|
A look back over the Public Inquiry....
Day 24 , Friday 11th May...
What should have been the last day of the Inquiry had a real sting in it's tail - about which more later - and our barrister William Upton delivered a masterly closing submission in which he outlined each and very one of our concerns and objections. In a two and a quarter hour session he delivered what observers saw as a spirited and outstanding summary - copy of which you can download by clicking on the tab market "William Upton Closing submission" on the tab at the extreme top right of this page.
William was followed by Mid Suffolk and Suffolk County Councils' Meyric Lewis whose style was as different as chalk and cheese. He made no real "gotcha" comments of dramatic note and, not surprisingly, did little other than reiterate just how wonderful Mid Suffolk District Council thought the Snoasis scheme was and is, how the railway station was in line with Government policy and how desperately the houses were needed in the Haven Gateway/Ipswich Urban Area !
The biggest surprise came when dear old Godfrey Spanner and Persimmon Homes barrister, Rupert Warren, dropped the news just before lunch that, as a result of our William Upton's submissions, he had to revise his own submission that ran, he claimed to 100 points ! Maybe we shouldn't be surprised at the 11th hour news for we are well accustomed to them having become accustomed to the developer's proclivity for last minute changes.
After consultation between all parties it was agreed to adjourn the Inquiry to Monday May 21, venue to be finalised but probably the Corn Exchange. The only agenda item will be Mr Warren's closing submission plus any issues we may wish to raise as a result of that submission. We understand Mr. Warren's submission may last for up to 4 hours so if you are attending it might be sensible to bring a packed lunch and flask !
Day 23, Thursday 10th May...
For those who get a thrill from watching grass grow or paint dry the last two days of the Inquiry would have been heaven ! Thursday was totally taken up with planning conditions and obligations that the developer will have to sign up to and comply with the the (unlikely) event of the application being approved. As ever with the developer things are always being sprung on us at the 11th hour and yet again a revised set of papers, amounting to circa 194 pages was issued at 1pm and our team had to read, digest and be in a position to respond during the afternoon session. However, ably assisted with input from Dr Alison Collins from Natiural England. Dr Simone Bullion from Suffolk Wildlife Trust our barrister William Upton did an admirable job in ensuring that we plugged most if not all of the potential loopholes.
Day 22, Wednesday 9th May...
On the resumption on Wednesday after Inspector John Gray ran through his housekeeping announcements - essential for planning "anoraks" - our own Dr Wendy Le Las. She ran through both her original Proof of Evidence but, more importantly, her updated Addendum that she submitted and you can download from the tab on the extreme righthand side of this page (see Lelas addendum).
The real enjoyment and occasionally drama and comedy came in her 3 hour cross examination by the developer's barrister Rupert Warren who sought time and again again to criticise and discredit Wendy's evidence, much of which was smattered with references to obscure RPG, RSS, and LPA planning refernces. Boring though it may seem, the devil of the applications lie in the detail and that was what she was tackled on.
However, she was reminiscent of Maggie Thatcher at her best/worst - clearly she was not for turning and on balance would have been declared the winner on points if it had been a boxing match !
Day 21 - 1st May - Site visits ( again!)
Day 20, 27th February - Site visits
Today the Inspector was making site visits at Shrubland Hall, on the proposed site and from various vantage points around the site. The developer provided a balloon for a visual reference check. The visibility was very poor due to rain and low cloud cover and the exercise may need to be repeated in better weather when the Inquiry re-convenes in May.
For the information of members of the public who may have been observing the balloon, members of the sNOasis Concern team were present with the Inspector and also to check the height of the balloon with satellite based equipment. These checks confirmed that the balloon was flown on a cable of the correct length but that the wind was causing the balloon to fly at an appreciably lower level than the height of the proposed ski-slope.
Day 19 – Visual Impact , Wildlife Concerns and Light Pollution witnesses – Ken Southall, Simone Bullion and Tom Boles
Ken Southall, whose design studios created the realistic photographs showing how the SnOasis ski slope will damage the appearance of the landscape, outlined his concerns in detail. He also introduced new photographs of how the ski-slope, the hotel and entertainment buildings will look from the Grade 1 listed Italianate Garden at Shrubland Hall.
The second speaker was Simone Bullion of English Nature who criticised the 19 reports that have been generated over the past two and a half years on the effect of SnOasis on the local wildlife. She found them all too superficial but her main concern was the mitigation areas – sections of land that the developers propose to set aside for the animals removed from the construction area. These were not only inadequate in size but could not provide a habitat for the creatures for a minimum of 2 years and it may take as long as 10 years before they were fully suitable. Even if the creation of these areas was ‘fast tracked’ - as the developers have suggested – in Ms Bullion’s opinion, this would be a risky procedure and further threaten the medium and long term survival of the wildlife at the site. She told the Inquiry that the County listed wildlife site where SnOasis is proposed to be built was an important and rare chalk grassland habitat in Suffolk - only 0.1% of Suffolk’s land area is chalk grassland and the and thus the site at Gt. Blakenham is vary rare. She also commented on a legal dispute over these proposed mitigation areas which may mean that the mitigation areas are not secure in the long term. Moving wild-life multiple times would be ‘catastrophic’ in her opinion.
