Newsletter Autumn 2019 Editorial In this Issue Alan Vaughan 2 Planning Matters You will see that we do not have our usual Alan Vaughan photograph of a local sight on this page. Instead, we have replaced it with our new 5 Rock Barracks: Home of 23 Parachute logo. Many societies have a logo and your Engineer Regiment Interview with Captain Palmer committee decided that we should have one too. It has been designed for us by John 6 Society Meetings 2019/20 Roberts, well known in the town as a painter and photographer. John also designed a 7 The History of St Audry's Hospital 1829- banner for us which had its first outing at 1993 David Phelan Woodbridge On Show in April and which will be used at our meetings in future. 10 Woodbridge Conservation Area I am sorry we had to cancel the April Eloise Limmer meeting. We were informed at very short 12 Woodbridge Society Visits 2019 notice that the school hall would not be Colin Palmer available. We tried to find alternative accommodation in Woodbridge for the talk 13 Transition Woodbridge but could not find any in the time available. Charlie Zakss We managed to contact most members before 14 Akenfield 50 Years On the meeting. We have been able to rearrange Interview with Ronald Blythe the talk on Brainy Dogs for the first meeting of our 2019-20 season. 17 The Society Website & Email Dan Cornford Contacting members was made more difficult by the absence of mass mailing facility and a 18 Home Truths website. By the time you read this Roger Scruton newsletter, our website should be up and running. This will include information about Editorial Tim Cornford all the Society’s activities, its committee Production Carol Wiseman members, planning group members and Photography Anthony Mather (except where stated) relevant news, including our views on these being little changed from the previous significant planning matters. It will also objects which had been approved by the include links to other organisations, which Charity Commission, they have rejected we think will be of interest to you. In due these. This is because some of the objects are course, we will add the back numbers of not considered charitable. For example 'to newsletters, so that there is a single point of raise money' is no longer considered an reference for members. The newsletter will object, as it is a means to an end, not an end continue to be printed and distributed as at in itself. We have been in correspondence present. The website has been designed and with the Charity Commission about this. The built by Tim Cornford’s son, Dan, and we are proposed new objects are much shorter than grateful for his hard work on this very those adopted at last year’s EGM, but they important project. are consistent with what was agreed then. The Charity Commission have indicated that We are very pleased to welcome Lindsay the two proposed objects will be acceptable: Dann to the committee. Lindsay has been co- 'promoting for the benefit of the public the opted onto the committee as Treasurer-elect conservation, protection and improvement of to succeed Bob Merrett who would like to the physical and natural environment of retire at the end of our financial year in Woodbridge and its environs, and advancing September. Lindsay was raised in Suffolk the education of the public in the and returned in 2007 after a career in retail conservation, protection and improvement of banking. In retirement he managed his local the physical and natural environment of almshouses and also a charity providing Woodbridge and its environs'. They are what training to the voluntary sector. He currently we do. volunteers for New Horizons in Woodbridge and is the Melton Parish Tree Warden and It is the reason why we have been was an officer of the Woodbridge Cruising challenging the plans for redeveloping the Club for many years. Lindsay will be former Council Offices at Melton Hill. Thank proposed for formal election to the committee you to all those who objected to the plans. at our next AGM. A tribute to Bob and his The article by Roger Scruton in this work for the Society will be published in our newsletter gives a good philosophical reason Spring 2020 newsletter. as to why the designs submitted by Active You will see that there is a motion that we Urban (Woodbridge) are so wrong for are putting before you at the first meeting. Woodbridge. More details of our views on the You will remember we changed the Society's current situation and our exchanges with the objects at the EGM held last October. Despite Council are included in Planning Matters. inspector has not yet ruled on the appeal. Planning Matters Active Urban and the Council have up to 9th Alan Vaughan September to make a comment. No date for a Former Council Offices at Melton Hill decision has been set. We all hoped that the refusal of planning Despite this, AUW has made a third permission for the second application by application. They withdrew the first Active Urban (Woodbridge) Ltd (AUW) was to application because they had failed to be the end of their scheme to develop the site identify a provider of the required affordable with the so called 'cheese wedges'. Permission housing. They now claim that the affordable was refused because the developer claimed housing will be provided, as they have Vacant Building Credit. The Council decided identified a registered provider of social that Vacant Building Credit did not apply. housing. This company is a for profit housing AUW has appealed against that decision, and association and therefore the offer to the planning inspectorate has agreed to hear affordable housing users is unlikely to be as the appeal. At the time of writing, the favourable as those provided by a traditional 2 housing association. Most of the 'affordable It is not only planning process that has been housing' is in the form of intermediate conducted so unsatisfactorily in this case. housing, which is more expensive for The commercial process that has resulted in residents. the agreement of the contract between the District Council and developer has been The mix of affordable housing has also unsatisfactory. The contract was awarded changed with there being more small units. It after bids were made on the basis of the sales therefore does not conform to the Council’s prospectus which envisaged 69 houses on the own policy for the mix of affordable units, site. Due diligence appears to have been done there being no three or four bedroom units. only after the preferred bidder was chosen. Overall there is an increase in the number of The process for choosing the preferred bidder bedrooms proposed. This means there are appears to have been flawed. Furthermore, likely to be more residents than in the first the developer was able to drag out the application, thus the parking provision is application process well beyond what was even more inadequate than first thought. originally envisaged or in the interest of the community. One of the points welcomed by the Planning Committee when it considered the In the sales prospectus it was said that the application was the provision of underground purchase of the property was expected to be parking. It is now recognised that this was completed by November 2016. In the not then and is not now the case. The meantime, the Council has had to spend disturbance to the nearby residents of the public funds to protect the site from Old Maltings will be considerable. vandalism and deterioration with limited success. The developer’s agents have pointed out there are very limited changes from the first This third application made by AUW has not application and no doubt hope therefore that been made under the terms of the contract the design will not need to be put before the between the Council and AUW. Therefore we Planning Committee as it was considered by hope that the Council will not open new them on the first occasion and passed on the negotiations to sell the site to AUW no casting vote of the Committee chairman. matter what the result of this third planning However the awareness of the true nature of application is. The site should be remarketed the inadequate parking means, in our mind, on terms much closer to the consensus plan, that this argument is not tenable. We believe which we supported in April 2016. that, as this application is about a Council owned property, it must be considered by the The Chandlery Planning Committee. This important building at Whisstocks Since the first two applications were remains empty. It had been planned mostly considered, Suffolk Coastal District Council as a restaurant but no one has made an offer has been replaced by East Suffolk Council which the developer has been willing to with new political leadership and a new accept. There may be a number of reasons for Planning Committee. We hope that the new this, not least the change in the restaurant committee will be given the opportunity to market which has resulted in some national consider the application from first principles, chains reducing their number of branches. as the planning department has admitted The District Council gave permission to they have the right to. The opposition to the change the use of the first floor, but that scheme remains as strong as ever. Our decision has now been overturned by the objections are as before, namely the design, Planning Inspectorate. This is an important the demolition of the heritage assets, the building for the town, especially with the impact on the surrounding area and the view riverside at Whisstocks having a number of from Sutton Hoo, and the lack of parking.