consultee comments for planning application dc/20/01677 · proposal: outline planning application...

Consultee Comments for Planning Application DC/20/01677

Application Summary

Application Number: DC/20/01677

Address: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory Elmswell

Proposal: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site

remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land

for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping

(Phase 2)

Case Officer: Daniel Cameron

Consultee Details

Name: Mr Peter Dow

Address: Blackbourne Community Centre, Blackbourne Road, Elmswell Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

IP30 9UH

Email: [email protected]

On Behalf Of: Elmswell Parish Clerk

Comments

Elmswell Parish Council objects to this application which is, disingenuously, referred to by the

Applicant as, Phase 2. The initial development of 190 houses on the Bacon Factory site were

presented, ref. 0846/13, as an autonomous development and not the beginning of a larger phased

exercise.

The decision ref DC/19/03924 to refuse Permission for the original iteration of this Application was

well-founded and sat well with the core objections of Elmswell Parish Council, viz:

1 The site is outside of the Settlement Boundary and is not a Preferred Option in the emerging

BMSDC Joint Local Plan. It represents ad hoc development without the safeguards of any

strategic planning and, as such, is an unsustainable location on which development should not be

approved.

2 The proposal found no support during the pre-application consultation process from either

Elmswell Parish Council or the public. It imposes further strain on the infrastructure provision

which is already stretched to accommodate 634 houses in Elmswell with Planning permission

currently being built-out or soon to commence construction. Of specific concern are:

2.1 Highways infrastructure which, at the School Road / Church Road junction, is already over the

safe operating capacity, as confirmed by SCC Highways, and where no mitigation is suggested or

offered.

2.2 Highways infrastructure where the clear guidance enshrined in the Suffolk Design Guide is for

150 dwellings served by a single access road, this stricture already breached by the host

development here on the Bacon Factory site and now further to be ignored in a proposal which

seeks to allow 265 dwellings to be accessed from the increasingly busy single junction at Ashfield

Road, a 56% uplift on the accepted safe limit.

2.3 Educational provision which is already stretched by extant proposals requiring the expansion

of Elmswell Primary School on its constricted site to accommodate 420 pupils and which, by

Suffolk County Council admission, still leaves a residue of Elmswell children required to be bussed

elsewhere when all current housing development is realised. All of the primary schoolchildren from

the new housing proposed here would have to travel by bus to receive their primary education.

3 The addition of the public green space to the north of the site, which was not originally mooted at

the consultation stage, inevitably means that the land reserved for the Relief Road separates the

residents from their recreation area posing a hazardous prospect as any such road would, by

definition, carry considerable volumes and weight of traffic.

There having been no further evidence presented to counter these arguments, the strong

objection of Elmswell Parish Council remains. The Refusal should be tested under the Appeal

process towards helping to bring some common sense and reason into the future assessment of

ad hoc impositions on the already stretched infrastructure of the unwilling host communities.

Peter Dow CiLCA

Clerk to Elmswell Parish Council

19.05.2020

If you would like to discuss any of the points in this document pleasecontact us on 03456 066087, Option 1 or email

[email protected].

AW SiteReference:

151484/1/0083091

LocalPlanningAuthority:

Mid Suffolk District

Site: Land To The West Of The Former BaconFactory Elmswell

Proposal: Outline Planning Application (access to beconsidered, all other matters reserved) -Site remediation works (Phase 1) and theerection of up to 65 dwellings with thesafeguarding of land for the potential futuredelivery of a relief road, public open

Planningapplication:

DC/20/01677

Prepared by: Pre-Development Team

Date: 18 May 2020

Planning Applications – Suggested Informative Statements andConditions Report

Planning Report

ASSETS

Section 1 - Assets Affected

Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreementwithin the development site boundary.

WASTEWATER SERVICES

Section 2 - Wastewater Treatment

The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Elmswell Water Recycling Centre that will haveavailable capacity for these flows

Section 3 - Used Water Network

This response has been based on the following submitted documents: Flood risk assessment The sewerage systemat present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network theyshould serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advice them of the mostsuitable point of connection. (1) INFORMATIVE - Notification of intention to connect to the public sewer under S106of the Water Industry Act Approval and consent will be required by Anglian Water, under the Water Industry Act1991. Contact Development Services Team 0345 606 6087. (2) INFORMATIVE - Notification of intention to connectto the public sewer under S106 of the Water Industry Act Approval and consent will be required by Anglian Water,under the Water Industry Act 1991. Contact Development Services Team 0345 606 6087. (3) INFORMATIVE -Protection of existing assets - A public sewer is shown on record plans within the land identified for the proposeddevelopment. It appears that development proposals will affect existing public sewers. It is recommended that theapplicant contacts Anglian Water Development Services Team for further advice on this matter. Building overexisting public sewers will not be permitted (without agreement) from Anglian Water. (4) INFORMATIVE - Buildingnear to a public sewer - No building will be permitted within the statutory easement width of 3 metres from thepipeline without agreement from Anglian Water. Please contact Development Services Team on 0345 606 6087. (5)INFORMATIVE: The developer should note that the site drainage details submitted have not been approved for thepurposes of adoption. If the developer wishes to have the sewers included in a sewer adoption agreement withAnglian Water (under Sections 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991), they should contact our Development ServicesTeam on 0345 606 6087 at the earliest opportunity. Sewers intended for adoption should be designed andconstructed in accordance with Sewers for Adoption guide for developers, as supplemented by Anglian Water’srequirements.

Section 4 - Surface Water Disposal

The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with connectionto sewer seen as the last option. Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for Englandincludes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed bydischarge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer.

From the details submitted to support the planning application the proposed method of surface water managementdoes not relate to Anglian Water operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability ofthe surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local FloodAuthority or the Internal Drainage Board. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage systemdirectly or indirectly involves the discharge of water into a watercourse. Should the proposed method of surfacewater management change to include interaction with Anglian Water operated assets, we would wish to be re-consulted to ensure that an effective surface water drainage strategy is prepared and implemented.

Planning Report

Environment Agency

Cobham Road, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP3 9JD. Customer services line: 03708 506 506 www.gov.uk/environment-agency

Cont/d..

Bradley Heffer Mid Suffolk District Council Planning Department

Endeavour House Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk

IP1 2BX

Our ref: AE/2019/124413/01-L01 Your ref: DC/19/03924

Date: 09 September 2019

Dear Mr Heffer OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION (SOME MATTERS RESERVED - ACCESS TO BE CONSIDERED) FOR SITE REMEDIATION WORKS (PHASE 1) AND THE ERECTION OF UP TO 65 DWELLINGS WITH THE SAFEGUARDING OF LAND FOR POTENTIAL FUTURE DELIVERY OF A RELIEF ROAD, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND

ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING (PHASE 2) LAND TO THE WEST OF THE FORMER BACON FACTORY ELMSWELL

Thank you for your consultation dated 21 August 2019. We have reviewed the application as submitted and have no objection to the scheme as planned provided the following conditions are appended to any grant of permission. Without these conditions we would object to the application.

We have attached an appendix containing advice and informatives for the developer. Groundwater and Contaminated Land

We have reviewed the Former Grampian Foods, Elmswell, Suffolk, Phase I and II Geo-Environmental Assessment, DQRA and Remediation Strategy report (RPT-0018),

February 2015, and, based on the information provided, have the following comments:

We agree on the results of the detailed quantitative risk assessment for controlled waters, which determined that the risk to the principal aquifer posed by

the hot spot located at BH11 (former diesel tank location) is low. We note the existence of an historic onsite abstraction borehole.

http://www.gov.uk/environment-agency

Cont/d..

2

We note that piling is the proposed foundation solution for a part of the site. Deep foundations have the potential to impact on groundwater resources.

We agree that infiltration drainage systems are not suitable for this site, due to the very low hydraulic conductivity of the superficial deposits. Details of an alternative proposed drainage system for the proposed development should be submitted to the local authority for discussion and written approval.

This outline planning application (Phase 1 and 2) demonstrates that it will be possible to manage the risk posed to controlled waters by this development. Further detailed information will however be required before built development is undertaken. We

believe that it would place an unreasonable burden on the developer to ask for more detailed information prior to the granting of planning permission but respect that this is a decision for the local planning authority.

We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted, if the following planning conditions are included as set out below. Without these conditions, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would object to the application.

Condition 1

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination

shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Condition 2

No development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), shall take

place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Condition 3

No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a

verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to

Cont/d..

3

demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of

pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved. Reasons for Conditions 1-3

To protect and prevent the pollution of the water environment (particularly groundwater associated with the underlying Secondary and Principal Aquifers, from potential

pollutants associated with current and previous land uses) in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 170 and 178), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection Position Statements (2017) A4 – A6, J1 – J7 and N7.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 170 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water

pollution. Government policy also states that planning policies and decisions should also ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented (NPPF, paragraph 178).

Condition 4

Piling or any other foundation design using penetrative methods shall not be permitted

other than with the express written consent of the local planning authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason for Condition 4

Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods can result in risks to

potable supplies from, for example, pollution / turbidity, risk of mobilising contamination, drilling through different aquifers and creating preferential pathways. Thus it should be demonstrated that any proposed piling will not result in contamination of groundwater.

Condition 5 Borehole Management and Decommissioning

A scheme for managing any borehole, either already existing (such as the historic abstraction borehole), or installed for the investigation of soils, groundwater or geotechnical purposes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The scheme shall provide details of how redundant boreholes are to be decommissioned and how any boreholes that need to be retained, post-development, for monitoring purposes will be secured, protected and inspected. The scheme as approved shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the development.

Reasons for Condition 5

To ensure that redundant boreholes are safe and secure, and do not cause

Cont/d.. 4

groundwater pollution or loss of water supplies in line with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Position Statement A8 of our Groundwater

Protection: Principles and Practice. We expect best practice regarding the development or backfilling of any shaft, well, borehole, tunnel or adit in order to prevent pollution or loss of water resources. We expect operators to adopt appropriate engineering standards and comply with our publication, Good practice for decommissioning

redundant boreholes and wells (Environment Agency 2012). Any contamination that is discovered during decommissioning or otherwise should be dealt with in accordance with our position statements on land contamination.

We trust this advice is useful.

Yours sincerely

Mr Mark Macdonald

Planning Advisor

Direct dial 02030255475 Direct e-mail [email protected]

End

5

Appendix

We recommend that developers should:

1) Refer to our ‘Groundwater Protection’ website;

2) Refer to our CL:AIRE Water and Land Library (WALL) and the CLR11 risk

management framework provided in https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-contamination-

how-to-manage-the-risks when dealing with land affected by contamination, and also

includes the Guiding Principles for Land Contamination for the type of information that

we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local

Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, for example human health;

3) Refer to our Land Contamination Technical Guidance;

4) Refer to ‘Position Statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code

of Practice’;

5) Refer to British Standards BS 5930:1999 A2:2010 Code of practice for site

investigations and BS10175:2011 A1: 2013 Investigation of potentially contaminated

sites – code of practice

6) Refer to our ‘Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected

by Contamination’ National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre Project

NC/99/73. The selected method, including environmental mitigation measures, should

be presented in a ‘Foundation Works Risk Assessment Report’, guidance on producing

this can be found in Table 3 of ‘Piling Into Contaminated Sites’.

7) Refer to our ‘Good Practice for Decommissioning Boreholes and Wells ’.

8) Refer to our ‘Dewatering building sites and other excavations: environmental permits’

guidance when temporary dewatering is proposed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/groundwater-protection

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-contamination-how-to-manage-the-risks

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/land-contamination-how-to-manage-the-risks

http://www.claire.co.uk/information-centre/water-and-land-library-wall/41-water-and-land-library-wall/192-guiding-principles-for-land-contamination-gplc

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/land-contamination-technical-guidance

http://www.claire.co.uk/component/phocadownload/category/8-initiatives?download=212:definition-of-waste-development-industry-code-of-practice

http://www.claire.co.uk/component/phocadownload/category/8-initiatives?download=212:definition-of-waste-development-industry-code-of-practice

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:/cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0501bitt-e-e.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:/cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0501bitt-e-e.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:/cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0202bisw-e-e.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http:/cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/LIT_6478_8cbe6f.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/dewatering-building-sites-and-other-excavations-environmental-permits

1

BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow

From: SM-NE-Consultations (NE) <[email protected]>Sent: 06 May 2020 07:40To: BMSDC Planning Area Team YellowSubject: DC/20/01677 Consultation Response

Our ref: 316102 Application ref: DC/20/01677 Dear Sir/Madam Natural England has no comments to make on this application. Natural England has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice which you can use to assess impacts on protected species or you may wish to consult your own ecology services for advice. Natural England and the Forestry Commission have also published standing advice on ancient woodland and veteran trees which you can use to assess any impacts on ancient woodland. The lack of comment from Natural England does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may be able to provide information and advice on the environmental value of this site and the impacts of the proposal to assist the decision making process. We advise LPAs to obtain specialist ecological or other environmental advice when determining the environmental impacts of development. We recommend referring to our SSSI Impact Risk Zones (available on Magic and as a downloadable dataset) prior to consultation with Natural England. Further guidance on when to consult Natural England on planning and development proposals is available on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-planning-authorities-get-environmental-advice Yours faithfully Alice Watson Consultations Service Natural England, Crewe Business Park, Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ Tel: 0300 060 3900 [email protected] www.gov.uk/natural-england During the current coronavirus situation, Natural England staff are working remotely to provide our services and support our customers and stakeholders. All offices and our Mail Hub are closed, so please send any documents by email or contact us by phone or email to let us know how we can help you. See the latest news on the coronavirus at http://www.gov.uk/coronavirus and Natural England’s regularly updated operational update at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/operational-update-covid-19.

Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives

2

This message has been sent using TLS 1.2 This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.

