Cell Block South

South Seafront Felixstowe

Many of us mourn the loss of the Herman de Stern last Sunday, but that fine building may yet bring us all we desire: a community centre for Felixstowe South.

I have examined the plans, as displayed by Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) at the public consultation at the Leisure Centre, Felixstowe on Saturday 24 to Monday 26 September, and have raised the following points for consideration, following my meeting with Cllr Ray Herring on Monday 26 September;

1.The press release for this consultation period was not released until late on Thursday evening, 22 September, which was too late for any of the newspapers and magazines to carry the story. The local radio and TV stations did not mention the consultation. That's a poor example of SCDC's stated policy of increased public consultation.

2.The full set of plans appear only to be available at SCDC offices in Woodbridge, a return journey of 60 miles for Felixstowe residents. Cllr Ray Herring said there would not be another public consultation, insisting that there had been consultations over the last two years. I appear to have missed them all.

3.This application should not be proceeded with as it is not a fresh application. The previous application made by Bloor Homes (Sudbury) Ltd was rejected on five clear grounds. This is a new application, and should not be considered as a revised scheme. To do so allows the SCDC to push through approval without sufficient local involvement. This scheme is radically different from the previous application. It is not clear how this new plan addresses the five objections. There is no statement that deals with each of these objections in turn.

4.Cllr Herring refused to reveal details of the financial contract reached by SCDC with Bloor Homes. No clear reason was given by the councillor but an unnamed official said, 'if Bloor Homes do not proceed' the Council will then be in jeopardy with a new partner.' That raises two questions:

If that contract is not the best the Council could obtain, then why are we proceeding? Surely better terms should be obtained?

Does the Freedom of Information Act not apply to SCDC? This is our land, our money that is about to be wasted. We should have a right to that information. SCDC are prepared to ignore the law that gives us that right. The only grounds they use seem to be that there may be another partner in the future. These are spurious reasons, without foundation. This is a committed partnership, and we must be told the contractual conditions. Consultation without knowing the facts is a sham.

5.The design is poorly conceived, and will not produce a scene of which we can be proud. It is the worst of architecture, with the poor architect leaned upon to squash in as many dwellings as possible. It has no imagination, appears to be constructed of poor materials (although the full specification has not been made available), and will remain a blot on the landscape for too many years. Surely no architect will willingly admit to have conceived such a dreadful set of buildings.
This scheme could have been a delight, it could have been used as an example of what can be done when an architect is given 17.5 acres of land – a rare event. Instead we have tired design, that will look tawdry within months of being built.

6.No details are available of what is included, but we are promised that £2.4 million of amenity provision will be provided by the Council. We need to know exactly what is included. From the plans there is nothing like that sum being spent. The few play area toys, the water feature and the landscaping cannot amount to £2.4 million. The previous scheme added service provision as part of the amenity, which was clearly misleading.

7.The new homes do not have any private space, apart from car parking (and then just one space per household). If, as Cllr Herring insists, these homes are to be used by incoming workers to the new dock development they will have children, many of whom will not be safely allowed to play in the open space without supervision. They will not have any open space of their own to enjoy, nor will their parents.

8.The value of the five acres of prime residential land is important. We need to know what value is placed upon that land, and that SCDC are to be guaranteed to obtain that sum before work commences, with interest payments accruing thereafter.
9.The vague promise of profits from the scheme being granted by the developer is insufficient security to allow this to continue. Many of these schemes fail to make a realised profit,as many factors arise that are not envisaged at contract stage. Any such risk should not be taken by the taxpayers of SCDC. It is a commercial risk that should be left solely in the hands of the developer. We own the land, they want to use it – then they should pay for it.

10.No firm costings of the scheme are available, making it very difficult to make a reasoned judgement. It is estimated that 142 commercially-sold dwellings in this location will raise £42 million. The construction costs, including amenity provision, will amount to no more than £20 million. A profit of £22 million is achievable. That equation was not dismissed by Cllr Leighton when I put it to him. SCDC should be demanding at least 70% of that profit, or selling the land to the developer at market rates. The SCDC seem prepared to let it go for nothing.

11.Amenity provision mixed in with commercial development is a recipe for exploitation. The taxpayers will lose money in the end.

12.No strategic planning has been included in the scheme. Felixstowe is a resort town, and a thriving port, as well as being a reasonably-sized residential town, with attendant businesses. At only ten miles from Ipswich, served by the best road in the county it is strategically important, for for both business and leisure. This land is at the focal point of what could be a new regional resource. The surrounding developments are either of very poor quality or reaching the end of their useful lives. The resort facilities along Sea Road are of hardly inviting and need to be rejuvenated. An East Anglian in the Eden Project style, perhaps with a maritime theme, would be very possible. Once these 17.5 acres are developed this opportunity will be lost for several years.

13.The artists drawings displayed gave a very wrong impression, with incorrect dimensions that suggested there was to be far more open green space than is really the case. Proper plans should be displayed at such consultations.

14.The species mix of plants and shrubs will not withstand the maritime environment when combined with the level of human pressure envisaged. In the recent past there have been winters when the water table – of saline solution – has broken the surface on this land. The soft landscaping will not survive, and in a short period the whole area will look unattractive.

15.When questioned none of SCDC representatives had seen the proposed play equipment, all of which will be prone to vandalism. Cllr Herring insisted that there will be no vandalism, a strange statement for anyone to make the day after the Herman de Stern building on the site had been destroyed by an arson attack.

16.A water feature will create many dangers. Young children will drown in this water. It will encourage vandalism, and broken glass and other objects will pose dangers. The cost of maintenance, which Cllr Herring says will be borne by SCDC taxpayers, will be considerable. In every scheme that I've been involved in that included a water feature the maintenance cost has been too high.

