There's a comment that suggests that Public Choice Theory might be interesting to consider. That's a challenge for an LSE graduate, as public choice in a democracy presents a minefield, peopled by ignorance and chronic self-interest.
Just occasionally the public (whoever they may be) become so stretched and disenchanted by those in government that they rebel, or at least protest. This is often seen as little more than self-interest, and such cynicism presently holds sway, which is unfortunate.
At times there may be those who do consider the wider picture, perhaps even the public good, and who may have no other interest.
With Bloor Homes we have a clear statement of intent. They want to make a profit. They have found a willing partner, Suffolk Coastal District Council, who have land (held in trust for the people) and a deal of embarrassment.
Suffolk Coastal District Council's reasoning is less clear. Eighteen years ago they bought the Herman de Stern building, for just £50,000. Anyone would have done the same. It was abargain. A huge house, in good condition, beside the sea, with excellent transport links and a pleasant town within walking distance. Beside this fine house stood car-parking and about 600 beach huts, much-loved and well-used. It was an area full of 'happy families'.
The Council threw the beach huts off the land, creating a loss of £5.5 million in rental income, and much more in tourist spend in the area.
They threw out the tenants of the fine house, and rejected all plans to develop the house.
The day after the developer went public with their plans the building burnt down.
Cynical?
How can anyone be critical of such a council? They have clearly acted in the public good. Haven't they?
Now they want to give the land away, and to knock down the fine building, even though it is insured for £950,000 - not a bad capital gain on the original investment. Pity it is now all to be lost.
Not much public good to be found: lost rental income spread over 18 years, loss of a publicly owned building, loss of publicly owned land to a private developer in the hope (vainglorious) that profit will be shared.
That's excellent because 'public good' does imply that is hard or even impossible to produce for private profit, because the market fails to account for its large beneficial externalities.
By definition, a public good possesses two properties:
It is non-rivalrous, in that its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment.
It is also non-excludable, in that, once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access.
Public goods possess these properties absolutely and is for society as a whole, we call these 'the public' not Bloor Homes Ltd. Can someone explain the distinction to Suffolk Coastal District Council?
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Friday, December 23, 2005
Latest correspondence
Here's some of the latest emails between me and Suffolk Coastal District Council about the development by Bloor Homes of the seafront at Felixstowe, Suffolk. The latest comes first.
Dear Mr Ridley
I thank you for your prompt reply.
In your response to question 2 you state that part of the site is greenfield, part brownfield. Can a plan for these be supplied - as far as I am aware only the small part around the Martello Tower can ever have been considered brownfield, together with Herman de Stern land, although that is only a few square feet (167x250 from memory)?
Both of these brownfield portions are areas that should not be part of the development, the Herman should be rebuilt and as Colonel Lemon has pointed out the Martello Tower surrounds have a significant military history that should be preserved.
Remove those contentious areas from the parcel and what remains is all greenfield.
I note from your reply that this development is dependent upon DEFRA funding for the coastal defences.
May I wish you a relaxing holiday.
Trevor Lockwood
Philip Ridley wrote:
I have received copies of e-mails from you (and their replies) from the Leader of the Council, Ray Herring and via the South Area Development Control Officer, Paul Coffey. I have been sent them as there a number of planning issues upon which you require further clarification.
Q1- Please confirm that the planning consent granted to Bloor Homes departs from the District Plan in several distinct and important respects?
The application was considered to be a Departure from the development plan and was therefore advertised as such on site and in the press as is required by the regulations.
The Report that was recently presented to the South Area Development Control Sub Cttee clearly explains why the application was considered to be a departure. The Report can be viewed on the Council's website- the Minutes of the meeting are now available- please press the Your Council icon and follow the links through.
As a departure application , where the Council is a major landowner the application must be referred to the ODPM who has the opportunity to "Call In " the application for determination by himself.
Q2 Will you confirm that this site is a greenfield site?
PPG3 defines "brownfield" or "previously developed land" as "that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure... and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development..."
In my view , some parts of the site are brownfield and some parts are greenfield.
If you wish to view PPG3 it can be found on the odpm's website www.odpm.gov.uk/planning
Q6 Will you explain why the developer has been granted 5 years to complete this project, why was it extended beyond the normal 3 years?
The Planning and Compensation Act 2004 amended S91 of the T and CP Act 1990 by reducing the normal duration of planning permissions from 5 years to 3. However , the section allows the duration to be "such other period (whether longer or shorter) beginning with that date as the authority...may direct"
The Circular (08/2005) which accompanies the new act suggests that "the timescale should be appropriate to the size and nature of the development or works"
I considered that in this case it was one which justified a longer period. The reason for this recommendation included the following:-
It is a major development where a large number of detailed working drawings will need to be prepared
Conditions on the planning permission are likely to require a large number of details to be submitted before commencement of the development
The DEFRA announcement on funding for the coastal defence works may well mean that commencement of the development has to be delayed until funding for those works is assured.
Thanks
Philip Ridley
Head of Planning Services
From me: Mr Herring
Please note that I am sending this email to a number of interested parties, as a result I have left your reply to me so that both sides can be examined.
I am grateful for the care and consideration that you have taken in replying to my questions. It is extremely important that such information is freely available, and for the first time some of the reasoning behind your support for this housing development has become clear.
Unfortunately that's not to suggest that they are reasonable or well-considered.
1. It's right that this is now noted as a departure from the District Plan, that major fact has been omitted from any public discussion so far.
I trust now that GOEast will take more time to properly consider the application, as I understand that their time for review can be extended. This land is so important to the town of Felixstowe that proper consideration is required.
2. The £2.46 million that Bloor Homes are said to be providing needs extremely careful costing and examination, and the allocation of £100,000 is a paltry sum when the long-term costs of maintaining this amenity land are considered.
The amenity provision of the scheme is of extremely doubtful benefit to the town, consisting of a few wooden toys, likely to be vandalised, a reduction of the available car parking and the revamping of a toilet block. The landscaping is unlikely to survive the ravages of constant public usage as the species selected are maritime plants, not used to grazing or trampling.
The town does need amenities. A skateboard park in this location would be ideal. I understand that such a park in Calais, France has been widely acclaimed.
The amenity should not be provided by this developer, no substantive gain will accrue as a result, and costs of other elements of the design may well be agglomerated as a result. Far better that the developer pays the market price for the land, and SCDC, after proper consultation with townsfolk uses that money to provide needed facilities, not the poor scheme presently proposed.
3. Noted. I await that report with interest. It may be noted that a barrister seems a strange advisor for an amenity provision project.
4. I find the following statement inexplicable: The particular circumstances that remain applicable to this development, namely the overall economic considerations and the purpose of the residential element, i.e. to enable leisure development to take place, justify this proportion. Any increase in the number of affordable units would be likely to result in a consequential increase in the overall number of units on the site.
The housing density of this project is already greater than that recommended by Mr Prescott for inner-city developments. How will you add more? The government recommendation is for 30% affordable housing in private housing projects, let alone projects on land publicly owned. You still fail to answer my question: what is the housing need in Felixstowe?
5. By every definition of which I am aware this is a Greenfield site. It has never previously been developed. I await Head of Planning's definition with interest.
6. That decision is also awaited.
7. The use of the Martello Tower must include the previous military use, of which that four acres is a part. The semi-circular residential arc will be 10 metres high, yet only 4-5 metres away from the Martello Tower, itself nearly 10 metres high. Parts of the housing development will never see the sun.
8. A decision to demolish the Herman has obviously been made, yet that may not be the best solution. One of your own councillors, Doreen Savage, has pointed to the need for a small theatre in the town. Plans have already been drawn to use the Herman as a theatre, and restoration of an existing building is often easier and cheaper than new build.
The excuse given for refusing professionals access to the site is weak and not worthy of further comment.
