babergh district council planning committee 25 … · document received from the parish council...

1

BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

25 October 2017

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED SINCE THE PUBLICATION

OF THE AGENDA BUT BEFORE 12 NOON ON THE WORKING DAY BEFORE THE MEETING, AND ERRATA

PAPER PL/17/19

ITEM REF. NO REPRESENTATION FROM

SUMMARY/COMMENTS CASE OFFICER

1 B/15/01718 N/A, Officer Comments; Point of Clarification. Newton Parish Council

In respect of Paragraphs 189, 287, 300 and 320 of the Committee Report: The schedule of planning conditions recommended to be imposed upon any planning permission granted forms part of the Recommendation at the end of the Committee Report (i.e. it is not ‘appended’ to the Report). The schedule of headline conditions within the Recommendation accords with the assessment carried throughout the body of that Report. The detailed drafting of those conditions would be undertaken should Members resolve to grant planning permission, and as part of the s106 process, where it is common practice for a ‘draft planning permission’ to be included as a schedule within the legal agreement. This would be publicised prior to the grant of planning permission. Copied as follows: “Newton Parish Council have reviewed the above planning application and concluded that nothing has sufficiently changed since June 2017. Subsequently our objections remain as: i. NPC is disappointed that the Highways amendments set out in the Planning Comments document are so limited in scope. The councillors welcome the acknowledgement that the A134 / Valley Road junction requires work, but are not convinced

SS

2

that creating a right turn lane on the A134 is safe or sufficient. The proposal does not address vehicles turning right out of Valley Road and indeed a queue of vehicles waiting to turn right into Valley Road could obscure the visibility of traffic turning right out of Valley Road. Both for the emerging traffic and westbound traffic proceeding along the A134 which will be passing the waiting queue on the inside at 40mph. In any case, how long can the proposed right-hand turn lane be, before the queue still backs onto the main carriageway – only now potentially much closer to the bend just outside Newton – Loss of hedgerow would be needed to provide sufficient visibility for traffic coming up behind that queue. A mini roundabout would surely serve for better traffic flow and safety, which would also suit (and enforce) the lower maximum speed limit proposed for the road. ii. NPC is disappointed that there are still no proposals to improve the junction at Northern Road / Milner Road (Martin’s Buildbase) junction on the industrial estate. This is now a busy turning in the morning with northbound traffic queuing behind vehicles turning right into Milner Road regularly backing up to the KFC roundabout. The additional traffic generated by the Chilton Woods development coming southbound in the morning will make turning opportunities even rarer and therefore back up the queuing traffic for longer, snarling the KFC roundabout. iii. There is also no mention of dispensing with the idea to put a light-controlled pedestrian crossing phase in at Acton Lane onto the A134, for pedestrians heading for Stanley Wood Avenue, to walk into town. There are no desire lines tracked on the verge to indicate anyone crosses here – not surprising as there is the footbridge and footpath network directly adjacent to this. Bringing pedestrians and cyclists down into the cutting to cross the bypass is downright dangerous and entirely a pointless duplication of the existing provision. iv. The above issues suggest to NPC that the S106 Highways

3

Chilton Parish Council Lady Hart of Chilton

improvements are just not being thought through properly. Why has the developer dispensed with the community consultation group meetings? They were told most of these issues at previous meetings. The decision to open up the employment land and Western access to Chilton Woods earlier in the development timeline is welcome. However, this must be used as the construction vehicle access for the site for the duration of the development. This will enable the Construction Management Plan to restrict the flow of construction traffic to the A134 to and from Bury St Edmunds and remove this traffic from the other roads and roundabouts around the site.” Due to the length of the response received, this representation is attached in full along with a further document received from the Parish Council relating to recommended s106 costs. Copies of the applicant’s viability report and the appraisal carried out by the Council’s appointed viability consultant were also attached to that representation, however Members have already received copies of those documents which are publicly available on the Council’s website. Due to the length of the response received, this representation is attached in full.

