Category Archives: Suffolk Coastal District Council

Dukes Park and East Anglia ONE

My inbox has been buzzing with anxious emails this week  from people worried about a possible planning application for land adjoining Dukes Park. Although planning is a District Council issue it is in Woodbridge County division,and  is  also the site through which the EA One underground high tension cabling is due to be routed. As this appeared to have slipped under the radar of both residents and district council until I raised it last Monday,  I contacted the EA ONE  link officer at Suffolk County Council. I wanted to know if he had definitive information on the separation necessary between  housing development and underground high tension cables. closeup EA1

Here is his brief resume of the status quo and implications as he sees it:

East Anglia ONE have acquired both permanent and temporary rights for land within the Order Limits (red line boundary). The exact location of these rights however would not be determined until the project is being built, because the final positioning of the cables is not known. What we know now is that the corridor depicted on the plans is generally 75m wide though only 55m is needed for construction and this could lie anywhere within the 75m swathe. The final footprint for the operational development will be 42m The rights that have been acquired are set out within Schedule 6 of the Development Consent Order  . The permanent rights within the cable corridor generally provide for the retention of cables/ducts together with a surface right of access for occasional maintenance. Lands subject to temporary rights (i.e the ‘surplus’ 33m) would be returned to the current owner post construction (that is, around 2020). However as the SCC link officer understands it:

“…restrictive covenants are also in place. Activities within the Order Limits are prohibited as below. The footprint of the land these rights cover would diminish from the construction (75m) to operational phase (42m), but as I understand it apply to the full 75m currently: (a) prevent anything to be done in or upon the Order land or any part thereof for the purpose of the erection of any buildings or construction erection or works of any kind (including the foundations or footings thereto); (b) prevent anything to be done by way of hard surfacing of the Order land with concrete of any kind or with any other material or surface whatsoever without the consent in writing of the undertaker (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed if the proposed surfacing would not cause damage to relevant part of the authorised project nor make it materially more difficult or expensive to maintain the authorised project); (c) prevent anything to be done by way of excavation of any kind in the Order land nor any activities which increase or decrease ground cover or soil levels in any manner whatsoever without the consent in writing of the undertaker save as are reasonably required for agricultural activities or are required to be carried out by National Grid in order to exercise their rights in relation to their apparatus within the Order land; (d) prevent the planting or growing within the Order land of any trees, shrubs or underwood without the consent in writing of the undertaker (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed provided that the proposed trees, shrubs or underwood would not cause damage to the relevant part of the authorised project nor make it materially more difficult or expensive to access the relevant part of the authorised project). Consequently very little can happen within the area covered by the Order Limits at the moment. The extent of that redline boundary will shrink in due course, but even in that remaining area, no buildings could erected.”

The officer points out that land outside the Order Limits, and any land used during construction once returned to its original owner is not subject to any East Anglia ONE restrictive covenants. However it would be  on each side of the cabling  area. Requests for any further specific elucidation  are probably best directed to:

Joanna Young,  Stakeholder Manager ScottishPower Renewables East Anglia Offshore Wind, Room 101, OrbisEnergy, Wilde Street, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NR32 1XH. jyoung@scottishpower.com

District Council Boundary Changes – how do you want Woodbridge to look?

DO you know about the Woodbridge proposed district council boundary changes? Will they matter to you?

Our local MP, Therese Coffey has suggested, and the Local Government Boundary Commission propose extending the Woodbridge district ward out to Great and Little Bealings and Hasketon.

If you think this isn’t sensible – or if you do – get onto the Local Government Boundary Commission website and join the consultation: they want to hear from you. You can even use their interactive map to draw an improved version! You have until 28 April.

I personally do not think it is geographically sensible, nor do I think it fits any convenience or criterion other than that of mere number crunching. (And that to a degree that is by no means essential to any argument.) My colleagues agree with me.

This therefore is the submission that your Woodbridge Lib Dem Councillors at County, District and Town have submitted to the LGBC:

We, the elected Liberal Democrat Councillors representing Woodbridge, wish to comment on the draft proposal, with particular  reference to paragraphs 91 to 96.

We accept the arguments by all who put the case that Woodbridge and Martlesham North be regarded as a single electoral area, the latter being effectively an overspill allied to the town of Woodbridge.   There is no suggestion by any of those putting cases as to how to redraw ward boundaries to make these 3 single member wards, and we cannot see any clear arguments for such a re-drawing.   The territory would thus logically fit a simple 3 Councillor ward, being entirely urban, and geographically compact.   The elector figures for 2014 amount to 6428 and for 2019 to 6544; both figures lie quite comfortably within the outside variation of 10% from the norm sought.

