Suffolk Coastal District Council

Planning Department

Suffolk Coastal District Council

Ref DC/17/3328/FUL

Dear Sir or Madam

Martlesham Heath Householders Ltd, object to the planning application for the Development of 10 dwellings, car park re-provision, new and altered access points and associated services and landscaping on land to the East And South Of The Square Martlesham Heath.

The following are our reasons:-

1.  The current carpark is used by multiple commercial vehicles that would otherwise be parked on the streets or on MHHL visitor car park spaces. The MHHL spaces are overused now and the impact of the Vans will increase on road parking and subsequent congestion during construction and possibly after as the car park will no longer be visually open so making it more susceptible to crime.

2.  The loss of the old runway by making the area into a carpark will increase the danger for children walking or cycling to Birchwood, Gorseland and Kesgrave High Schools as they will tend to walk and cycle across the live carpark as they currently do across the old runway. Whilst the official cycle route takes cyclists to the north of the village square there are many cyclists young and old that cycle to the south of the public house and across the old runway and down the tree lined path, the revised car park will have cyclists crossing it as they are unlikely to follow a longer path. This will be a high risk area,

3.  The landscaped land alongside eagle way opposite the footbridge that will be built on is extremely attractive and well used and was never in the original outline plans for building. This area is visually attractive with the trees on the grassland and the avenue of trees either side of the pathway heading towards the bridge. We object to the destruction of such a visually important part of Martlesham Heath. A photograph of the area is shown below. We also believe this is an area that was protected by a Planning Inspector several years ago.

4.  Eagle way currently has no car access directly onto it from housing, all the other areas are arranged as courts to allow cars to turn prior to entering Eagle Way. Cars backing out onto Eagle way is unacceptable and dangerous.

5.  We question who will maintain the residents parking bays at either end of the terrace and also who will maintain the car park to the rear and abutting the Village green.

6.  The revised parking on the old runway will only have a knee rail separating it from Martlesham Village Green. This will seriously impact the visual aspects of the Green and we would look for landscaping to hide the parked vehicles. Below is a photograph from the Green apart from the ill kept runway tarmac this view is far better than a row of parked cars and vans.

7.  The revised parking arrangements on the old runway will also encourage delivery vehicles to use that area to make deliveries rather than using the rear of the shops. This was an issue in the past before the green was protected from travellers. I n fact you can see evidence of this with the broken paving slabs in the square.

8.  If permission is given, we would look to Grainger to indemnify MHHL against any costs incurred in dealing with Travellers that may gain access whilst construction is under way.

9.  I do not ever recall any disabled drivers driving over the old runway before the access was protected by MHHL in agreement with Grainger. We MHHL have received no complaints re lack of access.

10. Great emphasis is made in the application on making the access to the Village Centre more visually appealing, this will not be achieved by a row of terraced houses and the destruction of a well landscaped area that is immediately visible on crossing the bridge or driving to the square. I would suggest that this is not an acceptable reason to build this terrace. In fact the car park is well shielded with mature trees.

11. Grainger and BPT have waited 40 years to submit plans to build on the area and I would suggest that this application is nothing more than an opportunist move by Grainger purely motivated by profit.

12. I would request that the planning committee look at the area that was landscaped by Grainger? at the northern end of the square the proposed landscaping in front of the Bader will be similar. This area is never used and has fallen into disrepair. I suspect the new landscaped area described as a public square on the old runway will simply become an extension to the Bader’s terrace and be used by their customers. This is not acceptable with young children walking past.

Photo below shows landscaped area north of the square and how bad it looks; the prosed plans seem to be advocating a similar area at the end of the new car park on the runway.

13. Grainger claim the area of the old runway is visually unappealing this is in part due to Grainger neglecting the area and also the Douglas Bader public house neglecting their border onto the old runway. This border now has chippings on it rather than plants only after the MH100 team complained re the poor maintenance. Building a car park will do nothing to resolve this issue.

14. At the moment children can run from the shops directly onto the green with no danger of cars or delivery vehicles, this will end if the car park is built.

15. I note that supporting documentation to application states that “the landscaping within the applicant site has now outgrown the attractive early planting and is rather unkempt in appearance”. I would like to point out that this area is Granger’s responsibility and they have let the area get into that state.

Regards

David Foster

Volunteer Chairman

2