September 12
Site huts are not a great view Along with the residents of the east side of Nelson Road, as a family we have had to endure the most unsightly view of the Taylor Woodrow Cattle Market site huts from our bedroom windows for more than a year-and-a-half.
My question is this: Was it really necessary to build more of these site huts on the corner of Parkway and King's Road, causing the residents there to suffer the same?
Paul Hopfensperger,
Risbygate Street,
Bury St Edmunds.
'Ghetto' slur is not fair
I was disappointed by the article in last week's Bury Free Press, describing a proposed Havebury Housing Partnership development, in Out Westgate, as of being of such poor design and layout that it could become a ghetto area.
I found this a gross insult to all Havebury past, present and future tenants. It is one thing to find fault with either the density, design or layout of this plan, but to virtually stigmatise the tenants before any have even moved in smacks not so much of nimby-ism but of pure social bias.
The council planning department is always very strident in how it deals with Havebury. It holds the plans to the highest scrutiny and frequently has additional advice and suggestions.
As a former vice-chairman of the Havebury board of directors and a Havebury tenant, I felt strongly that I could not and should not let this perceived slur against any member of the public who may become a tenant and live in this new development go unchallenged.
With all of the housing problems this country is facing and plans to build on green fields being scaled down, surely it's time to be a little caring and show some sympathy for those who have no home.
On any of the private estates you have no say in who your neighbours will be. Not everyone with the money to afford homes in the 250,000 and upwards bracket are necessarily going to be good neighbours.
Tom Murray,
Howard estate, Bury.
I had a new experience on Friday – my first glimpse of the wheels of local government in motion.
I was at a development control committee meeting in the borough chambers in Bury St Edmunds to watch proceedings regarding a Havebury Housing Partnership scheme in Out Westgate, to which I had raised an objection. In fact, I had only recently discovered plans for the scheme and it had already been approved, but I felt moved to raise my objections anyway. So, I wrote a conscience-pricking email, which was circulated to councillors.
I have no problem with development, as people need affordable places to live, but I think they should also be nice places to live. I do have a problem with this development because it's just not good enough. Don't take my word for it, look at it for yourself (St Edmundsbury website – application SE/08/0971).
I can happily list everything that is not good about this scheme and write about how it could be so much better, but I will let the words of councillors speak for themselves.
I noted these comments in my notebook: 'lacklustre and disappointing', 'horrible little boxes', 'rotten then and rotten now', 'ugly and disappointing', 'hideous and incredibly disappointing' and last but not least 'a blot on the landscape'. By my reckoning, only two of the 14 or so councillors present were fully in favour of the scheme.
So, obviously, the only possible thing they could do was – approve it.
Why? Because they had already approved it and this meeting was only to discuss minor changes in the details.
So, I witnessed a panel of councillors who were not at all happy with a major housing scheme wrestling with their consciences and wondering why they had approved it in the first place, yet unable to do the right thing and demand that the whole thing be stopped and rethought.
Why not take a look at the plan yourself and if you decide it is not good enough, then write to Havebury and tell them so.
Jonathan Kemp,
Hospital Road, Bury.
Merger was news to me
Re: Merger of Riverwalk and Priory schools.
This news was a shock to me. I was not aware this was the plan. I spoke to another mother who has a child at Riverwalk who was also totally unaware of the situation.
Although Suffolk is in desperate need of further facilities for our children, I cannot believe we have not been consulted regarding such a life-changing issue for our children. Many of the youngsters who attend Riverwalk have such needs that the smallest of change such as where the toilet is or moving of a small table, could turn their entire worlds upside down. This could trigger events we strive to prevent on a day-to-day basis. Not only could this create immense pressure to the parents and carers of these children, but could in some cases put their lives in danger!
However, the powers that be just make their plans and pat themselves on the back for a job well done. They may think they are doing this for the right reasons, but they should think very carefully about the many varied and complex needs of these children and their families.
Thank you Suffolk County Council, you have already added to our daily stress just by making sure we are ill-informed.
Gail Hurst,
address supplied.
Our town is withering
What a depressing spectacle a walk down St John's Street, in Bury, provides today.
Small shops closed and to let signs. Along with our wonderful market, once brimming with life every Saturday and Wednesday, the commercial heart of Bury is being killed off.
It wasn't meant to be like this, was it?
A few years ago, local council leaders warned us that if we didn't sign up for the Cattle Market the town would 'wither'. Just look what is happening now.
And it's not just commercial variety that's being lost, but unique local and idiosyncratic features.
We've lost the Manor House Museum, 18th century properties, a vintage wooden caf and the market booth. With them goes the essential flavour of life which made us a market town once considered a gem.
Contrast our fate with Southwold, a town that stood up to developers. It has become a thriving place, with visitors and tourists flocking.
Our borough council could do something to ameliorate the massacre of small businesses, using business rate relief powers under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The Government's East of England Development Agency could help by investing in a 'small is beautiful' approach. Unfortunately, both have pushed their spare resources into the ever-spiralling costs of the Cattle Market.
What did this town do to deserve this? What became of curbs on executive power in Magna Carta? Frankly, we have become a laughing stock.
Andrew Snowdon,
Pemberton Walk, Bury.
A vote for one authority
I was interested in the piece last week (Bury Free Press, September 5) about the suggestion for a separate West Suffolk authority.
