A solar farm in Badley? Competing pressures for self-sufficiency...

Whilst Creeting St Peter has had its own planning issues over the past few years, the one thing we haven't had is an application for a solar farm. But now, whilst we don't, the parish across the River Gipping, Badley, does.

There is a dilemma here. The proposed site requires the loss of prime agricultural land - we've got a lot of that here on the East Anglian prairie - and at a time when self-sufficiency in food is a live topic of discussion, one does wonder how the loss of farmland helps that. But the war in Ukraine reminds us that dependency on hydrocarbons from authoritarian states who aren't necessarily our friends is problematic too, before you even start on climate change mitigation.

And, whilst the gently rolling fields of Suffolk are superb for wheat, barley and other grains, they also make for easy to maintain solar arrays. If you're a farmer, with the prospects of a downward squeeze on agricultural support payments and the knowledge that selling land for development is likely to be lucrative, especially if your land is near a town or village earmarked for housing development, point you in one direction and one direction only.

The rural economy is changing and whilst people may want farmers to produce food as cheaply as possible and in sufficient quantity, farmers aren't altruists - they need to make a living too, otherwise why do it?

My perspective is a fairly neutral one but I do find myself wondering how, at a time when fuel poverty is becoming a big thing in this country, we can carry on resisting renewables development in our localities. Wind turbines are apparently too big, solar arrays too ugly, and whilst offshore wind is growing nicely, the Government has failed to support tidal energy and encourages rural communities to object to anything that might impact on their local countryside.

There needs to be one of two things, a plan for renewables which goes beyond simple targets to discuss what is needed and where it might go, or investment in renewable facilities in other countries where the revenue generated might help build stronger economies and communities.

Of course, the optimal answer would be smaller, more effective solar arrays and wind turbines, but we may just have to accept that, if we want to maintain our current lifestyles, we're going to have to make some concessions in terms of how our countryside looks going forward

Freeport East - the bid has landed

I've already mentioned the Freeport East proposal (coming to a parish near you very soon), and it has now been formally launched, with a rather soft focus video, and lots of talk about jobs, development and innovation. And, I have to say that it all looks very impressive.

So, what might it mean for our community, given that a major tax and customs site will be located on the edge of the Parish (we're the teal coloured circle towards the top of the map)?

I'll set aside the planning application for the time being.

Stowmarket, our neighbouring town is a bit of a poor relation to its neighbours, as an industrial hub and railway junction. Aspiration is not as high as it might be, although unemployment rates are low. An innovation hub may attract new industries, and offer better paid jobs to a town that has little in the way of attractions - we only got our first McDonalds last year, and fine dining is predominantly (although not wholly) something you leave town for. The shopping area is a bit limited, compared to similar sized towns and, in short, if you've got money to spend, you'd probably go to Bury St Edmunds or Norwich.

On the plus side, housing is reasonably priced even for Suffolk, transport links are good, with express trains to Norwich and London, plus regional services linking Ipswich with Cambridge and Peterborough. Throw in the A14, and you can get quite a long way quite easily.

In short, there is potential that could be unlocked by a successful bid that lives up to the hype.

The proposed location of the only tax and customs site outside the ports of Harwich and Felixstowe themselves, Gateway 14 is ideally located between the mainline railway and the A14, both of which act to frame the site, so providing a direct link to a major trunk road linking Felixstowe and Harwich with Cambridge and the Midlands.

Do I wish that it was further away, less immediate? Well, yes - I like the setting of my village as it is. But that isn't a viable stance, the site has been earmarked for developed for three decades now, and if I were a developer, it is exactly the sort of location I would want to get my hands on. And, as someone who wants the best for the wider Mid Suffolk community, an  influx of potentially well-paid jobs in innovative industries and technologies can only improve the lives of local residents, encourage new retail and cultural opportunities and support new facilities.