9. Given the choice between education provision and the unwanted leisure scheme proposed I suggest that hardly anyone in Felixstowe will back your proposal. If the land is sold to Bloor Homes then the Education Department should have first call upon those funds. What is more important? The education of our future generations or the profit to be made by Bloor Homes? I have conservatively estimated that this development will make, at least, £20 million profit for Bloor Homes. So far nobody has contested that figure.
You are saying that the residents of Felixstowe must pay for the education of the new occupants of this development so that the developer can walk away with our land and our money. Where's the 'best-value' in that?
10. You talk of a self-financing barter arrangement. I call that a fudge. If this scheme is so attractive to the town why not obtain estimates (preferably from local contractors) to underatke the leisure facilities envisaged? Put the barter advantage to the test. At the same time present the economic case for selling this land for residential development. How much would Bloor Homes expect to pay for similar land, with sea views, good transport links, schools and jobs nearby, with easy access to a thriving town? How much money will we then make?
Barter only works if the contract is between equal partners. You have already shown extremely weak bargaining skills in allowing yourself to be placed in this position.
There is still time to withdraw. The town will thank you for it. Put the skateboard on the land, landscape and improve with 700 car parking spaces (the number there at present) and allow the beach huts to return and the amenity value of this area will soar, at minimal cost, and without this boringly uninspired Cell Block South development.
Trevor Lockwood
Ray Herring wrote:
Mr Lockwood
I have pulled a few strings for you and please find below my response to your email of the 17th December.
1. . “the planning consent granted to Bloor Homes departs from the District Plan in several distinct and important respects?”. The matter of the planning processes adopted by the Council and used by the regulatory South Area Development Control Sub-Committee is something that should be taken up with the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him. I should be grateful if you would note that the planning processes used to determine the planning application are outwith the control of the applicant (J S Bloor [Sudbury] Ltd) and, furthermore, the Cabinet Councillors played no part in the determination process. However, I note that the Report made to the Development Control Sub-Committee by the Head of Planning Services included the comment “On registration of the application it was considered that the application did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and it was advertised on site and in the press as a “departure” application.”
2. “Has the developer given any money for maintenance?” The leisure development is enabled by the residential development. The housing will enable the creation of leisure development, car parks and services. J S Bloor will be funding the cost of developing the public facilities (£2,466,000). The Bloor commitment will include provision for a future maintenance fund. The initial financial element to this fund will be at least £100,000 (see the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 July 2005).
3. “Some months ago you said that a senior barrister had examined the contract and confirmed that it gave good value. Can I see a copy of that barrister's report to SCDC?” This is taken to be a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act. It will be answered within the statutory 20 working days of the submission of the request (taken to be the 17 December 2005 date of your initial email).
4. “How does the 10% allocation [of affordable housing] match the present housing demands in the area?” The 16 affordable housing dwellings included are designed as an integral part of the scheme, indistinguishable from the remainder of the dwellings. They represent 10% of the residential development. Planning Policy AP38 does not specify the proportion of affordable houses that should be provided. The particular circumstances that remain applicable to this development, namely the overall economic considerations and the purpose of the residential element, i.e. to enable leisure development to take place, justify this proportion. Any increase in the number of affordable units would be likely to result in a consequential increase in the overall number of units on the site. In any event, 65% of the units on the scheme are 2 bedroom units which may well appeal to first time buyers.
5. “Will you confirm that this is a greenfield site?” This is a matter that should be referred to the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him. However, I take the view that, as the site has been used in the past for a variety of purposes, and that certain parts of it continue to be used on a temporary basis, this is clearly a re-development. Therefore I believe that it cannot be described as “Greenfield” i.e. previously undeveloped.
6. “Will you explain why the developer has been granted five years to complete this project, why was it extended beyond the normal three years?” This is a matter that you should take up with the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him.
7. “At no point has any consideration been given to the historical importance of this site, particularly to the four acre area around the Martello Tower. English Heritage have asked you to consider this matter, but it has been ignored. Can you explain why no answer has ever been given to Felixstowe residents?” In accordance with Planning Policy the development is focused on the Martello Tower. The design concept of the residential development around the tower is that of a semi-circular terrace. This is considered to best reflect the form and character of the Tower and draw attention to it in a way that a square or grid-iron pattern could not.
Throughout the current project to date both the Council and Bloor have endeavoured to maintain ongoing and active liaison, contact and consultation with the various officers of English Heritage. Officers have carefully explained to English Heritage that the proposed development represents the most positive options for the facilitation of expenditure to secure the future good condition and positive use of the tower. The District Council has commissioned a characterisation study (of the South Seafront Land which reflects the setting of the Martello Tower), together with a preferred use study, and a condition survey - all as recommended by English Heritage.
Bloors has sought (and obtained) separate approval for the removal of the garages adjacent to the tower and the digging of a trial trench to research the English Heritage Inspector’s assumptions on the extent and construction of the moat.
A Conservation Architects is to research the Martello Tower structure and dampness etc problems and produce a scheme for immediate repairs that will achieve Scheduled Ancient Monument (SMC) consent.
This repair and refurbishment work should result in a position in which the tower is sound and secure. It should also enable the Council to move on toward bringing Martello Tower ‘P’ into public use if at all possible. Once again this will be in close liaison with English Heritage.
The characterisation study referred to above concludes that the vacant areas around the tower were not intended to be open space but an integral part of the urban fabric. The author is in no doubt that there is scope on site for significant new residential or mixed development. Had Colonel Tomline's original plans for the area been realised, development would have come closer to the tower than is currently the case.
The re-development proposals incorporate an open area around the Tower, giving it a much-improved setting. The former tower moat will be recreated, and the Observer Corps bunker mound will be incorporated and preserved as recommended by English Heritage. Genuine historic features, including fences and marker posts, will be retained wherever practical.
The Martello Tower was built for a specific and obsolete purpose – but the development proposals ensure that it is the tower that provides the inspiration for much of the development proposed in the current planning application. It is the Tower that continues to provide, through the location of Coastwatch, the visible usefulness that demonstrates logical and continuous evolution of the tower’s original defensive role.
The Council that there should be a programme of archaeological work. In fact a substantial sum has been allowed for this by Bloor – in direct liaison with the County Archaeologist.
However, the importance and historic validity of what English Heritage deem to be “the original military compound” is, we believe, one of a number of overstatements made by English Heritage. The square enclosure surrounding the tower is not included in the area of land designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The extent of the Ancient Monument designated site is restricted to a limited circle around the tower itself.
8. “The Herman de Stern could now be rebuilt, using insurance funds, to create a much-needed local amenity. Why have you refused a noted quantity surveyor permission to examine the building? What will you do with the money given to you by the insurers? There's £950,000 in a pot – what are you going to do with that money for the benefit of Felixstowe?” Discussions by Officers with the Council’s Insurance Company are still ongoing and are not likely to be concluded for several weeks. The Council is employing its own independent loss assessors to assist with the relevant insurance claim. What is clear is that the Council will be reimbursed for its costs in excess of normal demolition - to take account of the contamination of the building by asbestos etc. The insurance position means that there is unlikely to be a net cash benefit to the Council – i.e. no cash pot as you describe it. There are significant health and safety concerns that mitigate against the admission to the site of parties not directly acting for the Council or its insurers.
9. “If money [for education authority] is only to be forthcoming in the final phase, and is only a profit share with no guarantee of any return, how will that work? If a child from this estate attends the local school before phase four is completed will they be asked for a share of the planning gain? Can you describe the relationship between SCDC and Suffolk County Council, and all the other authorities who will gain from this development? Has SCC agreed to subsidise SCDC in this speculative venture?” The County Council, as education authority, has requested contributions toward additional school places. The education authority accepts that there may be circumstances where, for other reasons, a development will not generate such contributions. As I have said the residential development is, first and foremost, to fund the leisure development (including the works of repair and refurbishment to the Martello Tower). There is no spare allocation for other purposes – unless and until we come to a further profit share situation. The Development Control Sub-Committee determined that the first call on such profit share should be for change of use of the Martello Tower. Any surplus profit share is to be used to fund school places.
