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