Category Archives: Woodbridge

November report: what’s been happening in Woodbridge

Rocky Singh stands in for County Councillor Page to represent SCC at the Woodbridge centennial Armistice Day Parade and service. Photo: Charmian Berry

Apart from my own health,  last month my principal concerns  were to do with Broomheath, Woodbridge gritting, social care, period poverty  and the ongoing issue of my challenge to Woodbridge Town Council’s Annual Governance and Accountability report.

I am currently off work after a total knee replacement which has left me significantly incapacitated and still largely bedbound. I am not expecting to be able to work this month, but. I hope to be able to return in December.

As I was unable to attend the centenary Armistice Day parade, my place was taken by Mr Rockey Singh who has seen active service in a Commonwealth country.

I will regretfully be cancelling my November surgery.

Highways Improvement – SCC trials new approach to pothole repairs etc The county council established a Highways Improvement and Innovations Board in June which recently announced that Suffolk Highways will be piloting a new approach to prioritising pothole repairs over the winter, but only for those divisions served by the Ipswich Phoenix House depot. If successful, it will be rolled out to other depots.

The new approach will mean more potholes in a single area will be repaired together, and potholes of 200mm width will also be included.

The pilot aims to tackle more potholes at once, rather than later returning to the same area to repair nearby potholes. It will also aim to reduce the number of temporary repairs, which also have to be returned to at a later date. This should reduce the travelling time of maintenance crews, and result in more potholes being filled.

The Board looking into improving the coordination of road closures, reducing the number of roadworks which overrun, and exploring ways for Suffolk Highways to work closer with town and parish councils.

Broomheath resurfacing mystery However, I have had little luck in trying to establish why Broomheath was unexpectedly resurfaced without official notification over the summer.

I have had complaints raised by residents in other parts of Woodbridge, who were at a loss to understand why this no through road of no strategic importance was resurfaced quietly over the summer without apparent need, notice to local councillors, or public appetite – although many other roads and culs de sac in Woodbridge are overlooked. (I am thinking particularly of Naverne Meadows and Grove Gardens, where the need is high and public concern has been loud, protracted and prolonged).

I have found it hard to get any  information as to the whys and wherefores of this operation from Suffolk highways. After some weeks’ persistence, I received the following rather opaque remarks:

“Broomheath was resurfaced using TO15 traffic management, legally we are unable to close a no through road, so this traffic management allows us to delay traffic for up to 15 minutes whilst materials are laid on the ground. This is the safest way of working on site for resident and members of staff. This would have been the reason that you weren’t informed due to the fact that this was not a full road closure, however residents that were immediately affected received a letter from the team on site directly.. The previous resurfacing programmes were governed by formal condition surveys. This site was identified due to its condition and suitability for preventative treatment. Preventing pot holes forming is a far more cost effective approach to maintaining our asset, this is in keeping with national best practice”

I have to say I do not find the explanation compelling.

In fact the entire situation makes the county council look very bad indeed in the eyes of the people of Woodbridge. I have therefore put my concerns  in the hands of deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Highways, Mary Evans.

Woodbridge Gritting Scheme  Just before I went into hospital I reminded Highways of the requirements of the Woodbridge Gritting scheme, and told them that the Town Council should hold the lists of past volunteer gritters and the master list of bin sites. These names need to be confirmed annually to ensure the volunteers are covered by Highways insurance.

So far I have not had a request for funding for additional bins/equipment from Woodbridge town council, nor do I know if the volunteers have been contacted so far this year, or whether any call has been put out for new ones?

We have had some warning that this year might be colder than the last two, and the gritting scheme has been a very efficient way of enabling mobility and reducing falls among the older people of the town. I will not be able to do my regular mile of pavement this year for obvious reasons!

My Official objection to Woodbridge Town Council’s Annual Governance and Accountability Return 2017-18 As I reported at last Town Council meeting, I regretfully had to challenge WTC’s Annual Governance and Accountability Return on the grounds of some anomalies between what the town council declared had been done in 2017-18, and the actuality. Please note these are concerns about process, not about final figures, and they concern the Annual Governance Statement (AGAR) section1 that Woodbridge Town Council confirmed and signed on 15 May.

Although unfortunate, the external auditors are apparently not unused to small councils needing to amend their AGAR, and they confirm they can do so. All they require is for WoodbridgeTC to amend some of the incorrect assertions made in its response to section one of the AGAR (there are several, but most importantly, is failure to follow own financial regulations, included in eg statements 2 and 3 of Section 1) and to elucidate.

The 15th May AGAR statement was voted on by all attending councillors and signed on their behalf by the chair.