Tom Boles, who operates one of the most important private observatories in Britain producing astronomical research of global importance, then gave evidence on the light pollution that SnOasis would produce. Mr. Boles explained that he had specifically chosen Coddenham for his observatory as the Suffolk night sky was still one of the least polluted in the country. If SnOasis was given approval, Mr. Boles insisted that its massive output of bright light and the reflected glare from the ski slope and the outdoor bobsleigh run would ruin his observations thus destroying years of important scientific research. Even the replacement of his telescopes with more powerful models as well as costing over £600,000 would not guarantee that he could continue in operation.
This has been a significant week for everyone opposed to SnOasis as the true price that would have to be paid for this ill-conceived development has been revealed in detail. What is also important is that none of the barristers representing Onslow and Mid Suffolk District Council have managed or in many cases even attempted to discredit the powerful evidence produced by our witnesses.
Finally our thanks to all those dedicated people who have given their valuable time to speak out for the Snoasis Community Alliance during the past weeks. There will now be an adjournment and the Inquiry will resume in two months time on 8 May.
Day 18 – Traffic evidence - Simon Curl
Economic and financial evidence – Michael Jolly, Jane Evans and Keith Willetts
Day 18 continued the evidence of Mr Simon Curl, a consultant traffic engineer on traffic, mainly concentrating on the traffic problems of Sproughton and how weak the research by Suffolk County Council had been to justify the proposals to install traffic lights at the Beagle roundabout as a measure to reduce traffic through Sproughton.
Three business and financial witnesses were then called in turn. Together, they comprehensively demolished the business case for SnOasis, showing conclusively that it would not be viable and that Suffolk could be left with an enormous white elephant for which local taxpayers could be left footing the bill.
The first witness, Michael Jolly CBE is one of the country’s leading experts on large leisure attractions, being a former chairman and CEO of Tussauds Group who own attractions across Europe including Alton Towers, Thorpe Park etc. Mr Jolly has advised the government on leisure attractions and been involved with most large development in the UK over many years. He appeared at the Inquiry without fees because he was concerned that the failure of such a large scheme as SnOasis would significantly set back the interests of the UK leisure industry. He was convinced that SnOasis was destined to fail because it is too reliant on day visitors and that the population within a 1-2 hour radius of the development is simply too small to keep SnOasis operating viably. He described the proposals as being badly thought through and that without a major rethink; it was most unlikely to gain financial backing to be built.
The consequences of failure were also spelt out. If SnOasis failed to thrive, Suffolk could be left with and enormous, purpose designed building for which there were few, if any, other uses. The local taxpayer would then have to foot the bill to either keep it running or demolish it. He described other projects, such as the Eden Project in Cornwall which were not self sufficient on their own without local taxpayers subsidy.
Jane Evens then presented her evidence on the business case viability from a financial standpoint. Ms Evans is a Director with ‘big 4’ accountancy company KPMG and a specialist in large capital projects. She described the proposals as at a very early and ill-formed stage that would definitely not attract financial backing as the risks were enormous. She outlined the fact that capital costs of buildings in the UK are rising much faster than inflation and that the effect of the Olympics would be to increase costs still further. She described a financial model that she had developed which allowed the real financial position of Snoasis to be assessed. She castigated the DTZ report commissioned by Mid Suffolk District Council as being wholly inadequate because the costs of paying interest on the huge capital sum that would need to be borrowed had not been factored in by their consultants (neither had tax or depreciation). On a true accounting basis, SnOasis will never make money at the current levels of visitor predicted and would quickly go bankrupt. She had concluded that to make SnOasis a going concern, it would need around 3 million visitors a year, not the 600,000 predicted by the developers – 5 times higher.
The final witness was Keith Willetts, a business man with significant experience of appraising investment cases for private equity companies. He questioned the whole basis of the attraction saying it was an untried hybrid model between a Center Parcs type of residential development and a high volume day visitor attraction such as Xscape in Leeds which relied on a large shopping mall attached to the ski-slope. He questioned whether these could work together. He further questioned if the numbers of day visitors was viable because the whole population living within a 1-2 hour radius of SnOasis was only about 3.3m people, not the 17 million the developers had used when they included most of London in their calculations. Since only about 2% of the population actually take skiing holidays, the target market is much lower than that for say Center Parcs who use swimming as the central attraction.
Mr Willetts went on to question the supposed economic benefits to Suffolk and quoted actual figures from Center Parcs. The total economic spill-over to the community is actually quite low because operators of visitor attractions try very hard to keep their visitors and their money on site, not being spent outside. Even the much heralded jobs at SnOasis are much less valuable to the economy than has been promised, because 83% of the jobs are minimum wage, seasonal jobs. Overall the economic impact to Suffolk was less than 3% of current tourist income to the county. Set against this is the probability of local jobs being lost due to the Gt. Blakenham, Claydon and Needham Market suffering from traffic grid-lock, especially those first in Claydon who would face much longer waits at the Gt. Blakenham level crossing gates. Traffic would also hit normal tourist trade, meaning that Suffolk could actually lose income because of SnOasis.
Day 17 – Snoasis Community Alliance - Traffic issues - Deborah Parker and Simon Blinkhorne
Day 17 at the Inquiry concerned traffic and the impact that the SnOasis, the railway station and the housing developements would have on our already crowded and arguably dangerous roads. The first witness was Deborah Parker, a local resident representing 60 residents in Chapel Lane, Great Blakenham who oppose the scheme. One of their main concerns relates to the proposed Gt. Blakenham railway station which could lead to street parking in the locality to avoid car parking charges and bring considerable problems to local homeowners. She had seen this elsewhere such as Manningtree, Stowmarket and Diss. She also conveyed residents fears that the railway station and the housing development would bring a major increase in traffic along Chapel Lane, a narrow and dangerous road.