That offers me two contrasting challenges. As the Chair of the Parish Council, I want to seek a design for the development that makes it less intrusive on the eye, protects our rights of access and reduces the impact on residents (particularly those whose properties will be right up against the boundary of the site). I also have to have an eye on what possible benefits that might accrue to the community - new street lights, perhaps, or road improvements that improve traffic flow and reduce the need for braking. Will there be benefits in terms of s.106 funding?

As a council tax payer, I want the development to be as efficient as possible, in terms of generating revenue for the District Council, who own it, and in terms of bringing quality jobs to the area. I do wonder if the somewhat limited ambition of the developers, who talk about logistics and distribution, matches up with the aspirations of the Freeport team, who talk about innovation, green energy, and links to the universities across the region.

The former challenge is an immediate one - a hybrid planning application is all about setting down a marker in terms of landscaping, transport plans and building heights. In fairness, I tend to the view that the landscaping is pretty generous, and the potential road network offers some decided advantages in terms of addressing long existing issues such as the sharp curve at Clamp Farm. The proposed building heights are a significant improvement on what was originally suggested, but whilst 21 metres is still pretty intrusive, it may be difficult to reduce that much further. The devil will be in the detail, and the detail is a Parish Council issue.

As for what ends up on the site, the idea of large sheds is a bit depressing, but each of them will be the subject of a rather more concrete planning application, open to challenge. And, as it isn't clear who will want to take up the space, it is conjecture to start visualising the site as it might look in ten years time. Ironically, the Freeport East Board will probably have a lot to say about what their priorities are for potential customers, and my initial impression from sources is that their view is somewhat different to that of Jaynic, the developers appointed by Mid Suffolk District Council to manage and promote the site. It isn't a Parish Council issue, however, although the Campaign Group will be addressing the question, as I understand it.

So, my challenge is to keep the two issues at arms length from each other, focussing on what we know and are being asked to judge, as opposed to what might or might not be at some point in the undefined future. Fortunately, I've got Ros to ensure that my concentration doesn't wander...

Creeting St Peter - a philosophical dilemma for the Chair...

As Chair of Creeting St Peter Parish Council, one of the most troubling aspects of the role is the ongoing saga of the Poundfield Products facility at the southern end of the Parish.

In truth, the problems started with the very establishment of a concrete products factory in a river valley location, poorly served by the road network, and surrounded by agricultural land. The original owners had a rather challenging relationship with the village, tending to disregard planning conditions where it suited and using the weakness of the District Council’s planning enforcement team to extend the business over time.

The takeover of the business by SigmaRoc plc in 2017/18 promised a new relationship between business and community but, sadly, that proved to be a bit of a false dawn. And, following a difficult Parish Council meeting last January during which the local manager decided it was a good idea to talk over the Chair of the meeting despite numerous attempts on my part to restore order, meaningful dialogue ceased.

The problem is that, despite planning conditions that limit their operating hours, they insist on the right to start earlier, with the concomitant impact on local residents. They applied for an alteration on the basis of custom and practice, which was refused by the District Council in the basis that they had not proved their case, and followed that up with a formal request for such an alteration. That’s been pending now for more than a year, with a deafening silence from Mid Suffolk District Council in the meantime. It would be fair to say that residents weren’t keen.

At the time, we were told that the business had no plans to expand its footprint. A year later, the business has lodged a planning application to expand onto an area of agricultural land it owns. The stated intention is that the expansion will be for storage and outdoor manufacture only, with no new buildings proposed.

They are, of course, perfectly at liberty to apply. Likewise, residents are perfectly at liberty to object and have already done so in some cases. As Chair of the Council, my role is to enable councillors to consider the views of residents, determine what might be an appropriate response in our capacity as statutory consultees, and work with our Clerk to ensure that this is submitted in a timely manner.

I have my reservations about the application, some of which are linked to the attitude of the company towards compliance with the planning constraints placed upon it. But, ultimately, we must be guided by policy and impact, and rely on Mid Suffolk District Council to enforce the conditions they choose to set.