P:\MSDC\Governance\DOCS\Committee\REPORTS\Planning Committee\2017\251017AddendumC Woods.docx

CHILTON PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk: Dave Crimmin, Cragston, Sudbury Road, Newton, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 0QH Tel: 01787 375085 email: [email protected]

Chilton Parish Council - Response to B/15/01718 20th October 2017 Page 1 of 8

20th October 2017 Steven Stroud Babergh District Council Corks Lane Hadleigh Ipswich IP7 6SJ By email Dear Mr Stroud

Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - Erection of up to 1,150 dwellings (Use Class C3); 15ha of employment development (to include B1, B2 and B8 uses, a hotel (C1), a household waste recycling centre (sui generis) and a district heating network); village centre (comprising up to 1,000m2 Gross Floor Area (GFA) of retail floor space (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), village hall (D2), workspace (B1a), residential dwellings (C3), primary school (D1), pre-school (D1) and car parking); creation of new vehicular access points and associated works; sustainable transport links; community woodland; open space (including children's play areas); sustainable drainage (SuDS); sports pavilion (D2) and playing fields; allotments; and associated ancillary works 1. We write in response to the second consultation circulated on 14th September 2017 and to the

officers report dated 25th October 2017. Unless otherwise stated paragraph numbers in this letter refer to paragraphs in the Officers report. We also refer to our earlier responses to the previous stages of the consultation process which are attached for ease of reference and reiterate those points, which regrettably continue to be ignored by the Applicant.

2. As we are a small parish council we regret that due to the considerable volume of recently posted material we have not been able to respond earlier. Due to the Planning Committee Meeting being held on Wednesday 25th October at 9.30 am we are circulating this response to the members Planning Committee direct as well as to yourselves.

Duty to Co-operate

3. We have for several years since this scheme was originally promoted asked Babergh District Council (“BDC”) to liaise with us on section 106 provisions. We are disappointed at the continued failure of both SCC and Babergh District Council to comply with the specified obligations under Policy CS4. Policy CS4 provided that “the Council i.e. BDC is committed to working cooperatively with partners and Chilton Parish Council, Sudbury Town Council, Long Melford and Acton Parish Councils and the local community to bring forward and deliver the Chilton Woods scheme in a timely way”. Regrettably this has not been our experience. One of our district councillors, Mr Frank Lawrenson, has been in regular contact with your planning officers to reiterate our wish to be involved in section 106 discussions. We pointed out in our letter of 26 March 2016 our wish to be involved in these negotiations and that we considered it particularly important that there is a final form of section 106 agreement to go before any planning committee in consideration of this application for outline permission rather than the section 106 being negotiated after planning permission has been granted since in such circumstances BDC are at a negotiating disadvantage. It appears however that you are intending to negotiate the final form of section 106 agreement after the committee hearing. Again we repeat that we consider that this is not an efficient way to proceed. It appears from references in the documents that there may already be some draft terms of section 106 agreement in existence. Most of the land the subject of this application is within our parish. We ask therefore that we now be provided urgently with a full unredacted draft of the proposed section 106 deed of planning obligation, to which our Parish Council should be a party, which BDC intends to negotiate and/or enter into in connection with this application as soon as possible.

4. We also seek your confirmation that the facts and terms of the obligations will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of Article 36(3)(b) of the Town & Country Planning Development Management Procedure (England) Order 2010. We regard the continuing failure to involve us as a breach of Babergh District Council’s duty to co-operate with us as provided for by legislation and particularly under Policy CS4. Please explain the decision not to involve us in the section 106 negotiations despite our continuing requests and those of our District Councillors?




Policy CS4

5. It is at the heart of the strategic land allocation of Chilton Woods, pervasive to the whole of Policy CS4, that:

• a Masterplan will be required to guide development;

• development feasibility and viability evidence will be provided, which clearly demonstrates that a comprehensive, mixed land-use employment-led development will come forward;

• that a phasing programme, which includes as a minimum the items listed in paras i – vii of the Policy is demonstrated; and

• that the development will provide an integrated high-quality and sustainable development that fulfils the requirements of other policies in the Local Plan, including reflecting the aspiration of Suffolk’s Greenest County initiative.

According to the Policy, a piecemeal approach to development within the allocated area is absolutely not acceptable.