10. “How much money is Felixstowe, as a town, going to make from this scheme? How certain can you be that we will make a proper profit from the loss of some of the most important amenity land we have in the town?” The Council intends to fund the provision of public facilities by disposal of an asset – land on which the partner will build private sector housing, including 10% affordable/ social housing units. In return the Council will not receive a simple cash payment, but chiefly the construction (at the developer’s expense) of recreational and other public facilities including some that will occupy land and property not currently in the Council’s ownership. The Council’s development partner will fund the major element of the purchase of the additional land. Subject to meeting the requirements of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 the approach is, in effect, a barter transaction. Thus the development is intended to be self-financing in capital terms. The leisure development is enabled and funded by the residential development. The housing will enable the creation of leisure development, car parks and services. The Council’s development partner, J S Bloor, will be funding the cost of developing the public facilities (£2,466,000).
The Council has had a careful financial evaluation of the current proposal undertaken by specialist valuers regarding property valuation and Quantity Surveyors regarding the cost/value of the public works and residential elements of the scheme. This examination demonstrated that the Council will receive the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained for the land that it would transfer from its ownership as part of the development scheme.
Subsequent to Cabinet approval of the original Section 123 Report (prepared in 2003 and applied to the original scheme proposals), Leading Counsel
assessed the Report and confirmed that the Council had taken proper advice in order to ensure that it complied with its Section 123 duty. The
current Report (specifically assessing the current re-development proposals) has been prepared using the same methodology.
Despite the clear conclusion reached by the external valuer, the Council team has negotiated with Bloor for further benefit and extra security on the Section 123
evaluation. In order to ensure, and further demonstrate that the Council is to achieve the wholly robust situation that it is aiming for for its residents and tax payers, an
“overage” agreement has been mutually accepted as a feature of the settlement to be applied to the current scheme. This will apply if and when the net income per sq.
ft. of residential development actually achieved exceeds the “threshold” assessed by the Council’s valuer as balancing the value of the public works. This will, in
effect, be a “profit share” The Council has been advised that this arrangement, building upon the assessment of the Section 123 equation arrived at by its
professional advisers, demonstrates clearly that the Council, in all circumstances, will achieve a demonstrably fair return for the land that it will dispose of under the arrangement.
I trust that the above fully answers your various questions.
Ray Herring
Leader
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Sent: 19 December 2005 11:57
To: Ray Herring; John Gummer
Cc: GO East; bruce@brucelaws.co.uk; Doreen Savage; radiosuffolk@bbc.co.uk; Malcolm Minns; Richard Cornwell
Subject: RE: South Seafront questions
Mr Herring
Don't suggest that the ballot box implies support for this scheme. This is a greenfield site - it is NOT derelict land. It could provide amenity. It could become a regional resource. You are giving it away to a private developer.
Just answer a simple question: how much money is Felixstowe, as a town, going to make from this scheme?
Profit share implies that SCDC are now property developers. You do not have the right to gamble with public resources in such a way.
Answer my simple question now, it doesn't need any delay - particularly not past the 21 day consultation period. You are playing games with public assets in a way that suggests criminal negligence.
How much money - in our bank account - are Bloor Homes paying to acquire this publicly owned land?
Trevor Lockwood
Ray Herring wrote:
Mr Lockwood
Thank you for you email. I am not sure that I can give you a full reply on all the detail in the run up to Christmas but will do so before 13th January 2006.
Whilst Felixstowe people support this development as evidenced by the Ballot Box on many occasions, I do appreciate that view is not shared by yourself. Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the majority of your rather wild and inaccurate comments and assumptions.
After some 20 years of discussions and false dawns on this derelict sea front site we now have a comprehensive leisure and housing bringing clear community benefits. Not only does the housing support the capital financing of the community leisure facilities but also assists us in meeting our various housing targets strongly promoted by Government.
The agreement with Bloors has been subject to substantial professional advice encompasses an overage (profit share) arrangement where profits from the development over and above normal profit margins are shared between the developer and the Council Taxpayer. Another benefit is that the development carries little or no financial risk to the Council.
I will reply in more detail as soon as possible.
Ray Herring
Leader
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Dear Mr Ridley
I thank you for your prompt reply.
In your response to question 2 you state that part of the site is greenfield, part brownfield. Can a plan for these be supplied - as far as I am aware only the small part around the Martello Tower can ever have been considered brownfield, together with Herman de Stern land, although that is only a few square feet (167x250 from memory)?
Both of these brownfield portions are areas that should not be part of the development, the Herman should be rebuilt and as Colonel Lemon has pointed out the Martello Tower surrounds have a significant military history that should be preserved.
Remove those contentious areas from the parcel and what remains is all greenfield.
I note from your reply that this development is dependent upon DEFRA funding for the coastal defences.
May I wish you a relaxing holiday.
Trevor Lockwood
Philip Ridley
I have received copies of e-mails from you (and their replies) from the Leader of the Council, Ray Herring and via the South Area Development Control Officer, Paul Coffey. I have been sent them as there a number of planning issues upon which you require further clarification.
Q1- Please confirm that the planning consent granted to Bloor Homes departs from the District Plan in several distinct and important respects?
The application was considered to be a Departure from the development plan and was therefore advertised as such on site and in the press as is required by the regulations.
The Report that was recently presented to the South Area Development Control Sub Cttee clearly explains why the application was considered to be a departure. The Report can be viewed on the Council's website- the Minutes of the meeting are now available- please press the Your Council icon and follow the links through.
As a departure application , where the Council is a major landowner the application must be referred to the ODPM who has the opportunity to "Call In " the application for determination by himself.
Q2 Will you confirm that this site is a greenfield site?
PPG3 defines "brownfield" or "previously developed land" as "that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure... and associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition covers the curtilage of the development..."
In my view , some parts of the site are brownfield and some parts are greenfield.
If you wish to view PPG3 it can be found on the odpm's website www.odpm.gov.uk/planning
Q6 Will you explain why the developer has been granted 5 years to complete this project, why was it extended beyond the normal 3 years?
The Planning and Compensation Act 2004 amended S91 of the T and CP Act 1990 by reducing the normal duration of planning permissions from 5 years to 3. However , the section allows the duration to be "such other period (whether longer or shorter) beginning with that date as the authority...may direct"
The Circular (08/2005) which accompanies the new act suggests that "the timescale should be appropriate to the size and nature of the development or works"
I considered that in this case it was one which justified a longer period. The reason for this recommendation included the following:-
It is a major development where a large number of detailed working drawings will need to be prepared
Conditions on the planning permission are likely to require a large number of details to be submitted before commencement of the development
The DEFRA announcement on funding for the coastal defence works may well mean that commencement of the development has to be delayed until funding for those works is assured.
Thanks
Philip Ridley
Head of Planning Services
From me: Mr Herring
Please note that I am sending this email to a number of interested parties, as a result I have left your reply to me so that both sides can be examined.
I am grateful for the care and consideration that you have taken in replying to my questions. It is extremely important that such information is freely available, and for the first time some of the reasoning behind your support for this housing development has become clear.
Unfortunately that's not to suggest that they are reasonable or well-considered.
1. It's right that this is now noted as a departure from the District Plan, that major fact has been omitted from any public discussion so far.
I trust now that GOEast will take more time to properly consider the application, as I understand that their time for review can be extended. This land is so important to the town of Felixstowe that proper consideration is required.
2. The £2.46 million that Bloor Homes are said to be providing needs extremely careful costing and examination, and the allocation of £100,000 is a paltry sum when the long-term costs of maintaining this amenity land are considered.