From: Crisell Chris (Suffolk NHS) <[email protected]> On Behalf Of planning.apps Sent: 20 May 2020 13:17 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]> Subject: RE: DC/20/01677 Land to the Former Bacon Factory Elmswell

Hi Jane Thank you for getting in touch, the CCG has responded to this application previously and feel they can add nothing at this stage. Please refer to previous responses for comments regarding this development. Regards Estates Planning Support Ipswich & East Suffolk CCG & West Suffolk CCG Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, IP1 2BX [email protected] www.westsuffolkccg.nhs.uk www.ipswichandeastsuffolkccg.nhs.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.westsuffolkccg.nhs.uk/

http://www.ipswichandeastsuffolkccg.nhs.uk/

From: Lisa De Pasquale Sent: 11 May 2020 13:18 To: Planning Contributions Mailbox <[email protected]>; Daniel Cameron <[email protected]> Cc: BMSDC Planning Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Application - Elmswell, Land West of Former Bacon Factory IP30 9UX Good afternoon, We have looked at this proposal. In our opinion there would be no significant impact on known archaeological sites or areas with archaeological potential. We have no objection to the development and do not believe any archaeological mitigation is required. Best regards Lisa Lisamaria De Pasquale Assistant Archaeological Officer (Technical Support) Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service

1 Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX

www.suffolk.gov.uk

Your ref: DC/20/01677/OUT

Our ref: 60038

Date: 03 June 2020

Enquiries to: Peter Freer

Tel: 01473 264801


By e-mail only:

[email protected]

FAO Daniel Cameron

Dear Daniel, Re: Elmswell, Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory IP30 9UX I provided a response to the above application on 19th May 2020 but I omitted the

need for securing Secondary school transport contributions. Therefore please see

the following update for the contributions requested.

Summary Table – CIL contributions The table below would form the basis of a future bid to the District Council for CIL

funds if planning permission was granted and implemented. This will be reviewed on receipt of a reserved matters application consultation.

Service Requirement

Contribution per dwelling Capital Contribution

Education – Secondary

£4,197.78 £272,856.00

Education – Sixth Form

£1,049.45 £68,214.00

Libraries £216.00 £14,040.00

Waste £93.00 £6,045.00

Total £5,556.23 £361,155.00

Summary Table – S106 contributions The table below should be secured by a planning obligation if planning permission is to

be granted. Justification is identified in the proceeding sections of this letter.

Service Requirement


Education – New Primary School

£5,145.85 £334,480.00

New Early Years Setting

£2,111.95 £137,277.00

Secondary School Transport contribution

£1,112.30 £72,300

Total £8,370.10 £544,057.00

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/




www.suffolk.gov.uk

SCC require secondary school transport S106 contributions as the development is

over 3 miles walking distance to Thurston Community College. This is an additional cost to SCC as the development is not located within statutory walking distance of a Secondary School and SCC will have responsibilities to provide ‘free’ home to school

transport for secondary pupils on an ongoing basis for the life of the development.

Our approach to school transport cost is directly related to the number of children likely to be living in the dwellings and is set out in the final section on page 2 of the “update on developer contribution costs for early years and education”, published on the SCC

Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions in Suffolk webpage. On average the current cost (May 2020) of transporting a school pupil from home to school is £6.34 per

day (return) or £1,205 per annum. The calculation of school transport contributions is based on 190 days per year over 5 years for secondary school pupils.

12 secondary-age pupils are forecast to arise from the proposed development. Developer contributions are sought to fund school transport provision for a minimum of

five years for secondary-age pupils. Therefore, contributions of £1,205 x 12 pupils x 5 years = £72,300, increased by the RPI. Contribution held for a minimum period of 10 years from date of the final dwelling occupation. The contribution will be used for

secondary school transport costs. The securing of a School Transport Contribution by the approaches as set out above

have been confirmed in appeal decisions, as a matter of principle, to be compliant with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. Decision examples include (Planning Inspectorate 7 digit case reference numbers): 3179674, 3161733, 3182192, and

3173352.

Yours sincerely,

P J Freer Peter Freer MSc MRTPI Senior Planning and Infrastructure Officer

Growth, Highways & Infrastructure Directorate – Strategic Development cc BMSDC CIL Infrastructure Team SCC, Developer Contributions


https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/S106-Planning-Obligations/Developers-Guide-updated-early-years-education-costs-May-2020.pdf

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/S106-Planning-Obligations/Developers-Guide-updated-early-years-education-costs-May-2020.pdf


www.suffolk.gov.uk

Your ref: DC/20/01677/OUT

Our ref: 60038

Date: 19 May 2020

Enquiries to: Peter Freer

Tel: 01473 264801


By e-mail only:

[email protected]

FAO Daniel Cameron

Dear Daniel, Re: Elmswell, Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory IP30 9UX I refer to the above application for the Outline Planning Application (access to be

considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the

erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future

delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2).

Summary Table – CIL contributions The table below would form the basis of a future bid to the District Council for CIL funds if planning permission was granted and implemented. This will be reviewed on

receipt of a reserved matters application consultation.

Service Requirement


Education – Secondary

£4,197.78 £272,856.00

Education – Sixth Form

£1,049.45 £68,214.00

Libraries £216.00 £14,040.00

Waste £93.00 £6,045.00

Total £5,556.23 £361,155.00

Summary Table – S106 contributions The table below should be secured by a planning obligation if planning permission is to

be granted. Justification is identified in the proceeding sections of this letter.

Service Requirement


Education – New Primary School

£5,145.85 £334,480.00

New Early Years Setting

£2,111.95 £137,277.00

Total £7,257.80 £471,757.00

Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 sets out the





www.suffolk.gov.uk

requirements of planning obligations, which are that they must be:

a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) Directly related to the development; and, c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The County and District Councils have a shared approach to calculating

infrastructure needs, in the adopted Section 106 Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions in Suffolk.

Mid Suffolk District Council adopted their Core Strategy in September 2008 and

Focused Review in December 2012. The Core Strategy includes the following

objectives and policies relevant to providing infrastructure:

• Objective 6 seeks to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure to support

new development; this is implemented through Policy CS6: Services and

Infrastructure.

• Policy FC1 and FC1.1 apply the presumption in favour of sustainable

development in Mid Suffolk.

The emerging Joint Local Plan contains policy proposals that will form an important

tool for the day to day determination of planning application in both districts.

Infrastructure is one of the key planning issues and the Infrastructure chapter states

that the Councils fully appreciate that the delivery of new homes and jobs needs to be

supported by necessary infrastructure, and new development must provide for the

educational needs of new residents.

Community Infrastructure Levy

Mid Suffolk District Council adopted a CIL Charging Schedule on 21 January 2016 and

charges CIL on planning permissions granted after 11 April 2016.

New CIL Regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 June 2019. These Regulations

(Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2019)

came into force on 1 September 2019 (“the commencement date”). Regulation 11

removes regulation 123 (pooling restriction and the CIL 123 List in respect of ‘relevant

infrastructure’).

The details of specific contribution requirements related to the proposed

scheme are set out below:

1. Education. Paragraph 94 of the NPPF states: ‘It is important that a sufficient

choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new



www.suffolk.gov.uk

communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and

collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

a) give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the

preparation of plans and decisions on applications; and b) work with schools promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to

identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.’

Furthermore, the NPPF at paragraph 104 states: ‘Planning policies should:

a) support an appropriate mix of uses across an area, and within larger scale sites, to minimise the number and length of journeys needed for

employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities;’

The Department for Education (DfE) publication ‘Securing developer contributions for education’ (November 2019), which should be read in conjunction with the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advice on planning obligations [revised September 2019]. Paragraph 19 of the DfE guidance states, “We advise local authorities with education responsibilities to work jointly with relevant local planning authorities as plans are prepared and planning applications determined, to ensure that all education needs are properly addressed, including both temporary and permanent education needs where relevant, such as school transport costs and temporary school provision before a permanent new school opens within a development site”. In paragraph 15 of the DfE guidance it says, ‘We advise that you base the

assumed cost of mainstream school places on national average costs published

in the DfE school place scorecards. This allows you to differentiate between the

average per pupil costs of a new school, permanent expansion or temporary

expansion, ensuring developer contributions are fairly and reasonably related in

scale and kind to the development. You should adjust the national average to

reflect the costs in your region, using BCIS location factors. We recommend the

use of index linking when developer contributions are discussed at planning

application stage and in planning obligations, so that contributions are adjusted

for inflation at the point they are negotiated and when payment is due’.

The most recent scorecard is 2018 and the national average new build cost per pupil for primary schools is £19,611. The most recent (March 2019) BCIS location factor for the East of England, which includes Suffolk, is 100. When applied to the national new build cost (£19,611 x 1.00) produces a total of £19,611 per pupil for new build primary schools. The national average school expansion build cost per pupil for secondary schools is £22,738. The most recent (March 2019) BCIS location factor for the East of England, which includes Suffolk, is 100. When applied to the national expansion build cost (£22,738 x 1.00) produces a total of £22,738 per pupil for permanent expansion of secondary schools. The DfE guidance in paragraph 16 says, ‘further education places provided within secondary school sixth forms will



www.suffolk.gov.uk

cost broadly the same as a secondary school place’.

SCC anticipates the following minimum pupil yields from the proposal, namely:

School level Minimum pupil yield:

Required: Cost per place £ (2020/21):

Primary school age range, 5-

11:

16 16 19,611

High school

age range, 11-16:

12 12 22,738

Sixth school age range,

16+:

3 3 22,738

Total education CIL contributions: £341,070.00

Total education S106 contributions: £334,480.001

The local catchment schools are Elmswell County Primary School, Thurston

Community College, and Ixworth Free School.

Secondary School

At the secondary school level the current forecasts indicate that there will be no

surplus places available to accommodate all of the secondary age pupils arising

from this scheme when consideration is given to developments in the

catchments.

At present we would therefore expect to apply for CIL funding to provide

secondary school places for the pupils generated through expansion of the

catchment school as per the above table.

Primary School

The existing primary school strategy is to expand Elmswell Primary School by 105 places from its existing capacity of 315-places to 420-places. However,

from a pupil place planning perspective, this expansion project will not deal with

pupils arising from this proposed development as 444 dwellings have already

been granted planning permission beyond the capacity of the school

(4911/16, 3469/16, 4909/16, and 0210/17).

Therefore due to the scale, location, and distribution of housing growth in the locality, the emerging strategy to deliver a sustainable approach for primary

1 Includes £1,294 per pupil place for proportionate land contribution.



www.suffolk.gov.uk

school provision is based on:

a) The current Elmswell primary school is forecast to be at capacity taking

into account pupils arising from basic need and those arising from

schemes that have already secured with planning permission. The

school cannot expand any further than 420 places.

b) Based on developer-led growth and the emerging joint Local Plan proposed sites in Woolpit and Elmswell, a site of a minimum size of 2.2

hectares is in the process of being secured on Woolpit application

DC/18/04247/emerging Joint Local Plan allocation LA095. A new

cycleway/footway is proposed to provide a safe route to the school and

proportionate contributions are being secured or developer delivered.

c) Section 106 developer funds will be sought to pay for the new primary

school. This is on the basis that the Mid Suffolk Position Statement

which sets out what the Council will spend its CIL money on, does not

include funding for new primary schools.

The County Council will require proportionate developer contributions for land

and build costs for a new school from this proposed development, which will

need to be secured by way of a planning obligation. A proportionate developer

contribution towards land costs based on the 16 primary age pupils forecast to arise from the proposed development is calculated as follows:

Assuming the cost of the site for the new primary school, based on a maximum

cost of £100,000 per acre (£247,100 per hectare), is £543,620 for a 2.2 hectare

site and equates to £1,294 per pupil place. For the proposed development, this

equates to a proportionate land contribution of 16 places x £1,294 per place =

£20,704.

2. Pre-school provision. Education for early years should be considered as part of

addressing the requirements of the NPPF Section 8: ‘Promoting healthy and safe

communities’. It is the responsibility of SCC to ensure that there is sufficient local

provision under the Childcare Act 2006. The Childcare Act in Section 7 sets out a

duty to secure free early years provision and all children in England receive 15 free

hours free childcare. Through the Childcare Act 2016, from September 2017

families of 3 and 4 year olds may now be able to claim up to 30 hours a week of free childcare. This new challenge has increased the assumptions on the overall

need for full-time equivalent (FTE) places.

The November 2019 DfE guidance2 states that “contributions for early years

provision will usually be used to fund places at existing or new school sites,

incorporated within primary or all-through schools. Therefore, we recommend that

the per pupil cost of early years provision is assumed to be the same as for a

primary school”.

This proposed development is in the Elmswell & Norton ward, where there is an

2 Securing developer contributions for education


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843957/Developer_Contributions_Guidance_update_Nov2019.pdf


www.suffolk.gov.uk

existing deficit of places. There is already an extension planned at Little Elms pre-

school which currently offers 45 places (located on the primary school site) and is

over subscribed. This expansion, from a place planning perspective, has been

factored into ensuring there are enough places to support previously commenced

development. The second pre-school setting in the Elmswell ward is Street Farm

pre-school on Station Road (north of the railway line) which offers 18 places, is

oversubscribed and cannot expand any further.

The early years strategy is to deliver a new setting in Elmswell. This site or the

pending application on land north and west of School Road could help deliver a

new setting. A site area of 915.2m2 is required to deliver the new early years

setting to be secured by a land option. An alternative option is for places at the

proposed new setting in Woolpit, alongside the proposed new primary school.

To mitigate the impact of the 7 places required from this proposed development

will require proportionate developer contributions to help fund a new early years

setting. Therefore the 7 places arising from this development will require a

contribution as set out in the following table:

Minimum number of

eligible children: Required:

Cost per

place £

(2020/2021):

Pre-School age range, 2-4:

7 7 19,611

Pre-school S106 contributions: £137,277.00

3. Play space provision. This should be considered as part of addressing the requirements of the NPPF Section 8: ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities.’

A further key document is the ‘Quality in Play’ document fifth edition published in 2016 by Play England.

4. Transport issues. The NPPF at Section 9 promotes sustainable transport. A comprehensive assessment of highways and transport issues is required as part

of any planning application. This will include travel plan, pedestrian and cycle

provision, public transport, rights of way, air quality and highway provision (both

on-site and off-site). Requirements will be dealt with via planning conditions and

Section 106 agreements as appropriate, and infrastructure delivered to adoptable

standards via Section 38 and Section 278.