However, the proposal by the local M.P., supported by the Inspector, that the rural parishes of Hasketon with Great and Little Bealings be lumped in with Woodbridge does not appear to meet the terms of reference requiring a reflection of identities, local ties and identifiable boundaries.   None of the criteria set out are satisfied, except the convenience of playing with numbers.

The Bealings villages are tucked geographically beside Playford, Culpho and Grundisburgh;  the Inspector’s recommendation for a Grundisburgh ward with fewer that average electors could absorb the two Bealings parishes, thus combining genuinely rural parishes in a single ward.   Hasketon, which the M.P. and the Inspector suggest should fall into a Woodbridge ward, is also sited beside Grundisburgh, with common borders aligned also to Boulge, Burgh and Debach.   Any logical view of a Grundisburgh-centred ward should therefore include Hasketon, even if this results in an electorate marginally above the average.

We suggest furthermore that a large ward centred on the urban population of Woodbridge has no conceivable common interest with Hasketon (population 314), Great Bealings (230) or Little Bealings (360), with the added problem that these 3  parishes are the ‘wrong’ side of the A12.

Woodbridge is a sizeable, compact town with a population over 6000.   Its character and identity over the last half century owes much to the early by-passing of the A12, making Woodbridge a sought-after destination for visitors, beneficial tourism, yachtsmen, shoppers and property buyers.

We can see no logic in pretending it has interests or character in common with Hasketon or either of the Bealings parishes.   Furthermore, the two Bealings parishes recognise themselves as having a commonality with Playford, with whom they have produced a joint Neighbourhood Plan, recently accepted by the District Council as appropriate.

We therefore conclude that our suggestion for a Woodbridge ward boundary falls within the terms of reference of the exercise, as does our definite proposal for excluding Hasketon and the two Bealings.   Thus we recommend a 3 councillor ward comprising Woodbridge and Martlesham North.

Signed on behalf of Woodbridge Liberal Democrats by

Caroline Page, County Councillor 

Diana Ball, Town and District Councillor

Kay Yule, Town Councillor

Vic Harrup, Town Councillor

Patrick Gillard, Town Councillor

Strange story of the Woodbridge Station ticket machine

Four months back,  when I attended the launch of the East Suffolk line hourly service, I  took the opportunity to ask Greater Anglia Customer Service Director Andrew Goodrum  where the proposed ticket machines at Woodbridge station were and when they were going to arrive?

(This was – and remains – a very important question.  SCDC had recently decided to close the Woodbridge Tourist Information Centre in the teeth of opposition from a large number of residents, myself, and all of Woodbridge Town Council,  apart from Cllrs Holdcroft, Mulcahy and Sayle . These three were in favour  despite the fact that older Woodbridge residents would lose ticketing facilities.  Since then the  Centre has been closed and the ticketing facilities have been lost).

I blogged on Mr Goodrum’s helpful reply a couple of days afterwards:    “You will be pleased to know there is absolutely no need to lobby for these [machines] as they have been purchased a while back. They are not yet installed as they need weatherproofing because they are designed for indoor use.

So, have these machines arrived? No they jolly well have not. And surely it cannot take four months to waterproof a machine, however lovingly you do it!

A week ago I wrote to Mr Goodrum:

You may remember we met at the launch of the hourly service from Lowestoft to Ipswich, back on December 9th.  I was – and continue to be – a huge fan and supporter of this service which is so useful for so many of us in Suffolk Coastal. I use it regularly myself – both to reach Ipswich and to travel north.

On the day of the launch I took the opportunity of bending your ear about the proposed ticket machine which Greater Anglia was due to install on the platform at Woodbridge. You assured me that the machine had actually already been purchased but that there would be a delay in installation as it would need to be weatherproofed.

This was four months ago. I do hope you can tell me that installation is now imminent – and indeed give me an e.t.a. –  as I have a number of constituents who are anxious to use it.  

He has not – so far –  replied.  I am currently following the matter up further

PS This does not solve the equally strange  conundrum of the story in the EADT a day or two before the launch. Our local MP Therese Coffey, and her assistant, Woodbridge Town Council’s deputy mayor (the aforementioned Cllr Mulcahy) were described as having  “joined forces and launched a campaign to urge train operator Greater Anglia to install an automatic ticket machine at the station“.

