An update on the progress of the proposals to develop Galloper Wind Farm (an offshore wind farm located approximately 27 kilometres at its closest point from the Suffolk Coast) since the last update on 28 November 2011.

On 19 December 2011 the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) accepted the Development Consent Order application for Galloper Wind Farm (GWF). ‘Acceptance’ of the application means that a decision-making process, taking about nine months, now starts before the relevant Secretary of State is asked to make a decision on whether the scheme should be approved.

The next stage in the process is the completion of a registration period by GWF.

Registering an interest

The defined registration period is where members of the public can register their interest, and if they wish to, make formal representations to the IPC about our application. The registration period begins on 23 January and ends on 24 February 2012.

More information on the registration process and how to make representations is available by contacting the IPC on 0303 444 5000 or by looking at their website at http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/

GWF Invitation to Information Drop-in Session

To help answer any questions about the final application during the registration period, and the changes made following a consultation in June/July 2011, there will the usual set of minimal information panels about the final submitted proposals at Sizewell Beach Café on:

· Friday 3 February 2012 4.00pm – 8.00pm
· Saturday 4 February 2012 10.00am – 2.00pm

This will be an opportunity to speak to members of the project team and to clarify or put any questions forward in response to the application documents. Please note that once a project is accepted, as GWF now is, ‘material’ changes are not permitted to the scheme proposals. So what use the consultations will be is difficult to assess.

What happens following the registration period?

Please note that the last day when parties can make representations to the IPC is 24 February 2012. Please also note that representations must be made to the IPC not GWF (this is a legal requirement).

Following completion of the registration period, and GWFL certifying to the IPC that this has taken place, the IPC will hold a Preliminary Meeting which will include discussion of how the case will be examined and the initial issues that have been identified. The IPC will give at least 21 days notice of the date, time and place of the Preliminary Meeting (which the IPC will seek to hold in the area local to the application). All those who are by right “interested parties” or those who register with the IPC in the registration period will be invited to attend.

Please note that all application and relevant project documents are also published on the IPC website at:

http://infrastructure.independent.gov.uk/projects/eastern/galloper-offshore-wind-farm/

Further information on the Galloper Wind Farm project is available from the applicant at: www.galloperwindfarm.com. If you have any questions, please Chris Harris of the applicant on 07500 912002 or moc.essnull@sirrah.sirhc.

A short time ago a prominent local politician announced that Felixstowe had a bright future. What a pity she didn’t wait a few days. It’s unfortunate for us all that the Port of Felixstowe has suddenly realised that the new facility at Tilbury was a threat – we said that three years ago when the plans were first mooted.

It gets worse: three shops in Hamilton Road have since closed. Two were regarded as local institutions. Bonnet and Magpie had both been there for years. The Magpies Emporiumn was always more risky, a difficult product mix, which changed halfway through its term. That said, all were private and local. Such enterprises bring real value to any community. A national multiple may seem attractive but the figures reveal that they are a poor investment for the local economy. It’s simple really. The big guys buy from anywhere and they all take their profit away from the town. Little locals buy locally and spend their profits locally.

Most workers in Suffolk work for small companies.

Another woeful announcemnt today is the Retirement Sale at Candlers. Another local institution, and a big hole will be left in our retail area if it closes Could this be the right place for a new supermarket or store? Our present dire economic straits will make that difficult.

So, our politician is struggling to find sunshine on the coast. It’s now even more important to have a lift to bring town to beach and to make the Spa Pavilion work.

We can do it!

The Scrutiny Committee of Suffolk Coastal District Council has referred the decision to stop funding the Spa Pavilion back to the Cabinet.

Just what will happen now is unclear. The Cabinet will have a chance to consider this position on 7th February, when it next meets. The funding for the building is in place for the whole of the next financial year, so there is money in the pot.

One decision that could be considered is whether the present contractor should be asked to extend their tenure. That’s difficult – and likely to be expensive in the short term. It remains unclear whether they will seek compensation for cancelling the contract, what TUPE requirements there will be, and whether they can prove they have invested £70K on capital, and not recovered £35K of that money.

An option would be to allow the contract to end in June, at the end of their season and to issue a temporary contract or licence, perhaps to a community group, until a formal contract can be issued.