The second traffic witness was Simon Blinkhorne, a consultant transport engineer, who told the Inquiry that traffic figures produced by the developers were open to serious doubts. He questioned the scope of the proposed traffic figures which show 737,000 visitors in the first year and 825,000 in the second. He believed that at this level there would be significant queuing of up to 4.5 Kms at the Copdock Mill interchange at peak periods. He was particularly concerned at their lack of sensitivity testing if the visitor numbers were to rise significantly. Should visitor numbers increase to I.5M -3M visitors per year (as seems likely they would have to since at the stated figures, SnOasis makes a significant loss and the ski slope is only 30% utilized) it would lead to an increase of nearly 200% increase in traffic on the A14. It would appear that sensitivity testing has not been carried out. Mr. Blinkhorne warned that more traffic could be forced onto smaller roads such as the already severely congested B1113 running through Sproughton and Gt. Blakenham.
He questioned why the developer had submitted traffic figures at a level that only utilized 30% of the capacity of the ski slope. Picking up on this point, the Inspector asked the developer for clarification. He also questioned the fact that there is no provision for emergency access at SnOasis as would be normal (especially given the fact that thousands of gallons of aviation fuel are stored either side of the access road in and out.)
Mr. Blinkhorne compared the accessibility by rail of the Milton Keynes indoor ski facility to that of SnOasis. Milton Keynes has a 15 minute service to and from London, whereas Gt. Blakenham will have only three per day. He made the point that SnOasis would be unattractive compared to the Milton Keynes indoor ski center.
Day 16 – Natural England witness – Dr. Alison Collins
Natural England’s role is to approve the wildlife mitigation plan proposed by the developer and issue licenses to remove the protected species from the site. In evidence, Dr Collins, a leading ecologist for the past 22 years, said that she was very concerned that SnOasis would be built on an important habitat for wildlife of European importance which has recently been designated a County wildlife site. She said that there had been no cohesive wildlife appraisal produced by the developers of the entire SnOasis site and that their reports had been done in a disconnected and haphazard manner. Dr Collins was very unhappy about the suitability of the wildlife mitigation area – not only because the majority of the area’s future ownership is in doubt – but also because it could take up to 10 years to develop as a suitable habitat for some species. Preparation of this area required removal of up to 40,000 tons of topsoil and the growth of chalk grassland such as currently exists on the county level wildlife site that SnOasis would destroy. The replacement ponds also could take up to 2 years to establish and this was particularly worrying in the case of the protected Great Crested Newts that would have to be re-sited to these ponds. Regarding these creatures, she said that capturing and moving them posed real dangers to their survival. Moving newts causes them great stress, and might also impair their ability to breed (that is if they survive the move) - “you can’t just keep moving newts around the country” she said.
Turning to protected bats, Dr Collins reiterated the evidence of Dr Stebbings, the country's leading expert on bats, that the developers had not adopted a rigorous scientific approach to their assessment of the area and that the information they had given was flawed. She said that there was evidence that bats were foraging over the whole of the restored landscape that SnOasis would destroy and that the proposed wildlife mitigation area was not necessarily a suitable habitat for them.
Day 15 Dr Robert Stebbings for the Snoasis Community Alliance: protected bat species on the SnOasis site
Dr Robert Stebbings the world-renowned and the UK’s leading expert on bats gave evidence on behalf the Snoasis Community Alliance. Dr Stebbings was highly critical of the actions of consultants working for the SnOasis developers in surveying, trapping and holding the bats they discovered on the site. He said that their actions showed a lack of knowledge; displayed bad practice in their survey methods and was particularly critical for distressing the creatures with too long a period during their survey.
In a detailed and thorough presentation of his evidence, Dr Stebbings discussed one species in particular, the Pond Bat ( Myotis dasycneme) , which has been discovered on the SnOasis site and is extremely rare in the UK. This bat is protected at European level under the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. Dr Stebbings said that he had personally been searching for the Pond Bat since the 1950s. Above all, he insisted, far more research needed to be done on this creature and its habitat at Great Blakenham as it would be a disaster to destroy the fragile presence of this endangered and protected creature. The surveys undertaken by the developer’s consultants have not been competent enough to show that the natural habitat and ponds on which the bats from the site of Special Scientific Interest bat colony at Little Blakenham can safely be removed. For this reason alone, Dr Stebbings insisted, permission for Snoasis should be refused otherwise it would make a mockery of every British and European initiative to conserve wildlife. He went on to criticise the proposed design of the mitigation area; and the proposals for new ponds to substitute for the one to be destroyed and the levels of lighting on the site to which bats are extremely sensitive.
Day 14 - Mr John Lawson (MSDC) and Viscount Blakenham for the Snoasis Community Alliance
Mr. John Lawson, the consultant leading the planning activities at MSDC for SnOasis completed his evidence. Questioned by Mr. Upton on the developer’s assertion (Mr. Godfrey Spanner’s public quotations) that it was the Council, not the developer who wanted a huge ‘landmark’ building on the site, he denied that this had been the Council’s intention. Thus we now have the position where neither the developer, the Council of the vast majority of local people want this grotesque building. The mind boggles – if nobody wants it why are we discussing building it?
