This is the letter that has been sent to Infinity Architects on behalf of the Parish Council. We would also urge all residents to make their own comments/thoughts known to Infinity by responding to the letter that you have all recently received.
We have received and discussed the Development Brief prepared for the Erskine Lodge site and would like to respond as follows:
The Parish Council are concerned that the correct procedures have not been followed in relation to this proposed development. A set of plans have already been presented to local residents giving the impression that a decision has already been made as to both the density and design of the project.
We would suggest that consultation takes place as to the correct use of this site. The PC only agreed to a change of use of the site from a Care Home to ‘affordable housing’ as a way to prevent new housing at Fenton’s Farm. It now seems, however, that the development at Fenton’s Farm is still being considered and alarming plans for 17 homes have also been presented to the residents of Whelnetham.
A Care Home facility in Whelnetham would, potentially, free up a number of houses in the village as the elderly give up their homes and move into such a facility. Great emphasis is placed by the Havebury Housing Partnership on providing affordable homes for local people so that they do not have to move out of the area. The ‘elderly’ is seems will have no such option. By 2031 the numbers of elderly will rise significantly. Whelnetham ‘had’ a facility for the elderly. The PC was shown plans for Erskine Lodge to be redeveloped into a modern ‘care’ facility. These plans just disappeared and the idea was dropped. The residents that left Erskine Lodge a couple of years ago were told that the facility would be redeveloped and that they would be able to return.
Where will the elderly of Whelnetham go when they cannot care for themselves?
The local school is full to bursting point and is situated in a site that provides no parking facilities. Parking issues at the school dominate PC meetings and no adequate solution has been found. Erskine Lodge would be an ideal site for a new school or school extension.
We would stress that no public consultation has taken place as to the correct use of this site.
The Development Brief
Firstly, there is no mention of the amount of houses proposed for the site in the brief yet the accompanying letter from Infinity mentions 65 homes. So we can assume that we are dealing with a proposal for 65 homes. Plus we cannot ignore the plans for 17 homes at Fenton’s Farm. 82 new homes for a village consisting of only 400 or so houses with a population of fewer than 1,000.
We would point out that St Edmundsbury’s Core Strategy document talks about ‘key settlements’ having a maximum of 75 new homes. Whelnetham is NOT a key settlement.
82 homes equates to 200 or more new residents. A 25% increase. The PC is not ‘against’ an increase, the PC is not against the provision of affordable housing. The PC totally rejects plans to expand our ‘village’ by 25%.
Back to the Development Brief
The document itself is very difficult to follow and written in ‘planning gobbledegook’. It refers to policies and strategies and documents that we have no knowledge of. It uses terms like ‘low density’ and ‘high density’ which are meaningless to the public. It talks of ‘relevant design guidance’ but does not tell us what that is.
The Context Analysis
A beautiful description of a Suffolk village and its varied housing. It does not mention that there are currently no flats or maisonettes in the village.
Proportions and Setting
‘The proposed development will draw upon the elements of design that form Great Whelnetham’s essential character’. Once again, there are no flats or maisonettes in the village.
Character and Appearance
‘The height, scale and massing of individual buildings should respond positively to the existing form of development in the area’. The site of Erskine Lodge is placed directly above housing on the main road. Erkine Lodge is a single storey structure yet it can still be seen towering over the housing below. The ‘height’ of any new buildings should respond to the site and not to other buildings in the area. Two storey buildings would be totally unsuitable for this site.
General comments
Transport
There are no cycle paths in Whelnetham. There is no cycle path to Bury St Edmunds. There is a limited bus service in the area. There are no buses on Sundays. The village shop is not open on Sunday. There are limited employment opportunities in Whelnetham. You cannot get back to Whelnetham from Bury St Edmunds after 6.30pm using public transport.
82 new homes will bring 150 plus cars into the area. Whilst new housing developments should not be dominated by the car it is fair to say that 150 cars will have to be parked somewhere. The plans presented by Havebury at a recent meeting at the Community Centre painted a cosy picture of a village with the odd car. We ask the question – where are 150 cars going to be parked?
Flooding
Residents on both Hambrook Close and Stanningfield Road have expressed concerns with regards to an increased flooding risk in the area. We have all suffered from the changes in climate that bring us regular torrents of rain. Many residents have had to take preventative measures to divert rain water from their properties. Building another 82 new homes in the area is not going to ‘improve’ this problem. One resident has pointed out that the local council have not been able to prevent flooding at the roundabout on the A134 close to the rugby club. If engineers can’t fix that problem how are we going to convince residents that their fears are unfounded?
The need for new ‘open market homes’
We do not believe that there is any need for additional ‘open market housing’. It has been mentioned that ‘open market housing’ will ‘facilitate’ the building of affordable homes. We would point out that Havebury Housing Partnership have received a grant of £8 million pounds to help ‘facilitate’ the building of affordable homes. Havebury are looking to build 400 affordable homes and that equates to almost £20,000 per property. If they build 24 new homes on this site they will receive a grant of almost £500,000 to do so. There is no need to build ‘open market’ houses if this grant is used correctly.
