Councillor Andy Smith

SAVE FELIXSTOWE

“Our minds are already made up - Hard to say its actually not true”

The E-Mail Correspondence Of Councillor Andy Smith

Using the Freedom Of Information Act STAG have obtained e-mail correspondence between Andy Smith, Stephen Brown and Phil Ridley. Although there are no smoking guns it is perfectly clear that

·	They are very unhappy about STAG’s activities,

·	They don’t like the way we keep pressing for updated housing statistics, and

·	As we have already predicted, they are prepared to go beyond the year 2021 in order to get the answer they have wanted all along - housing estates on greenfield land surrounding the Trimley Villages.

A selection of this e-mail correspondence is reproduced for your information and amusement.

From: Andy Smith

To: Hilary Slater

Topic: STAG

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007

Hilary,

Further to our talk, please find attached a doc listing the quotes attribted to me on the website.

The only ones I am uneasy with are (in red in the doc):
1) "Most of the Options favour the Trimleys for development"

The draft Core Stategy document for consultation nowhere identifies Trimley(s), as distinct from "Felixstowe/Trimleys". This is one of the 'blocks' they seem unable to take on board. Although accurately reported in the text of the summary of the meeting under "Smith visits Trimley".

I am inclined, I think, to ask them simply to make that modification. Your views?

and:

2) "We made our decision last July - but had to change our minds"

A highly specious way of summarising the business regarding the evolution of the drafts. But hard to say it's actually not true. Sleeping dogs on that one?

Regards

Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Philip Ridley, Hilary Slater, Steve Brown

Topic: STAG situation

Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007

All, The STAG group situation is becoming more and more concerning. Please see below my reply to an EMail from Carl Storer referencing their updated web site. Please check out the site in detail: there is a great deal in there - certain parts which are questionable to say the least. I should like to talk to you urgently to consider all this, and what may be the appropriate response.

Regards Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown
Sent: Fri 18/05/2007 16:28
To: Andy Smith
Cc: Philip Ridley; Sophie Barker
Subject: LDFTG

Andy
I didn't get the opportunity yesterday to talk about the Task Group.

There is a lot of material to discuss/consider in the coming months if we are to publish preferred options in the autumn. There are also some new members to bring up to speed.

I suggest a first meeting in June.

The first item on the agenda (following election of chairman etc) could be an update on the LDF process - where we are, what has happened so far, what studies are underway etc. We could discuss the future programme, including the means of dealing with the hundreds of requests for land to be allocated

This could be followed by the consultation responses on the Vision and Objectives. This is quite a good one as it deals with the generality without getting into detail eg whether Bromeswell is a key service centre or how much housing is appropriate in Trimley. It also gives members a good feel for the issues involved.

This first meeting could be held in the evening, say June 20th? Perhaps you could let us know of your availability. An early evening start would be better, of course, (or even during the day?).

There will then be a lot of material to discuss in respect of the consultation responses on all of the issues. With the August break coming up I suggest a meeting in July (again early evening or day perhaps). During the day of July 17th? Again, your availability is requested. The subject matter at this meeting ought to be the big ones of housing and settlement policy.

We can then address the other issues and put the preferred options document together, with sustainability appraisal. To do justice to it a prolonged debate will be essential, particularly given new membership. A full day would be the ideal - September 10, 11 or 12 - with lunch provided? This would enable consideration by Cabinet in October and publication in November in order to meet our local development scheme.

A lot to do in a short period of time! Other things are also likely to need shoehorning onto agendas - gypsies, RSS review etc.

In summary:

·1	one session in June (evening/early evening/day)

·2	one session in July (evening/early evening/day)

·3	two sessions in September which could be together on one day

Perhaps I can ring you early next week once you've thought about all of this.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown

To: Andy Smith

Topic: Housing completions

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007

Andy
Some weeks ago I received a request fro STAG under the FOIA for up to date information on completions, outstanding planning permissions and urban capacity.

I've been unable to provide it because the data was still being collated. I now have two of the three items and have to comply with the request. The outstanding element is urban capacity, which is still being verified/checked.

I thought I'd let you see the information before the STAG web page readers do.