Viscount Blakenham began the afternoon session by opening the Alliance case for preserving the environment and the wildlife at the site. Lord Blakenham is one of the country’s leading businessmen and environmentalists, having been chairman of a number of major public companies; chairman of the RSPB and has served on a House of Lords select committee on sustainable development. In his opinion, SnOasis would be a major blot on the landscape and would destroy the significant amount of rare and varied wildlife that flourishes on the proposed site. He pointed out that Mr. Spanner had repeatedly misleading the public by being filmed on TV in front of the Viridor waste site and not the restored areas of chalk grassland, farmland and lakes where SnOasis will actually be built. As others will demonstrate further, he had grave doubts about the viability of the business case for SnOasis and pointed to a similar scheme that failed in Tokyo. Lord Blakenham also stated that in his opinion the best use of the SnOasis site would be to use the bottom section for landfill and the upper for a public nature reserve and amenity.
During cross examination by Mr. Rupert Warren, counsel for Onslow Suffolk Ltd, Lord Blakenham described the various family trusts that had options to buy back large parts of the proposed site in a few years time as it was originally sold for quarrying only and would return to family ownership once quarrying ceased. Mr. Warren revealed a major new escalation in the lengths that Onslow and the District Council may go to secure this project – the threat of using a Compulsory Purchase Order against Lord Blakenham’s family trust should his family refuse to negotiate a commercial deal with Onslow. Mr. Warren implied that such a strategy was being actively discussed between his clients (Onslow Suffolk) and Mid Suffolk District Council. Compulsory Purchase Orders are normally used to secure land for a public scheme of sufficient public interest such as a major road, not to help out speculators who are having trouble getting their schemes to be viable.
Comment: If true, this would indicate that MSDC have truly crossed the line of neutrality on this development. If it is not true, then let the Council deny that they are considering a Compulsory Purchase Order on land adjoining the SnOasis site and also land at Gt. Blakenham adjoining the housing site. We pay our council taxes for the Council to look after the interests of the people of Mid Suffolk, not to further the aims of property speculators.
Tomorrow more detailed evidence about the danger to the local environment and the threat to protected species of birds and animals will be given by Dr Robert Stebbings, an expert on bats and Simone Bullion of the Suffolk Wildlife Trust.
Day 13 - Public submissions from supporters
Back to the Corn Exchange where the supporters of SnOasis gave their evidence. Lena Hogg of the Suffolk Chamber of Commerce gave results of a survey among members and announced that the majority of those who responded were in favour of the scheme. However, under questioning from Mr Upton she conceded that a mere 7% had responded to her questionnaire i.e. only a handful of companies had actually supported the scheme, effectively destroying her case.
Evidence of SnOasis being a valid centre for winter sports then followed. Konrad Bartelski who once represented Britain in downhill skiing brought tears to eyes with a winsome description of small children being able to enjoy the delight of snowflakes in their face but offered little more of any substance as to why SnOasis was a good idea. He apparently helped invent the concept of indoor snowmaking and seemed oblivious to the fact that indoor ski centres like SnOasis (responsible for generating 70,000 tonnes of CO2 a year) would actually destroy the sport he champions and many of us love.
He was followed by Oliver Jones, chairman of Snowsport GB who suggested that SnOasis would enable Britain to compete with the best in the world. Questioned by Mr. Upton, he seemed unaware of the IFS rules for length and gradient of slopes to qualify for international events and that the design of SnOasis does not comply with these rules. Unrepentant, he said that SnOasis would still help snowboarding as Britain did not have an indoor half-pipe. When Mr. Upton pointed out that a half-pipe only needed a 50 metre course, not the 450 meter monster that is so controversial, Mr. Jones said that he was the chairman of the organization and left details like this to the organization’s coach. He conceded that his support would be for a ski-centre anywhere in the UK, not necessarily in Suffolk.
Mr Rob Olson from Claydon spoke in favour of the scheme but, like most of the supporters, seemed very vague on the actual facts regarding SnOasis. Mr Olson said that there would be "a new road and roundabout to access the site to avoid traffic through the villages" (it won’t, this is an Evening Star myth that has never been part of the plans); that the ski slope height was "150ft" and lower than the old Blue Circle chimney (in fact it is 250 feet high and because it is on much higher land, it is actually higher than the old chimney and many times wider) and that the development will include "school, police station, doctor surgery, rail station and park and ride" (although under discussion, there are no firm legal agreements on any of these except the railway station). He reported on an informal survey he had taken on Tuesday night in his street when he reported 95% of people in favour of the scheme – however as well over 100 objectors were at the Gt. Blakenham Village Hall at that time attending a public session of the Inquiry, it is possible that his results may not have been fully representative.
John Lawson of Mid Suffolk District Council Planning Department – the main planning protagonist for the whole SnOasis scheme – then gave evidence as a long and tedious monologue that covered his own career and policy in general.
It is easy to forget that the high-density housing proposed in these schemes can do almost as much damage as the ski complex itself. William Upton reminded Mr. Lawson that the proposed housing scheme was opposed by Babergh District Council and he was forced to concede the point. Under questioning from Mr. Upton he was also forced to admit that half the SnOasis site did not form part of the Ipswich Policy Area as the site lies mainly outside Gt. Blakenham and areas such as Little Blakenham, Baylham and Nettlestead were in a defined rural area.
