2006 Further Felixstowe Fiascos

Residents warned the Council at the only real public consultation  about the flood danger  which was ignored

Every single reason listed below is flawed  in one way or another

REASONS FOR APPROVAL -SOUTH SEAFRONT LAND (C0511723)

Application C0511723 was considered to be a departure from the development plan in that it ran contrary to policy AP202 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan which requires any housing development to constitute a minor part of the development and requires the retention of the Herman De Stem.

The Council considered that there were other material considerations which justified approval notwithstanding that the development represented a departure. In the council's view significant benefits would be generated by the development on the basis that;

• The development would regenerate this part of Felixstowe and stimulate the tourist trade in accordance with the spirit of policy AP202 of the local plan. The building of 158 houses will not stimulate tourist trade and is plain none sense it will have the opposite effect

• The housing development would cross fund a public park in accordance with policy AP202 and policies AP102 and 103 which seek to promote increased provision of children's play- space. The Council is satisfied that the number of residential units proposed are required to fully fund the public benefits provided by the scheme, in particular the Park and refurbishment of the Martello tower. Felixstowe already has an overabundance of children’s play space and the number of houses planned is clearly not warranted for an area designated for recreation and Leisure

• The development would provide 262 public car parking spaces in accordance with policy AP202. Affordable housing would be provided in accordance with policy AP38 of the local plan. The development will in real terms reduce the number of public car parking places available by as much as 350 for a weekend , this will cause congestion gridlock and chaos for residents and tourists alike.

• The housing development will add to the range and variety of housing available in Felixstowe and represents an efficient use of land in accordance with policies AP26, AP36 and AP 41. The housing development has been described as being dreadful and poor design the lack of information do not satisfy the Government requirement of public consultation and freedom of information .

• A cycle route would be provided across the site along with off site highway improvements in accordance with policy AP202. New public toilets would be provided in accordance with policy AP202. The cycle route seems to come from nowhere and go nowhere and the proposed toilets are a replacement for the existing ones which will not be available when the sea gates are closed

• The Martello Tower, a scheduled ancient monument, will be repaired / renovated in accordance with policy AP202, AP5 and AP6. Notwithstanding the comments of English Heritage the setting of the building would not, in the Council's view, be significantly compromised and the development would not, therefore, conflict with policy AP7 that seeks to retain the character and setting of ancient monuments. Proposed buildings at the same height as the Martello tower ( which was ignored in the previous scheme ) will certainly compromise it’s situation.

• The development would not adversely affect the protected species on the foreshore, a designated County Wildlife Site and hence would accord with policy AP 14 of the local plan. Protected species on the foreshore does not seem to have any bearing on the issue in question

• Evidence had been submitted that the Herman De Stem building was beyond economic repair. Not true The Herman De Stern would fit the need of a community centre for the West of Felixstowe and should be restored to it’s condition before the fire by the insurers

• In reaching its decision the Council had regard to Policy AP92 and the advice from the Environment Agency and will seek, by way of "grampian" style condition(s) to prevent development until the necessary coast protection works are in train. The Council also recognizes the need to secure all the planning benefits listed above by way of appropriate planning conditions and/or a legal agreement. Policies considered by the council in reaching its decision to approve; Policies AP5, AP6, AP7, AP14, AP19, AP26, AP36, AP38, AP39, AP41, AP92, AP1023, AP103, AP202. RSC 3/01/06.

• Government policy should be applied to proposed building on a flood plain no building should take place on Felixstowe seafront.

Toilets will not be accessible when the sea gates are closed , No doubt new home owners will be delighted  to open their toilets for public use,

Tourists will be really stimulated by this building site.

"Grampian " Style Conditions Apply