The amenity provision of the scheme is of extremely doubtful benefit to the town, consisting of a few wooden toys, likely to be vandalised, a reduction of the available car parking and the revamping of a toilet block. The landscaping is unlikely to survive the ravages of constant public usage as the species selected are maritime plants, not used to grazing or trampling.
The town does need amenities. A skateboard park in this location would be ideal. I understand that such a park in Calais, France has been widely acclaimed.
The amenity should not be provided by this developer, no substantive gain will accrue as a result, and costs of other elements of the design may well be agglomerated as a result. Far better that the developer pays the market price for the land, and SCDC, after proper consultation with townsfolk uses that money to provide needed facilities, not the poor scheme presently proposed.
3. Noted. I await that report with interest. It may be noted that a barrister seems a strange advisor for an amenity provision project.
4. I find the following statement inexplicable: The particular circumstances that remain applicable to this development, namely the overall economic considerations and the purpose of the residential element, i.e. to enable leisure development to take place, justify this proportion. Any increase in the number of affordable units would be likely to result in a consequential increase in the overall number of units on the site.
The housing density of this project is already greater than that recommended by Mr Prescott for inner-city developments. How will you add more? The government recommendation is for 30% affordable housing in private housing projects, let alone projects on land publicly owned. You still fail to answer my question: what is the housing need in Felixstowe?
5. By every definition of which I am aware this is a Greenfield site. It has never previously been developed. I await Head of Planning's definition with interest.
6. That decision is also awaited.
7. The use of the Martello Tower must include the previous military use, of which that four acres is a part. The semi-circular residential arc will be 10 metres high, yet only 4-5 metres away from the Martello Tower, itself nearly 10 metres high. Parts of the housing development will never see the sun.
8. A decision to demolish the Herman has obviously been made, yet that may not be the best solution. One of your own councillors, Doreen Savage, has pointed to the need for a small theatre in the town. Plans have already been drawn to use the Herman as a theatre, and restoration of an existing building is often easier and cheaper than new build.
The excuse given for refusing professionals access to the site is weak and not worthy of further comment.
9. Given the choice between education provision and the unwanted leisure scheme proposed I suggest that hardly anyone in Felixstowe will back your proposal. If the land is sold to Bloor Homes then the Education Department should have first call upon those funds. What is more important? The education of our future generations or the profit to be made by Bloor Homes? I have conservatively estimated that this development will make, at least, £20 million profit for Bloor Homes. So far nobody has contested that figure.
You are saying that the residents of Felixstowe must pay for the education of the new occupants of this development so that the developer can walk away with our land and our money. Where's the 'best-value' in that?
10. You talk of a self-financing barter arrangement. I call that a fudge. If this scheme is so attractive to the town why not obtain estimates (preferably from local contractors) to underatke the leisure facilities envisaged? Put the barter advantage to the test. At the same time present the economic case for selling this land for residential development. How much would Bloor Homes expect to pay for similar land, with sea views, good transport links, schools and jobs nearby, with easy access to a thriving town? How much money will we then make?
Barter only works if the contract is between equal partners. You have already shown extremely weak bargaining skills in allowing yourself to be placed in this position.
There is still time to withdraw. The town will thank you for it. Put the skateboard on the land, landscape and improve with 700 car parking spaces (the number there at present) and allow the beach huts to return and the amenity value of this area will soar, at minimal cost, and without this boringly uninspired Cell Block South development.
Trevor Lockwood
Ray Herring
Mr Lockwood
I have pulled a few strings for you and please find below my response to your email of the 17th December.
1. . “the planning consent granted to Bloor Homes departs from the District Plan in several distinct and important respects?”. The matter of the planning processes adopted by the Council and used by the regulatory South Area Development Control Sub-Committee is something that should be taken up with the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him. I should be grateful if you would note that the planning processes used to determine the planning application are outwith the control of the applicant (J S Bloor [Sudbury] Ltd) and, furthermore, the Cabinet Councillors played no part in the determination process. However, I note that the Report made to the Development Control Sub-Committee by the Head of Planning Services included the comment “On registration of the application it was considered that the application did not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and it was advertised on site and in the press as a “departure” application.”
2. “Has the developer given any money for maintenance?” The leisure development is enabled by the residential development. The housing will enable the creation of leisure development, car parks and services. J S Bloor will be funding the cost of developing the public facilities (£2,466,000). The Bloor commitment will include provision for a future maintenance fund. The initial financial element to this fund will be at least £100,000 (see the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held on 19 July 2005).
3. “Some months ago you said that a senior barrister had examined the contract and confirmed that it gave good value. Can I see a copy of that barrister's report to SCDC?” This is taken to be a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act. It will be answered within the statutory 20 working days of the submission of the request (taken to be the 17 December 2005 date of your initial email).
4. “How does the 10% allocation [of affordable housing] match the present housing demands in the area?” The 16 affordable housing dwellings included are designed as an integral part of the scheme, indistinguishable from the remainder of the dwellings. They represent 10% of the residential development. Planning Policy AP38 does not specify the proportion of affordable houses that should be provided. The particular circumstances that remain applicable to this development, namely the overall economic considerations and the purpose of the residential element, i.e. to enable leisure development to take place, justify this proportion. Any increase in the number of affordable units would be likely to result in a consequential increase in the overall number of units on the site. In any event, 65% of the units on the scheme are 2 bedroom units which may well appeal to first time buyers.
5. “Will you confirm that this is a greenfield site?” This is a matter that should be referred to the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him. However, I take the view that, as the site has been used in the past for a variety of purposes, and that certain parts of it continue to be used on a temporary basis, this is clearly a re-development. Therefore I believe that it cannot be described as “Greenfield” i.e. previously undeveloped.
6. “Will you explain why the developer has been granted five years to complete this project, why was it extended beyond the normal three years?” This is a matter that you should take up with the Head of Planning Services. I have passed your enquiry to him.
7. “At no point has any consideration been given to the historical importance of this site, particularly to the four acre area around the Martello Tower. English Heritage have asked you to consider this matter, but it has been ignored. Can you explain why no answer has ever been given to Felixstowe residents?” In accordance with Planning Policy the development is focused on the Martello Tower. The design concept of the residential development around the tower is that of a semi-circular terrace. This is considered to best reflect the form and character of the Tower and draw attention to it in a way that a square or grid-iron pattern could not.
Throughout the current project to date both the Council and Bloor have endeavoured to maintain ongoing and active liaison, contact and consultation with the various officers of English Heritage. Officers have carefully explained to English Heritage that the proposed development represents the most positive options for the facilitation of expenditure to secure the future good condition and positive use of the tower. The District Council has commissioned a characterisation study (of the South Seafront Land which reflects the setting of the Martello Tower), together with a preferred use study, and a condition survey - all as recommended by English Heritage.
Bloors has sought (and obtained) separate approval for the removal of the garages adjacent to the tower and the digging of a trial trench to research the English Heritage Inspector’s assumptions on the extent and construction of the moat.
A Conservation Architects is to research the Martello Tower structure and dampness etc problems and produce a scheme for immediate repairs that will achieve Scheduled Ancient Monument (SMC) consent.
This repair and refurbishment work should result in a position in which the tower is sound and secure. It should also enable the Council to move on toward bringing Martello Tower ‘P’ into public use if at all possible. Once again this will be in close liaison with English Heritage.
The characterisation study referred to above concludes that the vacant areas around the tower were not intended to be open space but an integral part of the urban fabric. The author is in no doubt that there is scope on site for significant new residential or mixed development. Had Colonel Tomline's original plans for the area been realised, development would have come closer to the tower than is currently the case.
The re-development proposals incorporate an open area around the Tower, giving it a much-improved setting. The former tower moat will be recreated, and the Observer Corps bunker mound will be incorporated and preserved as recommended by English Heritage. Genuine historic features, including fences and marker posts, will be retained wherever practical.