The Localism Act – and that seems to be ignored so far – does allow for the community to require the Council to make the Spa Pavilion available for public use. That needs to be closely examined, as there is little precedent upon which to rely.

The key to success of the facility, in the short term, is the restaurant. Reported to have made £67,000 profit last year it could make a significant contribution.

It seems clear that a hasty decision was made, quite rightly and for the best of reasons in these hard times, because the Spa Pavilion has cost a fortune whilst under commercial management and failed to improve upon the audience figures that the Council itself achieved, over 16 years ago.

That said millions have already been spent on contractors, and very little gained in return. There is now a wonderful opportunity to build a resource that we require, and by local people getting involved there will be much more support.

The theatre needs local community involvement, and properly run could become an invaluable asset to the area, bringing much-needed income to the town. It would encourage commercial funding and bring the community together.

A business plan must now be created. The consultants said it was a tired old theatre that needs investment, and that a similar theatre elsewhere in the country can expect £500,000 a year from the Council. That may seem a lot, but the Colneis Peninsular has over 30% of the population of Suffolk Coastal, and without the Spa Pavilion it will have absolutely no cultural centre at all.

In Ipswich they are saying they also need a cultural centre – Felixstowe and the Spa Pavilion could provide that facility. After all over 40% of the Spa’s audience comes from Ipswich, so why shouldn’t we consider a cultural amalgamation?

It was encouraging, inspiring, to see the Felixstowe thespians gathered outside the Council Chamber at Woodbridge. Banners and posters, and singing. Plenty of voices raised, not in anger but to remind the Scrutiny Committee councillors why they were there.

They’d been told they were not to be allowed into the meeting, but wise counsel (or should that be councillors) prevailed, and we all trooped in, filling up most of the spaces in the Chamber. We were asked to keep quiet, so we did.

Cllr Mike Deacon spoke of the reasons he had for ‘Calling In’ this decision of the Cabinet – who had decided that the present management with Open Wide would finish at the end of the season, about June 2012. Mike is a quietly-spoken unemotional man who presented his case eloquently.

In defence of the Cabinet came Cllr Holdcroft, from Woodbridge Riverside. Also quiet, grey-suited, with a pile of papers, each sheet safely enclosed in a clear plastic cover. Behind him sat his Team, three men and a lady. The largest man, in the darkest suit, carried an iPad and was in charge of cups of water for his Leader. Cllr Holdcroft is responsible for Leisure – indoor and outdoor, Sport, Theatre and arts, Economic development and policy. Clearly a busy man, it’s difficult to believe he has time for much leisure himself.

The Council Chamber is a modest affair, and it quickly filled with Councillors and members of the public, all clearly interested in the Spa Pavilion. It was encouraging to see a number of Felixstowe Councillors attended, not just the Committe members.

Cllr Holdcroft read his submission: a brief history since 2006 with the predecessors of Open Wide took over the contract. An immediate surprise was that the Council had spent over £400,000 preparing the place before the contract started, and that the contractor was paid £225,000 pa from the start.

The Felixstowe community group that competed for that contract were repeatedly told they would receive no money for the Council. Their submission was therefore self-supporting, and probably not so attractive as a result.

There was no mention that Open Wide had failed to fulfill the terms of their contract, and been allowed to present falling audiences year on year, with at least 35 show cancellations in the last three years – by the artists. That only the amateur dramatic companies had brought in real audiences for more than one night a week.

Questioning was pertinent. Most questions coming from opposition councillors, demonstrating the need for effective checks and balances to decisions often constructed by officers who may not always appreciate the local conditions.

Witnesses were called, starting with the two ladies who had been engaged to prepare the Options Appraisal consultation, which had been submitted to the Council in draft in June, and finally submitted in October 2011, but which has still not been made public.

There were elements of their presentation that showed cracks in the Cabinet’s thinking. Far from saving money by employing another commercial contractor they argued that to work the Spa Pavilion needed investment. They had quoted £3 million, and this is not the place to argue with that. They hinted at a chronic lack of under-investment going back many years. No commercial contractor was going to look at the place with funding, and most theatres of that size would expect to have at least £500,000. Commercial sponsorship would not be available if the contractor was a commercial company. About to spend £2.2 million the seafront gardens that surround the Spa the Council would be a laughing stock if the theatre was to close, or to fall urther into decay.

