Woodbridge Melton Hill Plans – where does the deceit end?

 

Woodbridge Town councillors unanimously rejected Active Urban’s third attempt at submitting their planning application to build the controversial blocks of high density flats, known as the ‘Cheese Wedges’.

The town council planning committee regarded the new application as very negative and has recommended East Suffolk Council reject the application on a number of key points – including the failure to address the correct mix of affordable homes, the impact on the AONB, the total lack of thought on the wider impact on the historic riverside area and the disregard of the local community whose 2-storey homes will be overwhelmed by the developments size, height and mass. Other points raised were the continued pollution from existing traffic yards from the proposed development which already exceeds the Government’s highest safety levels – the proposed development would only add to this (100 units have been applied for, well above the original 67 units announced by Suffolk Coastal). Members of the public attending the meeting also pointed out the new planning application uses outdated air quality assessment and traffic survey reports to try and justify their application.

Active Urban’s planning application has received the largest number of objections to any other planning application in the history of the council.

Local community comments: “…where does the deceit end?”

 

There were many members of the local community attending who voiced their opinions. Local resident Peter Healey who lives opposite the site said:

“Two years ago we were presented with a plan for the Melton Hill site which was quite pleasant and very acceptable and I recall everyone went away from that happy…”

“And then a few months later we were presented with this monstrosity and I feel deceived. My question really is to the developer – where does the deceit end?“

Other residents including Michael Holland referred to the lack of car parking spaces provided by the development comparing with the previous refused applications “…So full compliance with this guidance, according to my calculations, would require 183 spaces and we’ve only been offered somewhere in the region of 106. That’s around 60% of the requirement which again would imply that there are too many dwellings planned for this site.”

Historic England, consulting to protecting and conserve historic places, has filed a report which confirms that the Active Urban application’s fails to comply with national plan and strongly rejects the application.

Councillor Sue Bale was shocked and made the following statement concluding: “I am as appalled as everyone who has spoken in this audience about this application. Particularly appalled at what I think is cynicism on the social and affordable housing and the fact there are only eight one-bedroom social apartments is absolutely shocking.”

 

Historic England strongly objects to the application and recommends it is refused

 

Historic England have been asked to by East Suffolk Council as consultants to report on this 3rd Application by Active Urban – extracts from that report are detailed below:

Historic England’s report 5th July 2019 – which clearly claims the application does not meet with the terms of the NPPF:

“…it is clear that the new buildings would be hugely out of scale with the adjacent historic buildings, including the grade II listed Maltings Cottage and numbers 101-117 the Thoroughfare. They would also not be parallel with it, as is the predominant pattern of building. Furthermore, the blocks would constitute a dramatic departure from the character of the adjacent conservation area in form and detailing.”

“…we remain concerned about the visual impact of the new buildings on views from the eastern bank of the river and the high ground on the ridge where the Sutton Hoo burial site scheduled monument stands.”

“…The proposals would result in harm to the significance of the conservation area and not preserve those elements of setting that make a positive contribution to the heritage asset and better reveal its significance in terms of the NPPF, paragraphs 193, 196 and 200. As such it would not achieve the NPPF’s overarching aim of promoting sustainable development. Furthermore, the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (first draft, 2018, policy SCLP12.28) states that ‘opportunities to enhance the historic environment [of Woodbridge]…will be supported …which do not have a significant adverse impact on the environmental designations.’ The application site has some potential for enhancing the conservation area but the current proposals would have as significant adverse impact on it and so do not accord to the Council’s draft policy.”

“…We would be happy to advise the Council on revisions to the proposals but would object strongly to the application as it stands and recommend it is refused.”

Recommendation: Historic England strongly objects to the application on heritage grounds. Development of the application site would result in harm to significance of the conservation area and not constitute sustainable development in terms of the NPPF. We consider that the application does not meet the requirements of the NPPF, in particular paragraph numbers 7, 8, 193, 194, 196, 200 and 2001. In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess and section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Your authority should take these representations into account in determining the application. If you propose to determine the application in its current form, please inform us of the date of the committee and send us a copy of your report at the earliest opportunity.

The full report can be read in detail at Eat Suffolk Council’s planning portal:

http://publicaccessdocuments.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01496181.pdf

or

https://publicaccess.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/online-applications/ Search:DC/19/2641/FUL and look in ‘Documents & Comments’ page-5 and to read other objections

You can raise your concerns and object to this application at the above portal. East Suffolk Council will be meeting and voting on this application shortly.