Update: The district planning committee voted unanimously to give permission, and said some very complimentary things about the Jetty Lane plans and intentions. We couldn’t be better pleased! This is another real vote of confidence in the project
The vital planning meeting for Woodbridge ‘s proposed Jetty Lane Community Youth and Arts Centre is being held tomorrow, Thursday 21 February, at Suffolk Coastal’s new headquarters in Riduna Park. It’s a public meeting – do come and support us and the community of Woodbridge. We’re expecting the discussion to take place early – around 9am – so please get there before 9.
When the Community Youth Centre was pulled down in 2017, many groups were forced to move out of Woodbridge simply because there was nowhere to house them. The Jetty Lane site (Jetty Lane being the original name of The Avenue) – has been used uninterruptedly for Youth and Community clubs and meetings since 1949 : that’s SEVENTY years! It is now the last site suitable for such a centre in Woodbridge.
The County Council have such faith in the need for this project to have offered a 125y lease on the land. We are really hoping that the district council will have similar faith!
It is clear that Jetty Lane has a great deal of community support. However, despite a number of community consultations (still ongoing) a few residents still have personal concerns about this project. This is understandable. As chair of Jetty Lane I would like to assure them that the cic – soon to be a charity – will work with them at all times to endeavour to allay their concerns . After all, this site has been occupied for the same purposes for seventy years. It’s not exactly new.
Slightly more startling however, are the two letters of objection sent to the Planning department from a central London-based planning consultancy on behalf of unnamed and unknown ‘local interests’. We do not know whether these ‘local interests’ are people, or companies, or even people who are associated with companies. What, do you think, is their agenda? Is it to benefit the community of Woodbridge?
These are the comments I sent to SCDC on the First Draft of Suffolk Coastal’s Local Plan, in my role as County Councillor for Woodbridge. (My comments are therefore specifically restricted to Woodbridge):
I fully endorse the District’s statement that Woodbridge “is an important retail and employment centre and provides a variety of leisure, medical, education and transport facilities which serve the surrounding rural settlements. The town is also popular with visitors and tourists who wish to experience the historic town, cultural attractions, riverside character and access to the rest of the District.”
I add my concerns to those articulated in the Plan as to the likely impact of potential Ipswich Northern Bypass routes on the town, and in particular, to possible subsequent development west of the A12. I support very strongly the Local Plan’s intention to continue a policy of restricting westward development ( eg to the western side of the A12) “until such time as further detail and justification is available“.
I note the Plan’s aspiration that “ in order to maintain the vitality of Woodbridge, the need to improve links between the different parts of the town, namely the riverside, Thoroughfare and Market Hill will be supported by the Council over the plan period. The riverside and town centre complement one another and serve residents, businesses, visitors and tourists.” I would hope this will mean that the Council will do everything within its power – that is, both financially, and strategically – to support the Woodbridge 20mph and associated calming plan, approved by SCC in February 2017 http://carolinepage.blog.suffolk.libdems.org/20mph-woodbridge/
I note the Plan refers (at 12.218) to the fact that the built up area of Woodbridge is “constrained”, meaning development opportunities are limited. However I question the wording later on in the paragraph. While technically true that ”development opportunities have come forward on previously developed land through conversions and reuse which has maintained a level of housing delivery in the town, or within the parishes of Martlesham and Melton which adjoin Woodbridge which has provided housing opportunities in the area,” this paragraph does not adequately describe the limitations of the developments within Woodbridge which seem to be exclusively aimed at the ‘affluent purchaser’ market, rather than the balanced tenure referred to at the beginning of this Local Plan.
I therefore welcome the aspirations enshrined in section 5.2 of the Plan (“the Local Plan seeks to diversify the supply of housing through delivering a range of different sizes of sites in a variety of locations, and ensuring that the mix of housing types and tenures reflects the needs of the District’s population. The East Suffolk Housing Strategy also sets out the ways in which the Council will continue to pursue a range of models for housing delivery, including through working with Housing Associations and providing support to community led housing initiatives”) and would urge the Council to ensure that this aspiration becomes a special priority for Woodbridge, because of past failures.
This would ensure that Woodbridge remains a viable and fully functioning town by ensuring a sustainable demographic mix ( by social, age-group, and employment background and status) , rather than one comprising the largely affluent and elderly who can afford the current high average house price of £408,000.
This means that the priorities listed in 12.219 need to be more fully articulated to ensure that the Plan’s wording “Any residential development that comes forward over the plan period will be expected to target the ageing population and provide lower cost housing opportunities to meet locally generated needs” is fully disambiguated:
Yes, housing needs to be provided for the elderly residents of Woodbridge wishing to downsize. It does not need to be built with the purpose of encouraging additional older people to move into the area. Instead, a concentrated effort needs to be made to ensure that young people, disabled people, key workers, (even poor people) are not forced to move out of the area!
As a county councillor I thoroughly endorse the retention, maintenance and protection of all parks, open spaces and playing fields within the Woodbridge area. I totally agree that these areas provide recreational opportunities and promote healthy communities and well-being and it is essential they are retained and protected over the plan period to support the needs of the existing and future communities.
I acknowledge and endorse Section 12.221’s statement “The Local Plan acknowledges the Air Quality Management Area and seeks to direct new development away from this area.” I find it hard to square this with the immediately succeeding statement: “Where redevelopment opportunities come forward over the plan period, the impact of these on the Air Quality Management Area will need to be considered alongside other material planning considerations.” How can this be? If one directs new development away from this sensitive area (where no Air Quality solution has been found since the problem was first identified), then what other material planning considerations can there be? The air quality is inadequate – no mitigation has been successful, and further development could only exacerbate the situation.