They were followed by a man from Open Wide who suggested they had spent £70,000 on the place themselves – it was beginning to be difficult to see where the Council’s £400K and this extra £70K had been spent. It’s nnver been immediately apparent. He said they had tried. Politely none of the Committee said anything about how much they tried for their £225K a year, plus tickets sales, plus bar, restaurant and ice-cream concession receipts.

Lots of questions sprang to mind. Why not a conference centre? Where would delegates stay, we have no decent hotels and the closest (the Waverley) has permission to be converted into flats. Encourage better acts? The theatre is tired an old – we know (‘cos we told the Council last year) that the stage equipment needs to be replaced, or at least maintained.

It was at this point that I collapsed with a coughing fit, and had to retire. I’ve no doubt that Suzi Lowe representing the Spa Users put up a spirited show on our behalf. Perhaps I’ll be able to add that tomorrow – together with the result.

On Tuesday an action group of local residents met to voice concerns about the Academy and Tescos. Tempers are running quite high. There is talk of creating a local political party to stand in May elections.

There’s understandable frustration: lack of information and a determination by local councillors to consistently disregard the wishes of the population.

There are now a number of issues causing concern – some of which will be discussed at TABS on Saturday: which is at St Mary’s Parish Hall from 2-5pm and several local groups will be represented..

Everyone at the Tuesday meeting was concerned for the future of the peninsular. Tesco will destroy Walton and Hamilton Road retailers, and what of traffic, sewerage, water supply – indeed the infrastructure in general and the crass determination to build new housing when there is plenty of brownfield sites to meet demand (if indeed there is any demand at present).

Talking of housing what’s happening to Housing Associations? There’s a suggestion that the development on the field behind the convent in Orwell Road is under threat as the housing association has withdrawn its support – through lack of funds.
A local action group is now in place concerned with the two Walton issues.

The Academy management choice remains a concern, as does the reduction in funding. No-one could explain why the new buildings were to be located as shown, and there was clearly not enough car parking space, nor adequate access.

Land has changed hands to enable the Academy and Tesco schemes to go ahead. This transfer of land between Councils was seen as underhand, even devious, as was the new road construction by Trinity College.

Tesco was regarded as a complete disaster. Building on Grade A agricultural land a disgrace. Roads etc unable to support extra housing, which was not needed anyway, and a supermarket being one too many – local plans say we only need four, not five. Importantly if will destroy local retailing – with a huge loss of amenity and jobs in town, and our forlorn attempts at tourism.

The SCDC Scrutiny Committee will examine Spa Pavilion tonight, allegedly behind closed doors – another issue that will lead to a demonstration at Woodbridge. Where is democracy in this town? A large group want to use the building. Has the Council read the Localism Act?

Felixstowe and its Colneis Peninsular is under threat, and it seems to many people that the major threat comes from local councils who don’t listen to the views of local people, but seem set on another agenda.

One suggestion for the Walton Green campaign was to contact every member of Trinity College: staff and students as well as the governing body

All these meetings concern the future of this penisular:

Tuesday 10th January (tomorrow!) at 7.30 pm at St Mary’s Hall, Walton (Cage Lane, opposite the Church). An opposition group is being set up and the object of this meeting is to formalise plans, ideas and practical support, to try and protect the farmland at Walton from development by Trinity College. Anyone interested in joining – or has ideas that may help – the group, is very welcome to attend.

Thursday 12 January at Melton Hill, Woddbridge at 6.30pm: Suffolk Coastal District Council have ‘called in’ the Spa Pavilion proposal and so it will be examined by the Scrutiny Committee this Thursday 12 January at 6.30pm at Melton Hill Woodbridge. Please attend.

Saturday 14 January at St Mary’s Church Hall: a gathering to discuss issues that affect us all, including;

LDF Core Strategy
South Seafront Development
Spa Pavilion
Felixstowe Community School
Felixstowe Futures Group
Business Rates/Car Parking Charges
Business Enterprise Park, West Walton
Tesco
Trinity College
Community Health
NHS New Structure
Walton Green Partnership
Felixstowe Masterplan
Academy
Bartlet
Shared Space
Heritage

This week Suffolk Coastal District Council decided to defer any decision about the planning application put forward by the NHS to convert the Bartlet Convalescent Home and the Bath Annexe.

