For the attention of Mr Phillip Lewis, Government Planning Inspector.

C/o Mrs Annette Feeney. Annette.Feeney@eastsuffolk.gov.uk

Programme Officer to the Government Inspector for the Suffolk Coastal Plan.

Objections to the proposed sale of Suffolk Police Head Quarters.

Reference: Policy SCLP 12.25: Suffolk Police HQ, Portal Avenue, Martlesham.

Plus: Is Policy SCLP 12.25 consistent with the policies of the Martlesham

Neighbourhood Plan.

The following objections list the serious concerns of 14 + residents of Parkers Place,

Martlesham Heath, IP5 3UX, to the proposed sale of Suffolk Police Headquarters that

will lead to the construction of 300 domestic dwellings.

1. We ask you to be aware that virtually everyone who lives in the Marltesham Health

area objects to this ill conceived proposal, which we believe is a ‘cash raising

exercise’ driven by HM Governments serious underfunding of England’s Police

Service.

2. Having examined the original Conveyancing Deed of Sale between Bradford

Property Trust and Suffolk Police Authority; on page 2. item 3., there is a schedule

containing three points marked (i) (ii) & (iii) of which item (ii) binds the buyer in a

restrictive covenant and I quote:

“Not to use the remainder of the land hereby conveyed (except that part

which is shown in coloured blue on the said plan) for purposes other than

playing fields.”

It was clearly the intention of the original vendor, to protect both the amenity and the

environment ‘in perpetuity’ for the benefit of all future Martlesham Heath residents.

We ask that this covenant be respected and not be ‘struck down’ in the pursuit of

the PCC’s financial expedience.

NB. A photocopy of the relevant Conveyancing Deed is attached.

3. Amenity: The large sports field attached to Suffolk Police HQ (already mentioned in

Item 2) is used every weekend and at other times for various sporting activities. It’s

conversion into a housing estate is seen by residents to be ‘yet one more’ green

space “in-fill” scheme; a loss greater than the sum of its financial value.

4. I refer now to The Suffolk Coastal Plan:

This document supported Martlesham’s Neighbourhood Plan; all aspects of it being

overwhelmingly approved in a referendum of Martlesham residents in 2018.

Our Neighbourhood Plan stated that: “it did not envisage the need for any further

large scale development within Martlesham, apart from the Brightwell Lakes.”

It also stated that “the areas of Martlesham, Kesgrave and Rushmere-St-Andrew,

should be allowed to settle following large scale development over recent years.”

We understand that the Martlesham Neighbourhood Plan was accepted for inclusion

in the Suffolk Coastal Plan but later SCDC Cabinet chose to insert the proposed

sale of the Police HQ in its Local Plan, thereby making it conterrary to the will of

Martlesham residents and totally inconsistent with the policies of the Martlesham

Neighbourhood Plan.

Policy SCLP 12.25 refers.

What price democracy if ‘the will of the people’ is canvassed and accepted, then

completely ignored?

5. Suffolk Police Headquarters: Is not a brown field site as stated to in the PCC’s

press release.

6. The same PCC press release also stated that the proposed development will help

Suffolk meet its housing needs.

This cannot be a contributory factor of significance in the Martlesham area, when

it is considered that construction will start shortly on 2,200 dwellings, (rising in due

course to 3,000+) on BT’s Adastral Park (now called Brightwell Lakes) There are

also any number of other local projects, for example just 3 miles away in Woodbridge,

200 + plus homes are under construct by Bloore Homes, along with further

development off Bell Lane, Kesgrave, and countless others planned or in progress.

NB. Just one developer alone ‘Gladman’ has published plans to build 2,700 homes

to the east of Ipswich (just 3 miles away) what is describes as a “garden village’

style development” which it claims “will be the key to Suffolk’s housing needs.”

Information source: press release in the Ipswich Star 10th November 2018

https://www.ipswichstar.co.uk/news/gladman-unveil-more-details-for-orwell-green-garden-village-development-near

bucklesham-1-5773324

7. The construction of Police Detention Centre, (opened in June 2011) was 100%

objected too by Marltesham Heath residents.

None the less it went ahead, the argument being that it needed to be placed next to

Suffolk Police Headquarters in order to provide easy access for investigating

officers to suspects being held on remand.

The proposed HQ sale appears to indicate that the PCC no longer considers the

once ‘vitally positioned’ Detention Centre to be an important adjunct to its fight

against crime; which ‘begs the question’ what will Martlesham residents be left with?

A prison type Detention Centre ‘on its own’ within a prestigious residential area, miles

away from the nearest police station?

8. Police presence in Ipswich was seen to be diluted in 2016 when the town’s only

substantial police station in Elm Street (it was open 24 hours per day) was closed

and replaced by a smaller ‘9 to 5 office hours’ police office in Museum Street.