We also note that as defined within Policy CS4 “approximately 1,050” new dwellings will be accommodated on the strategic site. This application seeks to accommodate 1,150 new dwellings and is wholly enclosed within the strategic site of CS4. Planning Application DC/17/04052 Land North of Waldingfield Road is also wholly enclosed within the strategic site and seeks to add a further 130 new dwellings to the Policy CS4 site as included in the current Local Plan. We do not regard the increased number of dwellings of 1,280 as being “approximately 1,050” new dwellings.

6. The audit of the application against Policy CS4 set out in the Officers’ Report between paras 154 and 220 is, with respect, unconvincing and open to question. In a number of respects, it appears to be directly in conflict with the assumptions stated in the Financial Viability Assessment (August 2017) provided by the applicant’s viability consultant, Deloitte, and by the companion document, the Viability Review, undertaken by Aspinall Verdi, also dated August 2017 to which we refer below. There are a number of disquieting inconsistences. For example, the following should be noted:

• The applicant’s offer of affordable housing assumes that the delivery of the residential is not conditional on delivery of the employment land. The original planning application Planning Statement made it crystal clear that Phase 1 would include 5.8 ha of employment land (including 5.2 ha of B1, B2 and B8 uses, plus 0.6 ha of hotel). It would only be right in principle to grant permission here if the Council is certain that the employment development will be forthcoming, and be delivered in full, in line with the Policy.

• Progressing with the development to later phases until this delivery has been secured would clearly be a significant breach of the Policy and drive a coach and horses through the carefully constructed framework, without which there is clearly a substantial risk of piecemeal development.

• Again, it is the essence of the Policy that areas of undeveloped land, in particular structural planting, landscaping and green spaces, be provided from the very start of the development of the Masterplan, and throughout, in order to mitigate unavoidable harm and significant change to the character of the area, and adverse impacts on the existing fabric of Sudbury and surrounding villages. Unsurprisingly, the application documents seek to portray all of this as guaranteed and taken for granted when in fact they are only illustrative.

7. It is essential that the Planning Committee be convinced that this is indeed the case. It is right to record that there is a high degree of concern on the part of the local community as to whether this will prove to be the case, and whether the Council will have the fortitude and determination to insist that the scheme is designed and carried through to a high standard. The absence of demonstrable controls and a detailed set of Masterplan parameters does not auger well.




Reference to the Secretary of State

8. As to employment use the Western Employment area provides for approximately 61,650 m2 of employment space comprising 18% B1 uses, 35% B2 users and 47% B8 users. The employment mix is based on evidence provided by Fenn Wright in 2015. We remain of the view that the proposed siting of B2 uses i.e. industrial processes is inappropriate located next to a residential area. We believe this is a concern also shared by your Environment Protection Officer and the Design Panel. We also remain of the view that there is too high a provision of land for B8 use. The above areas ignore the Eastern Employment area.

9. Paragraph 362 of your Officers report states that it is “considered necessary to set parameters in respect of the uses permitted and associated operations.” In paragraph 383 you state that the Western Employment area will comprise of 2.9 hectares of B1 use, 4.4 hectares of B2 and 5.3 hectares of B8. Amec Foster Wheeler’s (“Amec”) letter of 24 August 2017 states that the 2.9 hectares of B1 land is equivalent to 10,143 m2.

10. In the light of the above we point out that this application should not be considered by the BDC Planning Committee but rather it should be referred to the Secretary of State for consideration. We draw your attention to the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 (“2009 Direction”) which specifies the types of development application which local planning authorities are required to refer to the Secretary of State for his consideration. This is such an application. The 2009 Direction applies to development which falls within the description in paragraph 5(1) which is as follows:-

(i) For the purposes of this Direction “development outside town centres” means development which consists of or includes … office use, and which –

(a) is to be carried out on land which is edge-of-centre, out-of-centre or out of town; and

(b) is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan in force in relation to the area in which the development is to be carried out; and

(c) consists of or includes the provision of a building of buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is:-

(i) 5,000 square metres of more; or

(ii) extensions or new development of 2,500 square metres or more which, when aggregated with the existing floor space would exceed 5,000 square metres.”