The cost of issuing a new letter is £40.00, according to the external auditor’s website. I mention this because the sum of £14,000 was being plucked out of the air and stated as fact by at least one councillor at the last Town Council meeting. It is very important to be accurate in these matters.

One of my formal roles as County Councillor is, as Community Leader, “to participate constructively in the good governance of the area” and “to act as an informal local scrutineer.” I continue to be surprised that Woodbridge Town Council should seem to be reluctant to put right what they know to be wrong, and demonstrate transparency to those they represent.

SCC refuses funding to help end period poverty On 18 October, my group were happy to support a Labour motion asking the county council for a budget commitment of £15,000 to help tackle “period poverty”. Many girls suffer and frequently miss school because they are unable to afford sanitary products. The motion therefore asked the Council to fund free sanitary products in all local authority maintained schools in Suffolk, which would encourage academies to implement similar measures.

Unfortunately, the Conservative administration once again amended the motion, removing all funding commitments. Their claim was that this was because the level of funding in the original motion was too small and unfairly favoured girls at maintained schools.

However, this claim did not hold water. I immediately put in a later amendment on behalf of my LDGI group which proposed increasing the funding commitment to a still notional £30,000 to include all schools in Suffolk. This was voted down by the Conservative majority without explanation.

New Home Care operating model At Cabinet on 9 October a new Home Care operating model was agreed. It was acknowledged that the previous model had not been a success and had caused unnecessary stress to both care providers and residents receiving home care. We were assured that “lessons had been learned” from this previous experience, and that greater care had been taken to develop the operating model in partnership with stakeholders.

I raised – here and later in full council – the problem of the combined impact of Suffolk’s free market housing policy (which is losing us our young people) and Brexit on care in Suffolk. Currently 1in 5 people are over 65. In twenty years it will be 1 in 3. Yet Suffolk hasn’t enough carers now. What will happen to people’s care needs, I asked? Substantive answer came there none.

After a call-in the model went to the Council’s Scrutiny Committee. However, the majority of the Scrutiny Committee voted to proceed with the new model rather than asking Cabinet to reconsider their decision.

Budget consultation and reduction in overspend  Suffolk County Council is currently consulting on the 2019/20 budget and is asking the public to share their ideas for potential savings. The consultation runs until 5pm on Friday 16 November, and can be found at: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/consultations-petitions-and-elections/consultations/a-tough-call-to-make-budget-20192020/. We will get our first look at the 2019/20 budget proposals on Thursday 22 November, when they are presented to the Scrutiny Committee. I would encourage everyone to put in their suggestions and pass on this link.

At the end of Quarter 1 the council was predicting an overspend on the 2018/19 net budget of £8.6m. This prediction has now reduced, at the end of Quarter 2, to a £7.5m overspend. Although an improvement, it is unlikely that the overspend will be reduced completely by the end of the financial year, and the council will still need to make use of reserves to cover the funding gap.

School admissions consultation Suffolk County Council is consulting on its school admissions policy for 2020/21, available at: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/children-families-and-learning/schools/school-places/consultation-on-admissions-to-schools-in-suffolk-for-the-20202021-school-year/. The consultation is open until 12 November 2018.

No significant changes are proposed for 2020/21. However, the council are also seeking views on potential future changes to the oversubscription criteria, in terms of the removal of catchment area priority. If they decide to progress with this change, there would be another consultation October 2019 and any changes would then apply from 2021/22.

Second Suffolk children’s home judged “inadequate” A children’s home run by Suffolk County Council has been judged “inadequate” by Ofsted, following an inspection on 3 October 2018. This is the second council-run children’s home to receive an inadequate rating in the past 2 months.

Ofsted expressed particular concern over unsafe behaviour management techniques used by staff in the home, and noted a significant increase in the number of physical interventions.

Council signs up to 100% nuclear energy deal  At the Council meeting on 18 October, members of my political group put forward a motion calling on the Council to recognise the benefits of renewable energy, commission a report into smart grids, and commit to ensuring at least 50% of the Council’s energy comes from renewable sources by 2025. Unfortunately, the Conservative administration amended the motion to remove any clear actions or targets.

It was also revealed that the Council have recently signed off on a 100% nuclear energy deal for the next three years, to commence in March 2019. This represents a major step backwards for Suffolk County Council, whose current energy contract includes 18.7% renewables.

Strategy for Woodbridge must not forget our housing needs

Market Hill, Woodbridge 150 years back. Instantly recognisable. Will it still be recognisable in 150 years time?

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.

Caroline Page
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