The above reduced ‘visible police presence’ and availability, an act that would be

compounded by the PCC’s proposal to build a new Police HQ miles away from the

Suffolk’s largest town, where violence & sexual offences ‘alone’ grew by + 32.67%

between June 2018 and May 2019.

Crime figures in support: https://www.police.uk/suffolk/J31A/crime/stats/

9. Access for vehicular traffic: 300 new dwellings, (With typically two cars per

household on average = 600 cars) will add further to current traffic congestion

because there is only one practical entry & exist point to the Police HQ, i.e.

Portland Avenue, which forms a junction with the A1214 Kesgrave Rd.

NB. Most morning and evenings there is significant traffic congestion on the

approaches to and from the A1214 / A12 Interchange Island; a tail back of

half a mile or more being ‘the norm.’

It has been suggested that traffic-lights could be installed as a solution to integrating

the traffic leaving Portland Road, with the frequently congested A1214 Kesgrave

Rd. Clearly this would not provide a viable solution because traffic-lights punctuate /

slow traffic flow, they never improve it.

This fact was well illustrated on this same stretch of road (the A1214) when traffic

lights at its intersection with Ropes Drive, (Close to Kesgrave School) were removed, an

action which resulted in an immediate improvement in traffic flow.

The above point is made because 600 extra vehicles exiting Portal Ave will also

further load the A12 dual carriageway, which is already seriously congested, not

just at peak traffic periods but every weekend and at random times during the day.

I drew these traffic congestion problems to the attention of Councillor Mary Evans,

Suffolk County Council Cabinet Member for Highways, following an article in the

local press describing SCC’s plan to install five sets of traffic-lights in the 2.5 km

section of the A12 dual carriageway, between Foxhall Road the Kesgrave /

Woodbridge A1214 / A12 intersection island adjacent to the Police HQ. on Portland

Avenue.

On 16/06/2019 Councillor Mary Evans replied by email:

Dear Mr Lawley,

You will be aware by now that the SCC Development and Regulatory Committee rejected the proposals for changing speed limits and traffic lights. I have sympathy with their decision and have instructed SCC Officers to look again.

I am aware of the volumes of traffic in the Martlesham as I have several family members living in the area.

As I am sure you appreciate this development was approved by the then Suffolk Coastal District Council and it is for highways to mitigate the impact the extra traffic it generates which is very challenging.

I hope we can develop proposals that are more acceptable.

Yours with kind regards

Mary Evans Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Rural Affairs.

10. Infrastructure: Neither the PCC press release or information made available by

Suffolk County Council has provided details of how they intend to manage the

predictable extra burden the residents of 300 dwellings will place on the infrastructure.

Council Tax payers are aware that historically the required infrastructure support for

new a housing development was frequently addressed following planning approval,

BUT with HM Governments ever decreasing financial support for County & Local

Councils, such important matters can no longer be left to a practice of ‘make do &

mend,’ because the money or the capacity simply isn’t available any more for ad hoc

solutions.

We therefore draw to your attention the fact that Martlesham Heaths’ infrastructure

is already over stretched, as any resident will tell you who has tried to make an

appointment to see a doctor at Martlesham Heath surgery or has applied to get their

child into a local school of their choice; see below email answer to an information

request addressed the Head Teacher of Kesgrave High School:

Dear Laurie office@kesgrave.suffolk.sch.uk 22nd July 2019

For the record, we are full in Year groups 7-11, with capacity at 308 in each year group, 1540 in total for the main school. There is no room for further expansion at the school, and always a long waiting list for entry into the school,

Best regards

Nigel Burgoyne

Head Teacher All infants and junior schools in our area are similarly placed and in anticipation of a

search for a low cost solution (by SCC) to a potential increase in school age pupils;

any decision that implies an increase in class sizes and pupil teacher ratios would

be totally unacceptable at all levels.

In conclusion, we ‘the residents of Parkers Place Martlesham Heath’ earnestly

request that due consideration be given to these and other residents justifiable

concerns, and ask that the financial expedience of the PCC should not be allowed

to erode the local amenity by a cash-driven green ‘in fill’ project.

For and on behalf of the residents of Parkers Place, Martlesham Heath, Suffolk. IP5 Yours sincerely L. J. Lawley Mr

Attachments:

a) Copy of the Conveyancing Deed of Sale between Bradford Property Trust & Suffolk

Police Authority.

b) Aerial view of Suffolk Police Constabulary Head Quarters

Addendum:

Listed below are the email addresses of Parkers Place residents who have read

and endorse the objections detailed in this document:

The area ‘hatched black’ on the land-area used in the Conveyancing deed,

indicates the agreed foot-print of the intended Police Head Quarters.

Inset view is of the Police Detention Centre►

Enlarged aeria l view of Suffolk Police Constabulary Head Quarters

with its ‘covenant protected’ playing field and wooded area.