11. The purpose of the Direction is to ensure that for certain types of large scale development there is ministerial involvement in planning decisions. This development proposal falls within the description in paragraph 5.1 on the 2009 Direction in that:

(a) It is to be carried out on land “out of town”. Most of this development is located in land

within the parish of Chilton and the Western Employment Area is within the parish of Long Melford. Please see Appendix A the Applicant’s drawing / map showing the parish boundaries.

(b) The proposed development includes B1 office space. (c) The development is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan

(e.g. policies CS1, CS4, CS19, CN14, EM08 and CN06). (d) It consists of new floor space which will exceed 5,000 sq metres. Amec’s above

referenced letter confirms that the floor space will exceed 10,000 sq meters. 12. For these reasons this planning application should be referred to the Secretary of State for

consideration. Given the scale of development here, and the inescapable sense of the challenge posed by a scheme which is struggling to convince everyone of its deliverability and the viability of




the scheme, it is in our view highly doubtful whether the right procedure to follow here is for Babergh DC to proceed to determine this case without referring it to the Planning Casework Unit, and inviting a ruling on whether the application should be called in for determination by the Secretary of State.

Financial Viability

13. The Applicants have only recently provided evidence as to financial viability by way of a financial viability assessment produced by Deloitte in August 2017 (“Deloitte Report”) which report has been reviewed by Aspinall Verdi (“Aspinall Verdi Report”) also in August 2017 on behalf of your council. Deloitte’s analysis was done in May 2017 and this report issued in August 2017 but only posted on the application website on 28 September 2017, a week before responses to the second consultation were due. It was obviously available to Amec well before 24 August 2017 as the provision on 25% affordable housing is asserted in that letter but strangely no reference to any supporting evidence or viability assessment is referred to when such material was obviously crucial. We became aware of its existence when we received the Officers report. We, together with, other local parish councils, have been asking for viability evidence for some considerable time and it is disappointing that it has only been produced at this very late stage in the process when it is apparent that discussions about viability have been ongoing between the applicants, their advisers, your council and your advisers since 2014 (Aspinall Verdi report para 1.3). An unfortunate impression of slipping out this very relevant information is created.

14. Deloitte were instructed to test the level of affordable housing which could be supported by the development. In doing this test Deloitte have relied on cost and planning information prepared and provided to them by Amec. Both reports are attached for ease of reference.

15. First, we should say that we are not convinced that the appraisal based on a smaller development site of a notional 100 unit appraisal is the most appropriate to use in this case as this development is intended to be a large integrated development rather than as Deloitte appear to have been instructed that a master developer would acquire the site, install infrastructure and sell off parcels of service land to housebuilders. That would likely result in there not being an integrated scheme and could result in what we and the other parishes involved are very keen to avoid namely a piecemeal development of different styles and density. In arriving at the residual appraisal of 100 residential units as stated in para 4.8 of the Deloitte Report the appraisal does not include any allowances i.e. it excludes all the following development costs:-

• Section 106 costs (excluding affordable housing where applicable);

• planning costs (excluding reserved matters, application costs for the 100 units);

• strategic infrastructure;

• community woodland space;

• allotment space;

• public open space;

• earthworks;

• distributor roads (including western access link road);

• off-site highway works;

• utilities and drainage;

• other costs including a village centre, archaeological excavations and land remediation; and

• development management fees.




16. Therefore, we point out that we consider paragraph 461 of the officers report where they say that the utilities costs of approx £1 million has been taken into account is incorrect as Deliotte state this is specifically excluded. Further the off-site highway improvements are not included.

17. As Deloitte explain if the net present value (NPV) is positive this scheme is potentially viable. They calculate in paragraph 4.20 and 4.21 that under both scenarios with 35% affordable housing or 0% affordable housing the illustrative masterplan cannot afford to provide any affordable housing and provide an acceptable return to a master developer. Accordingly, the scheme as proposed is not financially viable. We also note that the housing density now proposed by Deloitte is higher than that which has been suggested in the illustrative masterplan documents.

18. Deloitte’s analysis clearly shows that this scheme as proposed cannot support the policy level of 35% affordable housing as required under policy CS19.