Refer to responses from Sam Harvey of Transport Strategy, Strategic

Development, SCC.

In its role as Highway Authority, Suffolk County Council has worked with the local

planning authorities to develop county-wide technical guidance on parking in light



www.suffolk.gov.uk

of new national policy and local research. This was adopted by the County

Council in November 2014 and replaces the Suffolk Advisory Parking Standards

(2002). The guidance can be viewed at

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transpo

rt/Planning/2014-11-27%20Suffolk%20Guidance%20for%20Parking.pdf

5. Libraries. Refer to the NPPF ‘Section 8 Promoting healthy and safe communities’. A minimum standard of 30 square metres of new library space per 1,000 populations is required. Construction and initial fit out cost of

£3,000 per square metre for libraries (based on RICS Building Cost Information Service data but excluding land costs). This gives a cost of (30 x £3,000) = £90,000 per 1,000 people or £90 per person for library space.

Using the established methodology, the capital contribution towards libraries

arising sought from this scheme is stated below and would be spent at the local catchment library and allows for improvements and enhancements to be made to library services and facilities, and outreach activity.

Libraries CIL

contribution:

£14,040.00

6. Waste. All local planning authorities should have regard to both the Waste Management Plan for England and the National Planning Policy for Waste when discharging their responsibilities and efficient approach to resource use and

management.

Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy for Waste states that when determining planning applications for non-waste development, local planning authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, ensure that:

- New, non-waste development makes sufficient provision for waste management and promotes good design to secure the integration of waste

management facilities with the rest of the development and, in less developed areas, with the local landscape. This includes providing adequate storage

facilities at residential premises, for example by ensuring that there is sufficient and discrete provision for bins, to facilitate a high quality, comprehensive and frequent household collection service.

SCC requests that waste bins and garden composting bins should be provided

before occupation of each dwelling and this will be secured by way of a planning condition. SCC would also encourage the installation of water butts connected to gutter down-pipes to harvest rainwater for use by occupants in their gardens.

Waste CIL Contribution: £7,150.00

7. Supported Housing. Section 5 of the NPPF seeks to deliver a wide choice of

high quality homes. Supported Housing provision, including Extra Care/Very Sheltered Housing providing accommodation for those in need of care, including


http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Planning/2014-11-27%20Suffolk%20Guidance%20for%20Parking.pdf

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/assets/suffolk.gov.uk/Environment%20and%20Transport/Planning/2014-11-27%20Suffolk%20Guidance%20for%20Parking.pdf


www.suffolk.gov.uk

the elderly and people with learning disabilities, needs to be considered in

accordance with paragraphs 61 to 64 of the NPPF.

Following the replacement of the Lifetime Homes standard, designing homes to

Building Regulations Part M ‘Category M4(2)’ standard offers a useful way of meeting this requirement, with a proportion of dwellings being built to ‘Category

M4(3)’ standard. In addition we would expect a proportion of the housing and/or land use to be allocated for housing with care for older people e.g. Care Home and/or specialised housing needs, based on further discussion with the district

housing team to identify local housing needs.

8. Sustainable Drainage Systems. Section 14 of the NPPF seeks to meet the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change. Paragraphs 155 – 165 refer to planning and flood risk and paragraph 165 states: ‘Major

developments should incorporate sustainable drainage systems unless there is

clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. The systems used should:

a) take account of advice from the lead local flood authority;

b) have appropriate proposed minimum operational standards;

c) have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard

of operation for the lifetime of the development; and

d) where possible, provide multifunctional benefits.’

In accordance with the NPPF, when considering a major development (of 10

dwellings or more), sustainable drainage systems should be provided unless

demonstrated to be inappropriate.

9. Fire Service. The Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service requests that early consideration is given to access for fire vehicles and provision of water for fire-

fighting. The provision of any necessary fire hydrants will need to be covered by appropriate planning conditions.

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) seek higher standards of fires safety in dwelling houses and promote the installation of sprinkler systems and can provided

support and advice on their installation.

10. Ecology, landscape & heritage. These are matters for the Council to consider

and address. In terms of good design, it is suggested that consideration should be given to incorporating suitable roosting and nesting boxes within dwellings for birds and bats, as well as providing suitable biodiversity features including plants to

attract & support insects, reptiles, birds & mammals. Refer to the MHCLG guidance on the Natural environment [updated 21 July 2019].



www.suffolk.gov.uk

11. Superfast broadband. This should be considered as part of addressing the

requirements of the NPPF Section 10 ‘Supporting high quality communications.’ SCC would recommend that all development is equipped with high speed broadband (fibre optic). This facilitates home working which has associated

benefits for the transport network and also contributes to social inclusion, it also impacts educational attainment and social wellbeing, as well as impacting property

prices and saleability. As a minimum, access line speeds should be greater than 30Mbps, using a fibre

based broadband solution, rather than exchange based ADSL, ADSL2+ or exchange only connections. The strong recommendation from SCC is that a full

fibre provision should be made, bringing fibre cables to each premise within the development (FTTP/FTTH). This will provide a network infrastructure which is fit for the future and will enable

faster broadband.

12. Legal costs. SCC will require an undertaking for the reimbursement of its own legal costs, whether or not the matter proceeds to completion.

13. Monitoring fee. The new CIL Regs allow for the charging of monitoring fees. In

this respect the county council charges £412 for each trigger point in a planning obligation, payable on completion of the deed.

14. Time Limits. The above information is time-limited for 6 months only from the

date of this letter.

This development will mitigate its impact by contributing via both s106 and CIL as per the summary tables on page 1 and 2. Site-specific matters identified by SCC services directly will also need to be secured by way of a planning obligation or planning conditions.

I would be grateful if the above information can be provided to the decision-taker in respect of this planning application and infrastructure mitigation reported fully in the committee report. I understand from the documents submitted with the application that counsels advice was sought on three issues including the merits of an appeal against refusal by the LPA. This letter demonstrates how the contributions requested are CIL compliant. A CIL compliant statement is also being prepared.

Yours sincerely,

P J Freer Peter Freer MSc MRTPI Senior Planning and Infrastructure Officer Growth, Highways & Infrastructure Directorate – Strategic Development cc BMSDC CIL Infrastructure Team



www.suffolk.gov.uk

SCC, Developer Contributions



www.suffolk.gov.uk

a) Reference DC/20/01677 - this application for 65 dwellings;

b) Reference DC/18/02146 – North and West of School Road 105 dwellings;

c) Reference 0846/13 – former Grampian Harris site 190 dwellings;

d) Reference 4911/16 – land off Wetherden Road 240 dwellings;

e) Reference 3469/16 – Borley Crescent 60 dwellings;

f) Reference 4909/16 – Warren Lane/west of Cresmedow Way 38 dwellings; and

g) Reference 0210/17 – land off Ashfield Road 106 dwellings


OFFICIAL

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and

made using a chlorine free process.

OFFICIAL

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service

Fire Business Support Team Floor 3, Block 2 Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX

Mid Suffolk District Council Planning Department Endeavour House Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

Your Ref: Our Ref: FS/F311047 Enquiries to: Water Officer Direct Line: 01473 260588 E-mail: [email protected]

Web Address: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Date: 14/05/2020

Dear Sirs Land west of former Bacon Factory, Elmswell IP30 9LY Planning Application No: DC/20/01677/OUT Hydrants are required for this development (see our required conditions) I refer to the above application. The plans have been inspected by the Water Officer who has the following comments to make. Access and Fire Fighting Facilities Access to buildings for fire appliances and firefighters must meet with the requirements specified in Building Regulations Approved Document B, (Fire Safety), 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments Volume 1 - Part B5, Section 11 dwelling houses, and, similarly, Volume 2, Part B5, Sections 16 and 17 in the case of buildings other than dwelling houses. These requirements may be satisfied with other equivalent standards relating to access for fire fighting, in which case those standards should be quoted in correspondence. Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service also requires a minimum carrying capacity for hard standing for pumping/high reach appliances of 15/26 tonnes, not 12.5 tonnes as detailed in the Building Regulations 2000 Approved Document B, 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments. Water Supplies Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that fire hydrants be installed within this development on a suitable route for laying hose, i.e. avoiding obstructions. However, it is not possible, at this time, to determine the number of fire hydrants required for fire fighting purposes. The requirement will be determined at the water planning stage when site plans have been submitted by the water companies.

OFFICIAL



OFFICIAL

Sprinklers Advised Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that proper consideration be given to the potential life safety, economic, environmental and social benefits derived from the provision of an automatic fire sprinkler system. (Please see sprinkler information enclosed with this letter). Consultation should be made with the Water Authorities to determine flow rates in all cases. Should you need any further advice or information on access and fire fighting facilities, you are advised to contact your local Building Control in the first instance. For further advice and information regarding water supplies, please contact the Water Officer at the above headquarters. Yours faithfully

Water Officer

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service Enc: Hydrant requirement letter Copy: [email protected] Enc: Sprinkler information


OFFICIAL



OFFICIAL


Fire Business Support Team Floor 3, Block 2 Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX

Mid Suffolk District Council Planning Department Endeavour House Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

Your Ref:

Our Ref: ENG/AK

Enquiries to: Mrs A Kempen Direct Line: 01473 260486 E-mail: [email protected]

Web Address www.suffolk.gov.uk

Date: 14 May 2020

Planning Ref: DC/20/01677/OUT Dear Sirs RE: PROVISION OF WATER FOR FIRE FIGHTING ADDRESS: Land west of former Bacon Factory, Elmswell IP30 9LY DESCRIPTION: 65 Dwellings HYDRANTS REQUIRED If the Planning Authority is minded to grant approval, the Fire Authority require adequate provision is made for fire hydrants, by the imposition of a suitable planning condition at the planning application stage. If the Fire Authority is not consulted at the planning stage, or consulted and the conditions not applied, the Fire Authority will require that fire hydrants be installed retrospectively by the developer if the Planning Authority has not submitted a reason for the non-implementation of the required condition in the first instance. The planning condition will carry a life term for the said development and the initiating agent/developer applying for planning approval and must be transferred to new ownership through land transfer or sale should this take place. Fire hydrant provision will be agreed upon when the water authorities submit water plans to the Water Officer for Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service. Where a planning condition has been imposed, the provision of fire hydrants will be fully funded by the developer and invoiced accordingly by Suffolk County Council. Until Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service receive confirmation from the water authority that the installation of the fire hydrant has taken place, the planning condition will not be discharged.

Continued/

OFFICIAL



OFFICIAL

Should you require any further information or assistance I will be pleased to help. Yours faithfully

Water Officer


Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service – Automatic Fire Sprinklers in your Building Development We understand from local Council planning you are considering undertaking building work. The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to consider the benefits of installing automatic fire sprinklers in your house or commercial premises. In the event of a fire in your premises an automatic fire sprinkler system is proven to save lives, help you to recover from the effects of a fire sooner and help get businesses back on their feet faster. Many different features can be included within building design to enhance safety and security and promote business continuity. Too often consideration to incorporate such features is too late to for them to be easily incorporated into building work. Dispelling the Myths of Automatic Fire Sprinklers Automatic fire sprinklers are relatively inexpensive to install, accounting for

approximately 1-3% of the cost of a new build. Fire sprinkler heads will only operate in the vicinity of a fire, they do not all operate

at once. An automatic fire sprinkler head discharges between 40-60 litres of water per

minute and will cause considerably less water damage than would be necessary for Firefighters tackling a fully developed fire.

Statistics show that the likelihood of automatic fire sprinklers activating accidentally is negligible – they operate differently to smoke alarms.

Promoting the Benefits of Automatic Fire Sprinklers They detect a fire in its incipient stage – this will potentially save lives in your

premises. Sprinklers will control if not extinguish a fire reducing building damage. Automatic sprinklers protect the environment; reducing water damage and airborne

pollution from smoke and toxic fumes. They potentially allow design freedoms in building plans, such as increased

compartment size and travel distances. They may reduce insurance premiums. Automatic fire sprinklers enhance Firefighter safety.

Created: September 2015 Enquiries to: Fire Business Support Team Tel: 01473 260588 Email: [email protected]


Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BXwww.suffolk.gov.uk

2

Domestic sprinkler heads are recessed into ceilings and pipe work concealed soyou won’t even know they’re there.

They support business continuity – insurers report 80% of businesses experiencinga fire will not recover.

Properly installed and maintained automatic fire sprinklers can provide the safest ofenvironments for you, your family or your employees.

A desirable safety feature, they may enhance the value of your property andprovide an additional sales feature.

The Next StepSuffolk Fire and Rescue Service is working to make Suffolk a safer place to live. Part ofthis ambition is as champion for the increased installation of automatic fire sprinklers incommercial and domestic premises.

Any information you require to assist you to decide can be found on the following webpages:

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Servicehttp://www.suffolk.gov.uk/emergency-and-rescue/

Residential Sprinkler Associationhttp://www.firesprinklers.info/

British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Associationhttp://www.bafsa.org.uk/

Fire Protection Associationhttp://www.thefpa.co.uk/

Business Sprinkler Alliancehttp://www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org/

I hope adopting automatic fire sprinklers in your build can help our aim of making ‘Suffolk asafer place to live’.

