Growing concerns have been raised in Woodbridge over plans for housing at the old offices of Suffolk Coastal District Council.
Although an official proposal has yet to be made, anxieties have been voiced over disparities between a community shaped design in 2016 and blueprints unveiled more recently.
Last April’s public workshops inspired an ‘illustrative masterplan’ for the Melton Hill site. A year on, local chartered surveyor John Saggers was ‘shocked’ to attend an exhibition and see a designs ‘radically different from the plan said to reflect views of those who attended the earlier meeting’.
Master planners JTP, appointed by the council’s preferred developer Active Urban Property Group (AUPG), hosted the exhibition, where Mr Saggers found units ‘brutalist, oddly shaped, too bulky and far too tall’.
Janet Hogarth-Scott, was as surprised to see the site’s two front buildings, which she was told were to stay, had been removed from plans, which she called ‘rather disastrous’ in terms of infrastructure and design, including its 90 underground car spaces for 110 units, with no lifts.
Woodbridge resident, Gill Cruickshank said the two designs bore ‘no resemblance’ and were ‘completely unsympathetic’ to surroundings.
Last month, protest posters appeared on sale boards at the site, but were swiftly removed.
At this month’s town council meeting, members discussed their concerns, including an increase in units.
Lady Caroline Blois said there was a lot of feeling in town that designs were ‘totally unsuitable’.
She questioned how the district council, as vendor, could consider a planning application impartially.
Geoff Holdcroft, chairman of Suffolk Coastal’s accommodation programme board, said it could only be dealt with by the council, legally, and that decisions were based purely on planning matters.
Martin Sylvester said many had been under the impression that plans would include 90, not 110 homes, which he described as ‘at odds with surroundings’.
He suggested ‘spot listing’ the two front buildings and, consequently, the Drummer Boy statue, which is again the subject of uncertainty after being removed from designs.
Veronica Falconer said: “Keeping the buildings would maintain a bit of character. Otherwise, it looks grim.”
Town councillors also reacted with alarm at the omission of the ‘Drummer Boy’ statue from the latest designs.
Last year, campaigners fought Suffolk Coastal’s plan to take it to new offices in Melton.
With the district council then willing to transfer custody and help fund its relocation, people voted to move it to Market Hill.
When developers revealed that their own survey of local people suggested it should remain part of the project, the town council withdrew its application for the move.
But, following a meeting with the town clerk, AUPG said that the statue no longer formed part of the plans, “as the area is open and would offer no protection from passing traffic by car or foot”.
It offered to match-fund a move or, if the public agreed, move it to one of two on-site locations – neither visible from Melton Hill – at legal expense to the town council.
Veronica Falconer said people would be “up in arms” at the statue being “tucked in a corner”.
JTP said that, while many had been positive about the proposals, the exhibition did elicit comments in relation to parking, building height and number of homes.
It said initial architectural sketches were indicative designs, which Hoopers architects had then taken on.
A pre-application process had evolved, it said, with Suffolk Coastal planning, conservation and landscape officers, while maintaining the strength of initial concepts, ideas and feedback from the general public.
Changes were made between October and February, when a review panel endorsed the new scale, removal of buildings and streetscape design as showing a ‘fantastic improvement’.
In response to comments, JTP said changes were being made prior to an planning application, including a possible reduction in the height of some blocks by a one storey, reducing the number of units.
It said the changes would be reported, once confirmed.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here