How could they  launch a campaign to urge the company to install something that the company had already  bought and was already planning to install?

It just doesn’t make sense! 

Woodbridge Library needs Friends!

Save Woodbridge Library - and all the others in Suffolk. We love them and use them
Save Woodbridge Library – and all the others in Suffolk. We love them and use them

After huge protest from Suffolk residents of all ages and backgrounds,  kickstarted by the Lib Dem councillors and the library-loving residents of  Woodbridge, Suffolk County Council’s administration backed down on some of their more worrying  threats. Instead it has outsourced  the Library organisation into an Industrial and Provident Society for the benefit of the community.  This means that the Suffolk Library system has become a member-based organisation  of individual libraries.

Under these new proposals there are no planned closures for Libraries in the County – which is  a (at least  temporary) relief.  However, each of the Libraries will be tasked to make 5% savings on top the savings that are already embedded in the proposals.  This may mean an increase in volunteers, more fund-raising events, or changing suppliers for maintenance contracts. Funding is only guaranteed  by SCC for the first two years. Additionally, those libraries that do not have community groups are run by the IPS and have considerably less autonomy, because they have no representation on the board.
This is becoming a problem in Woodbridge.

Because Woodbridge Library is  run by the IPS , decision-making occurs without any local involvement . A notable example is the matter of the moving in of Suffolk Coastal District services to the Woodbridge Library premises without consultation or consideration of local wishes or requirements.  All moneys earned by the Library go back to the IPS, rather than being spent at the discretion of  us locals.  In the case of the Tourist Information point, neither Woodbridge Library or the residents of Woodbridge were even consulted as to the amount of rent SCDC should be paying(!).  Indeed the whole issue appears to have been discussed between officers without any input from or reference to elected local councillors or the Library itself.

In this case Suffolk Coastal district council wished to save money, and didn’t specifically have  Woodbridge interests at heart. There are rumours that they were offering as low as £2000 per annum rent for the ir occupancy of part of the library – and the Library’s consequent reduction of income-generating space.  Is it best value? If they don’t disclose we cannot know.  A Friends group would help Woodbridge to ensure it gets best value from and for its Library space!

It is now time to set up a Friends of Woodbridge Library group to allow the people of Woodbridge – and the surrounding district – a greater degree of control.

Please contact Woodbridge Library if you want to be part of this -we’d love it if you did! 

Update: it looks like the first meeting will be in the afternoon, 16 March

Tourist Disinformation at SCDC

As that eminent essayist and wit Sydney Smith once put it: “Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out.”

If  the Woodbridge Tourist Information Centre does indeed close  and the Conservative  Cabinet who run Suffolk Coastal District Council have just voted unanimously to do so  it will be because of ideology rather than  factual information, public opinion or common sense.  (Oh yes – and a certain amount of covert sniggering, face-pulling, pretended boredom and grandstanding among Cabinet members and their supporters) .

Of course the  SCDC Cabinet claim they are not closing the Woodbridge Tourist Information Centre. Oh no, no, no. They are just shutting it down and replacing it with a ‘Tourist Information Point’ . Which they claim is the same thing with half the staff and half the services, and not recognised as a Centre  “because the criteria for a TIC are quite prescriptive (sic)” and which is planned to be sharing space in Woodbridge library with SCDC’s planning desk and – oh yes – the Citizens Advice Bureau:  all breathing down each other’s necks and earwigging on each other’s conversations.  I do hope there will be room for a book or two, but I wouldn’t count on it.

I have just sat through the Cabinet meeting where this decision was rubberstamped by a bunch of self-congratulatory apparatchniks  who were as close to the biblical deaf adder as it was possible to be, refusing to hearken to the voice of those speaking wisely and, incidentally, sensibly however wisely and sensibly they spoke.  It is clear that the democratic democratic deficit that plagues the Suffolk  Cabinet system is as strong at Suffolk Coastal District level as it is at Suffolk County. Il nʾest si mavais sours que chuis chʾoër ne voeilt, as they used to say.

So why should the  Woodbridge Tourist Information Centre be closed to be replaced by a Tourist Information Point (the difference is not just of terminology)? Hard to say.