Day 12 - Public submissions from objectors
A remarkable day at Great Blakenham Hall where the Inquiry heard evidence from the pubic objecting to the SnOasis proposals. Well over 200 people attended the 2 sessions that ran from 2 pm until after 10 at night. Around 60 local people gave both powerful and passionate evidence to the Inspector. It would be invidious to name everyone who spoke so eloquently and sincerely but many contributions produced important new evidence. For example, Mr Brown from Bramford who had researched the safety aspects relating to the proposals to locate both Snoasis and the new houses so close to thousands of gallons of high octane aircraft fuel at the NATO fuel dump at Gt. Blakenham. Following the major explosion at Buncefield in 2005, an inquiry into the disaster recommended that the distance between houses and major fuel depots should be drastically re-appraised. This has not been taken into account and the current proposal to locate so many houses within 200 metres of this huge (but little known) fuel store was dangerous and possibly illegal.
This point was reinforced later by Wally Binder who suggested that highly explosive methane (which is heavier than air and emitted from the Virdor waste site) could collect in the lower part of the quarry. He also questioned the arrangements for sewage and waste water from SnOasis and said it was possible that the current proposals could swell the land under the Viridor waste site possibly rupturing the plastic membrane that seals the rubbish from local water bore holes that supply thousands of people.
Sheena McCallum too produced powerful new evidence that all three Snoasis applications did not meet the latest national planning requirements and were being made to fit an available site rather than being the best place for this development.
The economic threat of Snoasis was well illustrated by the many farmers who spoke among them Steve Wright whose unique hop growing business will be under threat. Both Graham Brand and Robert Baxter voiced the concern of local businesses facing gridlock from the congested roads around the site.
Many speakers expressed their personal concern for the destruction of the environment and the addition to global warming that this vast scheme would produce. Nicholas Fisk pointed out the absurdity of portraying Snoasis as a serious contribution to sport and Gina McCarthy and Mrs Collins revealed that Blue Circle had acquired much of what is now Snoasis land on compulsory purchase “in the national interest” with strict planning conditions that the land be restored to farming when quarrying ceased – not build a huge leisure development on it.
Roy Elliott, a fellow of the Royal Society of Chartered Surveyors shocked many with his considered evidence that many local houses could suffer a drop of around 20% in value for years to come.
But it was the human face of local concern that probably impressed us all. Mr and Mrs Nightingale with their guide dogs having to face new dangers in simply crossing the road, Clare Fuller whose child had been seriously injured by traffic in Sproughton, Phil Wilkins facing more delays in getting to his hospice on the other side of Ipswich and Colin Lowe with his moving concern for his and all the other children in Bramford.
If anyone had doubted that the local community genuinely opposed the prospect of Snoasis or that the Snoasis Concern Alliance lacked widespread support then yesterday showed them that a united and determined community exists and will triumph over this absurd, dangerous and inappropriate scheme.
Day 11 – Friday 9th February. Suffolk County Council traffic witnesses.
Mr Alan Newman & Mr Peter Handsley
The cross examination of Mr Newman was completed. The over-riding impression from his evidence was to confirm Mr. Upton’s opening remarks that the whole SnOasis scheme was “badly thought through”. The proposed visitor management scheme appears to have numerous flaws and could not stand up to even basic questioning on its operation.
It remains totally unclear why the Councils believe that the proposed visitor numbers of 603,000 people / year will not be exceeded when the development loses money at that level and the site is only 30% utilised. It also remains unclear what sanction the Council will have to control the operator of SnOasis should he wish to increase visitor numbers in the future – something that is almost certain.
Mr. Handsley, consultant to Suffolk County Council, was also cross examined on his evidence. He was asked what would happen if the 2000 car parking spaces at the SnOasis site and the 500 spaces at the railway station were full. He agreed that it was possible that people would try to park in local streets. He confirmed that the Council might introduce 'residents only' parking in nearby streets to discourage offsite parking. He also confirmed that the visitor management scheme only covered people coming to SnOasis, not departing. It had apparently not been considered but under cross examination he was questioned about the planned large sporting events ending and everyone leaving at the same time. He said that he thought people might ‘hang around’ for an hour or two on the site. This seemed to be more wishful thinking and exposed the visitor management plan as a badly thought through “ make it up as they go along” approach.
Comment : In essence, recent witnesses have shown that the whole issue of traffic generated by SnOasis has been poorly researched by people who do not know the area and have blindly put their faith on estimates given to them by the developer or the developer’s consultants. No proper examination of the facts has taken place prior to this Inquiry and under scrutiny the plans fall apart. People pay their local taxes to Councils to have them scrutinse plans of developers on their behalf. The evidence this week has expose that the level of scrutiny has been amateur in the extreme.
Day 10. Thursday 8th February – evidence from Persimmon Homes and Mid Suffolk District Council
Mike Carpenter – planning evidence for Persimmon Homes
Mr. Carpenter was questioned about the provision of additional public transport to serve the new houses planned for Gt. Blakenham. It transpired that no extra services were planned, just the re-routing of the existing bus service. The discussion continued as to the importance of the land not acquired by the developer, but included in the plans, and if they didn’t acquire the land, the access roads and village centre would have to be relocated. It also transpired that there was only provision for 30% of affordable housing, and not the 35% required by Mid Suffolk District Council.
The plans for the sports pitches were then examined. The developers had claimed that agreement had been reached with Claydon Football Club on these. The Chairman of Claydon Football Club disputes this, and says that NO agreement has been reached and that the plans for the layout of the pitches will not work. In addition, the whole football area would become a public open space with thge potential for dogs fouling the pitches and creating hazards to children etc. It transpired that it was Mid Suffolk District Council who had told the developers that they thought the Club were happy with the current plans.