The Martello Tower was built for a specific and obsolete purpose – but the development proposals ensure that it is the tower that provides the inspiration for much of the development proposed in the current planning application. It is the Tower that continues to provide, through the location of Coastwatch, the visible usefulness that demonstrates logical and continuous evolution of the tower’s original defensive role.
The Council that there should be a programme of archaeological work. In fact a substantial sum has been allowed for this by Bloor – in direct liaison with the County Archaeologist.
However, the importance and historic validity of what English Heritage deem to be “the original military compound” is, we believe, one of a number of overstatements made by English Heritage. The square enclosure surrounding the tower is not included in the area of land designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The extent of the Ancient Monument designated site is restricted to a limited circle around the tower itself.
8. “The Herman de Stern could now be rebuilt, using insurance funds, to create a much-needed local amenity. Why have you refused a noted quantity surveyor permission to examine the building? What will you do with the money given to you by the insurers? There's £950,000 in a pot – what are you going to do with that money for the benefit of Felixstowe?” Discussions by Officers with the Council’s Insurance Company are still ongoing and are not likely to be concluded for several weeks. The Council is employing its own independent loss assessors to assist with the relevant insurance claim. What is clear is that the Council will be reimbursed for its costs in excess of normal demolition - to take account of the contamination of the building by asbestos etc. The insurance position means that there is unlikely to be a net cash benefit to the Council – i.e. no cash pot as you describe it. There are significant health and safety concerns that mitigate against the admission to the site of parties not directly acting for the Council or its insurers.
9. “If money [for education authority] is only to be forthcoming in the final phase, and is only a profit share with no guarantee of any return, how will that work? If a child from this estate attends the local school before phase four is completed will they be asked for a share of the planning gain? Can you describe the relationship between SCDC and Suffolk County Council, and all the other authorities who will gain from this development? Has SCC agreed to subsidise SCDC in this speculative venture?” The County Council, as education authority, has requested contributions toward additional school places. The education authority accepts that there may be circumstances where, for other reasons, a development will not generate such contributions. As I have said the residential development is, first and foremost, to fund the leisure development (including the works of repair and refurbishment to the Martello Tower). There is no spare allocation for other purposes – unless and until we come to a further profit share situation. The Development Control Sub-Committee determined that the first call on such profit share should be for change of use of the Martello Tower. Any surplus profit share is to be used to fund school places.
10. “How much money is Felixstowe, as a town, going to make from this scheme? How certain can you be that we will make a proper profit from the loss of some of the most important amenity land we have in the town?” The Council intends to fund the provision of public facilities by disposal of an asset – land on which the partner will build private sector housing, including 10% affordable/ social housing units. In return the Council will not receive a simple cash payment, but chiefly the construction (at the developer’s expense) of recreational and other public facilities including some that will occupy land and property not currently in the Council’s ownership. The Council’s development partner will fund the major element of the purchase of the additional land. Subject to meeting the requirements of Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 the approach is, in effect, a barter transaction. Thus the development is intended to be self-financing in capital terms. The leisure development is enabled and funded by the residential development. The housing will enable the creation of leisure development, car parks and services. The Council’s development partner, J S Bloor, will be funding the cost of developing the public facilities (£2,466,000).
The Council has had a careful financial evaluation of the current proposal undertaken by specialist valuers regarding property valuation and Quantity Surveyors regarding the cost/value of the public works and residential elements of the scheme. This examination demonstrated that the Council will receive the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained for the land that it would transfer from its ownership as part of the development scheme.
Subsequent to Cabinet approval of the original Section 123 Report (prepared in 2003 and applied to the original scheme proposals), Leading Counsel
assessed the Report and confirmed that the Council had taken proper advice in order to ensure that it complied with its Section 123 duty. The
current Report (specifically assessing the current re-development proposals) has been prepared using the same methodology.
Despite the clear conclusion reached by the external valuer, the Council team has negotiated with Bloor for further benefit and extra security on the Section 123
evaluation. In order to ensure, and further demonstrate that the Council is to achieve the wholly robust situation that it is aiming for for its residents and tax payers, an
“overage” agreement has been mutually accepted as a feature of the settlement to be applied to the current scheme. This will apply if and when the net income per sq.
ft. of residential development actually achieved exceeds the “threshold” assessed by the Council’s valuer as balancing the value of the public works. This will, in
effect, be a “profit share” The Council has been advised that this arrangement, building upon the assessment of the Section 123 equation arrived at by its
professional advisers, demonstrates clearly that the Council, in all circumstances, will achieve a demonstrably fair return for the land that it will dispose of under the arrangement.
I trust that the above fully answers your various questions.
Ray Herring
Leader
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Sent: 19 December 2005 11:57
To: Ray Herring; John Gummer
Cc: GO East; bruce@brucelaws.co.uk; Doreen Savage; radiosuffolk@bbc.co.uk; Malcolm Minns; Richard Cornwell
Subject: RE: South Seafront questions
Mr Herring
Don't suggest that the ballot box implies support for this scheme. This is a greenfield site - it is NOT derelict land. It could provide amenity. It could become a regional resource. You are giving it away to a private developer.
Just answer a simple question: how much money is Felixstowe, as a town, going to make from this scheme?
Profit share implies that SCDC are now property developers. You do not have the right to gamble with public resources in such a way.
Answer my simple question now, it doesn't need any delay - particularly not past the 21 day consultation period. You are playing games with public assets in a way that suggests criminal negligence.
How much money - in our bank account - are Bloor Homes paying to acquire this publicly owned land?
Trevor Lockwood
Ray Herring
Mr Lockwood
Thank you for you email. I am not sure that I can give you a full reply on all the detail in the run up to Christmas but will do so before 13th January 2006.
Whilst Felixstowe people support this development as evidenced by the Ballot Box on many occasions, I do appreciate that view is not shared by yourself. Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the majority of your rather wild and inaccurate comments and assumptions.
After some 20 years of discussions and false dawns on this derelict sea front site we now have a comprehensive leisure and housing bringing clear community benefits. Not only does the housing support the capital financing of the community leisure facilities but also assists us in meeting our various housing targets strongly promoted by Government.
The agreement with Bloors has been subject to substantial professional advice encompasses an overage (profit share) arrangement where profits from the development over and above normal profit margins are shared between the developer and the Council Taxpayer. Another benefit is that the development carries little or no financial risk to the Council.
I will reply in more detail as soon as possible.
Ray Herring
Leader
Suffolk Coastal District Council
Holiday Begins
Just because the rest of my immediate world seems to have come to a halt I'll do the same.
There will be more of the saga that is the South Seafront at Felixstowe - you'll be pleased to know that Mr Herring, Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council, did reply to my last Blog. It was a detailed reply, not the angry snub that I'd earlier received from another councillor.
Nobody here seems happy that it is Christmas. The religious significance has been lost. I'm not unduly concerned by that as this festival time was stolen from the pagans that preceeded christianity, but Yule is now past. Today we shall two more minutes of daylight than we did yesterday, and that must bring a smile to all our faces (except moles).
I'll probably be bored with holiday by tomorrow, but until then - enjoy yourselves.
There will be more of the saga that is the South Seafront at Felixstowe - you'll be pleased to know that Mr Herring, Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council, did reply to my last Blog. It was a detailed reply, not the angry snub that I'd earlier received from another councillor.
Nobody here seems happy that it is Christmas. The religious significance has been lost. I'm not unduly concerned by that as this festival time was stolen from the pagans that preceeded christianity, but Yule is now past. Today we shall two more minutes of daylight than we did yesterday, and that must bring a smile to all our faces (except moles).
I'll probably be bored with holiday by tomorrow, but until then - enjoy yourselves.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
South Seafront, Felixstowe
I sent an email to Mr Herring, Leader of Suffolk Coastal District Council. He's a nice chap, misguided at times, but probably has his heart in the right place. We've been arguing the toss about 17.5 acres of land, on a flood plain, by the beach at Felixstowe.