17.There is no evidence to support the contention that play features of this type are required. There is a need for a proper playground, for a football-style pitch, for a skateboard park. None of these are included. The area is developing a reputation for vandalism and disruptive behaviour by young people. That is because they have nothing constructive to occupy their minds. None of this play equipment will be of any interest to teenagers. They need our encouragement and support.

18.The cycle path does not link to the European network, which supposedly runs alongside the eastern edge of this development. At present it starts nowhere, and goes nowhere, and so serves no real purpose.

19.Placing ten three-storey properties directly in front of Manor Terrace houses is a spiteful snub at these house owners, probably because they have opposed previous plans. There is no reason why these properties could not be placed in the planned car park, and the car park be moved in front of Manor Terrace. All parties would then achieve their wishes, and the plans would gain much more support. It would appear that Bloor Homes are arranging these highest value properties in this location so that everyone of the new houses has a sea view. At the same time SCDC are saying that no-one, especially Manor Terrace residents have such a right, even though it is one they have enjoyed for over 70 years. This is a change that must be made, for it will show that the Council are indeed sympathetic to the needs of local residents and not just meeting the demands of a private developer.

20.Moving the car park to the land behind the beach huts, in front of Manor Terrace, will have many advantages:

Objections from local residents will be substantially reduced.

Beach hut users will be able to park close to their amenities.

Car park users will be encouraged to walk through the new amenity area, and take advantage of its maritime theme (although that is hard to identify).

Visitors to the caravan parks nearby will be able to park more easily.

21.Housing Associations are only to receive 10% of the housing stock. Yet the government recommendation is for 30%. When asked Cllr Herring had no idea of the housing needs in Felixstowe, except for a vague suggestions that new workers at the docks will need houses. There is no evidence that should be the case.

22.The new houses are not to have any building control, of the type imposed upon the social housing, where buildings are built to last, have wide corridors, doorways, lifts for wheelchairs etc. As this is a joint development then SCDC should be insisting on such measures, particularly as available evidence suggests that these dwellings will be purchased by older people, as they have the funds required.

23.At present most dock workers, by a large percentage, choose to live outside Felixstowe. That is probably because Felixstowe is not an attractive place to live, there are few facilities, with hardly any leisure pursuits; 10% of Hamilton Road shops stand empty, 10% are used by charities, and a large percentage are used by estate agents – all with full windows advertising houses.

24.In recent times two estate agents have left the town, and most streets and roads carry advertising boards for estate agents. The real housing need is for cheap, easy to maintain, 2-3 bedroomed homes for young families, that is the need broadly classified as social housing. This development will not provide enough of such accommodation, even though it is a government requirement.

25.The Herman de Stern was purchased by SCDC for £50,000 in 1979. Since then it has been used for several purposes. At least three tenants have been given a right to buy, yet details of these agreements remain patchy and have not revealed by the Council. On Sunday 25 September 2005, the day after the plans went on display, the Herman de Stern building was the subject of an arson attack. We presume the building was insured against such a risk. We now have an opportunity to rebuild the Herman de Stern to create a much-needed community resource, that will generate income, and attract more visitors to the town.

26.The area does not have a doctor's surgery, a dentist, a pharmacy, a post office. SCDC paid for plans to be prepared to convert the Herman de Stern, to include 184-seat theatre, a bar/restaurant, meeting rooms and four apartments. There is still a real need for these facilities in the area, and with an extra 500 people living nearby there is an even greater requirement.

27.The whole of lower Felixstowe, broadly along Langer Road, is a high-flood-risk area. 39 people lost their lives in 1953, and this land will flood again. In many respects it is best that it is allowed to flood again, as it will act as a release valve for elsewhere. That means we must take proper precautions. More questions are therefore raised.

28.This Bloor Homes plan relies upon the planned improvement to sea defences, a plan for which has just been submitted by the Council.

After the new sea defences at Cobbold Point we saw the beach erode by at least 5 metres in several places. New works were required, scouring greatly increased, and in same places there was more erosion than before. It is no longer easy to get round Cobbold Point on foot.

The first stage of the sea defence plan only covers zones 2,3 and 4, from the pier west towards Languard Point. No real consideration seems to have been given to the beach from Cobbold Point west to the Pier (zone 1). That could be in serious danger, causing even greater problems if the cliff face is rendered unstable.

Given the experience of Cobbold Point shouldn't we wait to see if the coastal defence plan does actually work? If it doesn't then this new development will pose additional unforeseen problems.

29.Increasing the concrete coverage in a high-risk flood area brings great danger, not just to the residents of the new houses but to everyone living in lower Felixstowe. We should not take that risk, not when there are far safer and more desirable uses for that land.

30.Eighteen years ago SCDC removed 600 beach huts from this site. As a result we have lost an estimated £5.4 million in lost rental revenue, let alone the loss to the town business community in lost custom. In addition we have lost the revenue from letting the Herman de Stern, from which all tenants were evicted five years ago. That has been a criminal waste of taxpayers money. In many other countries local councillors and officials responsible for such a debacle would be brought to account.
It is tempting to continue, but enough points have been discussed to show that this is a poor value scheme that does nothing to assist the people of Felixstowe, the residents of Suffolk Coastal District, Suffolk County or East Anglia. It is a waste of invaluable land that could be used to bring considerable income and prestige to the region. The Olympics in 2012 could be used to develop this land as a resource we could all enjoy.

I wholeheartedly urge that a public inquiry be held. It is clear that SCDC are going to force through this hare-brained scheme without allowing any further public discussion. This is a strategic regional resource. It must not be squandered by a Council intent of satisfying the greed of a property developer, who has no association with the town.

I enjoyed a herring for tea last night.