Yours faithfully

Mark HardinghamChief Fire OfficerSuffolk Fire and Rescue Service

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/emergency-and-rescue/

http://www.firesprinklers.info/

http://www.bafsa.org.uk/

http://www.thefpa.co.uk/

http://www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org/

1

BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow

From: RM Floods PlanningSent: 05 May 2020 11:17To: BMSDC Planning Area Team YellowCc: Daniel CameronSubject: 2020-05-05 JS Reply Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Ref

DC/20/01677

Dear Daniel Cameron, Subject: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Ref DC/20/01677 Suffolk County Council, Flood and Water Management have reviewed application ref DC/20/01677. The following submitted documents have been reviewed and we recommend maintain our holding objection at this time:

• Site Location Plan – 01 Ref HARR181115 SLP-01 P9 • Illustrative Masterplan – 01 Ref HARR181115 IMP-01 P2 • Drainage Data (No reference) • Sustainable Drainage Statement Ref BFE-BWB-ZZ-XX-RP-CD-0001_SDS P06 • Phase I and II Geo Environmental Assessment, DQRA and Remediation Strategy Ref RPT-001a

The reason why we are recommending a maintain our holding objection is because the applicant has still not provided an assessment of any predicted or known flood risk in line with national and local policy/guidance. The points below detail the action required in order to overcome our current objection:-

1. Submit a flood risk assessment covering all types of flood risk Kind Regards Jason Skilton Flood & Water Engineer Suffolk County Council Growth, Highway & Infrastructure Endeavour House, 8 Russell Rd, Ipswich , Suffolk IP1 2BX **Note I am remote working for the time being** -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 04 May 2020 16:29 To: RM Floods Planning <[email protected]> Subject: MSDC Planning Re-consultation Request - DC/20/01677 Please find attached planning re-consultation request letter relating to planning application - DC/20/01677 - Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell, , Kind Regards Planning Support Team

2

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council. Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council (BMSDC) will be Data Controllers of the information you are providing. As required by the Data Protection Act 2018 the information will be kept safe, secure, processed and only shared for those purposes or where it is allowed by law. In some circumstances however we may need to disclose your personal details to a third party so that they can provide a service you have requested, or fulfil a request for information. Any information about you that we pass to a third party will be held securely by that party, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and used only to provide the services or information you have requested. For more information on how we do this and your rights in regards to your personal information and how to access it, visit our website.

From: RM Floods Planning <[email protected]> Sent: 01 May 2020 11:34 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]> Cc: Daniel Cameron <[email protected]> Subject: 2020-05-01 JS reply Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Ref DC/20/01677 Dear Daniel Cameron, Subject: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Ref DC/20/01677 Suffolk County Council, Flood and Water Management have reviewed application ref DC/20/01677. The following submitted documents have been reviewed and we recommend a holding objection at this time:

• Site Location Plan – 01 Ref HARR181115 SLP-01 P9

• Illustrative Masterplan – 01 Ref HARR181115 IMP-01 P2

• Drainage Data (No reference) The reason why we are recommending a holding objection is because the applicant has not provided an assessment of any predicted or known flood risk and has not provided a strategy for the disposal of surface water in line with national and local policy/guidance. Applicant shall be aware of the LLFA interim SuDs guidance (attached). The points below detail the action required in order to overcome our current objection:-

1. Submit a flood risk assessment covering all types of flood risk 2. Submit a up to date full strategy for the disposal of surface water inline with the LFFA SuDs

interim guidance. a. Note strategy shall look to utilise above ground open SuDs.

Kind Regards Jason Skilton Flood & Water Engineer Suffolk County Council Growth, Highway & Infrastructure Endeavour House, 8 Russell Rd, Ipswich , Suffolk IP1 2BX

Appendix A to the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy

Outline Planning Applications Interim Guidance

1 Issued 28th February 2020

Background

Recent engagement between the developers, Local Planning Authorities and Suffolk

County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has identified the need for

additional guidance and clarification in relation to outline applications. The issue is

that approval of indicative dwelling numbers at outline stage can conflict with the

space required to deliver Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) compliant with

National & Local Policy. This has led to applicants having to undertake additional

work on sites that have already been granted outline planning approval, leading to

delays and additional expense.

Purpose of Interim Guidance

This interim LLFA guidance is in addition to the Suffolk Flood Risk Management

Strategy (SFRMS) Appendices, and aims to clarify requirements, particularly in

relation to current and future Outline applications. This guidance will be incorporated

into Appendix A of the SFRMS at the next update.

The guidance aims to:

1. Ensure all the appropriate information is available to consider the effectiveness of SuDS on each site, the objective being to deliver a full above ground SuDS where achievable and appropriate

2. When full above ground SuDS are not appropriate due to site characteristics (topography, geology, existing land use/flood risk etc.), information is available to guide the design to maximize the use of above ground SuDS, with appropriate justification for any reduction. Sites with good infiltration can look to utilize below ground SuDS, but should deliver multifunctional benefits

3. Ensure evidence is provided to the Local Planning Authority, which will allow

appropriate consideration of the ability of the site to balance housing numbers and an effective, compliant SuDS system.

The interim guidance is in two parts in order to take account of proposals that are

currently under development, and therefore the requirements are set out in two

tables one for applications submitted prior to 31st December 2020 and another for

those submitted after 31st December 2020. This will allow promoters and developers

sufficient time to evaluate future sites to ensure there is sufficient space allocated

(approximately 12-15% of a site) for above ground, open SuDs, unless there is clear

evidence this would not be inappropriate.

Whilst this cut-off date has been provided, we strongly encourage developers and

their consultants to adopt this new guidance at the earliest possible opportunity to

reduce the risk of any delayed submissions missing the cut-off date.




National Legislation/Codes

• National Planning Policy Framework

• Defra's Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS

• Building Regulations: Approved Document H - Drainage and Waste Disposal

(2015 edition)

• BS8582:2013 Code of Practice for Surface Water Management for

Development Sites

• National Design Guide, Planning Practise Guidance for beautiful, enduring

and successful places

Local Policy

• Suffolk Flood Risk Management Strategy and Appendices

• Forest Heath District Council (Policy DM6 Flooding and Sustainable

Drainage)

• St Edmundsbury Borough Council (Policy DM6 Flooding and Sustainable

Drainage)

• Mid Suffolk District Council (Policy CS 4 Adapting to Climate Change)

• Ipswich Borough Council (Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan

Document, Ipswich Drainage and Flood Defence Policy, Development and

Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document & Ipswich Flood Defence

Management Strategy)

• Babergh District Council (CS12 Sustainable Design and Construction

Standards & CS15 Implementing Sustainable Development in Babergh)

• Suffolk Coastal District Council (Development Management Policy DM28 –

Flood Risk)

• Waveney District Council (Renewable Energy and Sustainable Construction

Supplementary Planning Document)




Appendix A, Requirements Pre 31st December 2020 (existing requirements)

Document Submitted Document Description

Outline

Flood Risk Assessment (FZ3 or Site >1Ha)

Evaluation of flood risk (Tidal, fluvial, pluvial & groundwater) to the site – will guide layout and location of open spaces. (SCC may require modelling of ordinary watercourse if EA Flood Maps not available)

✓

Drainage Strategy/Statement

Document that explains how the site is to be drained using SuDS principles and shall include information on: -

• Existing drainage (including adjacent roads)

• Impermeable Area (Pre and Post Development)

• Proposed SuDS

• Hydrology/Hydraulic Calculations (see below)

• Treatment Design (i.e. interception, pollution indices)

• Adoption/Maintenance Details

• Exceedance Paths

✓

Contour Plan Assessment of topography/flow paths/blue corridors ✓

Impermeable Areas Plan Plan to illustrate new impervious surfaces ✓

Preliminary Layout Drawings (including landscaping details)

Indicative drawings of layout, properties, open space and drainage infrastructure including: -

• Cross section/ plan views of basins, side slopes, wet/dry benches, freeboard and volumes/water depths (1:1, 1:30 & 1:100+CC)

• Discharge location (outfall)

• Main Conveyance network

• Form of SuDS and location on the site

✓

Preliminary Site Investigation Report

Trial pits across the site to BRE 365 and associated exploratory logs (check for groundwater)

✓




Minimum cut off of 5mm/hr – alternative half drain time approach probably needed

Preliminary hydraulic calculations

• Greenfield Discharge Rates - using suitable method i.e. FEH, IH124 (ICPSUDS), ReFH2

• Brownfield Discharge Rates - greenfield runoff estimation methods, based on a high runoff soil type (e.g. soil type 5) or use the urban catchment method in the ReFH2 software

• Storage Volume/Water depths

• Long Term Storage (if required) – Prefer single flow rate rather than LTS approach

✓

Evidence of any third-party agreements to discharge to their system (i.e. Anglian Water agreement or adjacent landowner)

Evidence of any permissions or permits being obtained. Both SCC/AW agree discharge rates if discharging to Sewer

✓




Appendix B, Requirements Post 31st December 2020 (revised requirements)

Document Submitted Document Description Outline

Flood Risk Assessment

(FZ3 or Site >1Ha)

Evaluation of flood risk (Tidal, fluvial, pluvial & groundwater) to the

site – will guide layout and location of open spaces. (SCC may

require modelling of ordinary watercourse if EA Flood Maps not

available)

✓

Drainage

Strategy/Statement

Document that explains how the site is to be drained using SuDS

principles. Shall include information on: -

• Existing drainage (including highway systems in adjacent

roads)

• Impermeable Area (Pre and Post Development) – if unknown,

use a conservative estimated impermeable percentage, e.g.

60% and justify

• Proposed SuDS (see below)

• Hydrology/Hydraulic Calculations (see below)

• Treatment Design (i.e. interception, pollution indices)

• Adoption/Maintenance Details

✓

Contour Plan Assessment of topography/existing flow paths/blue corridors ✓

Impermeable Areas Plan Plan to illustrate new impervious surfaces + total of numbers ✓




Preliminary Layout

Drawings (including

indicative landscaping

details)

Indicative drawings of layout, properties, open space and drainage

infrastructure including: -

• Any existing watercourses to be retained within or abutting the site. 3m wide maintenance strip on at least one bankside for future maintenance shall be provided

• Any existing blue corridors must be retained or enhanced

• Indicative cross section / plan view of basins; depicting,

area, side slopes, wet/dry benches, freeboard, volumes and

water depths (1:1, 1:30 & 1:100+CC) annotated on a plan.

Maintenance strips/access points shall also be shown.

• Discharge location (outfall)

• Main Conveyance network (open or piped)

• Form of SuDS and location on the site

o Publicly accessible SuDS (unfenced)

o Basins

▪ Max 1.5m total depth

▪ Max 1m water depth

▪ 1:4 side slopes with min 1.5m width wet bench

if water depth exceeds 0.6m

✓




▪ Min 300mm freeboard

▪ 3m wide maintenance strip with slight reverse

fall

Swales: Where appropriate i.e. follow contours

• 1:4 side slopes

• Low velocity – adjust gradient and dimensions to suit

• If under-drained, will need appropriate no planting easements

• Legal easements

• No planting zones shall follow Sewers for Adoption 6th Edition

• Soakaway offsets – appropriate distances depending on

geology i.e. low-density chalk =10m offset to dwellings and

highway construction. (Ciria C574

Preliminary Site

Investigation Report

• Trial pits across the site in accordance with BRE 365 and associated exploratory logs provided (checks for groundwater). *Infiltration is unlikely to be accepted were rates are below 10mm/hr and infiltration should not be considered where rates are 5mm/hr or less.

• Phase 1 Ground Investigation Report (identify any potential contamination)

✓




Preliminary hydraulic

calculations • Greenfield Discharge Rates - using suitable method i.e. FEH,

IH124 (ICPSUDS), ReFH2

• Brownfield Discharge Rates - greenfield runoff estimation

methods, based on a high runoff soil type (e.g. soil type 5) or

use the urban catchment method in the ReFH2 software

• Storage Volumes (with climate change factors applied)

• Long Term Storage (if using complex control rather than single

flow rate) *SCC Prefer single flow rate rather than LTS

approach.

• Source control/treatment calculations (or similar).

✓

Evidence of any third-

party agreements to

discharge to their system

(i.e. Anglian Water

agreement or adjacent

landowner)

• Written evidence of any permissions or permits being obtained.

• Where discharging to public sewer – both parties have to agree discharge rate i.e. 1yr greenfield rate.

✓

Health and Safety Risk

Assessment

CDM compliant Designers risk assessment for any open SuDs features which contain water greater than 0.3m deep

✓

Your Ref:DC/20/01677Our Ref: SCC/CON/1742/20Date: 23 June 2020

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk. IP 1 2BXwww,suffolk.gov.uk

All planning enquiries should be sent to the Local Planning Authority.Email: [email protected]

The Planning DepartmentMidSuffolk District CouncilPlanning Section1st Floor, Endeavour House8 Russell RoadIpswichSuffolkIP1 2BX

For the attention of: Daniel Cameron

Dear Daniel Cameron,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990CONSULTATION RETURN: DC/20/01677PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) -

Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the

safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open

space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

LOCATION: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell,

ROAD CLASS:Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority recommends that anypermission which that Planning Authority may give should include the conditions shown below:

COMMENTS

Following on from our previous response, as the sites mentioned as committed development areconsidered as part of the Joint Local Plan, it can be assumed these are included in the TEMPRO growthcalculation. We wanted to ensure we have robust evidence and be assured the junctions will operatewithin capacity.

The Transport Assessment (TA) document supporting this application assessed the junctions withinElmswell and the only junction that was highlighted as a concern was School Road/ Church Roadjunction. By using the existing traffic flows, the traffic model predicts queues and delays on SchoolRoad. These a are unlikely to occur as in reality as drivers from this development will find an alternativeroute rather than queuing; travel down New Road to Cross Street junction and turn east or west,depending on their destination. Also, if work allows, people often travel out of the peak hours to avoidqueues and delays. The main concern would be safe routes for the pedestrian/cyclist and driverfrustration.

Level crossingThe TA recorded the queuing that the level crossing in the AM and PM peak periods. the level crossingoperates 3 times per hour during the AM peak and 5 times per hour during the PM peak. The maximum

time for the ‘closure’ was recorded as 4.19 minutes with maximum queue 22 vehicles in the AM peakand 6.04 minutes with maximum queue 17 vehicles in the PM peak. The queues clear after eachclosure; we consider this would be a safety concern if they did not clear. The calculated maximumnumber of vehicles from the development would be 3. However, It is considered that residents from thedevelopment would time their journeys to avoid these barrier operation times (as they are consistentevery day).

Cycle link between Elmswell and WoolpitSuffolk County Council and Sustrans are working together to deliver this cycle route between betweenWoolpit and Elmswell. This will be in included in the developing Local Transport Plan which has localsupport but the concept is still in draft. The red line plan shows the area of land set aside previouslysecured by Sustrans for this link. It is necessary for new and existing residents of Elmswell to gain safesustainable access to school and the health centre in Woolpit. Also, it will provide safe route forresidents in Woolpit to access Elmswell train station. This scheme will be a sustainable solution asoutlined in the NPPF and Mid Suffolk Core Strategies S03 and S06.