Basically STAG is looking to update the housing requirement table. At a base date of 1/4/07 it looks like this:

District IPA Rest of District
Housing required 2001-2021 10200 3200 7000
Completions 2001-2007 3850 1540 2310

Net requirement 2007-2021 6350 1660 4690

Outstanding planning permissions 2007 2920 1030 1890

Still to find
2007-2021 3430 630 2800

There still needs to be an allowance for urban capacity including small sites. The end date should also be extended to at least 2024 to give 15 years of supply.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown

To: Andy Smith

Topic: TSMartin and the LDF

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007

Andy
I have received the attached from the parish clerk. It is self-explanatory but the main thrust appears to be that the PC concerns over growth should be reflected in the Vision and not left until the discussion on housing. They consider the 2021 Vision for Fx and the Ts to assume that growth will have taken place.

This is true to an extent but there is no reference to scale or location. Fx is a major employment centre. We have advice from DLA that it cannot stand still. Some growth has to be an element of the Vision but how much and where is to be the subject of a future discussion and public consultation.

By the way - expect STAG to be in the audience.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Steve Brown

Topic: Housing Statistics - urgent ahead of STAG.

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007

Steve, Thanks (??!!) for this. SUrely, if we are goin to start from a later base, with a later adoption (2009?) of the LDF, then the end-date (15-year view) should also roll forward? i.e. 2009 + 15 = 2024? So we need to allocate on that view?

Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown
Sent: Fri 23/02/2007 11:26
To: Andy Smith

Cc: Philip Ridley; Jeremy Schofield; Andy Smith
Subject: Housing Statistics

Andy
Thanks for your email.

Thanks to STAG housing statistics is an interesting subject at the moment.

The housing completion rates have shown strange results recently. The rates for 2001/2, 2002/3, and 2003/4 were 423, 571 and 456 respectively across the district. The figure for 2004/5 dropped to 347. These statistics are based on notifications received from building control and council tax. This is not a perfect system. A manual check was required and so in March last year I arranged for all of the outstanding planning permissions to be checked on the ground. As a consequence the annual rate for 2005/6 went up to 902.

So far this financial year the numbers of new houses constructed is 485 which, if projected forward, could show a healthy 646 for 2006/7.

The granting of planning permissions does not appear to ease. The high numbers of houses constructed each year do not all come from the stock of consents. In April 2004 the opps were 3120 (discounted by 10% in the Issues and options report). They remained at the same level in April 2006 and did not reduce as you would expect.

What this means is that the proposed allocations reduce in number. So, for example, if April 2006 was the base the numbers would look like this:

Dwellings required 2001 to 2021 = 10,200

Completions 2001 to 31st March 2006 = 2,699

OPPs 31st March 2006 = 2812 (discounted by 10%)

Balance 2006 to 2021 = 4689

A proportion of this balance will come from urban capacity, including small sites in towns and villages. At 31st March 2004 the total urban capacity figure was 2310. This should have reduced given that some of the larger sites in the urban capacity study have since been granted planning permission (eg Garrison Lane/High Road corner, High Road West farm etc) but I won't know by how much until it is updated. This will take place in the next few months so that the base date for all data for the preferred options can be updated to 31st March 2007. However, the granting of consents on small sites does not appear to ease up.

What it means I am sure is that the number of dwellings needed to be allocated across the district will reduce from the figure of 3620 as based on 2004 figures.

This, of course, is good news for STAG. They will be aware of these stats because Mr Cowan has asked for them under FOIA and I anticipate sending them out today.

However, it should not prevent the Council taking a longer term view of the district as a whole and areas such as Felixstowe/Trimleys and Ipswich fringe where employment growth is taking place. It will also be interesting to see whether the market towns would like to see more development. There is also the issues of affordable housing (and your requested summary is on its way) and the population profile. This might be the line to take with STAG next week.

In summary, it would appear that by updating the LDF base date by 3 years the number of allocations is likely to be reduced. This is due to the prolific house construction rate in this district, not only in respect of large estates but also small sites in villages.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Steve Brown

Topic: CONFIDENTIAL: STAG: getting nasty?

Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007

All,

I have come by the attached (via Sherrie Green, also verbally by Mary Dixon).

Most unpleasant.

Makes me wonder whether it is appropriate to go ahead with Tuesday evening's meeting in the light of this? Appears that 'anything we say may be taken down and used in evidence'. Or at another level, we should not put ourselves in the position of meeting under this type of threat?

Urgent advice, please.

Andy

[ Note : This refers to an e-mail which seems to have been passed to Sherrie Green from Richard Kerry, who received, from John Barker, Trimley St Martin Parish Council Chairman, copies of an e-mail sent by Ian Cowan to Trimley St Martin Parish Councillors detailing exploratory work he had carried out regarding taking legal advice with regard to the the actions of the LDF Task Group. John Barker’s e-mail to Richard Kerry reads : “Richard - You will not want to see this but here it is just the same. John B” ]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Steve Brown, Susan Robinson

Topic: STAG Response to SCDC Housing Options

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006

Gents & Susan

See request below.

I'm not sure of best thing here. possible stances. It's way too premature - talk as part of LDF process. Talk now 'to show willing' but I would not compromise my/our strong view re housing (so - the report's nonsense!) We certainly would support D Lock pronciples. Advice, please.

NB They are also trying to put FTC 'on the spot' to support it - no chance.

Initial FTC response on Weds: 'noted'. Generated immediate response 'support or oppose?'

I have to respond to Susan on that one also.

Was in the EStar a few days back - that needs some response too I guess - just on facts of housing need at least.

As I type, I ponder. Gut feel is to respond - fairly dismissively, quoting D Lock, Housing needs etc etc. Would that prejudice me/us ref LDF process? We have after all expressed our intial view strongly - for consultation - that's what they are complaianing of, of course. The political overview is that this fight needs to be fought on a continuing basis for a long time to come. We would not persuade these guys, but we must not let them monopolise a vacuum. Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Ray Herring

Topic: Suffolk Coastal LDF

Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007

I agree -though not to the same degree as 'Henry'. Susan at FTC spent much time struggling with it, I could do little better - we certainly need something fundamentally different next time

Andy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Henry Birch

Sent: 02 April 2007 17:11
To: Ray Herring
Cc: EFORMS@SUFFOLKCOASTAL.GOV.UK
Subject: Suffolk Coastal LDF

Raymond

Just to let you know that the electronic reply form for the Core Strategies is awful!

I have (tried to) complete it 3 times today and when trying to turn to the next section it has crashed on me, at various different places - each time!

I forgave you the first time, but after the second & third and a pretty well wasted day I am now marginally agitated by the whole, awful, process!

I have now given up................................!!

0n the one hand I have not been able to fulfil my Clients wishes/instructions and the other (assuming others have had similar problems) what SCDC get by way of their responses will be incomplete & unrepresentative - which makes a mockery of the whole process and the exercise a complete waste of time & Council Tax Payers money!

I think you ought in the future devise a response system that is a bit more robust!

Just thought you ought to be aware!

Yours ever

Henry

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andy Smith

To: Viv Hotten, Steve Brown

Subject: EStar Tues 3/10: Trimley Housing

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2006

In tonight's EStar, there is a 2-page spread by RC, which is bad enough, plus a truly scurrilous leader on Trimley Housing. It's now an ' Evening Star / Campaign'! (Anyone know where the Editor lives?)

We must now respond robustly.

Will you please put together a draft response, possibly in the form of a letter from me to Editor. Andyspeak as best you can!. You know what I want to say, derived from D Lock etc.

With meetings 3 days+ 4 nights this week, I cannot do this myself quickly enough.

Thanks

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Philip Ridley

To: Andy Smith

Topic: EStar Tues 3/10: Trimley Housing

Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006

Andy

The editor lives in Trimley (i assume you knew that?) - I know Nigel Pickover vaguely through some previous DC work- when we met we discovered we both went to the same school in Oldham (at different times)

i will try and find a copy of the article but if you could bring one in that may help.

we perhaps should discuss some of the publicity issues this afternoon after the ldf task group

Philip

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown

To: Hilary Slater

Cc: Andy Smith

Topic: Urgent Concern Regarding LDF Consultation Process

Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007

Hilary

I have received a similar comment from a Trimley St Martin parish councillor.