It’s likely to be a lively meeting, made more so by the apparent desire of the Managing Director, Michael Roddy, to attend. It would be fair to say that our personal relationship is somewhat strained, but we’ll doubtless see what it is he wants to contribute to our deliberations.

I’m going to have to be on the top of my game on Monday night...

Is Mid Suffolk District Council really committed to its sustainable travel policy? We may be about to find out...

Regular readers will know that I take a particular interest in buses, possibly because I am a non-driver. In London, that was just fine - why would you have a car in inner London when traffic speeds are glacial and there’s an excellent public transport system? Out here in the Suffolk countryside, it offers rather more of a challenge.

Creeting St Peter saw its last scheduled bus service in 2011, not that it impinged upon anyone’s consciousness. Indeed, when I raised it at an early Parish Council meeting, my fellow councillors didn’t seem to know that it existed, perhaps because it ran on Thursdays only with just one journey in each direction between Stowmarket and the Creetings. We do have demand responsive transport, but it is likewise little known about, which does make it a bit easier for me to use it as part of my usual route to work. But I digress...

The new business and enterprise park on the edge of the Parish is to be managed by a development company on behalf of its 100% owner, Mid Suffolk District Council. It promises, or at least, promised up to 4,500 new jobs which, on the face of it, is a good thing - we can argue about the quality of those jobs another day. And it struck me that having a bus link to Stowmarket would be a good thing, given that it’s more than one mile from the station to the nearest point of the development.

Coincidentally, in July the District Council agreed to create a “Sustainable Travel Action Plan” so you might think that, if you were going to bring 4,500 workers to an edge of town location, encouraging public transport use might fit neatly into that. Indeed, I found myself wondering if such a link could be extended to serve Creeting St Peter and Stowupland (which is growing fast and lost its regular bus service a few years ago) in a circular route to link up with Stowmarket station and the town centre.

It is now clear that there is no intention to make provision for public transport - I asked and have a written answer from the development company to that effect, which rather disappoints me. The justification is that there is a bus stop within 400 metres of the entrance to the development - the fact that two of the six services that serve the stop run on a Thursday only, and two others are school services appears to have passed them by. And so, I’m going to have to challenge the District Council to “put their money where their mouth is” in terms of the environment and sustainability, and to adhere to the policies they themselves set.

It is unacceptable in the modern era to build a development which effectively obliges its workforce to drive. Given that the employees won’t just come from Stowmarket and the surrounding villages - the population couldn’t supply 4,500 additional workers even if it wanted to - there will be significant increases in traffic, air pollution and noise, and any mitigation that might reduce traffic volumes would be welcome.

Ironically, the development company have been quite responsive in other areas, so it would be nice if they could be persuaded to improve this aspect. We’ll just have to see, I guess...

Are difficult planning applications like buses? Because it surely feels like it right now...

If having the challenge of the Gateway 14 planning application wasn’t bad enough, we’re now faced with a proposal to expand the Poundfield Products facility at the other end of the Parish.

Given that the applicants had a fairly poor record of compliance with planning constraints previous to their takeover by Sigma Roc plc, and that the relationship between the new owners and the village is, how can I put it, suboptimal, we are wary as to their intent.

The new proposal is to extend towards the River Gipping by adding an outdoor storage and fabrication area and likely objections are pretty obvious, in truth. The impact on the setting of Creeting Hall, both visually and in terms of noise, as well as the probable effect on Mill Lane, already damaged in places by the sheer weight of lorries transporting concrete products out towards the A14, are all likely to be factors in resident objections.

Naturally, the Parish Council will meet to consider our response, and I don’t want to prejudge that. But I am hesitant to support anything that will lead to more traffic from what is already a highly unsuitable site for a concrete products factory, and given the persistent breaches of the working hours conditions - admitted by the local management in the presence of one of our two District councillors - you can’t help but wonder if an outdoor fabrication area is likely to impact on the residents of the clutch of houses at Creeting Hall.