Summary
The PC would suggest that the proposals for Fenton’s Farm, Erskine Lodge and the land adjacent to Erskine Lodge should be considered as ‘one’. A maximum of 24 new homes would be appropriate for the village. We feel that the Erskine Lodge situation gives the village a site for these new homes. It is, essentially, a brown field site. 24 homes could be accommodated on the same ‘footprint’ of Erskine Lodge. There is no need for more housing in the area. 24 homes is, in its self, a large increase for such a small village. The PC was happy to endorse the ‘change of use’ for Erskine Lodge as it would be a development that would alleviate the need to develop Fenton’s Farm. The PC did not envisage that we would be faced with three developments. The PC did not envisage the scale of such developments.
We would also like guarantees that the new affordable homes are offered to residents of Whelnetham.
One final comment I would like to add, just for further clarification. Havebury provide housing they do not, except under exceptional circumstances, allocate it that is they have outsourced to an organisation called Homelink.
It is Homelink who deal with things like applications for housing and the allocations based on a points system. In short Havebury simply provide houses and collect the rent and provide maintenance with respect to the properties and land on which the properties stand.
If you feel that any new provided should be provided only for those, young or old who have a very strong local connection,- immediate family or relatives in the village, please make that clear in your comments. I think it is important to make this clear as there may be some who think Havebury actually directly rent their properties
I personally would like to see any new houses occupied by people who have lived and grown up in the village, or have relatives, – Mums and Dads, Uncles, Aunts, Brothers and Sisters, living here, who have a genuine need, understanding and desire to remain or return to the community that has been, and they want to be their home.
I know how difficult it can be for people to get housing and I do appreciate the need for housing, but I believe any development must reasonable and acceptable to village with respect to size, density, purpose, doesn’t destroy our landscape, blends in with the style and presentation, and provides adequate opportunity for residents of all age groups to remain in the place the want to call home for the rest of their lives if they so choose.;
Went to the ‘consultation’ evening and can only say that I am still completely baffled by what is going on.
However for clarity, we should ignore the first plans that Havebury introduced to us earlier this year. It is important to focus on the development brief.
The development brief, minus any fancy drawings of houses and the like should have been the first thing we saw.
The development brief is the first step, the initial consultation based on pure speculation, The idea is simply to get an opinion on how we feel if we think it would be too big, if it will add to flood risk, not right for the village, if we think the roads wouldn’t cope, parking would be an issue etc, etc – its all theory. After seeing the plans and reading the outlines and asking a few questions, we are invited to comment on the brief, and it is very important that we do.
After the consultation period has closed, the architects (Infinity) and Havebury have to review the all comments they have received, and come up with a revised brief. All the documentation including all the comments are then taken to St Edmundsbury where the planner(s) review it all again and make considerations to local development strategy and if necessary request changes and come up with a development policy.
Now the policy is the thing that controls the development, and therefore is the thing that governs the whole 2nd part of the process, the plans for the development.
So this means that the most vital part of this consultation process is the opportunity for you all to comment on the development brief, and that includes the information you have been given. If you think the information supplied is inadequate, or confusing write and tell them. If you think there was not enough notice given for the consultation, or that the viewing arrangements were difficult speak up. The idea is for everyone to have sufficient information about all the facts to enable them to determine the way our village develops in the future, So if you feel there was not enough time, or have issues with information given make comments about it.
Comment about all issues that concern you about this development, if you think only 10, 15, or 20 houses should be built , or if there is a need for housing for the elderly then make a comment on the brief. If you do not want any flats or 2 storey apartment buildings to be included then say so, all these comments and concerns will be seen, and I am told have to be responded to.
Don’t worry if you think the comments form doesn’t have category or a box for the issues you want to comment on. You have the address – write a letter, even if you have already commented on the previous consultation take time and comment again.
Thank you pc, exactly what majority of people wanted. Let hope the council take note.
I would like to thank the Parish Council for putting into words what so many of us think, a care home and a number of houses proportional to the current size of the village would be welcome by us all and would enhance the village.
The large scale development proposed can only be viewed as negative and unnecessary.
Please don’t let Havebury Housing spoil or village.
That is an excellent letter from the Parish Council. I would suggest it reflects the views of the majority of the village. The letter has addressed so many concerns of the villagers. Hopefully Havebury will read and digest what the villagers want.
If they put houses on the footprint of Erskein Lodge ONLY, single storey, then i think this would be the way forward for all concerned.
Nick and Shelley
Thank you.
I feel that you are listening to us. I have sent my reply to infinity and have just learned that there will be an
OPEN DROP IN to view their plans
16TH OCTOBER
3 TILL 7
at the COMMUNITY CENTER
Please attend we need to show them we care and have our voice heard.
I also would like to point out that they are calculating the amount of housing on an area of 2.1 hectares the total site and with an allowance of 35 homes per hectare. This is according to their plan, including both sides of the river, into gardens and the root area of the trees all of which are no build zones. A rough guess is that at least half a hectare if not more is lost when these areas are removed. Therefore an area of 1.5 hectares would only give a build allowance of 52.5 homes. once the 70m build sanitare corden is removed we are back down to less than a hectare and under 35 homes. This sounds so much better. back to the original plan, lets keep it on the Erskine lodge site. Bungalows for the elderly.
I believe that this well structured, well written post will receive the support of the vast majority of the villagers in Great Whelnetham. I sincerely hope that Havebury Housing take note of it.
Dick Kirby.