CAMPAIGNERS are today asking Suffolk Coastal MP Therese Coffey to back their battle to stop the Felixstowe area being swamped with new homes.
Reasons to build
■ Planners say if the Felixstowe area does not gain new homes, its population will begin to steadily decline.
■ Many people are now choosing to live alone, people are living longer – often widowed – and divorce/separation leads to split families, with housing under-used.
■ New properties are needed to stop young people being forced to move away to find homes.
■ The Port of Felixstowe expects to create 1,500 new jobs in the next decade and workers will need homes.
■ More people commute to Felixstowe than leave the town each day, and many of those would like to live in the resort but cannot because of its homes shortage.
■ Government wants housing to be sustainable – built where jobs and community facilities exist and to cut down commuting.
A public inquiry is due to start soon into the blueprint for the future development of the Suffolk Coastal district, but protesters claim it will be a waste of money and should be cancelled because the plans are “unsound”.
The Trimley villages and Felixstowe have been earmarked for nearly 1,800 new homes in the next 15 years with council officials saying without the properties many people will be forced to live elsewhere and commute, youngsters will move away, and the population will decline.
Protesters though believe too many homes have been put forward – and the allocation should be spread more fairly across the district.
Save Trimley Against Growth (STAG), both Trimley St Martin and Trimley St Mary parish councils, and Save Felixstowe Countryside are all calling for changes to the Local Development Framework (LDF).
Suffolk Coastal’s view
Planning chiefs say it will be up to the inquiry inspector Mike Moore to decide whether the council has put forward a satisfactory case.
“Suffolk Coastal has submitted what it considers to be sound document for independent examination,” said a council spokesman.
“This matter is now in front of the independent planning inspector and it will be for him to determine the soundness or otherwise.
“It is the role of the examination in public to enable outstanding matters and areas of disagreement to be ‘teased out’.”
STAG has now been told campaigners’ latest concerns will not be presented to the pre-inquiry exploratory meeting on Thursday .
Ian Cowan, of STAG, said the group was disappointed because its aim was to avoid “wasted time, effort and expense” by highlighting at an early stage newly-discovered matters considered to be of importance to the soundness of the LDF strategy.
Mr Cowan said the group had been told the inspector had not asked for further written submissions at this point and did not intend to accept any.
The meeting was a “conversation between the council and the inspector” with the inspector looking for clarification on certain matters in order to inform the way the inquiry should proceed.
Barbara Shout, of STAG, said new information which had come to light made campaigners feel there would be a “severe impact” on the soundness of the LDF.
They felt the number of homes built in the Felixstowe area had been “understated” to persuade councillors to back building on greenfield sites.
Mrs Shout said figures published by Suffolk Coastal showed only 28 new homes a year had been constructed in the area in the past decade – a total of 280.
But looking back over a longer period – 40 years – the statistics changed dramatically, showing on average 137 homes each year, which, for the size of the area, meant Felixstowe and the Trimleys compared favourably with the rest of the district, which saw 600 homes built each year.
“We believe the figures have been cherry-picked to suit a predetermined policy and the position made to look worse for Felixstowe and the Trimley villages to justify large-scale house building,” she said.
Ian Cowan, of STAG, said the group knew Dr Coffey did not normally get involved in planning matters, but had asked if she might intervene as the LDF would have an impact on the residents, businesses and environment for generations to come.
He said campaigners felt the examination in public could see the document rejected and so the inquiry would be a waste of money.
“Using Freedom of Information legislation, we have calculated that at least £3m of taxpayers’ money has already been spent over the years on the LDF process, and as our MP I am sure you would agree that in these recessionary times money should not be wasted on lost causes,” he said in a letter to Dr Coffey.
Comments
Post a Comment