A village resident described the application as being “their traditional Christmas planning application” and, whilst my memory isn’t good enough to recall the accuracy of that, it does feel sometimes as though their strategy is intended to make it as difficult as possible to make a balanced and complete response.

Ah well, we’ll struggle on, I guess, but I have to admit, it does feel a bit wearing so early in the year...

Creeting St Peter - a tricky planning application lands...

One of the joys of Parish Council life is our status as a statutory consultee when it comes to planning applications. Admittedly, some of them are pretty straightforward, for example the recent application from Muntons, the local malt business, who wanted to build a new staff car park. Given that you couldn’t see the site because it’s hidden from view by... a bloody great malt factory... there didn’t seem to be much for an issue.

However, a proposal last year to knock down a house in the centre of the village and replace it with five “executive homes”, leaving scope to extend the development into a neighbouring meadow, went down rather badly. Unfortunately the applicant failed to make any effort to consult, and their application drew a justifiably hostile response from the owners of neighbouring properties.

Indeed, nobody seemed to much like it, as it extended beyond the village’s planning envelope as laid down on the District Council’s Local Plan, thus potentially setting a troubling precedent. Highways didn’t like it, and it was rather emphatically turned down by Mid Suffolk District Council on the basis that it breached a large swathe of their planning policies.

Eventually, I was asked by the applicant for a meeting, in my capacity as Chair of the Parish Council. That made me nervous, as I prefer transparency, so I offered him an opportunity to present to a Parish Council meeting, should he wish to proceed with a revised application, an offer which was taken up.

It would be fair to say that the meeting which followed was... lively. It was, at least, mostly amicable, although tempers did occasionally flare. The views of the citizenry were made clear to the applicant and his planning consultant, and there was a sense that the message had gotten across.

Two weeks ago, a revised planning application was notified to the Parish Council. Five executive homes had become four bungalows, access to the meadow was now removed, and there was a sense that, whilst the unhappiness at the prospect of new housing remained, there had been an attempt to respond to some of the concerns.

There are a number of remaining problems, however;

• the development still extends well beyond the village’s planning envelope - would approval offer an opportunity to others to do likewise?
• the status of the village, defined by Mid Suffolk District Council as “countryside”, indicates that no new housing is permitted
• The absence of any facilities - shop, school, public transport - mean that new residents would be obliged to drive, contrary to policy encouraging environmentally-friendly means of travel

None of these have really been addressed by the new proposals, other than in effectively wishing them away.

And so, we held our first virtual Parish Council meeting to discuss it, inviting those residents that we could reach via social media - which is a surprisingly large number. Concerns were noted and recorded, the District Council planning guidance referred to, and civility prevailed.

Our Vice-Chair was prevailed upon to draft our reply, and life moved on. And then, Suffolk Highways intervened.

They noted that the access to the road was partly-owned by a third party, i.e. one of the neighbours, and that the access road itself wasn’t wide enough, and didn’t have a footway. Cue men with tape measures. Now, admittedly, there is an issue over access, and this does complicate matters somewhat, so we’ll see whether or not any alterations can be made to remedy this.

Ultimately, however, the rejection of the original application included the following;

The proposed development would be more than 2km from the nearest services in Stowupland and Stowmarket, resulting in the likely reliance on private motor vehicle use and increase in traffic, less integrated communities leading to poor social cohesion and failure to take opportunities to design for functional communities. There is insufficient access to public transport alternatives available within short walking distance from the site to otherwise outweigh other considerations of the location and poor access to services outlined. In conclusion with consideration of the above, the NPPF states that decision- taking authorities should approve development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay, actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. 

As such it is considered that the proposal represents unsustainable development, contrary to the NPPF. In all circumstances the LPA is of the opinion that no residential development would be supported on this site. 

This new proposal doesn’t address this core issue, and I suspect that, whilst any other issues may be an obstacle, this particular difficulty might well prove to be Himalayan.

And so, we’ll see how it goes. Or not, as the case may be...

An unfortunately timed planning application...