From a planning point of view, I believe a single unitary authority would be a better idea, because Suffolk would comprise a mixture of environments – urban Ipswich and Lowestoft, the commercial port of Felixstowe and a way of life in rural areas.
Also, I am sure the representatives of the people of Suffolk would have a much greater influence at central government level over strategic issues– such as the the expansion of Sizewell nuclear power station, Stansted airport flight paths or regional issues of population growth – if they represented a wider, more diverse community.
Local planning issues could still be determined at local level but I believe there would be a general raising of standards of the built environment throughout the county by an enhanced calibre of planning officer and also a greater consistency of decision-making by councillors.
Roderick Rees,
Bury.
While agreeing with the opening paragraphs of the leader of Mid Suffolk District Council's letter (Bury Free Press, September 5), I cannot agree with his conclusions, nor those of the leader of St Edmundsbury Borough Council.
Is it only me who is of the opinion that those who are having such a great deal to say on the Boundary Committee's proposals for Suffolk appear to be worried – like turkeys at Christmas?
Mike Ames,
Chequer Square, Bury.Amongst all the talk about the proposed change to council boundaries, nowhere has the real reason for the change been explained.
Once again, we have to look to our membership of the European Union.
It has long been the aim of the faceless bureaucrats in Brussels to have England divided into nine regions for administration. John Prescott did his best for them by introducing regional assemblies, despite an overwhelming vote against in the north-east of England. Now, we are faced with another undemocratic move by the Government to start the process of regionalisation by instructing the Boundary Committee what to do.
The committee has said the status quo is not an option, without giving any reason why. The people on the ground might feel nothing proposed is better than the system we have, but they are not allowed to. The next move by the Boundary Committee was to choose as its preferred option something which nobody wanted.
The fact is there is no choice. We are on the relentless path towards the outcome the EU wants. As a consequence, we are on the way to losing the democracy we are constantly encouraging others to adopt. I hope it won't be much longer before we wake up to the fact and tell the Government that 'enough is enough'.
David Wedgwood,
Cowlinge.
As A neighbouring council leader, I take the strongest exception to Cllr Tim Passmore's letter (Bury Free Press, September 5) accusing St Edmundsbury Borough Council of 'misleading its citizens'.
We have consistently referred to the Boundary Committee's draft proposal which is not, despite implications to the contrary, for one unitary covering all of Suffolk, but for two unitaries (without Lowestoft).
We have studied the committee's proposal carefully and concluded that, while a North Haven and a rural unitary makes sense, we believe that if Lowestoft were to remain in Suffolk (where it belongs), the Boundary Committee's proposal could be improved by having three unitaries (east, west and North Haven), each focused on their local communities.
We are not misleading anyone and are fundamentally opposed to one giant, remote unitary for the county. We do, however, accept that unitary government may well make sense, but those of us who live and work in West Suffolk know what a unique identity it has. The same surely goes for the east of the county?
I have no wish to embarrass the leader of Mid Suffolk District Council by comparing the quality or cost of our respective services, but I do not believe he was correct to imply that St Edmundsbury Borough Council is expensive.
Anyone can be cheap, but we believe in delivering excellent services and value for money to residents, and in working with partners and neighbours to do this even better than we could alone. That is possibly why we have been independently rated as the best district council in the country.
Let us hope the Boundary Committee and the Government give Suffolk residents a greater say, listen and make sure the 'local' stays in local government.
Cllr John Griffiths,
Leader, St Edmundsbury Borough Council.
Your recent issues have, quite correctly, given local politicians the opportunity to express their viewpoint on the Boundary Committee proposals.
Does Cllr Pembroke not realise that after the salary fiasco following the appointment of the chief executive of Suffolk County Council, his credibility is zero. For him to recommend a unitary authority under his control cannot even be considered as a serious option.
As far as the allotment debate goes, quite obviously Cllr Farmer has little understanding of growing your own and the many health and environmental benefits of gardening and has, indeed, lost the 'plot'.
Alan Jary,
Hardwick Lane, Bury.
Allotments suggestion
The latest excuse offered for a proposed hike in allotment rents of 504 per cent is a 'significant element of staff salaries' in administration costs (Letters, September 5). Although aware that Bury Town Council, on whose behalf the councillor signs his name, has a reputation for red tape, surely even this can't be a valid reason for a rent rise from 16.55 to 100?
If it is, I suggest that the individual five allotment sites become self-sufficient. Each could then set its own rents and spend the income on improvements locally as they see fit. There would be no further need for layers of bureaucracy or interfering councillors.
David Nettleton,
Cadney Lane,
Bury St Edmunds.
So refreshing
How refreshing to hear that the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, is determined to keep to the original budget for the 2012 Olympics in London.
Let us hope the borough council takes this on board.
Mrs V Hall,
Barrow.
Thank you
I would like to say a big thank-you to the kind person who picked up my bank book with cash inside and handed it in to my bank after I lost it in town on Wednesday, August 27.
Mrs L Goddard,
Market Weston.
I WOULD like to say a big thank you for the wonderful care I received from the paramedics and A&E when I had a fall in Abbeygate Street.
Also, for the quick response of the the ambulance, the people who stopped to help and the staff at Javelin.
J R Elsey,
Chalk Road,
Bury St Edmunds.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Bury St Edmunds
Tuesday 07 February 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: -6 C to -1 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: -7 C to 0 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