Alan Newman – transport evidence for Mid Suffolk District Council
Mr. Newman gave evidence that there was to be a visitor management plan implemented for SnOasis with an upper threshold of 603,000 visitors per year. It was unclear how the scheme would work if these numbers were exceeded. This visitor management booking scheme is untried at any other comparable development and it is clear that it has not yet been thought through. For example, is their a daily threshold that should not be exceeded rather than an annual one? Would casual visitors be turned away? Could the developer extend the numbers in the scheme if SnOasis were not making sufficient profits? Who would pay for the resultant traffic congestion etc.
Mr. Newman was also questioned by Mr William Upton about the level of usage of local "rat runs" to avoid congested main roads. Despite being a local man he said that he did not use them, but agreed that they were often single lane roads. He said that the council would not want to improve these roads in case people used them! It was agreed that the Snoasis Community Alliance could draw up a list of these rat runs to give to the Inquiry Inspector so that he could be driven on them during peak times on his site visit. We would be grateful if anyone has any suggestions for this list and would ask them to contact us by e-mailing support@snoasisconcern.com . He continues his evidence tomorrow.
Day 9 Wednesday 7th February – evidence from Onslow Suffolk (Ltd) and Persimmon Homes
Planning evidence - Erica Whettingsteel
Mr William Upton continued to question Ms Whettingsteel on planning issues. She admitted that the wildlife mitigation area had been irreversibly damaged due to the removal of topsoil. She also agreed that an entrance fee to the Snoasis site might prove a disincentive for local people wishing to use the ancillary facilities – i.e. cinema, bowling etc and she confirmed that the on-site hotel was designed for use of its residents only. She went on to deny that 83% of the jobs would be low skill – contrary to DTZ and their own economic expert Karl Eddy! When questioned about the landfill site, she agreed that visitors would have to queue with dustcarts to get onto the access road, and then went on to say ‘I have often visited the site and have never seen litter or smelt anything’!!!
She alleged the developer had offered to meet Parish Councils – but had been told that the meetings were ‘closed’. This is TOTALLY UNTRUE and contrary to the Local Government Act.
Persimmon Homes Ist Witness – Sarah Ross – ecology
Ms Ross was questioned about the existence of badger’s setts on the site ( there are vbelived to be over 20 such setts in additiona to large numbers of protected species and birds. She said that the badgers might have to be moved, but she wasn’t sure where to!
Persimmon 2nd Witness – Luke Broome-Lynne - landscape and design
Mr. Broome-Lynne was called and questioned about the plans for the proposed village centre at Great Blakenham being incorporated on land not owned by Onslow Suffolk. He was asked if the proposed plans would work without the acquisition of this land. He was unable to give a clear answer to this, but thought it might, despite the fact that access to a new village centre would be difficult without this additional land!
Persimmon 3rd Witness – Mike Carpenter - planning
Finally, Mr. Carpenter was giving planning evidence for Persimmon Homes, which will continue tomorrow. Again, it was pointed out that planned access to the site currently runs through land they do not currently own.
Day 8 – evidence from Onslow Suffolk Ltd (Tuesday 6th February)
Transport evidence - Andy Jenkinson
Planning evidence - Erica Whettingsteel
On Tuesday Andy Jenkinson was being questioned about the proposed improvements to the Copdock interchange and the likely impact of the extra traffic on this. His main argument that the traffic would be free flowing was based on the fact that signs indicating the left lane for Snoasis traffic would be placed on the A12 approximately 800 yards before the Copdock roundabout. He thought that this would be sufficient to keep the left filter traffic flowing freely onto the A14. He seemed unable to grasp the idea that if the traffic was very heavy prior to the 800 yard signs on the A12, congestion would inevitably increase on both lanes coming up to the junction. When questioned about the likelihood of traffic, due to satellite navigation technology etc, bypassing this busy interchange and going through Sproughton, it transpired that no surveys of Sproughton had been done. He was also unaware of the Highways Agency diversion route for abnormal loads through Sproughton. Mr William Upton questioned him further about the Snoasis proposed traffic calming measures through Sproughton (i.e. speed humps, rumble strips etc). Mr Jenkinson was unaware of the 8 calming measures currently in existence. Mr Jenkinson also admitted that the study of the Capel St Mary exit off the A12 had been carried out during half-term!
Erica Whettingsteel was the next witness giving planning evidence for the railway station and Snoasis. When questioned by Mr William Upton she admitted that the whole site was not a brown-field site with the vast majority of it being previously undeveloped. She was unable to answer some questions replying ‘I don’t know’!. She did, however, say that she thought the development ‘will sit comfortably within the site and it’s environment’! She will continue giving evidence tomorrow, followed by Sarah Ross, the ecology witness for Persimmon Homes.
Day 7 - Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd). Friday 2nd February
Traffic – Mr. Andy Jenkinson
On Friday Andy Jenkinson the developer's Traffic and Transport expert unveiled yet another master stroke in that the scheme will now operate a Visitor Management Plan that will apply a threshold - in other words they will attempt to limit the number of visitors to Snoasis. The methodology was unclear but it became apparent that the scheme would only operate in retrospect and be monitored by no less than Mid Suffolk District Council !! In other words exceeding the agreed number of visitors might result in a gentle slap on the wrist and a warning not to repeat the offence.
Under close questioning from our barrister William Upton Jenkinson admitted that, just like the ski slope design, the scheme was unique and had never been tried elsewhere before.