Early April, with nominations for the District and Parish Councils closed, and a sense of hiatus, as we wait to see who our new District Councillors might be - Creeting St Peter has moved from the old Stowupland Ward to a new, two-member, Needham Market Ward. And then, a somewhat unexpected event, a planning application that impacts directly on the village core.

The key roads in the village are three in number. Pound Road, which becomes Creeting Lane as it leaves the village, runs through the middle, and is our connection to the outside world in both directions - north towards Stowupland, south towards Stowmarket and Needham Market. Two roads runs broadly eastwards off it, The Lane from the centre of the village, and a private road to Roydon Hall Farm about 150 yards further north. The U-shape that they form encloses an area of meadow, access to which is only possible through a house on Pound Road called, aptly, Meadows.

The planning application is an interesting one, seeking to demolish “Meadows” and replace it on the site with five four-bedroomed houses - executive homes, I guess you’d call them. The meadow is to be left untouched, although the design of the application is such that the option of extending into the meadow (which is much larger) remains open.

Five houses isn’t very much, I hear you say, and in that sense, you’d be right. Except that there are only seventy or so houses in the village, many of which are single storey and certainly smaller than four bedrooms. In addition, the village is designated as non-viable by the District Council, lacking as it does any facilities or services. 

It was clear that this was going to be controversial, and it was agreed that an Extraordinary Parish Council would be needed. Social media (yes, we have well established village Facebook and WhatsApp groups) was already abuzz, especially as the meadow borders many village homes.

As Chair, my job was to remain calm, work with our Clerk to organise a meeting and invite residents to take part and make their voices heard. There was only one minor complication - I wasn’t going to be available to take the chair due to a prior engagement. It was all slightly awkward.

Luckily, as previously mentioned, my Vice Chair is perfectly capable, as is our Clerk, and so, having indicated what I thought needed doing in advance, I left it to my colleagues to handle things.

The report from the meeting was interesting. Twenty-three residents had turned out for the meeting, or in other words, twenty-two more than we usually get, and there was some quite robust, and well-founded, criticism of the proposed development. A view was taken as to a formal response from the Parish Council, and Richard, my Vice Chair, set to work afterwards drafting our submission to the District Council.

It was an impressive effort, and the follow up was just what you would hope for, with engagement with our District Councillor (who added his own elegantly drafted suggestions) and all those who participated in the meeting. Frankly, I can’t see that I could have done a better job.

And so, Creeting St Peter Parish Council Fulfilled its obligations as a statutory consultee. That doesn’t sound very dramatic, or big, or important, but to the residents of the village, it is a demonstration of what we do, quietly, meeting after meeting. It also, I hope, reassures them that the Parish Council is in good hands, which is important to me and my colleagues.

And now we await the response of the District Council. They haven’t always been seen to serve us well, particularly in terms of enforcement, but they have a District Plan, a five year supply of housing plots, and the law on their side.

Let’s hope that they see it our way...

Creeting St Peter: a little light reading matter

One of the great worries of any Parish Council, and perhaps especially for its Chair, is the prospect of housing development. Increasingly, we see speculative applications for housing, on sites that might not otherwise be obviously suitable, because the local District Council doesn’t have a five year housing land supply set aside. In reality, even if it does, the onus is on the District to prove that it meets the requirements as laid down by the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Here in Mid Suffolk, we were told last summer that the District was in good shape, having carried out a lot of work to locate suitable sites, calculate likely building rates and future proof their estimates against an expected increase in the Local Housing Need, as calculated by the Housing Delivery Test. At the time, I questioned whether there was enough elbow room to survive an expected increase, and was reassured that, whilst it might be a bit tight, Mid Suffolk was expected to remain compliant.

As it turned out, the Planning Team were wrong. The increase was rather more than they had expected, and their numbers weren’t perhaps as robust as they thought. At the first challenge, a planning inspector found against the Council’s confident claim that the five year supply was there, and the fears of a number of  our neighbouring and near neighbouring Parishes were realised.

