Home. Archive Map. Archive A-G. Archive H-Z.

Rejection South Seafront Scheme

Home | Search and Site Map

Refusal of Planning


Sad For Felixstowe ?

In Rejection

Even Sadder !

If a revamp goes ahead

It's a good job Felixstowe is the suntrap Council attitude makes you want to cry

It used to be pleasant to live in


Andy Smith said he was surprised and distraught and it was sad for Felixstowe that the South Seafront plan had been rejected and according to the newspaper report blamed residents for this.

Residents however think that it would be even sadder if a revamp of the scheme under an appeal goes ahead.


Town Parish: Felixstowe

Date of Application: 13 February 2004

Applicant: J S Bloor (Sudbury) Ltd

Proposal: Construction of public park including amphitheatre, play equipment, toilets, refreshment centre and associated public car parking together with 209 dwellings (in 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-storey buildings), restaurant and associated parking/access

Location: Land between Orford Road Langer Road and Manor Terrace South Seafront Felixstowe

THE SUFFOLK COASTAL DISTRICT COUNCIL as local planning authority HEREBY REFUSE TO PERMIT the development proposed by you as described above and shown on the application and plans attached thereto, for the reasons set out below:

DRAWINGS CONSIDERED: All those submitted with application.


1 The proposed development fails to provide the key recreational/leisure uses set out in policy AP202 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (First Alteration). The "maritime park" proposed does not constitute a "major open-air activity park" as sought by the policy.

2 The proposed development fails to promote the Martello Tower, a Scheduled Ancient Monument and listed building, as a feature of the site or to secure its renovation and re-use as required by policy AP202 of the Local Plan.

3 The proposed development fails to secure an open setting for the Martello Tower and is considered to be contrary to policies AP2O2 and AP7 of the local Plan and ENVI of the Suffolk Structure Plan 2001. C04/0300

4 The proposed demolition of the Herman de Stern building has not been adequately justified and is in conflict with the requirements of policy AP202 which seeks the retention of the building and its use for complementary activities such as of an arts-based nature and or catering/dining.

5 The proposed development is contrary to policy AP202 in that it does not make provision for off-site highway works necessary to reduce additional congestion likely to result from the proposals or to satisfy the highway authority's requirements in respect of visibility at access points to the site.

6 The residential elements of the scheme constitute more than "a minor part of the land uses" and, as such, are contrary to policy AP202 of the Local Plan.

In formatives

In determining this application the local planning authority has had regard to the following

Policies of the Local Plan: AP202, AP5, AP6, AP7, AP14, AP19, AP26, AP36, AP38. AP39,

AP4I, AP92. APIO2, AP1O3.

DATE: 21 July 2004

R S Chamberlain

Head of Development and Building Control

Residents are thankful that a few councillors still have some integrity but wonder how the scheme could be recommended when so many inconsistent  ite ms were included, and hope that future plans will include meaningful  part icipation  and  t hat they will be listened to  and cooperated with to make the South Seafront land  a bright and happy place to live and  for holiday makers to visit.