The whole paragraph 12.222 is unclear. You say, “The 2001 Local Plan had a number of area specific policies which related to areas of Woodbridge. A number of these are still extant policies (Policies AP236, AP249, AP250, and AP252) but over time Woodbridge has evolved and the objectives of the policies are, in some circumstances no longer relevant. However the principles of riverside character which seek to protect the area from inappropriate development whilst seeking opportunities to enhance the character of the area are to be retained within this plan period. Proposals in riverside locations however, need to be balanced against the principles of visitor management of the Deben Estuary, as outlined in the Deben Estuary Plan, and the Suffolk Coastal Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy,” This is a distinctly woolly sentiment, lacking any clear focus or definition. What does “Proposals in riverside locations however, need to be balanced against the principles of visitor management” mean? Disambiguation of this entire paragraph is needed.
Looking overall at the draft strategy for Woodbridge (below*) I am specifically concerned that this Strategy for Woodbridge at no point acknowledges the inbalance of housing type within our town and the consequent demographic shift noticeable even over the last two decades.
I reiterate what I have said above. I welcome the aspirations enshrined in section 5.2 of this draft plan (“the Local Plan seeks to diversify the supply of housing through delivering a range of different sizes of sites in a variety of locations, and ensuring that the mix of housing types and tenures reflects the needs of the District’s population. The East Suffolk Housing Strategy also sets out the ways in which the Council will continue to pursue a range of models for housing delivery, including through working with Housing Associations and providing support to community led housing initiatives”) and regret that these aspirations are not currently followed through in the draft strategy for Woodbridge.I would urge the Council to ensure that these aspirations become a special priority for Woodbridge, because of past failures.
Liberal Democrat County Councillor for Woodbridge
* Policy SCLP12.28: Strategy for Woodbridge
The strategy for Woodbridge is to balance opportunities with the acknowledged physical and environmental constraints in order to maintain and enhance its role as a market town, an employment centre and a tourist destination.
Opportunities to enhance the historic environment and the riverside character area of the town will be supported where they bring economic and social benefits which do not have a significant adverse impact on the environmental designations.
Residential development will be expected to come forward on sites within the Settlement Boundary, consisting of infill or small scale redevelopments which make the most appropriate use of previously developed land.
The strategy, therefore is to consolidate a town that:
a) Retains the special quality of the built environment including Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and the character of the riverside and estuary;
b) Retains the A12 as a firm edge to the town;
c) Enhances the links between the town centre and the riverside;
d) Enhances the town centre through the retention of national and independent shopping opportunities;
e) Actively manages traffic and visitors to the town and surrounding areas through the use of appropriate traffic management, suitable car parking and signage;
f) Promotes improvements to air quality; and
g) Supports the further provision of open space and recreational facilities to meet the needs of the town over the plan period
A massive loss of data. Extraordinary secrecy. Accusations of party politicking from a majority party that has for years overseen the debacle and is now busy evading the issue.
What on earth is going on in Woodbridge?
Firstly, why the party politics? I’m sure most of Woodbridge residents would totally support a non-political town council. Indeed, one wonders why Woodbridge Town Council – alone amongst its peers- wants to have a party-political structure at this level of local government. There is no equivalent in any similar town or parish for miles.
(This is exactly why the LibDems and Greens have stood down in the current Woodbridge Kyson by-election to offer the chance of better political balance to the town!)
Woodbridge Town Council are now admitting to losing ‘some data’ ? Some emails (they contend with increasing desperation) were deleted “possibly inadvertently or as a result of implementing the new GDPR legislation. ” The question is, how many emails is ‘some data’? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Astonishingly, the number seems to be closer to the last than the first.
Woodbridge Town Council add that “data was retrieved” – but don’t specify what data, and how much? Tens of emails? Astonishingly it might not even be as much as this!
If – instead of blandly asserting might is right – Woodbridge Town Council wants to demonstrate the transparency required by the 7 Nolan Principles of Public Life – which aren’t optional, by the way -it needs to man up and admit the scale of the current problem rather than going “into camera” (eg secretly) in order to hide the facts from the people Woodbridge Town Council were elected to represent.
But we, the people of Woodbridge, need to know.
We need to know on whose behalf these emails were written. Can Woodbridge Town Council confirm how many years of emails have been deleted? Can they tell us what these emails contained?
If they can’t do this, Woodbridge Town Council cannot assert they were unimportant.
The facts are simple- when it comes to data, it seems Woodbridge Town Council have no clear idea what it is they have lost and they are showing all the signs of a rabbit in the headlights. The current problem is not a matter of a few defective park signs. It is significant data loss: the deletion of many, many, many official emails.
Woodbridge Town Council asserts there is no problem because they say they can prove “no public money was lost”. But they are unable to produce the full audit trail behind their decisionmaking. All jobs over a certain sum need comparative quotes to ensure best value. Do we have these?
It seems Woodbridge Town Council would have grave difficulty in proving in the required detail how years of decisions, financial and otherwise, were made. I am very glad that they are taking a proactive attitude going forward, but we, the town, need a full description of all the horses they lost before they finally got around to buying a bolt for the stable door.
Additionally one must wonder whether Woodbridge Town Council has any idea of what commitments may have been made on behalf of its electors in the deleted emails? Wouldn’t it be better to face this possibility head on?
Finally why on earth did Woodbridge Town Council cover up this catastrophe by refusing to make it public to the very people it concerns! Their own personal embarrassment (for overseeing such a mess) is no answer. This is not Woodbridge Town Council’s money, data. It is OUR money, OUR data. The emails were on OUR behalf.
As a county councillor known for my impartial representation of all the people of the town regardless of party, creed, colour, age, gender and background I am deeply shocked and disappointed with the way so many of our town councillors are handling this embarrassing situation.
Caroline Page, LibDem County Councillor for Woodbridge