Here’s a rundown of the more egregious arguments:

*  Portfolioholder Geoff Holdcroft majored on the cost of the rail tickets  that (according to SCDC) the TIC sells at a loss and the consequent waste to the public purse. It has not struck the good councillor that he should be apologising to all of us for managing to convert a quarter of a million pound turnover into any kind of  loss at all! To compound his poor performance, it turned out that operating  loss of £4,761  he brandished was more than halved when he admitted he’d forgot to disclose ‘customer fees.’

* ‘No-one uses Tourist Information Offices – they are on the way out‘ . Yet the annual footfall in Woodbridge is the highest its been in 5 years:  20% of which is for rail ticket sales and 80% for everything else.

* The Suffolk Coast website would be the information provider of the future. And it  had 140% increase to 11,000 hits in August.  Wow! I had 33,000 hits on this blog in September. Does this mean I am three times as successful in advertising Suffolk Coastal as Suffolk Coastal?

*   Time and time again the argument for closing shifted to suit the convenience of those who want to support the closure. It was like nailing jelly to the ceiling: the closure was because of those tickets, no it was footfall, no it was that only local people used it, no it was in the wrong place, no it was  those tickets (again), no it was public benefit.

Had Woodbridge Town Council  been consulted as to this move? No, because there is “no statutory duty to do so“.  I quote.  Woodbridge Town Councillors Ball, Binns and Grimwood  all put up good arguments against the closure to the silence and averted faces of Cllr Ray Herring and his Cabinet.  In fact the only Woodbridge Town Councillor to be  given an enthusiastic hearing (apart from Cllr Holdcroft  – the mute with the bowstring)  was Cllr Josh Sayles, who quite coincidentally supported the move wholeheartedly. He gave a setpiece pro-closure speech – all sound and fury and signifying nothing. Basically Cllr Sayle  is proud to be young and use the internet and sees no need for the TIC by the station. Quite.

OK, then, who supports the closure of the TIC  in Woodbridge? The people of Woodbridge?

No, we were told, Woodbridge people don’t want it to go – but they don’t count. They are only interested in buying rail-tickets. And how can they be tourists? they live here.  Shame on them for using the TIC and buying rail tickets! (In fact the only people that Cabinet expected to use Woodbridge TIC were people who came by cars to Woodbridge and who didn’t want to buy any rail tickets and who wanted to look around Woodbridge and nowhere else.)

So, who else?  Woodbridge Town Centre Management? Officers rather fudged the point and referred vaguely to the manager before the manager before the last who left long before the decision was mooted.  They didn’t quote the most recent Town Manager, Neil Boast:

I am sure that many of you are already aware and dismayed at the proposed Suffolk Coastal District Council decision to close the Woodbridge Tourist Information Centre and have an ‘information point’ in the Library. The council believes that Aldeburgh TIC and Felixstowe TIC which will remain open, will serve Woodbridge! It seems absurd that Woodbridge will close and Aldeburgh remain open. Visitors often arrive by train and the Woodbridge TIC is ideally located at present. An information point in the Library will be a poor substitute.

So back to those pesky tickets again. Can old people use the internet? Can they learn? Can they be supported in the library? Can they even afford a computer?  How will they manage without the TIC ticketing service? Panic. Oh, its easy, said a (Conservative) councillor. You can buy a ticket on the train – I do it every day.  Great relief all round . Oh yes, of course, choruses  everyone, we can buy tickets on the train.

Yes. Of course. And the cost of a return ticket to Exeter bought on the train is £319.00. If bought in advance with the proper advice it could be just over £40.00.  Quite a difference.

This cannot matter to to Woodbridge Town Councillors Holdcroft and Sayles. But an important point when Woodbridge Town Councillor Les Binns referred to elderly constituents who may be too poor to afford a computer.  His example was an elderly constituent of his who needed to buy a rail ticket to Exeter. Maybe they can’t afford that kind of point-of-sale on-cost?

Interestingly enough Cabinet was presented with other options to this proposal. One at least was  worthy of investigation: “To seek a contract with a community group to run the TIC“.  Cllr Holdcroft was asked whether there had there been any effort whatsoever to do this? Of course not. It might, after all, been possible. And the SCDC Cabinet was not looking for a possible alternative to closing the Woodbridge TIC .

I wonder why not?

This decision is not a done deal, because it is going to be called in to scrutiny by a cross-party selection of councillors.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath.

For further information on the rationale for this closure see my blog entry App-Trap -Justification for closing the Woodbridge tourist information centre