This was a step welcomed by those who believe that the people of east Suffolk need a resource like the Bartlet. With a quarter of Ipswich Hospital patients stated (by the Hospital) to be suffering from dementia these people are in the wrong place, at high cost, the Bartlet provides a solution.

The argument remains about the ownership of the Bartlet. It was given to the people of east Suffolk by Dr Bartlet in 1928, together with many thousands of pounds to ensure it was kept in perpetuity.

In 2006 the Primary Care Trust decided it was an asset that could bring more money if sold. Their accounts for this facility are confusing. Nowhere do we see what happend to the £109,000 in cash and securities – just swallowed up since 1947, and the value of the building has been steadily eroded in the accounts over the years. It requires investigation.

There’s little doubt that the NHS regard the Bartlet as a cash cow to be milked. Yet they now say they will make no profit from the conversion to luxury apartments of a building they acquired for nothing. So bad will be the loss that they cannot conform to the legal requirement to provide social housing out of the profits.

The new Localism Act came into force in November 2010. It gives local people the right to ensure that such buildings are retained for public use.

Will the NHS and the local Council flout the law?

Our town centres are dying. Shops are closing every month.

Suffolk Coastal District Council has a more pressing problem: it needs to save £2.7 million. Its primary choice to garner more revenue is to charge the motorist. Make us all pay more for parking our cars. Increase the presure on our lives as we worry about getting back to the car in time before the grey wraith slaps a ticket on the windscreen. Strangle our retailers and tourist attractions.

Is this what we deserve from our councils? Do we want to be exploited? Is it fair that we should have to pay?

Councils are there to serve the local population; to assist in the smooth running of all our lives, and to provide support and services as required, often under the control of legislation.

Has something gone wrong at Suffolk Coastal District Council? Most Council web sites have a page that tells us what to expect to be provided. That’s difficult with SCDC. It’s probably there somewhere – but where?

Perhaps we should start by closely examining the Council’s accounts. What do they spend our money on? Last year 9/10 we can see that they made a loss of nearly £1 million on the sale of assets – was that good management?

The new car paking charges will bring in £350,000 extra this year. It’s a simple ploy that brings in cash, but it has the potential to drive customers away from our town centres and our tourist attractions. What will the Council do when out-of-town supermarkets finally destroy our town centres?

They could look at staffing, at capital assets, at better management. The biggest Council operation at nearly £20 million is within culural, environmental and planning services. An odd collection of services to lump together. That does make you wonder what is hidden in the depths of those costs. How much was spent planning the South Seafront at Felixstowe – a scheme designed to help a developer, and not one that has any close association with the area.

What can you do? Buy a bike. Learn to walk. Use your bus pass. Go to a supermarket. Stay at home. Or take the usual way; pay up and complain to your friends. Oh, there’s another idea – complain to your local councillor.

Our local paper is reporting that the Council will approve (on 5th January) the conversion of the Bartlet into a series of luxury flats.

Not only is that approval confirmed before the meeting by the local newspaper but we are given plenty of detail. There will not be any allowance for affordable homes nor any funds available for community use, perhaps a children’s play area.

Several questions arise:

How can the local newspaper be so sure? Is this insider trading?

Why no affordable housing? The excuse given is that to help local residents would jeopradise the sale. Considering the NHS were given these buildings for nothing then anything they make is a profit – especially as they will not produce the documents that describe the handover to the NHS in 1947 – even though it is known they are in their possession – that will prove that the local community still own the building.

The Localism Act provides the Community Right to Bid (Assets of Community Value). This allows communities to nominate buildings and land that they consider to be of value to the community, to be included on a local authority maintained list. If any of the assets on the register are put up for sale, the community is given a window of opportunity to express an interest in purchasing the asset, and another window of opportunity to bid.

There have been many attempts by the local community to acquire this local asset – which they assert is still owned by the community.

Is there collusion here? If so the NHS and the Council are running very close to the wind.