18 years ago the Council threw off 600 beach huts from this land, and ever since it has looked untidy. There was no landscaping, very little interference by anyone. At its centre stands a Martello Tower, bastion of England's defence against the French Napoleon. At one one edge was a lovely late Edwardian building, that we wanted to turn into a theatre. Instead is was burnt down the day after the Council announced its plans for the site.
Here's one of the emails I sent to Mr Herring;
Mr Herring
Are you really telling us the truth?
SCDC has granted planning permission to Bloor Homes, a private developer, to take away public amenity land at Felixstowe South seafront but in so doing the story is surely only just beginning?
I know you never answer my questions fully but can you now confirm;
That the planning consent granted to Bloor Homes departs from the District Plan in several distinct and important respects.
That it does not give Felixstowe residents any substantial gain, indeed local ratepayers will be faced with a continuously mounting bill to maintain the public open space over the coming years. Has the developer given any money for this maintenance?
Some months ago you said that a senior barrister had examined the contract and confirmed that it gave good value. Can I see a copy of that barrister's report to SCDC. It cannot be against the public interest to make that report public.
Can you confirm the housing need in Felixstowe and SCDC? This development contain just 10% affordable housing, a number that runs contrary to Mr Prescott's wishes and I suspect contrary to the local housing demands. Can I repeat that question – how does the 10% allocation match the present housing demands in the area?
This matter must now be referred to GO East, and I note that you will make the submission before the holiday season, and no doubt GO East's offices will be closed for much of the 21 days they are given to respond.
Presumably GO East will exercise their right to extend that consultation period, not just because of the holiday but as this is a greenfield site – and I note that you continue to use the word 'derelict' which is not an accurate description for land that has never had any permanent structures placed upon it, and this land has great amenity potential, which will be lost if this development goes ahead.
Will you confirm that this is a greenfield site?
Will you explain why the developer has been granted five years to complete this project, why was it extended beyond the normal three years?
At no point has any consideration been given to the historical importance of this site, particularly to the four acre area around the Martello Tower. English Heritage have asked you to consider this matter, but it has been ignored. Can you explain why no answer has ever been given to Felixstowe residents?
The Herman de Stern could now be rebuilt, using insurance funds, to create a much-needed local amenity. Why have you refused a noted quantity surveyor permission to examine the building? What will you do with the money given to you by the insurers? There's £950,000 in a pot – what are you going to do with that money for the benefit of Felixstowe?
I understand at the final stages of the contract, in phase four, there is provision for money to be given to the Education authority, as one of the gains to the community. If money is only to be forthcoming in the final phase, and is only a profit share with no guarantee of any return, how will that work? If a child from this estate attends the local school before phase four is completed will they be asked for a share of the planning gain? Can you describe the relationship between SCDC and Suffolk County Council, and all the other authorities who will gain from this development? Has SCC agreed to subsidise SCDC in this speculative venture?
Mr Herring I still cannot understand what Felixstowe will gain from giving away this land to a private developer. Has SCDC become a land developer? Does SCDC now speculate with public resources in the hope of making some gain in the future? If so, how certain can you be that we will make a proper profit from the loss of some of the most important amenity land we have in the town?
Can you please answer the questions I've raised and can I suggest you make a resolution for 2006; to tell Felixstowe residents what is really going on with Bloor Homes, because it looks as if you and the redundant council official Bruce Laws are getting far too cosy with this developer – and for no understandable public benefit.
There's more on this story at the Spa Pavilion site - click on the title of this Blog.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Attacks
I don't like personal abuse, nor can I stand unreasoned argument. It's easy enough to slag someone off, just to dismiss their statements out of hand by using words like tirade or scandalous without providing any counter arguments.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Co-op Juniors Christmas Spectacular
The trouble with reviews is that they come too late. I went to see the Co-op Juniors show at Snape Maltings last night. It was the first night, and I'm posting this review the next morning but it still makes no sense as all the tickets were sold out weeks ago. The place was packed.
Let's deal with that problem first. Snape Maltings is an internationally respected concert platform, home of the Aldeburgh Festival, supported so well by Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears. It is not really a place to stage a music and dance extravaganza. For years Co-op Juniors have held their shows at the Regent in Ipswich, which seats 1,500. Snape has just 850 seats, and with a cast of 100 children ranging in age from 5-18, all with siblings, mums, dads, grandparents, friends and relations so an audience has always been guaranteed. The move to Snape has also deprived many schoolchildren the chance to see the show, as there are no matinees.
This year the Regent has been blessed (commercially at least) by Brian Blessed, in pantomime. Nothing against Brian, although I tend not to get too close to him as he is big and very loud but our local talent has been seriously deprived in the theatre's search for filthy lucre.
It is just another example of the cavalier attitude of our local councils, who consistently take more and more of our money but do nothing much to support artistic and community activity. The Regent management are faced with the threat of closure if they don't break even.
Snape is lovely, on a summer afternoon, when a glass of Chablis can be sipped over a crab salad before listening to War Requiem - although I'm not sure when that was last performed at Snape. It's not a good place to find on a cold winter's night when you have to snake along country lanes.
The performance was marvellous. One hundred children, all of whom seemed to be oozing with talent, danced and sang all evening. The show was continuous, with wonderful small vignettes between each major song, such as a huge goose being chased by the farmer and son, brandy chasing a Christmas pud, and a huge (male) fairy trying to climb to the top of the tree. These helped to smooth along mood changes allowing the cast to change and assemble for the next spectacular.
And it was properly named. It was spectacular. The costumes, all new and sparkling, were stunning, the choreography, music and direction were all just right - it looked very effective, was always fast-moving, and stretched the children just enough. They had to think to keep up, but very few of the steps and movements were difficult. That said there was a stunning tap-dance routine by the older girls, and a wonderful acrobatic routine staged by very young performers. The final number featured a 'Tiller Girls' high-kicking dance routine that was as professional as any I have ever seen. Throughout, there was hardly a mistake, even amongst the small tots, some of whom were no more than 5 or 6 years old.
It's too difficult to pick out stars, they were all marvellous and the audience, even those not genetically connected to the cast roared and clapped their approval. A great night's entertainment, one that shows that dedicated amateurs, given the right training and equipment can produce a better show than many professionals. Alan, just go easy on the smoke tonight please.
The real plaudits must also go to the backstage staff, and that includes the army of mums and dads and others who make all the costumes. That's a labour of love, along with all the other investment in time, money, tears and energy parents have to endure to put on such a show. Whatever the effort it was all worth it. Not only was it great entertainment on the night but there will be memories that each child will treasure for years to come. I sat next to an 80-year old lady who had sung in the Ipswich Co-op choir 60 years ago, and she was full of her memories of those happy days. It will be the same for these children. It's what community is all about.
Well done everyone.
Perhaps our local councillors (many of whom no doubt enjoyed the show with free entry tickets) will take notice,and realise that life means more than saving money. This show needs to be back in Ipswich, we'd have put it on at the Spa Pavilion in Felixstowe, but the council refused to even consider our proposal to run that theatre.
New Year's Resolution - reduce the power of local councils. Let the people decide.
Let's deal with that problem first. Snape Maltings is an internationally respected concert platform, home of the Aldeburgh Festival, supported so well by Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears. It is not really a place to stage a music and dance extravaganza. For years Co-op Juniors have held their shows at the Regent in Ipswich, which seats 1,500. Snape has just 850 seats, and with a cast of 100 children ranging in age from 5-18, all with siblings, mums, dads, grandparents, friends and relations so an audience has always been guaranteed. The move to Snape has also deprived many schoolchildren the chance to see the show, as there are no matinees.
This year the Regent has been blessed (commercially at least) by Brian Blessed, in pantomime. Nothing against Brian, although I tend not to get too close to him as he is big and very loud but our local talent has been seriously deprived in the theatre's search for filthy lucre.