It was back to the drawing board for the District Council, and they have now launched a consultation, inviting interested parties, as set out in the NPPF (small and large developers, land promoters, private and public land owners, infrastructure providers (such as utility providers, highways, etc), upper tier authorities (county councils) and neighbouring authorities with adjourning or cross-boundary sites) to comment on the Draft Mid Suffolk Housing Land Supply Position Statement for 2018/2019.

You’ll notice that this doesn’t include Parish Councils, although it has been sent to us, and I do feel a duty to read it.

I suspect that this might have something to do with the likely scale of anger that, having had our hopes of relief raised, they were then dashed so soon.

Now I will admit that, as it currently stands, there seems little prospect of large scale development in Creeting St Peter. At least, if the planning envelope is to be respected, there isn’t. But, with Stowmarket having already annexed part of the Parish to build (one day) a business and enterprise park, and with other parishes having suffered similar losses for new housing, one has reason to fear being swallowed up by our increasingly urban neighbour.

Mid Suffolk is expected to ensure that 590 new dwellings are built each year to handle the increasing demand - partly societal but also a measure of Suffolk’s population growth relative to the country. They’ve got to go somewhere, but with increasing pressure on schools, NHS facilities and infrastructure, there is increasing unhappiness at Parish level. If you’ve got a railway station, like Elmswell, Needham Market or Thurston, you can expect new housing. Even large villages with poor public transport, such as Stowupland, are seeing sizeable new developments. Combine that with the cuts imposed on County and District Councils, and the scope for problems is obvious.

I have a bad feeling about this...

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils to pilot pioneering developer contributions database

I don’t normally reproduce Council press releases, but this one might be of wider interest...

Residents and those in the development industry will be able to see how money collected from developers as part of planning agreements is being spent on providing infrastructure for local communities when a new database goes online. 

Both Babergh and Mid Suffolk are working with the software provider Exacom as part of a pilot exercise involving two other local authorities to hone this innovative, new database which will transform the way that information is held for developer contributions paid for by legal agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils Section 106 and CIL data will be used by the software provider in the launch of the Planning Obligations Public Facing Module across the country. This will be hosted on the Councils’ websites later in the summer and will enable people to search for information by district, ward, parish or infrastructure type with details of where monies are collected, allocated and spent. It will also allow people to see legal agreements secured as part of the planning process. The information will be updated daily.

Babergh and Mid Suffolk expect to be able to host this database on their websites in the summer. Today, their data was used as part of the national launch of the database by Exacom. 

The Public Facing Module, comprising of information on infrastructure funding in Babergh and Mid Suffolk can be viewed online at: http://pfm.exacom.co.uk/midsuffolkbabergh/index.php

Ralph Taylor and Geoff Kirby, Directors of Exacom, said:

We believe that this is a revolution in planning obligation transparency and will set the future standard in planning obligation transparency for the rest of the UK. We would like to thank Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council for their assistance in launching this project with their planning obligation data.

Babergh District Council’s Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Nick Ridley, said:

This is ground breaking technology and we are sure that residents across the district will be interested to see how contributions secured from developers as part of planning applications are benefiting their local communities. We are proud to be the first local authorities in the country to demonstrate this database.

Mid Suffolk District Council’s Cabinet Member for Assets and Investment, Councillor Nick Gowrley, said:

This exciting project is the culmination of two and a half years’ work which will bring together a range of detailed data on our website in the summer for the benefit of residents, people in the development industry, our Parish Councils, Councillors and community groups. This speaks to the Council’s agenda of openness and transparency and the database will provide information in real time in that it will update every 24 hours.

Slightly older, a little wiser perhaps, a bureaucrat returns to Parish Council...

The sun beat down on our small, but perfectly formed, village, and I was a bureaucrat on a mission. Partly because I wanted words with our quintessentially useless Conservative County Councillor over his crass dismissal of concerns over our Demand Responsive Transport service - they've withdrawn the right to use the concessionary bus pass altogether - but also because, in his role as a probably equally inept District Councillor, he has been part of a Conservative Group whose failure to ensure sufficient availability of land for housing has led to speculative planning applications being approved despite rejection by the community and the District Council itself.

