IBC Initial Response to Petition Submission

Dear Petitioners, In lieu of their upcoming ‘formal response’, Councillor David Ellesmere has written to me on behalf of the Ipswich Borough Council. He has included a full fiscal breakdown, as requested on the petition. He has also requested a meeting with me prior to a formal Council response. I have scanned and attached his full letter for all your reading. I also have selected the most relevant information and broken it down for your ease of digestion. Cllr Ellesmere’s response details the following: Finances Preliminary work on site, provisional sums, unknown works per day - £620,000 Excavations, alterations, steps and balustrades - £200,000 Drainage and soft landscape - £110,000 Site works and paving - £1,100,000 Mechanical and electrical - £405,000 Water feature - £325,000 Builders works in connection - £75,000 Surveys, professional fees, investigations and specialist advice + project fees - £775,000 Total: £3,600,000 Funding is coming from the Four Ipswich Vision partners as follows: Ipswich Borough Council - £1,000,000 NALEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) - £1,650,000 Suffolk County Council - £900,000 Ipswich Central - £50,000 Total: £3,600,000 In addition to the funding allocated here, Cllr Ellesmere also informed me they have pledged to support Broomhill pool with £1M of funding, and a further £2.8M on new temporary accommodation for the homeless. Chronology In my fulminations accompanying the petition, and interview on BBC Radio Suffolk aired on Sunday 11th February 2018, I addressed the lack of adequate public consultation on the project. For less than a month were the public consulted, with only 24 hours notice provided to the general public that consultations were due to begin. The project had then largely laid dormant to the public sphere for almost two years, before re-commencing in 2018. This is supported by the information provided by Cllr Ellesmere himself. Despite numerous consultations with focus groups and committees, only one was open and advertised to the public in general. As requested, Cllr Ellesmere has provided me with the following chronology of consultation: 13/07/2016 - Consultation advertised in Ipswich Star, to take place the following day on 14th July 2016 at Ipswich Town Hall 14/07/2016 - Consultation takes place at Ipswich Town Hall 14/07/2016 - North West Area Committee consultation 20/07/2016 - South East Area Committee consultation 21/07/2016 - North East Area Committee consultation 28/07/2016 - South West Area Committee consultation Date unspecified (2016) - Project raised at Ipswich Society AGM 31/05/2017 - Planning Committee consultation Cllr Ellesmere also stated 1728 residents responded to an online consultation, with 93 further participants responding by letter or email. This is 2384 fewer responses than our change.org petition to ‘Suspend and review the £3.6 million changes to the Ipswich Cornhill', which has a total of 4205 signatures. Cllr Ellesmere has also informed me the final design is yet to be confirmed; a recent Ipswich Star poll regarding the inscriptions and wording on the central sculptures achieving “several hundred” responses. This is still likely three thousand or more fewer responses than the counter petition. I hope Cllr Ellesmere will listen to the majority, for far more people are clearly in opposition to the plans than in favour. This is supported by Cllr Ellesmere’s own data which he has supplied to me. Planning Numerous boards, committees and organisations have indeed been consulted in the lead up to the project. Several have voiced concerns and opinions that chime strongly with the current public opinion, that is one of skepticism towards the the proposed green arches. Historic England have noted: “The existing paving, while unifying the space, has a rather unrelieved character and the area feels as though it is not fulfilling its potential as a major public space. We are therefore keen to see a high quality scheme of public realm improvements that would enhance the conservation area.” I echo the sentiments of Historic England here, as I believe do all who have signed the petition. There appears to be general consensus that the Cornhill needs improvement, but the current design is the not the sort of improvement that will most benefit the area. Most particularly I note Historic England’s use of the phrase “conservation area” in their comments on the planning application. The historic buildings on and nearby the Cornhill should be supported by a design complimentary of the existing historic architecture. The proposed changes are incongruent to the character of the current historic space, for they are modernist in nature. The modernist design will not conserve but deprive the Cornhill area of its’ conspicuous historic quality, that has transcended generations of Ipswich residents, and should continue to be preserved for the enjoyment of Ipswich residents not yet born. Amongst the Design and Heritage Considerations, it was stated that: “The Council has a statutory duty to have a special regard to the preservation of the setting and special architectural or historic features of the listed buildings.” I believe this statutory duty is currently being ignored, for the proposed design is unsympathetic to the surrounding Cornhill. These sentiments are echoed by further consultations. The sculptural “portals” were further criticised by the Ipswich Conservation and Design Advisory Panel, who voiced concern that the “symbolic significance of the features would not be clear enough to users of the space.” The Ipswich Conservation and Design Advisory Panel further noted the following list of issues with the design: I have highlighted in bold the aspects that correlate most strongly with the issues raised by both the change.org petition itself, and by the petitioners in their remarks and comments. “1) Bad use of public money; 2) Reduction of space for the market which is popular and well used; 3) Loss of two good trees; 4) Sculpture unsympathetic to the surrounding architecture; 5) Sculptures will attract graffiti, or other ASB; 6) Not disabled friendly; 7) Water feature not suitable for the area and will have maintenance issues; 8) Proposals add to the ‘hardness’ of the Cornhill; 9) Proposals will constrain the use of the Cornhill for events/the public; 10) Existing red paving doesn’t work well - a higher spec light tone should be used; 11) General dislike of the design; 12) Benches without backs not comfortable for older people; 13) Impact on the town centre during construction; 14) Undemocratic selection - there should be more public consultation; 15) Get on with it - happy with the proposals; 16) Ownership of the Cornhill questioned and whether a right of way; 17) Incorrect planning process; 18) Proposals will destroy the retail heart of Ipswich, and will not attract better shops;” The bad use of public money, reduction of popular market space, existing red paving, general dislike of the design and undemocratic selection can all be quite easily rectified. All Cllr Ellesmere must do is listen to the vast majority of those who have voiced their opinion on the Cornhill, and opt what is stated in the change.org petition: “a simple re-paving of the Cornhill with the planting of new trees and maybe some benches are all that is required, and would assuredly cost much less.” In the Town Centre Master Plan 2012, the potential for a “café culture” is identified. Ipswich Vision 2015 further identified that the Cornhill could become a “destination of its own.” Although possible, to achieve this Cllr Ellesmere must necessarily do away with the current green arches that will surely become an eyesore, for all the above reasons as stated by the Ipswich Conservation and Design Advisory Panel. In the Principle of Development 2017 it is stated the Council project will: “…promote environmental enhancements and urban greening to the town centre…” Regarding urban greening, the people of Ipswich would certainly prefer green foliage, not green granite. Though well meaning and borne of good intent, the execution involving the green granite arches is simply not conducive to the desired outcome. I believe the public are not against the improving the Cornhill, and would indeed greet with great enthusiasm something that will make our town a better and more enjoyable place to live. It is the proposed green archways that are unclear of significance, and will blight the historic landscape of our ancient town, which must go. It seems the planning advisory committees highlighted the very same issues which the people of Ipswich have also taken concern. I hope Cllr Ellesmere and the Ipswich Vision partners will listen to their constituents and do what is in the best interests. Finally, local elections are occurring May 3rd 2018, that is just under two weeks away. Please make sure you go and out and vote, and make your voices heard. Kind regards, Dan Save the Cornhill!