The response to the recent public consultation exercise is to be reported to the Local Development Framework Task Group over a series of meetings. It will be based around themes - settlement pattern, housing, employment, countryside etc. The first meeting of the series is to take place on June 20th. A report to that meeting gives broad statistics in respect of the numbers of responses and then concentrates on one theme - the "Vision". This was the first, very short, chapter of the consultation document and is strategic and outline in its form. It does not go into detail. Where respondents have specifically referred to the Vision or an element of it, their comments have been reported.

As you will perceive from the email from Mr and Mrs Shout, the issues they raise relate primarily to themes to be debated at future meetings, predominantly housing. Their views will be reported then.

In respect of the manner in which responses are reported, the public had the opportunity to complete forms by hand or electronic means. The Council created a publishing system whereby the entirety of an answer can be incorporated into a report to Councillors. However, where responses have been submitted in often lengthy narrative form the officers will have to summarise where possible or, if they consider that a summary might not convey the full extent of the points being put across, to append the response in full. Such a decision will need to be made in this case when the themes of settlement pattern and housing are to be considered by members and the report is being drafted. However, I am aware of the concerns in the Trimleys in respect of the LDF and it is always been my intention to ensure as far as possible that those concerns are reported in full.

Points 1 and 2 do not relate to the proposed content of the LDF but to the process that the Council is following. The Chairman of the Task Group has been made aware of the matters raised and it was not my intention to report them to the Task Group as a whole.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown

To: Andy Smith

Subject: RE: STAG Response to SCDC Housing Options

Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006

Andy

STAG has also asked me to go to an "informal" meeting with a group (up to 3) of its members. The main purpose is to discuss its paper and some of the questions asked.

I'm happy to do that and am trying to arrange a convenient date. I've been before in the early days of Trimleygate when the accusations were of deals done with Trinity College so I know what to expect.

It may be sufficient for them to know that you, both as chairman of the Task Group and Cabinet member, has seen the paper and do take their concerns seriously, as do I as the officer responsible for the LDF. They will have the opportunity to submit views on the Options and when I meet them I can emphasise that they are options at this stage.

If their views are reported to members then an invitation to submit views now in advance of the Options Report should be extended to the PCs and the landowners.

I was also asked to go to T St Martin PC. The clerk has arranged a joint workshop with St Mary PC in October and I will take members of the team along for a "brainstorm" like the recent ones with Town Councils. I can emphasise the same points.

In case you were going to ask Andy, I would suggest that you left the PC meeting to officers. Happy to have you along of course but I would be concerned that you would be the focus of attention (and possible aggression) rather than there being an informal creative discussion about things other than houses.

For your information, STAG has been known to make a request under FOI for all correspondence and notes of meetings.

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Brown

To: Andy Smith

Topic: LDF Growth Options

Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006

Andy
We've recalibrated the spread sheets to accord with the LDFTG views.

Basically:

Option 1 - all greenfield development in IEF
Option 2 - all greenfield development in F/Ts
Option 3 - greenfield development split equally between the two on the basis of numbers
Option 4 - all new development split equally between IEF, F/Ts and market towns on the basis of % increase
Option 5 - all new development split equally between IEF, F/Ts, market towns and key service centres on the basis of % increase

Option 6 - as 5 but IEF receives significant development (thereby exceeding RSS targets)

One thing that emerged is the complication of Option 7 relating to the non-haven gateway. The figures don't work out on the basis of % increase. This is because the area in the RSS is not the area that we are working on. I have come to a conclusion that it is far better (and easier for the public to understand) if we work on district-wide figures in the Core Strategy and ensure that haven gateway gets it correct share when we identify sites.

The attached spreadsheets therefore are district-wide.

Our collective noted show that Option 6 was the preferred option of the TG. this was because the members wanted to ensure that the IEF received development over and above the building out of current developments (which will probably be exhausted in the next 5 years or so). Greenfield development was therefore essential for the proper long term planning of this area. However, this should not be at the expense of Felixstowe, the market towns and key service centres. Hence the "overprovision".

Steve

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------