More on that later...

We had a packed agenda for my first meeting back after a self-imposed, but Chair and Clerk inspired, exile, and I was keen to contribute where I could.

The most important piece of business was a presentation on Village Plans by an Officer of Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - the two authorities are effectively joined in all but political leadership - following the overturning by the Planning Inspector of rejection of a speculative 170 house development in Stowupland, the neighbouring parish. We can potentially enhance the prospects of guiding any development that might come our way if we take advantage of some of the options - Village Plans etc - that are open to us.

The catch is that Mid Suffolk's planning department doesn't lend itself to much confidence - we've been let down before - and in a village of two hundred and sixty souls, the capacity is probably limited (we would be comfortably the smallest village in Mid Suffolk to attempt such a thing). However, it would be remiss of us not to consider it, and our new Chair is terribly keen (as Lord Bonkers might put it).

And, whilst I worry that we might be at risk of heightening expectations that might not be deliverable, it does offer us a chance to consult residents about what they might want for the village in the coming decade or even more.

We also had a report from our District Councillor, who isn't useless, I have to admit. Elected last year, beating a drop-in Conservative candidate on General Election Day (no mean feat), he has worked hard and assiduously attends local events. His reports are informative and he answers questions put to him, unlike our County Councillor...

...who didn't turn up. He did e-mail over a derisory report, although you'd think he'd make more of an effort given that he's technically up for re-election next year. And so, he dodged another opportunity to explain why the village doesn't have the 20 mph speed limit that he's promised, a year later, or to explain how axing the right of pensioners to use their bus passes on the new Connecting Communities service represents "a better service at lower cost".

All of the usual gaiety ensued with the financial report. I was mildly concerned that we're presented with a financial report at the meeting, one of the previous Clerk's more disconcerting habits, without year to date spending reports or comparisons with the annual budget, and will be proposing a more informative reporting framework at our next meeting.

That said, I like our new Clerk. Jennie is much less prescriptive and much more open to suggestions than her predecessor, and I'm keen to work with her to spread the burden a bit more than it was in the past.

And finally, jollity broke out as we discussed the emergency bag, which had been kept in a loft until recently. It contains some useful items in case of a disaster, including a waterproof whistle. Admittedly, if we get flooded out in Creeting St Peter, the prospects for Stowmarket are pretty grim, but it's nice to know that we covered in the event that the polar icecaps melt spontaneously...

A la recherche du Stowupland perdu*

It is hard to believe that it is now nearly five years since my gallant, but ill-fated, attempt to become the District Councillor for Stowupland ward, but I found myself on familiar territory this weekend, delivering leaflets for the Remain campaign. After all, a majority of those who actually turned out that day voted for parties that support our membership of the European Union, and if Ros and I don't get a pro-European message out, who will?

Funnily enough, five years ago, there was controversy over plans to build some new housing association properties, and now, the hedges and windows are full of signs condemning a proposal to build one hundred and seventy-five houses on a greenfield site on the edge of the village. There is little doubt that it is highly speculative, but it does offer up a slightly uncomfortable dilemma for local residents.

You see, Stowupland is quite a nice place, and people want to live there. More homes and thus, more people, means, potentially, better services or, in the current climate, more chance of keeping the ones they have. It also means that their children and grandchildren have some prospect of living locally when it becomes their turn to set up home.

And yet, with Stowmarket growing apace, there is a risk of one being absorbed into the other. One wonders how a local councillor might reconcile the opposing tensions, but luckily, I guess, that isn't my problem.

At least my memories of the 2011 campaign make deliveries rather easier - I remember where some of the trickier letterboxes are - and we've made pretty good progress thus far. If only the weather wasn't so unreliable...

* (for those of you whose French is rather better than mine, an apology...)