19. Deloitte also refer to a scenario where the residential element of their proposed development comes forward but areas of non-developable land not required for housing are excluded. This obviously reduces the land cost. The non-developable land in this scenario would remain as it is i.e. undeveloped. This we understand would mean that for example there would be no community woodland, no village green, no landscaping, no open spaces, no playing fields and no allotments which is clearly not acceptable. Even on that scenario the proposed scheme can only “in theory deliver 20% affordable housing (228 units) in total with 0% affordable housing in phase 1, 35% in phase 2 and 35% in phase 3.” As mentioned above this proposed scenario would mean that the employment land would not come forward as is envisaged under the scheme in phase 1. Therefore the figures for employment/job creation as suggested to be supplied by this development cannot be relied on since there is no certainty whether the employment would come forward. Further the Core Strategy provides that “the new plan is to be jobs led not homes led”

20. Accordingly, due to the inability to fund these other items the scheme as a whole is clearly financially unviable and for these reasons permission should be refused. All Deloitte’s calculations are based on the assumption that the residential units are not conditional upon delivery of the employment land. However, as Aspinall Verdi point out the employment land and its associated infrastructure are part of the planning application/masterplan as are what Deloitte refer to as “the non-developable land”. Accordingly, the scheme now envisaged by the Applicant appears substantially different from that which is proposed in the material supporting the planning application and members should be very aware of that.

21. We also do not accept that the Deloitte viability assessment has been prepared on the required basis under the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”). The viability analysis should properly take into account all of the costs of development – including any section 106 requirements. Paragraph 16 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (“PPG”) provides –

“A site is viable if the value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken”.

22. All costs of developing this site should therefore be taken into account – including any section 106 obligations. As state above, para 4.8 of the Deloittes Report expressly excludes these costs.

23. Planning permission should be refused where obligations which are necessary to make the development acceptable cannot be secured. This is supported by paragraph 176 of the NPPF which provides that -

"Where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements. The need for such safeguards should be clearly justified through discussions with the applicant, and the options for keeping such costs to a minimum fully explored, so that development is not inhibited unnecessarily."

24. And repeated in paragraph 19 of the PPG –




“Assessing viability should lead to an understanding of the scale of planning obligations which are appropriate. However, the National Planning Policy Framework is clear that where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms, and these safeguards cannot be secured, planning permission should not be granted for unacceptable development.”

25. As securing all the Section 106 obligations are necessary to make this development acceptable, then the permission should not be granted unless these obligations are provided. If they are to be provided then they should be included within the viability assessment.

26. It is not appropriate simply to disregard those development costs for the purposes of the viability analysis. The analysis should take into account the full cost of the development. When one does this it is clear that the development as proposed is not financially viable. In those circumstances it is clear that planning permission should be refused and the Applicant should reconsider and revise this application.

Heritage

27. There are important heritage assets within our parish at Chilton Hall and its historic park and gardens. We note that it is accepted by the officers that harm will occur to these heritage assets and that mitigation needs to be implemented in appropriate form by way of Section 106 obligations and planning conditions. Heritage England have advised on this and their advice is accepted and endorsed by your heritage team. We welcome this. However, there is no provision for the cost of structural landscaping/planting and earthwork buffers in the below referenced table and this also needs providing for.

Village Hall

28. We do not agree that it would be appropriate for the village hall/community centre facilities to be shared or used as Police premises. The ambience of the village hall would be different from that on Police premises and the police premises would require a higher level of security. Accordingly, such premises will need separate provision.

Draft Planning Conditions

29. It is imperative that the Committee is provided with a detailed set of draft planning conditions and expressly advised that, taken together, these would provide a sufficient level of control and protection before it was right for this project to progress to a resolution to grant, in line with the Officers’ recommendations.

30. It is not understood why the position in this respect is as reflected in the Officers report, with the barest skeleton of an indication of the conditions proposed. The application should surely be referred back to the Committee in due course.

31. It goes without saying that representatives of local groups will wish to have a close involvement in the evolution of the detail.