With the proposed mitigation and contributions for highway improvements, we consider the proposalwould not have an adverse impact on the public highway with regard to congestion, safety or parking.Therefore, the County Council as Highways Authority, does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.

Taking all the above into account, it is our opinion that this development would not have a severe impact(NPPF para 109) therefore we do not object to the proposal.

CONDITIONSShould the Planning Authority be minded to grant planning approval the Highway Authority in Suffolkwould recommend they include the following conditions and obligations:

ER 1 - Condition: Prior to commencement of any works, (save for site clearance and technicalinvestigations) details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacingand means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority.Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.

ER 2 - Condition: No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving thatdwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approveddetails except with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with LocalHighway Authority.Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided for the safety of residents and the public.

P 2 - Condition: Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the[LOADING, UNLOADING,] manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including electric vehicle charging unitsand secure cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use andshall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose.Reason: To enable vehicles to enter and exit the public highway in forward gear in the interests ofhighway safety.

B 2 - Condition: Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for storageand presentation of Refuse/Recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority.The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use andshall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.Reason: To ensure that refuse recycling bins are not stored on the highway causing obstruction anddangers for other users.

HGV CONSTRUCTION - Condition: Before the development hereby permitted is commenced aConstruction Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. Construction of the development shall not be carried out other than in accordancewith the approved plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following matters:

haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network and monitoring and review mechanisms. provision of boundary hoarding and lighting details of proposed means of dust suppression details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction details of deliveries times to the site during construction phase details of provision to ensure pedestrian and cycle safety programme of works (including measures for traffic management and operating hours) parking and turning for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors loading and unloading of plant and materials storage of plant and materials maintain a register of complaints and record of actions taken to deal with such complaints at the site

office as specified in the Plan throughout the period of occupation of the site.Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway and toensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase.

NOTES

The Local Planning Authority recommends that developers of housing estates should enter into formalagreement with the Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to theconstruction and subsequent adoption of Estate Roads.

The works within the public highway will be required to be designed and constructed in accordance withthe County Council's specification. The applicant will also be required to enter into a legal agreementunder the provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the construction andsubsequent adoption of the highway improvements. Amongst other things the Agreement will cover thespecification of the highway works, safety audit procedures, construction and supervision and inspectionof the works, bonding arrangements, indemnity of the County Council regarding noise insulation andland compensation claims, commuted sums, and changes to the existing street lighting and signing.

CONTRIBUTIONS

Travel Plan

The following requirements of the Travel Plan should be secured by Section 106 obligations or planningconditions to ensure it is implemented over the required timescale:Implementation of the Framework Travel Plan (when approved) Appointing and providing the contact details of the Travel Plan Coordinator to the Highway Authority Submission, approval and full implementation of a Full Travel Plan at 75% occupation of the

dwellings Monitoring the Travel Plan for a minimum of five years, or one year after occupation of the final

dwelling, whichever is longest Securing and implementing remedial Travel Plan measures if the vehicular reduction targets are not

achieved, or if the trip rate in the Transport Assessment is exceeded when the site is occupied.All the contributions and obligations have taken into account CIL regulation 122 and are: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the

development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the developmentFull wording for the proposed Section 106 obligations can be supplied at a later date if planningpermission is granted.

Public TransportIf the applicant does not include the bus stops improvements as part of the s278 works, totalinfrastructure contributions would be £15000. This will include shelters and raised bus stop kerbs.

Public Rights of WayPROW are important for sustainable transport links, recreation, encouraging healthy lifestyles,supporting the local economy and promoting local tourism. They provide opportunities for residents toaccess the local countryside, and local towns for shopping, education, employment etc, without addingto the already heavily congested road network. The protection and enhancement of PROW directly

contributes towards achieving this, and the importance of both these goals. The proposed developmentwill have a direct impact on the local public rights of way (PROW) network. The anticipated increaseduse of the PROW network of as a result of the development will require the following improvementworks:Elmswell Public Footpath 14, west of the development site. The offsite improvement works by convertingfootpath 14 to bridleway with design, legal orders and compensation,resurfacing and widening total£20,000 contribution.

CYCLE LINKAs previously mentioned, there is a desire to create a safe cycle link between Elmswell and Woopitvillages. By requesting contributions from developments, this will enable their plans for sustainableaccess to come to fruition. To construct the cycle link between Elmswell and Woolpit, SCC hasestimated the design and construction will be approximately £850/dwelling. Therefore, we would beseeking a contribution of £55,250 for the scheme.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha HarveySenior Development Management EngineerGrowth, Highways and Infrastructure

Your Ref:DC/20/01677Our Ref: SCC/CON/1742/20Date: 1 June 2020

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk. IP1 2BXwww.suffolk.gov.uk




Dear Daniel

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

CONSULTATION RETURN: DC/20/01677PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Siteremediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for thepotential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)


ROAD CLASS:Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority make the followingcomments:

The Transport Assessment includes permitted development in Elmswell as part of analysis. However,there are 3 major sites in Woolpit that will need to be considered when modelling of the junctions tocalculate capacity and queuing. The sites that need to be considered are - Land South of Old Stowmarket Road (2 applications), Land off Green Road and Land off Bury Road.These developments will have an effect on junction capacity, especially A1088/Church Road roundaboutand the A14/A1088 interchange.

At present, the highway authority cannot determine if the impacts of the scheme would be severe (inaccordance with p109 of the NPPF), due to the issues listed above with the transport assessment.Therefore planning permission should be refused until such a time whereby these issues have beenadequately addressed. At this time SCC will consider revising our response and may set out a positionwhere the adverse impacts of the scheme could be mitigated by way of planning conditions and / orobligations. However the supplied information is presently inadequate for us to make this judgement.

Yours sincerely,


Your Ref:DC/20/01677Our Ref: SCC/CON/1742/20Date: 20 May 2020

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk. IP 1 2BXwww,suffolk.gov.uk




Dear Daniel,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990CONSULTATION RETURN: DC/20/01677PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) -

Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the

safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open

space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)


Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority recommends that anypermission which that Planning Authority may give should include the conditions shown below:

The Transport Assessment includes permitted development in Elmswell as part of analysis. However,there are 3 major sites in Woolpit that will need to be considered when modelling of the junctions tocalculate capacity and queuing. The sites that need to be considered are - Land South of Old Stowmarket Road (2 applications), Land off Green Road and Land off Bury Road.These developments will have an effect on junction capacity, especially A1088/Church Road roundaboutand the A14/A1088 interchange.

We recommend the developer investigates the above requirement and look forward to receiving furtherinformation.

Yours sincerely,


11 May 2020 Daniel Cameron Mid Suffolk District Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

By email only

Thank you for requesting advice on this application from Place Services’ ecological advice service. This service provides advice to planning officers to inform Mid Suffolk District Council planning decisions with regard to potential ecological impacts from development. Any additional information, queries or comments on this advice that the applicant or other interested parties may have, must be directed to the Planning Officer who will seek further advice from us where appropriate and necessary.

Application: DC/20/01677 Location: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) -

Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

Proposal: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory Elmswell Dear Dan, Thank you for consulting Place Services on the above application. No objection subject to securing ecological mitigation and enhancement measures Summary We have reviewed the Ecological Assessment (Ecology Solutions Ltd, June 2019) relating to the likely impacts of development on designated sites, Protected and Priority Species & Habitats. We are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available for determination. This provides certainty for the LPA of the likely impacts on designated sites, Protected and Priority Species & Habitats and, with appropriate mitigation measures secured, the development can be made acceptable. The mitigation measures identified in the Ecological Assessment (Ecology Solutions Ltd, June 2019) should be secured and implemented in full. This is necessary to conserve Protected and Priority Species. Therefore, measures should be outlined within a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP – Biodiversity), which should include the translocation measures for reptiles and precautionary measures for Priority amphibians.

In addition, a Wildlife Sensitive Lighting Scheme could then be secured as a condition of any consent, to avoid light spill to any foraging and commuting corridors within the site. This should follow Guidance Note 8 Bats and artificial lighting (The Institute of Lighting Professionals & Bat Conservation Trust, 2018), Therefore, it is highlighted that a professional ecologist should be consulted to advise the lighting strategy for this scheme. In addition, the following measures should be indicated to avoid impacts to foraging and commuting bats:

• Light levels should be as low as possible as required to fulfil the lighting need.

• Warm White lights should be used preferably at <3000k. This is necessary as lighting which emit an ultraviolet component or that have a blue spectral content have a high attraction effects on insects. This may lead in a reduction in prey availability for some light sensitive bat species.

• Light columns should be as short as possible as light at a low level reduces the ecological impact. However, if taller columns (>8m) are required, the use of cowls, hoods, reflector skirts or shields should be used to prevent horizontal spill.

• Lux levels and horizontal lighting should be directed away from boundary edges and Environmentally Sensitive Zones and kept as low as possible. This should preferably demonstrate that the boundary features and Environmentally Sensitive Zones are not exposed to lighting levels of approximately 1 lux. This is necessary to ensure that light sensitive bat species, will not be affected by the development.

Furthermore, we support the proposed biodiversity enhancements, which have been recommended to secure net gains for biodiversity, as outlined under Paragraph 170d of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The biodiversity enhancement measures should be outlined within a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy, to be secured as a condition of any consent. The Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy should preferably include the use of the DEFRA Biodiversity Metrics (2.0) to fully demonstrate measurable biodiversity net gains for this application. It should also outline the provision of native species planting and the attention basin enhancement, as well as the details and locations of the bird and bat boxes, hedgehog gateways and herptile log piles / hibernacula. It is also recommended that the provision of Swift Boxes/integrated Bricks are included within this development, as this endangered Suffolk Character Species was noted flying above the site boundary. This will enable LPA to demonstrate its compliance with its statutory duties including its biodiversity duty under s40 NERC Act 2006. Impacts will be minimised such that the proposal is acceptable subject to the conditions below based on BS42020:2013. Submission for approval and implementation of the details below should be a condition of any planning consent. Recommended conditions

1. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

https://cdn.bats.org.uk/pdf/Resources/ilp-guidance-note-8-bats-and-artificial-lighting-compressed.pdf?mtime=20181113114229

“A construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, following the details contained within the Ecological Assessment (Ecology Solutions Ltd, June 2019). The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following.

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid

or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).

d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to

oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly

competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority” Reason: To conserve Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

2. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: LANDSCAPE AND ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT

PLAN “A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:

a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled

forward over a five-year period). g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan. h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from

monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.” Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended), the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species)

3. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: BIODIVERSITY ENHANCEMENT STRATEGY

“A Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for Protected and Priority species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, following the details contained within the Ecological Assessment (Ecology Solutions Ltd, June 2019). The content of the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following:

a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement measures; b) detailed designs to achieve stated objectives; c) locations of proposed enhancement measures by appropriate maps and plans; d) persons responsible for implementing the enhancement measures; e) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant).

The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.” Reason: To enhance Protected and Priority Species/habitats and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

4. PRIOR TO OCCUPATION: WILDLIFE SENSITIVE LIGHTING DESIGN SCHEME “A lighting design scheme for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.”

Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations 2017, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species).

Please contact us with any queries. Yours sincerely, Hamish Jackson GradCIEEM BSc (Hons) Ecological Consultant [email protected]

Place Services provide ecological advice on behalf of Mid Suffolk District Council Please note: This letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to this particular matter.


From: Nathan Pittam <[email protected]> Sent: 09 September 2019 08:45 To: Bradly Heffer <[email protected]> Cc: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]> Subject: DC/19/03924. Land Contamination

Dear Bradly EP Reference : 264878 DC/19/03924. Land Contamination Land Adjacent To Elmtree Business Park, Station Road Industrial Estate, Elmswell, BURY ST EDMUNDS, Suffolk. Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved - access to be considered) for site remeditation works (Phase 1) & erection of up to 65 dwellings etc

Many thanks for your request for comments in relation to the above application. In light of the findings of the Phase I investigation I would state that I have no objection to the proposed condition is included with any permission that may be granted. Without this condition I would be minded to recommend that the application be refused until such time as the applicant is able to demonstrate that the site can be made suitable for use without need for the condition.

Kind regards Nathan Nathan Pittam BSc. (Hons.) PhD Senior Environmental Management Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils – Working Together Email: [email protected] Work: 07769 566988 / 01449 724715 websites: www.babergh.gov.uk www.midsuffolk.gov.uk


http://www.babergh.gov.uk/

http://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/

From: Andy Rutson-Edwards <[email protected]> Sent: 18 May 2020 12:03 To: Daniel Cameron <[email protected]>; BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]>; BMSDC Planning Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: DC/20/01677 Noise/Odour/Light/Smoke Noise/Odour/Light/Smoke APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION - DC/20/01677 Proposal: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2) Location: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this reserved matters outline planning application. I have looked at this application and also the previous application (2019)for the same site. In line with my comments on the last application and the acoustic report submitted on both occasions, My comments are unaltered from the previous application and are as follows. Having studied the submitted documents and the Spectrum Acoustic outline planning assessment ref: JW1695/18447/4 , I have no objections in principle. However; as there are no final design and layout plans for the site and the report was based on an assumed masterplan, I ask that the following is conditioned:

1. The reserved matters application relating to design and layout of residential dwellings shall include a detailed acoustic assessment and Acoustic Design Statement (that includes evaluation and selection of mitigation methods, PROPG), produced by a competent person, which provides details of the noise exposure at the facade of residential dwellings, internal noise levels in habitable rooms and noise levels in all associated amenity spaces. The design and layout should avoid exposure of habitable rooms to noise levels that exceed the following criteria:

• 60dBLAeq 16 hours (daytime, 07:00-23:00, outside)

• 55dBLAeq 8 hours (night, 23:00-07:00, outside)

As required to meet the above, acoustic barriers and site design, including building orientation and internal layout of dwellings, shall be used to minimise noise exposure to habitable rooms and reduce the need to rely on closed windows.

Where the facade noise levels outside of habitable rooms do not exceed those stated above, but the internal noise levels stated in the current version of BS8233 are exceeded with windows open, enhanced passive ventilation with appropriate sound insulating properties shall be provided to ensure compliance with the current version of BS8233 with windows closed and that maximum internal noise levels at night do not exceed 45dBA on more than 10 occasions a night.