During a day long cross examination - ignored by the local media - the witness also admitted the traffic had been assessed using a database unrelated to any form of ski slope, agreed that the vast majority of car borne traffic would arrive at the Claydon A14 junction, travelling to Snoasis would be cheaper by car than train, 67% of employees would arrive by car, no study of local rat runs or local minor roads had been done - and yet, in his opinion, the new traffic generated would have no effect on our roads !
His cross examination continues on Tuesday and he will be followed by Eric Whettingsteel, the developer's planning consultant. Other witnesses due this week include the County Council's traffic specialist Alan Newman, with Mid Suffolk consultant John Lawson - who persuaded councillors in April to vote for the scheme - due on Friday.
Day 6 - Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd). Thursday 1st February
Traffic – Mr. Andy Jenkinson
Mr. Jenkinson today was led through his evidence by the Mr. Warren, the barrister for Onslow (Suffolk) Ltd to present the case the developer on traffic issues. As with much of the only case, this evidence lived up to the criticism by Mr. Upton, barrister for the Alliance, in his opening remarks that the proposals were ‘badly thought through’.
Mr. Jenkinson confirmed that no major new road schemes would be introduced and no access new access road into the SnOasis site was planned. He stated that any traffic issues that arose subsequent to the building of SnOasis would be managed by Suffolk County Council. What such a position would lead to, however, would be that the taxpayer would pick up the bill for any downstream improvement, not the developer.
When dealing with the undisputed problem of congestion in Sproughton, it was suggested that ‘traffic calming measures’ would be introduced including a 20 mph speed limit and traffic lights at the Beagle roundabout to cut the number of cars and lorries driving through the village through traffic. Local people will of course be aware that 20mph through Sproughton would be a record! Given the existing congestion there this evidence appeared fatuous.
In order to encourage off peak arrivals at SnOasis it was proposed that railway operators would offer reduced fares for those coming by train from London. To ease congestion Mr. Jenkins revealed previously unheard evidence that a ‘Visitor Management scheme’ would operate’ This mainly seems to consist of a proposed cut off point on numbers arriving at SnOasis barring all those who arrived after an agreed limit of visitors was reached on any particular day. Mr. Jenkins was unable to enlighten the Inquiry on what would happen to those people who had traveled for several hours only to be turned away. He was also unable to explain where people would park once the number of car parking spaces on the site had been exceeded, the railway station or local streets being suggested.
It was conceded that if the number of visitors doubled then significant road congestion would follow and there might be off site parking in the already crowded local roads and that congestion would occur at peak times such as entry to or exit from an event. When dealing the problem of large numbers arriving for a particular event there was a concession from Onslow - the number of delegates attending the four conferences a year should be restricted to 400 rather than the original 800.
As the day drew a close it Jenkins revealed that payment for a daily ticket on the gate would be £12 and that pre-booking would be neccesary. Throughout the day Mr. Upton again closely questioned the evidence and was particularly critical of its lack of detail. Mr. Upton will continue his cross examination tomorrow.
Day 5 - Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd). Wednesday 31st January-
Ecology - Dr. Mark Webb
Dr. Webb’s evidence concentrated on the rich wildlife and protected species to be found on the proposed 350 acre SnOasis site which has now been designated by Suffolk County Council as a ‘county level’ important site for wildlife. He explained that it was intended to move some of the protected species to a 40 acre ‘compensation’ area. This would be created from farmland. Because this is rich in nutrients, 40,000 tons of topsoil would need to be removed from this area and ponds created and grassland established. While this work was going on, some species, such as the protected Greater Crested newts would be held in a ‘holding’ area. Agreeing with barrister William Upton that the official guidance on removal or protected species such as newts should only be done ‘as a last resort’, he also agreed that the some of newts could possibly be disturbed and moved up to 4 times.
Some newts had already been moved from ponds currently being excavated for sand, the majority would be moved from their current habitat into the holding area and then into the compensation area. However, since ownership and the longevity of the compensation area were still in doubt, a 4th removal was possible. He could not say where a final home for them would be found. He also agreed that commercial pressures to build the resort that meant that the preferred position of establishing the compensation area before work on the site started was not possible, meaning the multiple movements of these rare creatures.
Dr Webb also gave further evidence on bats, agreeing that the EU protected pond bat found in the area was extremely rare. Only one had been found in the UK before. William Upton argued these rare animals had been maltreated during the site survey undertaken by the developers, with bats being held for 5 hours in captivity and one having a hole cut in its wing for a biopsy sample when guidance was that they should be held for a maximum of 15 minutes. He also cast significant doubt on the validity of the bat survey. Dr. Webb denied mistreatment or that the survey was incompetent.
Discussion also concentrated on the level of lighting on the proposed site which would deter this important and large colony of bats foraging from a site of Special Scientific Interest at Little Blakenham. According to leading bat expert Dr. Robert Stebbings, bats can be deterred by bright moonlight at 0.1 lux whereas Dr Webb agreed that light levels in proposed SnOasis car park would be a minimum of 20 lux.
Dr. Webb was cross examined on the fate of the protected badger setts on the site. Up to 20 active setts are believed to be active on the site. His answer was that the badgers would not be moved but would be allowed to forage around the proposed village and chalets! Clearly the safety of children will not be uppermost in the minds of the site operators!
Finally, Dr, Webb admitted that it would not be possible to save all of the wildlife on the site, justifying the position that it was better to save some rather than none at all.
Day 4 Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd). Tuesday 30th January -
Landscape and visual impact evidence – Mr. Philip Russell-Vick
Mr. Russell –Vick spend much of the day justifying his view that “in the view of the countryside of the clay plateau, it (i.e. the ski-slope) would be shaped and sculpted and would change the visual character of the physical landscape”.