Section 106 Planning Obligations

30. The concluding section of the Officers’ Report contains a Table beneath para 537, giving (in some cases) very precise levels of contribution, and in some cases providing very approximate and non-specific indications of the nature and level of the contribution being sought.

32. Notable for the very general nature of the description (again, this is most worrying) are obligations which would cover Community Woodland, Playing Fields, Open Spaces, the Sports Pavilion and Car Parking, Play Provision and the proposed Village Hall. We have accordingly revised the Table to include where figures are available in the document the amounts which are missing. However, there are other sums which need insertion. We attach the revised Table with this letter.




33. These are of course critical components against which neighbours and the members of the local community will be assessing and judging the acceptability of the proposed development.

34. The planning system operates in the public interest, to ensure that development is controlled, and that it delivers for the benefit of the local community necessary benefits and enhancements needed in order to make a scheme acceptable. In a number of respects there is simply insufficient precision in the description of what is being offered here. The application needs to be supplemented in this respect, with the detail spelled out much more fully.

35. As with the working up of conditions, it would be a serious mistake to fail to engage with local parish councils in progressing any detail to build up a secure, legally safe, set of planning obligations.

Yours sincerely

Dave Crimmin MILCM Clerk, Chilton Parish Council cc Babergh’s Planning Committee members Cllr Lee Parker, Babergh Cabinet member for Planning Cllrs Margaret Maybury and Frank Lawrenson, members for Waldingfield Ward




Appendix A

Obligation Description Capital CostManagement /

Maintenance

Affordable Housing 25% provision; 12% in P1, 35% in P2 and P3 (subject

to review mechanism)

Allotments Provision of capital and Long-term management

of/transfer

To be agreed &

provided£0

Community Woodland

Provision of capital / planting and Contributions

towards/requirement for, management and

maintenance

To be agreed &

provided£457,800

BDC Public Realm

response 21st June 2017

Playing Fields

Provision of capital and Contributions


maintenance

In Sports

Pav'n cost£160,000

AMEC Foster Wheeler

letter of 24th August 2017

Open Spaces Provision of capital and Contributions


maintenance

To be agreed &

provided£481,500

Sports Pavilion and Car Parking



maintenance

Includes

Playing

Fields

£2,000,000 £330,000

Play Provision: 1 x NEAP, 5 x

LEAP, 1 x MUGA, 7 x LAP



maintenance

£540,000 £340,500

Village Hall



maintenance

£1,000,000 £50,000 3 years

Police Infrastructure Recruitment and equipment - £40,274 £40,274

Police vehicles - £41,500 £41,500

ANPR - £60,073 £60,073

Premises - £422,500 (or contribution of

accommodation and/or shared working spaces within

the development, in-line with need)

£422,500

Education

New primary school - £5,005,728; the land reserved

for education use is to be capable of use i.e. with

access/services at any time after 150 dwelling

occupations.

£5,005,728

Temporary classroom (1 x double) - £250,000 and

paid prior to occupation of 1st dwelling.£250,000

Pre-school - £500,000 + additional places within

community facilities or a further £500,000 plus 0.2ha

of land.

£1,000,000Assume that this equals 2

x £500k

Libraries£187,000 towards enhancement and improvement of

facilities at Sudbury Library£187,000

Waste£126,500 towards the SCC local Household Waste

Recycling Centre provision.£126,500

NHS

£417,151 towards capital cost of premises expansion

of the Hardwicke House Group Practice (including 1

main and 4 branch surgeries)