If exposure exceeds the noise levels stated above, significantly enhanced ventilation will be required, and will need to be proposed, with any reliance upon building envelope insulation with closed windows to be justified in supporting documents that cross reference the mitigation

measures used and the evaluation of different designs, layouts and sound reduction methods (including barriers) considered during the design process.

In addition, noise levels in external amenity spaces shall not exceed 55dBLAeq 16 hours, daytime. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with any details approved, and shall be retained in accordance with these details thereafter.

2. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Method Statement shall be

submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval. The CMS shall include mitigation of dust and noise including proposed working hours. Acceptable hours for any noisy activities are : Weekdays: 08:00 to 18:00, Saturdays: 09:00 to 13:00, Sundays and Public Holidays: None.

Regards

Andy

Andy Rutson-Edwards, MCIEH AMIOA

Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council - Working Together

Tel: 01449 724727

Email [email protected]

www.babergh.gov.uk www.midsuffolk.gov.uk


http://www.babergh.gov.uk/


From: Peter Chisnall Sent: 20 May 2020 14:52 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]> Subject: DC/20/01677

Dear Daniel, APPLICATION FOR OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION - DC/20/01677 Proposal: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2) Location: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Many thanks for your request to comment on the sustainability aspects of this proposal. It is acknowledged that the application is for outline permission but some consideration of this topic area is expected. The council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and has an aspiration to become Carbon neutral by 2030, it is encouraging all persons involved in developments and activities in the district to consider doing the same. This council is keen to encourage consideration of sustainability issues at an early stage so that the most environmentally friendly buildings are constructed and the inclusion of sustainable techniques, materials, technology etc can be incorporated into the scheme without compromising the overall viability. On that basis my recommendation is refusal. If the planning department decided to set conditions on the application, I would recommend the following. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision and implementation of water, energy and resource efficiency measures, during the construction and operational phases of the development shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a clear timetable for the implementation of the measures in relation to the construction and occupancy of the development. The scheme shall be constructed and the measures provided and made available for use in accordance with such timetable as may be agreed. The Sustainability & Energy Strategy must be provided detailing how the development will minimise the environmental impact during construction and occupation (as per policy CS3, and NPPF) including details on environmentally friendly materials, construction techniques minimisation of carbon emissions and running costs and reduced use of potable water ( suggested maximum of 105ltr per person per day). Details as to the provision for electric vehicles should also be included please see the Suffolk Guidance for Parking, published on the SCC website on the link below:

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/parking-guidance/ The document should clearly set out the unqualified commitments the applicant is willing to undertake on the topics of energy and water conservation, CO2 reduction, resource conservation, use of sustainable materials and provision for electric vehicles. Clear commitments and minimum standards should be declared and phrases such as ‘where possible, subject to, where feasible’ must not be used.

Evidence should be included where appropriate demonstrating the applicants previous good work and standards achieved in areas such as site waste management, eg what recycling rate has the applicant achieved in recent projects to show that their % recycling rate commitment is likely. Reason – To enhance the sustainability of the development through better use of water, energy and resources. This condition is required to be agreed prior to the commencement of any development as any construction process, including site preparation, has the potential to include energy and resource efficiency measures that may improve or reduce harm to the environment and result in wider public benefit in accordance with the NPPF. Guidance can be found at the following locations: https://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental-management/planning-requirements/ Regards, Peter Peter Chisnall, CEnv, MIEMA, CEnvH, MCIEH

Environmental Management Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council - Working Together

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/parking-guidance/

https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/parking-guidance/

https://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental-management/planning-requirements/

https://www.midsuffolk.gov.uk/environment/environmental-management/planning-requirements/

Please note that this form can be submitted electronically on the Councils website. Comments submitted on the website will not

be acknowledged but you can check whether they have been received by reviewing comments on the website under the

application reference number. Please note that the completed form will be posted on the Councils website and available to view

by the public.

Consultation Response Pro forma

1 Application Number

DC/20/01677 West of former bacon factory, Elmswell

2 Date of Response

21.5.20

3 Responding Officer

Name: Paul Harrison

Job Title: Heritage and Design Officer

Responding on behalf of...

Heritage

4 Summary and Recommendation (please delete those N/A) Note: This section must be completed before the response is sent. The recommendation should be based on the information submitted with the application.

1. I consider that the proposal would cause

• less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset because it would further erode the rural character of the setting of Elmswell Hall

• the level of harm to the Hall’s significance would be considered low.

2. Special regard should be had to preserving the setting of the listed building, and any harm should be given great weight and weighed against public benefits of the scheme.

3. If the recommendation is favourable, steps should be taken to avoid or minimise harm by means of layout, landscaping and distribution of house types.

5 Discussion Please outline the reasons/rationale behind how you have formed the recommendation. Please refer to any guidance, policy or material considerations that have informed your recommendation.

A previous application at this site was determined last year. My advice was that a low level of harm would result to the significance of Elmswell Hall. The planning case officer’s recommendation to Members was that permission should be granted. The application was refused at Committee for reasons other than Heritage. The present application relates to the same site as the previous. Similarly the illustrative masterplan is unchanged. No aspects of the proposal that could potentially affect heritage assets have been changed. Accordingly I see no reason to vary my response on the previous application, and I repeat it here: The site lies at the edge of the settlement which in recent years has spread into the site of the former bacon factory. The site was previously used in association with the bacon factory. The Hall is a 1500s manor house re-worked in the early 1800s with simple and modest facades in local white brick. It retains direct visual relationship with the Church and almshouses to the south. Despite the growth of Elmswell, the setting of the Hall is predominantly rural and makes a considerable contribution to its significance. Surrounding farmland contributes to appreciating its role as a farmhouse. The application site was originally associated with the Hall as

http://intranet/babreview.htm

Please note that this form can be submitted electronically on the Councils website. Comments submitted on the website will not

be acknowledged but you can check whether they have been received by reviewing comments on the website under the

application reference number. Please note that the completed form will be posted on the Councils website and available to view

by the public.

part of its farmed land, but the site was latterly in industrial use, albeit without built development. The proposal would bring built development somewhat nearer to the listed Hall but without extending the visual arc from the point of view of the Hall. The proposal would erode the rural character of the Hall’s setting, but factors noted above would limit impact on the Hall’s setting to a low level.

6 Amendments, Clarification or Additional Information Required (if holding objection) If concerns are raised, can they be overcome with changes? Please ensure any requests are proportionate

7 Recommended conditions

If the recommendation is favourable, steps should be taken to avoid or minimise harm by means of layout, landscaping and distribution of house types.

Place Services is a traded service of Essex County Council

Place Services Essex County Council County Hall, Chelmsford Essex, CM1 1QH

T: 0333 013 6840 www.placeservices.co.uk

@PlaceServices Planning Services Mid Suffolk District Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX 18/05/2020 For the attention of: Daniel Cameron Ref: DC/20/01677 - Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell Thank you for re-consulting us on the Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2).

This application is a resubmission following the refusal of a previous proposal for the same development (ref: DC/19/03924). Therefore, our previous landscape recommendations still stand. These are as follows:

1. There is a concern that the proposed housing density along and the proposed public open space (POS) proposal cannot be met within the application boundary without creating an urban character. Given its edge of settlement location, we would be looking for a lower density of housing with a loose grain, large front gardens, varied alignment and mixed surface treatment. The current illustrative masterplan (Drawing reference: IMP-01 P2) provides the spatial framework, however we would recommend an amended illustrative masterplan with plot details is submitted to ensure the housing numbers are achievable, and the associated density is appropriate for the site’s location.

2. At present, the Soft Landscape Strategy (Drawing ref: 03000) provides details of the proposed tree and shrub planting on the western and northern boundaries, which is welcomed. However, given the drawing is not to scale, it is unclear whether the width of the landscape buffer is sufficient. This information is needed to ensure its appropriate and that a suitable north-south corridor for recreational use can be implemented. Furthermore, we would advise Common Elder (Sambucus nigra) is removed from the proposed shrub mix, as this species is very vigorous and will supress the growth of the other species specified. As an alternative, we would recommend including some native shrub species such as wild cherry, hornbeam or hazel.

3. The Design and Access Statement (DAS) makes reference to the amount of Public Open Space (POS) being provided. This includes the area set aside for the potential link road and the area surrounding the attenuation basin. If this is the case, further details of how this area will be used if the link road does not go ahead needs to be included. For instance, will the attenuation basin area be fenced and inaccessible? If accessible, will made footpaths be provided?

If you have any queries regarding the above matters, please let me know. Kind regards,

http://www.placeservices.co.uk/

Place Services is a traded service of Essex County Council

Ryan Mills BSc (Hons) MSc CMLI Senior Landscape Consultant Telephone: 03330320591 Email: [email protected] Place Services provide landscape advice on behalf of Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils. Please note: This

letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to this particular matter.

Planning Application – Consultation Response

Planning Application Reference:

DC/20/01677

Site: Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory Elmswell

Proposal:

Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

Prepared by: BMSDC Strategic Planning Policy and Infrastructure

Date: 30/06/2020

1. Policy position

It is recognised that the site is within the countryside and outside of the emerging JLP boundary for Elmswell. However, the site is adjacent to the emerging settlement boundary and site allocation LA066 in the emerging plan. The proposal would expand Elmswell further than what is being strategically planned for.

It is also noted there is a major development proposal submitted on the current emerging site allocation LA065 and there are infrastructure provisions that needs to be taken into consideration as to how future development can deliver sustainable needs.

It is also recognised there are ponds and moats within the immediate surrounding vicinity to the north and west of the site. Which forms significant material consideration from an ecology/biodiversity, landscape, heritage and setting value to the area that should be comprehensively assessed.

2. Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) position

The IDP (July 2019) sets out both Babergh and Mid Suffolk’s infrastructure requirements and priorities. It was published on the 22nd July 2019 as evidence which supports the Joint Local Plan and is an iterative document which will change over time dependent on changing infrastructure capacity, requirements and priorities.

As per our initial response of October 2019, the proposed development is not part of the proposed site allocations of the emerging Joint Local Plan. For the purpose of this response, and to understand the impact on infrastructure capacity, the content of the IDP has been considered together with the existing planning permissions and responses from infrastructure providers.

Set out below are the current planning applications (over 10 dwellings) and emerging Joint Local Plan land allocations in Elmswell, and because it is of relevance, the applications for Woolpit are also listed:

Elmswell - Existing Permissions

• 0846/13 - former Grampian Harris site - 190 dwellings (under construction)

• 0210/17 - Land To The East Of Ashfield Road - 106 dwellings (awaiting decision on Reserved Matters) (Emerging JLP LA062)

• 4911/16 - Land adjacent to Wetherden Road - 240 dwellings (under construction)

• 3469/16 – Land to the East of Borley Crescent - 60 dwellings (Full planning permission obtained June 2019)

• 4909/16 – Land east of Warren Lane & west of Cresmedow Way - 38 dwellings (Outline planning permission obtained June 2018) (Emerging JLP LA063)

Elmswell - Planning applications awaiting determination (other than this application site)

• DC/18/02146 – 86 dwellings (Emerging JLP LA065) Elmswell - Emerging Joint Local Plan site allocations (not under application)

• LA064 - Land north of Church Road – 60 dwellings

• LA066 - Land west of Station Road – 100 dwellings

Woolpit - Existing Permissions

• 1636/16 Land south of Old Stowmarket Road – Outline permission for 120 dwellings (Emerging JLP LA094); DC/19/05196 Reserved Matters application for 115 dwellings awaiting decision. This site is also listed in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Woolpit, site WPT3, providing around 120 dwellings.

• 2112/16 Land On East Side Of Green Road – Full permission for 49 dwellings (Emerging JLP LA093). This site is also listed in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Woolpit, site WPT4. Site recently under construction.

Woolpit - Planning applications awaiting determination

• DC/19/02656 Land South Of Old Stowmarket Road – Outline application for 40 dwellings. This site is also listed in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Woolpit, site WPT5, providing around 40 dwellings.

• DC/18/04247 Land Off Bury Road The Street - Outline application for 300 dwellings (approved at Referrals Committee 21/02/2020). (Southern portion of emerging JLP LA095, with land allocation for pre-school and primary school.)

Woolpit – Other emerging Joint Local Plan site allocations

• LA097 - Land west of Heath Road – 30 dwellings

There are several essential infrastructure needs for Elmswell that are identified:

• Education The IDP states that within Elmswell a new pre-school setting for 30 places is needed with proposed land allocation on LA065. This was included in the Regulation 18 (Jul-Sept 2019) Joint Local Plan consultation document in relation to this site (Policy LA065), this need is currently being secured through the revised planning application DC/18/02146. In terms of primary education, a new primary school is to be provided in Woolpit to supply growth of Elmswell and Woolpit. This is identified in the IDP as a 210 places school initially and able to expand to 420 places. Developer contributions would be required from this development towards the new primary school, through Section 106 contributions. For secondary school provision, the expansion of Thurston Community College from 1940 to 2190 places is planned, to provide for this development together with committed and planned growth of the Joint Local Plan. Secondary school transport contribution is also being requested by the County Council is their response of the 03/06/2020, through s106.

• Transport The IDP states that within Elmswell, contributions towards new footway links would be required as well as highway mitigation measures particularly

regarding the junction of School Road and Church Road. The IDP also refers to contributions towards a new cycle/pedestrian link between Elmswell and Woolpit. This currently cannot be provided through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and it would be appropriate to seek S106 contributions. The County Council response of the 01/06/2020 point to the need for more understanding of the impact of the proposal, as the Transport Assessment is incomplete in dealing with cumulative growth, with particular regard to the impact on junction capacity for the A1088/Church Road roundabout and the A14/A1088 interchange. It is understood that this matter has since been clarified to the satisfaction of the County Council.

• Health The nearest practice is Woolpit Health Centre, where the IDP refers to expansion of the practice and CIL contributions would be required. Expansion of the car park for the Health Centre is also being considered. The previous response from the West Suffolk Clinical Commissioning Group specifies that developer contributions via CIL are required to meet the cost of additional capital funding for health service provision arising.