It is just another example of the cavalier attitude of our local councils, who consistently take more and more of our money but do nothing much to support artistic and community activity. The Regent management are faced with the threat of closure if they don't break even.
Snape is lovely, on a summer afternoon, when a glass of Chablis can be sipped over a crab salad before listening to War Requiem - although I'm not sure when that was last performed at Snape. It's not a good place to find on a cold winter's night when you have to snake along country lanes.
The performance was marvellous. One hundred children, all of whom seemed to be oozing with talent, danced and sang all evening. The show was continuous, with wonderful small vignettes between each major song, such as a huge goose being chased by the farmer and son, brandy chasing a Christmas pud, and a huge (male) fairy trying to climb to the top of the tree. These helped to smooth along mood changes allowing the cast to change and assemble for the next spectacular.
And it was properly named. It was spectacular. The costumes, all new and sparkling, were stunning, the choreography, music and direction were all just right - it looked very effective, was always fast-moving, and stretched the children just enough. They had to think to keep up, but very few of the steps and movements were difficult. That said there was a stunning tap-dance routine by the older girls, and a wonderful acrobatic routine staged by very young performers. The final number featured a 'Tiller Girls' high-kicking dance routine that was as professional as any I have ever seen. Throughout, there was hardly a mistake, even amongst the small tots, some of whom were no more than 5 or 6 years old.
It's too difficult to pick out stars, they were all marvellous and the audience, even those not genetically connected to the cast roared and clapped their approval. A great night's entertainment, one that shows that dedicated amateurs, given the right training and equipment can produce a better show than many professionals. Alan, just go easy on the smoke tonight please.
The real plaudits must also go to the backstage staff, and that includes the army of mums and dads and others who make all the costumes. That's a labour of love, along with all the other investment in time, money, tears and energy parents have to endure to put on such a show. Whatever the effort it was all worth it. Not only was it great entertainment on the night but there will be memories that each child will treasure for years to come. I sat next to an 80-year old lady who had sung in the Ipswich Co-op choir 60 years ago, and she was full of her memories of those happy days. It will be the same for these children. It's what community is all about.
Well done everyone.
Perhaps our local councillors (many of whom no doubt enjoyed the show with free entry tickets) will take notice,and realise that life means more than saving money. This show needs to be back in Ipswich, we'd have put it on at the Spa Pavilion in Felixstowe, but the council refused to even consider our proposal to run that theatre.
New Year's Resolution - reduce the power of local councils. Let the people decide.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Fire
The smoke from this fire in Hemel Hempstead has just reached us here in Felixstowe, Suffolk. It was a bright sunny day and now, within seconds, a cloud of smoke has hit the town.The cause and the full affects of this disaster have yet to be revealed, but perhaps we should ponder on just one aspect as the great and good fly away from the Montreal conference on the environment.
This was just one fuel depot, containing enough for the local area, a smudge upon the earth's surface. Unusually we see the effect of burning that fuel. Normally we let it dribble from the exhausts of our vehicles, stream away from our air-conditioning units, puffball white fluffy clouds from our power stations. Here, today, we see it concentrated as it burns away.
Here, in Felixstowe, at least 100 miles away from the scene the smoke is preventing us from going outside.
Clean air is vital to us all, and the sooner we find an alternative to burning fossils fuels the better.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Green Wellies and Wax Jackets book launch
Thursday 22 December between 12-2pm at Newton Hall Equestrian Centre, Walton, Suffolk Morag Clarke, author of Green Wellies and Wax Jackets will formally launch her new book; Green Wellies and Wax Jackets will appeal to anyone who has ever ridden a horse, attended a riding school, fallen in love with a handsome man.
Imagine Cinderella, the two ugly sisters, and a domineering stepmother transported to a stable yard, and the day-to-day running of a riding school. Add a film crew, one drop-dead-gorgeous actor, and a determined film producer, and you have the setting for Green Wellies and Wax Jackets – a hilarious romp through the world of show jumping and equestrian activities.
Lewis Trevelyan wants a competent rider to star in his latest action film and Ursula Johnson, proprietor of Hollyfield Stables and Stud, thinks she has just the girl (or girls) for him, in the shape of her two ungainly daughters, Vanessa and Caroline.
Lewis, however, has spotted another girl riding the cross-country course – a girl who intrigues him much more, and he will do anything (well, almost anything), to track her down.
Morag is the winner of the BBC Look East final entry for the online short story
She writes under both Morag Clarke, and Morag Lewis. Her novel A LOVE BETRAYED (Morag Lewis) has been published in both hardback (Publisher Robert Hale Ltd, ISBN 0709038860) and paperback large print (Linford Romance library ISBN 0708955797Buy from Amazon
Since the 1980s she has written short stories, published in women's magazines - Woman's story, True Romances, Woman's Weekly and others.
Reached the final twenty in the BBC End of Story competition last year (for Fay Weldon's short story) out of 17,000 entrants.
She reached the final three of Sunday People/Heartline books write a novel competition in 2001.
Morag has owned and ridden horses for the past twelve years, and attended shows, pony club activities etc with her daughter.
Get those teenagers out of your hair and send them to Newton Hall on Thursday 22 December - they will have a good time, or go yourself and pick up an excellent Christmas present.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Chicken
Supermarkets are irresponsible in their attitude towards food. The 'Pile it High, Sell it Cheap' philosophy of one major supermarket chain years ago was the most irresponsible publicity campaign ever, and we are all the losers. Only the supermarkets gain from such a ridiculous approach.
People buy expensive clothes, cars, take holidays in exotic places, lavish good money on TV sets and equipment, yet are content to pour rubbish down their throats. It's madness.
Today research announces that at least one third of chickens sold as food are infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. How long before we become resistant as a result?
I have an inane theory that the sperm count of our young males has drastically reduced because they drink water that contains oestrogen, mostly coming from the contraceptive pill, but also from much of the food we eat.
Buy decent food. There's a temptation to buy everything from a supermarket but you do yourself no favours. I'd like you to try a few experiments, mainly by visiting local sources of supply and cooking the food yourself rather than buying a cardboard box whose contents you throw in a microwave while you sink into the sofa to watch your favourite soap. It may seem as if it costs more, but that is unlikely, and you will feel so much better.
Start with a buying spree. Go to Jacks, the greengocers in Hamilton Road, or to the Sunday market, and buy all the fruit and vegetables you can carry. It's unlikely you'll spend much more than a tenner, perhaps £20 if you are really extravagant. Buy anything that looks attractive, but include onions, garlic and Jack sells farm-fresh eggs as well.
Then cycle down to Michael, the butcher, in High Road East. I say cycle because Felixstowe is not that big a place, and even though it has a few hills a bike remains the cheapest and fittest way of getting around. Our two local cycle shops will set you up, and ask for panniers and baskets as well, for you'll be surprised how much you can carry on a bike.
Michael is one of three butchers in the town. I recommend him because I know him, the others may be just as good. Today we want a chicken, a good-sized bird will cost about £5, perhaps a little more or less.
Take it back home, place in a baking tray, sprinkle a little salt over the skin, stuff a lemon up its rear end - and you may want to cut out the two lumps of fat that you should find just at the edges of the cut rear end, either side of the parson's nose.
Cut up an onion, it really doesn't matter how you do that, but I slice away the root end, cut a thin slice from top to bottom, along the rounded side, so that it will sit on that cut edge, making it easier to slice. Then I practice being a TV chef by slicing as quickly as I can. The trick is to hold the onion firmly with one hand, using that hand as a guide for the knife - which should be big and heavy. Slice down, rocking the knife across the cut, remembering to move your guide hand back away from the knife as you slice, or you'll get too much blood on the onion. Then roughly cut up the slices to make hundreds of small pieces.
Sprinkle the cut onion around the chicken. There's no need to tie its legs down, but do make sure that you look inside, however distatesful you find that, to check for plastic bags with gizzards etc. Remove these, and all other wrappings and strings before cooking.
