more traffic and significantly longer queues and delays.  The whole stretch of the road from this junction down to the junction with Fore Street will risk becoming grid-locked.

  

 

PLEASE REMEMBER:
 

1) Write individual letters AGAIN (even if you have written before).

2) One separate letter for EACH appeal.

3) Tell your neighbours and friends and get them to write as well.

4) Letters have to be with the Inspector by the 20 July 2015.

ESSENTIAL INFO

You must include on each letter the relevant Appeal Reference Number (see below).

Fairfield Road: APP/J3530/W/15/3011466

Mount Pleasant: APP/J3530/W/15/3011493

three copies of each letter (if in writing) to
Helen Skinner
Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/26
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol BS1 6PN

or by email to:

helen.skinner@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Don't Delay - Do it Today!

Next Deadline

Dear Framlinghamians

As you my be aware both Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon Homes have lodged appeals against Suffolk Coastal District Council's decision to refuse planning permission for the large scale housing developments on Fairfield Road and Mount Pleasant.

Framlingham Residents' Association has been doing some research into the best practice for fighting appeals and the advice we have from organisers of another successful campaign is as follows:
 

"Bristol are hugely influenced by the number of people objecting, so you definitely need to rally the troops and get people attending or writing in. You can’t rely on them taking account of any representations made at previous stages. When we got the East View development overturned, one of the things the inspector mentioned was the strength of the local opposition, so really worth doing that."

so....

 

1) Write individual letters AGAIN (even if you have written before).

2) One separate letter for EACH appeal.

3) Tell your neighbours and friends and get them to write as well.

Letters have to be with the Inspector by the 20 July 2015.

ESSENTIAL INFO

You must include on each letter the relevant Appeal Reference Number (see below).

Fairfield Road: APP/J3530/W/15/3011466

Mount Pleasant: APP/J3530/W/15/3011493

three copies of each letter (if in writing) to Helen Skinner, Room 3/26, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol BS1 6PN

or by email to:

helen.skinner@pins.gsi.gov.uk

We will be in touch again at the end of the week with some specific points that you can include in your letters of objection.

In the meantime, any questions please email us at:

framresidents@gmail.com

Five Days Left

This is likely to be your last chance to influence how many large scale building projects happen in Framlingham in the future.The map and questionnaire (you can download a copy here https://gallery.mailchimp.com/4b7e58442edd492d51c478ba8/files/fram_01.pdf) are being used by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee to determine where in our town you would like to see development.The map shows the areas around town where development could happen. The form then asks you to rank each area according to how much you would like to see it developed. You are asked to rank areas (from 1- 4) within a 4 figure range. Those areas you would really like to see used for building you rank 1, to areas you would not really like to see built upon but would accept at a push, you rank as a 4. Numbers 2 and 3 are used to rank areas between these two options.

RANKING WITH ANY NUMBER MEANS YOU WOULD ACCEPT DEVELOPMENT ON THAT AREA.

If you would not like to see building happen at all on any of choices then answer NONE.

UNLESS YOU CATEGORICALLY SAY ‘NO’ TO DEVELOPMENT ON FAIRFIELD ROAD AND MOUNT PLEASANT THE FORTHCOMING APPEALS AGAINST THE BUILDING OF 263 HOUSES WILL SUCCEED AND THE BULLDOZERS WILL MOVE IN.

After considering your options, please include the first line of your address and postcode on the questionnaire and return to the Town Council Offices on Riverside, Framlingham by 11 JUNE AT THE LATEST.

Alternatively you can visit the Town Council Offices this week and complete the questionnaire there:

Monday 8 June: 10am - 4pm 
Tuesday 9 June: 10am - 4pm 
Wednesday 10 June: 10am - 12 noon 

If either of these options is difficult for you one of our members will be happy to collect it from you before the deadline just phone: 07970 718692 and leave a message with your name and address or email: framresidents@gmail.com

Continue to help us make a difference.

A Call To Action

A CALL TO ACTION for members of FRAm 

The deadline for the consultation on the Neighbourhood Plan is 10 days away.
We need as many Framlingham residents to engage in this process and give their feedback...before it's too late!

So as the saying goes..."If the mountain won't come to Mohammed then Mohammed must go to the mountain."

• We need volunteers to drop some feedback forms into homes this coming weekend
• And then collect the forms once they are completed 
• Please email framresidents@gmail.com to discover more and commit to helping out.
  
   

The more volunteers we have, the easier and quicker the task.....
Continue to help us make a difference.

The Neighbourhood Plan Will Affect YOU

The Neighbourhood Plan will mean that:

• WE WILL HAVE A CO-ORDINATED AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTED APPROACH TO ALL PLANNING MATTERS, HOUSING LAND ALLOCATION, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE
• WE WILL ENSURE THAT THE TOWN GROWS AND DEVELOPS IN A WAY THAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE
• WE WILL RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL 10% FROM THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (C.I.L) 

The first Preliminary Mapping and Land Allocation public consultation events took place on 30 April and 1 May and it became evident that further opportunities were needed for the residents of Framlingham to consider the possibilities for the future development in the town.

We can't stress enough how important this public consultation is for the future of the town. This is your chance to view and comment on sites the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee have identified as being suitable for development before the plan is drafted. So please encourage friends and neighbours to study the Preliminary Mapping and Land Allocation, and fill in the feedback forms.

If we don’t speak now it will be too late.

Further Sessions planned 
Town Council Meeting Room,10 Riverside,Framlingham
A member of the Steering Team will be available at each session on the following dates to answer any questions regarding the Preliminary Mapping and Land Allocation. 
The deadline for responses via the feedback form is Thursday 11 June.

Friday 22 May:  6pm - 8pm 

Tuesday 26 May: 10am - 4pm
Wednesday 27 May: 10am -12 noon | 2pm - 4pm
Thursday 28 May: 10am - 8pm
Friday 29 May: 2pm - 4pm | 6pm - 8pm 
Saturday 30 May: 10am - 12 noon

Monday 1 June: 10am -12 noon | 2pm - 8pm
Tuesday 2 June: 10am - 4pm
Wednesday 3 June: 12noon - 8pm
Thursday 4 June: 10am - 4pm
Friday 5 June: 10am - 12noon | 2pm - 4pm | 6pm - 8pm

Monday 8 June: 10am - 4pm 
Tuesday 9 June: 10am - 4pm 
Wednesday 10 June: 10am - 12 noon 

Fairfield Road and Mount Pleasant APPEALS
Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon have submitted appeals against the North Area Planning Committee's decision. The documents are lodged with Planning Inspectorate waiting to be processed. Apparently the Planning Inspectorate (PI) have a backlog of up to 10 weeks and appeal details don’t appear on the PI website or notifications sent out until the appeals have been validated as procedurally correct, but SCDC have been advised by both companies that the appeals are in.

Both Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon are requesting Public Enquiries to be held in October but this date cannot be confirmed due to the backlog.

SCDC are engaging consultants to help them prepare the appeals and will ask for them to be held sequentially with the same inspector. SCDC will send out notifications of the appeals to all those who responded to the applications but won’t do this until they receive the official letter from Planning Inspectorate.
 

Atlas Fram Group Ltd, New Road Planning Application 
The planning application (ref: DC/14/2573/FUL) by Bennett Homes Ltd for 18 dwellings has been withdrawn on 14 May 2015.

Membership
And, if you have not already formally joined FRAm, you can do so by completing an application form available from the notice board in the Co-op and from the library. Alternatively you request one by emailing: framresidents@gmail.com

What we will need now is a committed show of strength!
 

Continue to help us make a difference.