3. Summary

In summary, since our previous response of October 2019, it is acknowledged that there has been progress with some of the infrastructure needs previously identified, such as the need for a pre-school in Elmswell, which is currently being proposed under emerging allocation LA065 (DC/18/02146), and the need for the primary school children to go to the new school in Woolpit, and where the proposal for the pedestrian and cycle link is being secured through developer contributions of current planning applications. Therefore, in terms of the infrastructure needs deriving from this application, there appears to be solutions for additional provision for education (including Early Years) and health, and that the position on highways has been resolved.

Anik Bennett

Strategic Planning Policy and Infrastructure Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils

-----Original Message----- From: BMSDC Public Realm Consultation Mailbox <[email protected]> Sent: 21 May 2020 15:39 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow <[email protected]> Subject: RE: MSDC Planning Consultation Request - DC/20/01677 The Public Realm Tam do not wish to offer any comments at this stage other than it will be essential that the level of public open space and play facilities associated with this stage of the development are in line with Council requirements. Attenuation Basins should not be included in the calculation of POS as these are not accessible features. Regards Dave Hughes Public Realm Officer -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: 30 April 2020 16:52 To: BMSDC Public Realm Consultation Mailbox <[email protected]> Subject: MSDC Planning Consultation Request - DC/20/01677 Please find attached planning consultation request letter relating to planning application - DC/20/01677 - Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell, , Kind Regards Planning Support Team Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council. Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council (BMSDC) will be Data Controllers of the information you are providing. As required by the Data Protection Act 2018 the information will be kept safe, secure, processed and only shared for those purposes or where it is allowed by law. In some circumstances however we may need to disclose your personal details to a third party so that they can provide a service you have requested, or fulfil a request for information. Any information about you that we pass to a third party will be held securely by that party, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and used only to provide the services or information you have requested. For more information on how we do this and your rights in regards to your personal information and how to access it, visit our website.




Ref1: SHMA 2019, p.122, Summary section Ref4: Gateway to Homechoice data 2019

MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Daniel Cameron – Planning From: Sacha Tiller – Housing Enabling Date: 06.05.2020 SUBJECT: DC-20-01677/DC-19-03924 – OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION

Proposal: Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters

reserved) – Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

Location: Land to the West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell – DC-20-01677 Key Points 1. Background Information

An outline development proposal for up to 65 residential dwellings.

This is an open market development and based on 65 units should offer 22 affordable housing units = 35% policy compliant position.

2. Housing Need Information:

2.1 The Ipswich Housing Market Area, Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SMHA)

document, updated in 2019, confirms a continuing need for housing across all tenures and a growing need for affordable housing.

2.2 The 2019 SHMA indicates that in Mid Suffolk there is a need for 127 new affordable

homes per annum. Ref1 2.3 The Council’s 2014 Suffolk Housing Needs Survey shows that there is high demand

for smaller homes, across all tenures, both for younger people, who may be newly forming households, and for older people who are already in the property owning market and require different, appropriate housing, enabling them to downsize. Affordability issues are the key drivers for this increased demand for smaller homes.

2.4 The Council’s Choice Based Lettings system currently has circa. 690 applicants

registered for affordable housing in Mid Suffolk as at April 2019. Ref4


Please note that this site is a S106 planning obligation site therefore the affordable housing provided will be to meet district wide need hence the 690 applicants registered is the important number. 3. Preferred Mix for Open Market homes. 3.1 There is strong need for home more suited to the over 55 age brackets within the

district and the supply of single storey dwellings or 1.5 storeys has been very limited over the last 10 years in the locality. Mid Suffolk and the county as a whole faces a large increase in the population of over 65-year olds so we need to ensure there are suitable housing choices for older people to remain in their communities.

3.2 There is growing evidence that housebuilders need to address the demand from older

people who are looking to downsize or right size and still remain in their local communities.

3.3 Broadband and satellite facilities as part of the design for all tenures should be

standard to support. 3.4 All new properties need to have high levels of energy efficiency. 3.5 Details of the mix of type and size of the all the dwellings to be submitted to and

approved in writing by the local planning authority. Proposed open marketing housing – 65 dwellings Due to the lack of detailed information provided at outline approval it is not possible to see the type, size, location of any of the proposed dwellings. Therefore, at this stage, we are unable to calculate whether the housing mix that will be provided will be suitable and complement the housing need for this district. We look forward to a detailed plan showing this. 4. Preferred mix for Affordable Housing – 22 A/H out of 65 O/M = (35%) 4.1 The majority district wide need is for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings followed by 3 beds

with a much smaller need for 4+ bedrooms. 4.2 The current Gateway to Homechoice shows 32 applicants registered have a connection with Elmswell, Mid Suffolk. A majority of these require 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings, with some need for 3 and 4 bed dwellings. Over 28% are aged over 55+ and therefore it would be desirable for a selection of sheltered or bungalow style accommodation. Required affordable rent = 17

• 2 x 1b 2 person flat @ 50sqm

• 2 x 2b 4 person flats @70sqm

• 6 x 2b 4 person bungalows 70sqm

• 3 x 2b 4 person houses @79sqm



Shared Ownership = 5



5. Other requirements for affordable homes:

• Properties must be built to current Homes England National Housing Standards March 2015.

• The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units on first lets and 100% on subsequent lets.

• Any Shared Ownership properties must have an initial share limit of 70%.

• The Council will not support a bid for Homes England grant funding on the affordable homes delivered as part of an open market development. Therefore, the affordable units on that part of the site must be delivered grant free.

• The location and phasing of the affordable housing units must be agreed with the Council to ensure they are integrated within the proposed development according to current best practice.

• (a) not Occupy or permit Occupation of more than fifty per cent (50%) (rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling) Market Housing Units in each Phase until fifty per cent (50%) of the Affordable Housing Units for that Phase have been constructed and are ready for Occupation and have been transferred to the Registered Provider; and

• (b) not Occupy or permit Occupation of more than eighty per cent (80%) (rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling) Market Housing Units in each Phase until all of the Affordable Housing Units for that Phase have been constructed and are ready for Occupation and have been transferred to the Registered Provider

• On larger sites, the affordable housing should not be placed in groups of more than 15 units

• Adequate parking provision is made for the affordable housing units and cycle storage and bin stores.

• It is preferred that the affordable units are transferred to one of the Council’s partner

Registered Providers – please see www.baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk under Housing

and Affordable Housing for full details.

http://www.baberghmidsuffolk.gov.uk/

Comments were submitted at 6:22 PM on 15 May 2020 from Mrs Linda Hoggarth.

The Mid Suffolk Disability Forum would like to see a commitment to ensuring that all

dwellings will meet Part M4 of the Building Regulations in the planning application.

In addition, all dwellings should be 'visitable' and meet Part M4(1), and 50% of the

dwellings should meet the 'accessible and adaptable' standard Part M4(2). It is our view

that in housing developments of over 10 dwellings, at least one of the dwellings should

be built to wheelchair standard Part M4(3).

It is also our view that at least 3% of the dwellings in housing developments of over 10

dwellings should be bungalows to assist people with mobility problems and to assist

people who wish to downsize from larger dwellings.

Every effort should be made to ensure all footpaths are wide enough for wheelchair

users, with a minimum width of 1500mm, and that any dropped kerbs are absolutely

level with the road for ease of access.

Linda Chair Mid Suffolk Disability Forum

-

27 May 2020

Daniel Cameron, Planning Officer

Mid Suffolk District Council

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Rd

Ipswich, IP1 2BX

Dear Mr Cameron,

DC/20/01677 Outline Planning Application (access to be considered, all other matters reserved) - Site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for the potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

Land to The West Of The Former Bacon Factory Elmswell

I am writing on behalf of the Society to make comments on the above application. The proposal

has the potential to harm the setting of Elmswell Hall, a grade II listed building. Whilst we do not

object to the principle of the development, we are concerned that the landscape masterplan is not

to scale and fails to make adequate landscape mitigation for the impact of the proposals. Whilst we

appreciate that this is an outline application it does not obviate the statutory necessity for

resolution of this key material planning consideration. Therefore, a detailed mitigation strategy

should form part of the application and conditioned as part of any consent.

We trust that these representations are of assistance in the consideration of this application.

Yours sincerely

Fiona Cairns IHBC MRTPI

Director

Cc: Chairman, Elmswell Parish Council

Phil Butler - SPS Mid Suffolk District

Ward Councillor

Philip Isbell – Chief Planning OfficerSustainable Communities

Mid Suffolk District CouncilEndeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich IP1 2BX

Website: www.midsuffolk.gov.uk

REFUSAL OF OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSIONTOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015

Correspondence Address: Applicant: Armstrong Rigg PlanningThe ExchangeColworth Science ParkSharnbrookBedfordshireMK44 1LQ

Harrow Estates PLCC/o Agent

Date Application Received: 16-Aug-19 Application Reference: DC/19/03924Date Registered: 21-Aug-19

Proposal & Location of Development:Outline Planning Application (some matters reserved - access to be considered) for site remediation works (Phase 1) and the erection of up to 65 dwellings with the safeguarding of land for potential future delivery of a relief road, public open space and associated landscaping (Phase 2)

Land To The West Of The Former Bacon Factory, Elmswell, ,

Section A – Plans & Documents:This decision refers to drawing no./entitled SLP - 01 received 16/08/2019 SLP-02 received 16/08/2019 as the defined red line plan with the site shown edged red. Any other drawing showing land edged red whether as part of another document or as a separate plan/drawing has not been accepted or treated as the defined application site for the purposes of this decision.

The plans and documents recorded below are those upon which this decision has been reached:

Site Plan IMP - 01 - Received 16/08/2019Topographic Survey 0929/01 A - Received 16/08/2019Defined Red Line Plan SLP - 01 - Received 16/08/2019Defined Red Line Plan SLP-02 - Received 16/08/2019Landscaping Plan 03000 PL02 - Received 08/11/2019

Section B:Mid Suffolk District Council as Local Planning Authority, hereby give notice that OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN REFUSED for the development proposed in the


application in accordance with the particulars and plans listed in section A for the following reasons:

1. The application would result in the expansion of Elmswell to the west and would place a burden upon the infrastructure of the village to cope. The site is not allocated in the Local Plan (1998), Core Strategy (2008) or Focused Review (2012) and is not proposed to be allocated within the emergent Joint Local Plan as a sustainable development supported by services and benefiting from suitable access to those services.

While the emergent Joint Local Plan does allocate other development sites within Elmswell, the supporting Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019) makes account for these and provision is made for the expansion of facilities and services in order to cope with the impacts of development on these allocated sites. This site is unallocated and as such sits outside of the scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019) such that there may not be capacity within the existing services, including provision of school places, to accommodate the increased population that is expected were this application to be approved.

In conclusion, the emerging Joint Local Plan is given reasonable weight alongside the current policy position for proper planned development. In this case, as directed by the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the merits and benefits offered by this application are not considered to outweigh the risk to sustainability of future development within this settlement.

SUMMARY OF POLICIES WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION:

NPPF - National Planning Policy FrameworkNPPG-National Planning Policy GuidanceCS01 - Settlement HierarchyCS02 - Development in the Countryside & Countryside VillagesCS03 - Reduce Contributions to Climate ChangeCS04 - Adapting to Climate ChangeCS05 - Mid Suffolk's EnvironmentCS06 - Services and InfrastructureCS09 - Density and MixFC01 - Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable DevelopmentFC01_1 - Mid Suffolk Approach To Delivering Sustainable DevelopmentGP01 - Design and layout of developmentHB01 - Protection of historic buildingsHB14 - Ensuring archaeological remains are not destroyedH07 - Restricting housing development unrelated to needs of countrysideH13 - Design and layout of housing developmentH14 - A range of house types to meet different accommodation needsH15 - Development to reflect local characteristicsH16 - Protecting existing residential amenityCL08 - Protecting wildlife habitatsT09 - Parking StandardsT10 - Highway Considerations in DevelopmentRT04 - Amenity open space and play areas within residential developmentH04- Proportion of Affordable Housing

NOTES:

1. The proposal has been assessed with regard to adopted development plan policies, the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material considerations. The NPPF encourages a positive and proactive approach to decision taking, delivery of sustainable development, achievement of high quality development and working proactively to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area:

In this case the Local Planning Authority attempted to discuss its concerns with the applicant but was not able to secure the necessary improvements to the scheme that would have enabled the proposals to be considered more favourably.

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils have adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging which affects planning permissions granted on or after 11th April 2016 and permitted development commenced on or after 11th April 2016. If your development is for the erection of a new building, annex or extension or the change of use of a building over 100sqm in internal area or the creation of a new dwelling or holiday let of any size your development may be liable to pay CIL and you must submit relevant documents to our Infrastructure Team telling us more about your development, who will pay CIL and when the development will start. You will receive advice on the amount you have to pay and what you have to do and you can find more information about CIL on our websites here: CIL in Babergh and CIL in Mid Suffolk or by contacting the Infrastructure Team on: [email protected]

This relates to document reference: DC/19/03924

Signed: Philip Isbell

Chief Planning OfficerSustainable Communities

Dated: 6th February 2020

Appeals to the Secretary of State

1. If the applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the Local Planning Authority to refuse permission or consent, or to grant permission or consent subject to condition, they may appeal to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The applicant’s right of appeal is in accordance with the appropriate statutory provisions which follow:

Planning Applications: Section 78 Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Listed Building Applications: Section 20 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Advertisement Applications: Section 78 Town and Country Planning Act 1990Regulation 15

Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007

Notice of appeal in the case of applications for advertisement consent must be served within eight weeks of receipt of this notice. Notice of Householder and Minor Commercial Appeals must be served within 12 weeks, in all other cases, notice of appeal must be served within six months of this notice. If this is a decision on a planning application relating to the same or substantially the same land and development as is already the subject of an enforcement notice, if you want to appeal against your local planning authority’s decision on your application, then you must do so within 28 days of the date of this notice. If an enforcement notice is served relating to the same or substantially the same land and development as in your application and if you want to appeal against your local planning authority’s decision on your application, then you must do so within: 28 days of the date of service of the enforcement notice, or within six months of the date of this notice, whichever period expires earlier.Appeals must be made on a form which is obtainable from The PlanningInspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS16PN or online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modelnotification-notice-to-be-sent-to-an-applicant-when-permission-is-refused

The Secretary of State has power to allow a longer period for the giving of a notice of appeal but he/she will not normally be prepared to exercise this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal. The Secretary of State is not required to entertain an appeal if it appears to him/her that permission for the proposed development could not have been granted by the Local Planning Authority, or could not have been so granted otherwise than subject to the conditions imposed by it, having regard to the statutory requirements*, to the provisions of the Development Order, and to any directions given under the Order. The Secretary of State does not in practise refuse to entertain appeals solely because the decision of the Local Planning Authority was based on a direction given by him/her.