He sought to explain that the visual impact of the 240 feet high, 135 feet wide building was minimal . Anyone who has seen the photo-montages produced by Ken Southall for the Alliance may not agree with this view - click here to view. Commenting on these photo-montages, Mr. Russell-Vick was critical in some respects but concluded by commending Mr. Southall on “an admirable piece of craftsmanship and that the pictures were “indicative and not very far out”.
Cross-examined by William Upton, barrister for the Alliance, Mr. Russell-Vick had to agree that there were discrepancies between his vantage point in assessing the visual impact and the actual siting of the ski-slope. Mr. Upton pointed out that this was between 80-100 metres inaccurate and called the accuracy of all of Mr. Russell-Vick testimony into doubt.
The Inspector, Mr. John Gray, commented that whatever views might be regarding the aesthetics of the proposed ski-slope, there was no denying that it was a “monolithic structure on the skyline, bulky in appearance and massive”.
Day 3 Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd), Friday 26th January -
Sustainability, Dr Ann Heywood
Making the case for sustainability of the SnOasis proposals was Dr Heywood who attempted to relate it to existing government policy standards for such developments. During cross examination, it emerged that the system used to measure sustainability of the project had been an internet based tool designed for housing developments rather than to leisure projects. William Upton, barrister of the SnOasis community Alliance was quick to point out that this had been an irrelevant exercise and contributed little to the Inquiry.
Energy and Waste matters, Mr Andrew Crawford
The Inspector then moved to the question of energy and waste issues. Andrew Crawford, appearing for the developers was questioned on how much power the huge development would consume. As has been a consistent theme, despite claims that exhaustive preparation has been undertaken by the developers, when hard facts were demanded they were elusive. Figures were based on estimates prepared three years ago and did not reflect the latest government policy on energy conservation but it emerged that Snoasis would consume in the region of 7 megawatts of power. The Alliance estimates that the development plus the transport to get people to and from the site generates as much CO2 as around 5000 houses.
Turning to waste matters, Mr Crawford was again closely questioned particularly about the large amount of landfill capacity that would be lost in the adjacent waste site (operated by Viridor) should SnOasis go ahead. Much discussion occurred regarding the landfill issues and the question of the possible installation of incinerator. Mr Upton pointed out that, under current planning permission, landfill at the Masons quarry site was on track to restore it to its original agricultural use and that the continued use of the entire landfill site is of regional if not national importance. During further cross examination, it was revealed that the base of the ski slope is 10 metres below the existing water table and that it may be necessary to freeze the whole area during construction; a unusual but also very expensive technique that would add further to the complexity and cost of the development
Day 2 - Evidence from Onslow (Suffolk Ltd), Thursday 25th January
Economics. Mr Karl Eddy
Giving evidence for the developers on the economic case for SnOasis was Mr. Karl Eddy, a partner with Grant Thornton. Mr. Eddy was very reluctant to reveal any figures on the business case for the scheme, claiming that these were confidential. However, the Inquiry had been supplied with an economic overview commissioned from DTZ Pieda Consulting which allowed Mr. William Upton (barrister for the SnOasis Community Alliance) sufficient insight into the economics to cross question him closely. Mr. Eddy claimed that the development would “bring an adequate rate of return for shareholders” by this was strongly challenged by Mr. Upton on the basis that when interest on loans to cover the capital building costs were included, the project made a substantial loss. Mr eddy confirmed that Onslow Suffolk had neither secured an operator for the development nor raised the necessary finance.
Despite his earlier claims that Snoasis would boost the local economy, he agreed with analysis of the Alliance that 83% of the proposed jobs at SnOasis would be minimum wage jobs and that this would nothing to lift Suffolk’s below average rates of pay. Hea lso agreed that most of the jobs created would go to people outside Suffolk.
He was questioned closely about the reliability of the visitor projections and how much each person would spend. Claiming that “demand management” (mainly cut price tickets) would solve any problems in shortfalls in visitor numbers or seasonality of attendance, he failed to provide any hard evidence that the visitor estimates were robust or that the project could withstand any significant variations to the plan.
He confirmed that there is no clear evidence of any link between the length of an indoor ski slope and the number of visitors. He also confirmed that much of the detail of which facilities would be provided (e.g. shops, cinemas, casino etc.) was still unclear and subject to change.
Day 1 - Wednesday 24th January
Opening speeches and design evidence Mr. John Orrell
All 3 barristers made opening speeches – Mr. Warren for Onslow Suffolk and Persimmon Homes plus Mr. Lewis for Mid Suffolk District Council and Suffolk County Council. Mr. Upton, for the Snoasis Community Alliance, described the proposals as "badly thought through"; that SnOasis would be "Suffolk's Dome" and could be likened to "a giant fridge sticking out of a rubbish dump like some post-modern joke"! A round of applause from the many objectors in the audience earned them a mild rebuke and a wry smile from the Inspector.
Mr. John Orrell, the lead architect for SnOasis, confirmed what appears to be disorganisation on the part of the applicant’s team by being unsure of how high all of the proposed buildings on the sure actually were or what they were made of. Under cross examination from Mr. Upton, he admitted that the design of the building could not accommodate international slalom events – a major claim to its fame as being a center of skiing excellence. He also admitted that the design of the speed skating rink would only allow it to be used for 3 months of the year, again casting doubt on the idea of an international level, all year round facility.
|
|