Drizzle a little oil over the bird and the onions. Any good quality vegetable oil will do. Put the bird into a warm oven, about gas mark 6 - no idea what that is in new money, but probably about 180C. I'd recommend you add a handful of garlic cloves, no need to peel them, because roasted garlic is divine.
Wash some potatoes. I never peel spuds at this time of year, the real goodness is just under the skin, so why throw it away? I'll often steam some other vegetables on top of the potatoes.
The chicken will take around an hour to cook. Take it out of the oven to check, when it looks brown. Stick a knife down into the space between the leg and breast and watch carefully as the juices escape. They should run clear, keep cooking if there is any trace of blood.
A few minutes before you think the chicken is approaching perfection start cooking the potatoes. Plenty of boiling water, perhaps a little salt - although I rarely use salt in cooking, unlike so many TV chefs who seem to ladle the stuff all over each portion of food. Reduce the salt intake, it will allow the true taste of the food to emerge.
I use a simple steamer, it's just a saucepan to which I can add two more layers that have holes in the bottom to allow steam to pass through. Cook the potatoes in the water in the saucepan, add other vegetables to the steamer trays. Carrots take longer than cabbage, and spinach takes seconds. Get involved with the joy of cooking, prod, poke, look and taste as you go along. That's the way you learn when food is ready.
Once the chicken is cooked, take it out of the oven, remove from the baking pan, and let it stand on a warmed plate or carving board, in a warm place. This will relax the meat, which has contracted during cooking.
Put plates into the oven to warm. It is essential that all hot food be served on hot plates.
Add some of the vegetable water to the juices in the baking pan, which is now on the top of the stove, sitting on a low heat, while you stir enthusiastically while sipping a glass of chilled white wine or a gin and tonic. I prefer not to add flour to this sauce, but just to rely upon the juices from the chicken, the lemon, the onions and garlic and adding a little water from the cooking vegetable to make up the quantity needed.
Once the sauce is made, cut up the chicken. If you really don't know how to do that go to the library and look in any good cookbook. Place on a serving dish, pour over the sauce, add the vegetables, or put in a separate dish and serve.
Don't throw any part of that chicken away. The best bits are yet to come.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Muses
We live in a fool’s paradise. In comparison with the majority of our fellow humans it is undoubtedly paradise. We have the Internet and that implies we have sufficient money to feed and clothe ourselves. Is there any need to go on? Most of world goes without. It does not have proper medical supplies, housing or transport.
That begs an important question.
Native Americans are very worried about Alaska. We should all be very worried as Alaska is about to be plundered for oil. Why do we rely upon this noxious substance? It is destroying our planet and is irreplaceable. To burn it and allow the residues of combustion to spread all over our land is ridiculous.
When London had six million horses there were continual complaints about the pollution they caused. Motor vehicles fart all over our children all day, every day, and we make no comment. And by what right do we assume that we can use this material to service our shallow needs? Doesn’t it belong to future generations?
The Native Americans living in Alaska have respect for the elk. This animal plays an important part in their lives. It is not just a source of food but granted respect and forms an integral part of the culture of that land. A research group in Cambridge, England are now reporting that sheep are intelligent, they can recognise their friends and respond to stimuli.
At the same time we are told that 60% of the fish species in the oceans are now under threat - we are killing too many of them.
We do not own this planet but are tenants who must work to improve its resources to make live easier for future generations. Do we ever consider the overall progress of Homo sapiens? At present we are continually watering down the quality of our population. Ill-fed, badly educated people have one option; to reproduce.
Well-fed, educated people do the reverse. Italy has a falling birth-rate yet we worry about that, concerned that there will not be enough poor workers available to service our communities. Then came the Yugoslavian wars. Now refugees are flooding into Europe willing to work for a pittance.
I'm having a bit of a moan today - must have been the sardines.
We need intelligent people. With application they could create an ideal state that would enable us all to live out our lives in peace. Instead our economic systems rely upon unsound principles that demand growth, and yet more growth. This can only be obtained by continuing to exploit the masses, offering them sops on the one hand; trainers, holidays in exotic places, bigger motor vehicles that all exploit our world, and the poor people.
There is an acceptance that we are put on this earth in order to work. That is total nonsense. There is no need for any of us to do very much work. We must change our structures and examine how the rest of our world gets by. Does your cat or dog get up in the morning, grab a coffee, rush out the door, get frustrated angry and depressed from working all day? You bet they don’t. So who has civilised whom?
We allow people to starve to death or drop bombs on them. What is Afghanistan really about? Is it about gaining access to the oil reserves of middle Asia? Are we just playing the same old game?
Most religions suggest that peace is better than war. Christianity urges people to turn the other cheek against your enemy. That by showing love and compassion and tending our world we can all get by very well. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. I lived a very simple live for five years in Spain, growing most of my own food, working when needed to pay for basics that I could not produce myself. A peasant community works well until Mr Big assumes ownership of the land and charges rent.
Divide the surface area of the world by the number of people it contains. Each person can then have an entitlement and become a shareholder in this brand new company that we can call Earth. Only one small proviso; no shareholder will be allowed to hold more than one share. We’ll leave the casting vote to God.
That begs an important question.
Native Americans are very worried about Alaska. We should all be very worried as Alaska is about to be plundered for oil. Why do we rely upon this noxious substance? It is destroying our planet and is irreplaceable. To burn it and allow the residues of combustion to spread all over our land is ridiculous.
When London had six million horses there were continual complaints about the pollution they caused. Motor vehicles fart all over our children all day, every day, and we make no comment. And by what right do we assume that we can use this material to service our shallow needs? Doesn’t it belong to future generations?
The Native Americans living in Alaska have respect for the elk. This animal plays an important part in their lives. It is not just a source of food but granted respect and forms an integral part of the culture of that land. A research group in Cambridge, England are now reporting that sheep are intelligent, they can recognise their friends and respond to stimuli.
At the same time we are told that 60% of the fish species in the oceans are now under threat - we are killing too many of them.
We do not own this planet but are tenants who must work to improve its resources to make live easier for future generations. Do we ever consider the overall progress of Homo sapiens? At present we are continually watering down the quality of our population. Ill-fed, badly educated people have one option; to reproduce.
Well-fed, educated people do the reverse. Italy has a falling birth-rate yet we worry about that, concerned that there will not be enough poor workers available to service our communities. Then came the Yugoslavian wars. Now refugees are flooding into Europe willing to work for a pittance.
I'm having a bit of a moan today - must have been the sardines.
We need intelligent people. With application they could create an ideal state that would enable us all to live out our lives in peace. Instead our economic systems rely upon unsound principles that demand growth, and yet more growth. This can only be obtained by continuing to exploit the masses, offering them sops on the one hand; trainers, holidays in exotic places, bigger motor vehicles that all exploit our world, and the poor people.
There is an acceptance that we are put on this earth in order to work. That is total nonsense. There is no need for any of us to do very much work. We must change our structures and examine how the rest of our world gets by. Does your cat or dog get up in the morning, grab a coffee, rush out the door, get frustrated angry and depressed from working all day? You bet they don’t. So who has civilised whom?
We allow people to starve to death or drop bombs on them. What is Afghanistan really about? Is it about gaining access to the oil reserves of middle Asia? Are we just playing the same old game?
Most religions suggest that peace is better than war. Christianity urges people to turn the other cheek against your enemy. That by showing love and compassion and tending our world we can all get by very well. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. I lived a very simple live for five years in Spain, growing most of my own food, working when needed to pay for basics that I could not produce myself. A peasant community works well until Mr Big assumes ownership of the land and charges rent.
Divide the surface area of the world by the number of people it contains. Each person can then have an entitlement and become a shareholder in this brand new company that we can call Earth. Only one small proviso; no shareholder will be allowed to hold more than one share. We’ll leave the casting vote to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)