2. If permission or consent to develop land or carry out works is refused or granted subject to conditions, whether by the Local Planning Authority or by the Secretary of State and the owner of the land claims that the land has become incapable of reasonable beneficial use by the carrying out of any development or works which has been or would be permitted they may serve on the Council of the district in which the land is situated, a purchase notice requiring the Council to purchase his interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Section 137 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or Section 32 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.*The statutory requirements are those set out in Section 79(6) of the Town andCountry Planning Act 1990, namely Sections 70 and 72(1) of the Act.

1

RE: LAND TO THE WEST OF THE FORMER BACON FACTORY,

ELMSWELL

A D V I C E

1. My client (Harrow Estates plc), by way of a Decision Notice dated 6th February 2020,

was refused its outline planning application for the erection of up to 65 dwellings at

the above site. There was a single Reason for Refusal, namely:

“1. The application would result in the expansion of Elmswell

to the west and would place a burden upon the infrastructure

of the village to cope. The site is not allocated in the Local

Plan (1998), Core Strategy (2008) or Focused Review

(2012) and is not proposed to be allocated within the

emergent Joint Local Plan as a sustainable development

supported by services and benefitting from suitable access

to those services.

While the emergent Joint Local Plan does allocate other

development sites within Elmswell, the supporting

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2019) makes account for these

and provision is made for the expansion of facilities and

services in order to cope with the impacts of development

on these allocated sites. This site is unallocated and as such

sits outside of the scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

(2019) such that there may not be capacity within the

existing services, including provision of school places, to

accommodate the increased population that is expected

were this application to be approved.

In conclusion, the emerging Joint Local Plan is given

reasonable weight alongside the current policy position for

proper planned development. In this case, as directed by

the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), the merits

and benefits offered by this application are not considered

2

to outweigh the risk to sustainability of future development

within this settlement.”

This Reason for Refusal is surprising in that:

• It does not allege any actual harm but simply notes that there “may” be a lack

of infrastructure capacity;

• It is not clear which aspects of infrastructure are of concern save that school

places are highlighted as an issue;

• There is no objection by Suffolk County Council as the body responsible for

providing adequate school place capacity. That is because it is the County’s

strategy to provide additional capacity to address primary school demand from

Elmswell and Woolpit either by expansion of the existing primary school at

Woolpit onto additional and yet to be acquired land or to build a new primary

school. To that end the County sought education contributions. The County

does in fact have a duty to provide adequate school places. Secondary school

provision is to be addressed by the expansion of Thurston Community College.

It is notable that the Planning Policy Team also made it clear that primary

school provision at Woolpit could accommodate the site’s needs.

2. I am asked to advise upon:

(a) The merits of an appeal against the refusal;

(b) The likelihood of a costs recovery as part of the appeal process;

(c) Whether the Section 106 payments requested by the County Council are

appropriate.

3. The site comprises 3.11 ha of land on the north-western edge of Elmswell, a designated

Key Service Centre. The site is immediately adjacent to a former Bacon Factory that

3

is being redeveloped for 190 dwellings. In Development Plan terms, the site lies

within the countryside.

4. The Development Plan comprises the following:

• The saved Mid Suffolk District Local Plan 1998;

• The Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (2008) which covers the period up to 2025;

• The Core Strategy Focused Review (2012) covering the period to 2027.

The Council is currently preparing a new Joint Local Plan but that has not y et reached

formal Deposit stage.

5. Key policies in the Core Strategy are CS1 (which identifies a settlement hierarchy) and

CS2 which restricts development in the countryside (as does H7 of the Local Plan

1998). These policies were the subject of consideration by senior Inspector Harold

Stephens in a Decision dated 28th September 2018 in respect of Land East of Green

Road, Woolpit. Inspector Stephens noted as follows:

“90. The CS was adopted in 2008 and the MSDLP in 1998. Both

plans predate the publication of the NPPF 2012 and the

more recent NPPF 2018. The CSFR has had little impact

on the saved or CS policies that remain in place and Policy

GC1 really only and unnecessarily repeats what was in

paragraph 14 of the NPPF 2012. It is now out-of-date

because of the test it employs. Policy FC1.1 is policy of a

very broad nature with one requirement that development

must conserve and enhance the local character of the

different parts of the district. It is up-to-date but is not

otherwise of significance. The appeal proposal complies

with these policies.

91. Policy CS1 of the CS merely sets out the settlement

hierarchy. However, it includes the works ‘the rest of Mid-

Suffolk, including settlements not listed in the above

(hierarch7y) will be designated as countryside …

renewable energy’. By virtue of this latter requirement it

offends paragraphs 77 and 78 of NPPF 2018. It perpetuates

the theme of protection of the open countryside for its own

4

sake and its limitations are inimical to the balanced

approach which the MPPF 2018 exhorts. It is one of the

most important policies and it is out-of-date. The NPPF

has never and still does not exhort a restrictive approach to

development outside settlements in this manner. It does not

protect the countryside for its own sake or prescribe the

types of development that might be acceptable. The policy

as worded obviates a balancing exercise and precludes

otherwise sustainable development by default and thereby

defeats the presumption in its favour. It is also contrary to

paragraphs 77 and 78 of NPPF 2018.”

So far as I can tell, the LPA has accepted these observations and these conclusions

have informed their post-2018 decision-making.

6. Internal consultee responses were largely favourable, although the proposal was not

supported by the Planning Policy Team. The Heritage Team noted a “low level”

adverse impact on the setting of the listed heritage asset, Elmswell Hall (Grade 2).

7. The Case Officer gave a clear recommendation of approval subject to an appropriate

Section 106 agreement being entered into. The following matters are of note:

• He correctly applied NPPF Paragraph 196 in respect of the less than substantial

harm arising to Elmswell Hall and concluded that the public benefits of the

proposal outweighed the low level harm. This has plainly been accepted by

the Planning Committee which did not raise a heritage reason for refusal. The

public benefits were identified as the provision of market and affordable

housing in a “highly sustainable location” (Paragraph 12.4 ibid), “compelling

social and economic benefits” (Paragraph 12.5 ibid), “meaningful support for

local services (Paragraph 12.6 ibid), the provision of public open space “which

will become a valued community asset” (Paragraph 12.6 ibid) and a “logical

extension” to the settlement” (Paragraph 12.7 ibid).

• He adopted Inspector Stephens’ analysis of C2 and H7 ibid (see Paragraphs

3.9/3.10 ibid). He correctly concluded, therefore, that the “tilted balance”

arising under Paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF was engaged having correctly

5

followed the approach to issues identified in Monkhill Ltd v. SoSHCLG [2019]

EWHC 1993 (Admin).

• He noted that Elmswell had been the subject of development pressure but

reasoned as follows:

“12.3. It is acknowledged that Elmswell has been the

subject of significant developer interest with many

residential developments of scale approved in

recent years, with approved dwellings totalling

more than 630. The application is however

supported by a comprehensive suite of technical

reports which indicate that cumulative impacts on

Elmswell are judged to fall within acceptable

parameters. It is also acknowledged that the site is

not part of the proposed site allocations of the

emerging Joint Local Plan. This however should

not preclude consideration of schemes that can

deliver sustainable development and boost housing

supply in the short term owing to their deliverable

status, particularly in locations such as Key Service

Centres where the expectation is to deliver housing

growth.”

8. It is no part of my task to “re-invent the wheel.” The foregoing Officer analysis was

impeccable in my view and I adopt it.

The Questions

Question (a)

9. There is self-evidently considerable merit in an appeal. As I have noted, the Officer

analysis leading to a recommendation of approval was impeccable. The Reason for

Refusal by necessary implication appears to have accepted this insofar as it simply

focuses upon a potential harm arising from a lack of infrastructure capacity. While

the concern is not comprehensively defined, it is apparent that a perceived lack of

school places is high on the list of issues (indeed it may be the only issue). However,

neither the County Council, as the provider of places, nor the Policy Team objected on

these grounds. On the contrary, both are clear that such needs can be met at Woolpit.

6

This is hardly surprising as the Babergh and Mid Suffolk IDP (July 2019) prepared as

part of the evidence bae to the emerging Joint Local Plan expressly identifies a new

primary school at Woolpit as being required to address the growth of Elmswell and

Woolpit. The school is said to be funded by Section 106 contributions. In short, it is

the LPA’s own public strategy to meet primary school education needs arising in

Elmswell at Woolpit. In this context, the Reason for Refusal is indefensible and the

Planning Committee’s proper response was to have resolved to approve the application

subject to appropriate commuted sum payments, via a Section 106 agreement, being

made towards enhanced primary school provision at Woolpit.

Question (b)

10. The prospect of costs recovery is high. PPG 049 Ref ID:16-049-20140306 advises

that LPAs will be at risk of an adverse costs award if they, inter alia:

“• [make] vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a

proposal’s impact, which are unsupported by any objective

analysis;

• Refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of

being dealt with by conditions risks an award.”

As is apparent form the body of this Advice, the above indicators of unreasonable

conduct appear to be tailormade for the circumstances that have arisen here.

Question (c)

11. The concern of my client here relates to four matters:

• A primary school contribution request of £332,668;

• A pre-school contribution request of £139,916;

• A footpath link contribution request of £50,000;

• A community transport contribution request of £50,000.

7

In the context of an appeal, the strategy must be to:

• provide a Section 106 obligation which provides for payment of these sums

subject to a standard blue line clause so that the sums are only payable in the

event that the Inspector concludes that they meet the necessary tests; and

• provide a discrete obligation dealing with primary and pre-school payments

which document is engaged and effective if the Inspector concludes that the

above headline sums are not justified.

12. It is settled policy and law that Section 106 obligations should only be sought where

they are:

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

• directly related to the development; and

• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

It appears to be the case that bullet-points 1 and 2 above are engaged in respect of the

amount of primary and pre-school sums claimed. I do not doubt that my clients should

make a proper contribution to pre-school and primary school provision, but the risk of

“double-dipping” appears to arise in this case.

13. On 1st September 2019 amendments to the CIL Regulations came into force which,

inter alia, abolished the CIL 123 Lists, ie Lists that specified the types of infrastructure

to be provided through CIL payments. In that same month, Babergh and Mid Suffolk

produced a “Guidance Note” aimed at assisting with the transition to the new CIL

regime. It provides “guidance” on the types of infrastructure to be paid for by CIL and

Section 106 obligations respectively. The provision of additional pre- and primary

school payments at existing establishments is intended to be funded by CIL while the

provision of new pre- and primary school places is to be funded by Section 106

8

obligations. This replicates the 2016 published 123 List. It appears that the CIL sums

charged include estimates based on this split.

14. In the present case it is not finally resolved whether the new primary school provision

at Woolpit will be by way of extension or a new school, although the County clearly

favour a new school and this lies behind the Section 106 commuted sum request. As

matters stand, therefore, my client appears to be asked to make both a CIL payment

(which includes a significant payment towards enhanced pre- and primary school

provision) and a Section 106 contribution to a new primary school. In other words,

two payments are being requested for pre- and primary school provision.

15. I do not believe that there is any obstacle to the County applying the CIL payments

towards the new school (Section 216(2) of the Planning Act 2008 and PPG Paragraph

144 Ref ID:25-144-190901 permit considerable flexibility in the way CIL monies are

spent. However, it has to be acknowledged that expansion and new build costs are

different (the former is costed at £16,596 per pupil whereas the latter is £19,611 per

pupil) so that a necessary and proportionate Section 106 payment would be £3,015 per

pupil (ie £19,611 minus £16,596 (already paid by way of CIL). Any other approach

will have my client making double provision in respect of primary school provision. I

do not have figures in respect of pre-school provision, but the same principles apply.

Footpath Link

16. This is envisaged as a link between Elmswell and Woolpit. Such a link is not part of

my client’s application. The question arises as to whether, therefore, there is any

external requirement for such a link. It is no part of any adopted policy document and,

therefore, the request for the money has no policy justification. Moreover, I am not

aware that other housing developments in Elmswell have been routinely required to

make any such contribution. Its necessity, therefore, is not established. Moreover,

the sum of £50,000 is a suspiciously round number - how has it been calculated? At

any appeal the LPA will have to produce a CIL compliance document which provides

satisfactory answers to these issues. As matters stand, the payment does not appear

to meet the above tests.

9

Community Transport

17. As I understand matters having reviewed the Highway Department response to the

application, the claimed £50,000 is to enable the local community transport provider

to “potentially” pay drivers to connect the village to Woolpit and then to the bus service

running between Bury and Stowmarket. However, I am not aware of any worked-up

and costed scheme for such provision, much less any evidence that such provision is

likely to be made available. The aspiration (which is all it is) may well be worthy, but

I cannot see how my client’s proposals make this necessary. Once again, the sum

claimed is suspiciously rounded. Again, I cannot see that its payment is legally

necessary.

I so advise.

KINGS CHAMBERS

36 Young Street

MANCHESTER

M3 3FT

DX 718188 (MCH 3)

Tel: 0161-832-9082

Fax: 0161-835-2139

DAVID MANLEY QC

5 Park Square East

LEEDS

LS1 2NE

DX 713113 (LEEDS PK SQ)

Tel: 0113-242-1123

Fax: 0113-242-1124

Embassy House

60 Church Street

BIRMINGHAM

B3 2DJ

DX 13023 BIRMINGHAM

21st April 2020

10

RE:

LAND TO THE WEST OF THE FORMER

BACON FACTORY, ELMSWELL

A D V I C E