£417,151

Travel PlanImplementation/monitoring of £495,229 (Total value

bond, in full or £50,000 ‘rolling’)£495,229

£1,000 - payable annually on occupation of the 100th

dwelling until one year has passed after occupation of

the final dwelling

£10,000

Highways Public Rights of Way - £225,340 + revetment costings. £225,340

Toucan Crossings x 3 - £225,000 total. £225,000

Town Centre Bus Infrastructure - £250,000 £250,000

Bus Service Contribution - £600,000. £600,000

RTPI Screens - £60,000. £60,000

Pedestrian/Cycle Improvements - £130,000. £130,000

Utilities Electricity £730,000

Gas £35,000

Water £300,000

Foul Water £74,000

Telecomms £160,000

Totals £14,375,295 £1,829,800

CfiiCton !HdlT

CfiiCton, !NrSud6ury SuffoCi

COlO (XPS

23 October 2017

By email

Stephen Stroud Babergh District Council Corks Lane Hadleigh Ipswich IP7 6SJ

Dear Mr Stroud

Outline application (with all matters reserved except for access) - Erection of up to 1,150 dwellings (Use Class C3); 15ha of employment development (to include B1, 82 and 88 uses, a hotel (CI), a household waste recycling centre (sui generis) and a district heating network); village centre (comprising up to 1,000m2 Gross Floor Area (GFA) of retail floor space (A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), village hall (D2), workspace (81a), residential dwellings (C3), primary school (D1), pre-school (01) and car parking); creation of new vehicular access points and associated works; sustainable transport links; community woodland; open space (including children's play areas); sustainable drainage (SuDS); sports pavilion (D2) and playing fields; allotments; and associated ancillary works

I am writing to summarise in brief my continued objections to Suffolk County Council's outline planning application for the Chilton Woods site. Due to the considerable volume of material including recent posted material it has not been possible for me to reply earlier. I have given notice of my intention to speak at the Planning Committee meeting on Wednesday 25 October 2017. It is disappointing that the Officer's Report does not contain the representation already made by my late husband and me even though it incorrectly purports to.

As you will be aware, I am the owner of Chilton Hall, located on the south side of Waldingfield Road (B1115). My property is therefore very close to the application site.

I have seen and agree with the letter of representation from Chilton Parish Council dated 20 October 2017, which makes a very forceful and coherent case for this application to be reconsidered with the utmost care, given the deficiencies identified by the Parish Council. I ask you to pay careful attention to the following points:

PO-#27426959-v1

1. Viability of the application proposals

1.1 Chilton Parish Council's letter deals with the lack of viability in detail, with which I agree. It is very evident from the manner in which this outline application has been progressed that it faces very challenging - possibly insurmountable - conditions in regard to its viability and deliverability. The application was initially submitted almost two years ago (December 2015), since when it has been modified in a number of ways, I surmise in order to try to minimise the extent to which the up-front delivery of the combined infrastructure of the scheme constrains, possibly to breaking point, the economics which would make the scheme viable.

1.2 Deloittes have excluded all the following development costs:

9 Section 106 costs (excluding affordable housing where applicable);

® planning costs (excluding reserved matters, application costs for the 100 units);

» strategic infrastructure;

• community woodland space;

• allotment space;

• public open space;

• earthworks;

• distributor roads (including western access link road);

• off-site highway works;

• utilities and drainage;

• other costs including a village centre, archaeological excavations and land remediation; and

• development management fees.

1.3 Even having excluded all those costs they calculate in paras 4.20 and 4.21 of their Report (dated August) that SCO's illustrative masterplan cannot afford to provide either 0% or 35% of affordable housing. 35% is of course the amount required under Policy CS19.

1.4 Accordingly due to the inability to fund these other items the scheme as a whole is clearly financially unviable and for these reasons permission should be refused. All Deloitte's calculations are based on the assumption that the residential units are not conditional upon delivery of the employment land. However, as Aspinall Verdi point out the employment land and its associated infrastructure are part of the planning application/masterplan as are what Deloitte refer to as "the non-developable land". Accordingly the scheme now envisaged by the Applicant appears substantially different from that which is proposed in the material supporting the planning application and members should be very aware of that.

PO-#27426959-v1

1.5 I do not accept that the Deloitte viability assessment has been prepared on the required basis under the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF"). The viability analysis should properly take into account all of the costs of development - including any section 106 requirements. Paragraph 16 of the National Planning Practice Guidance ("PPG") provides -

"A site is viable if tlie value generated by its development exceeds the costs of developing it and also provides sufficient incentive for the land to come forward and the development to be undertaken".

All costs of developing this site should therefore be taken into account - including any section 106 obligations. As state above, para 4.8 of the Deloittes Report expressly excludes these costs. Planning permission should be refused where obligations which are necessary to make the development acceptable cannot be secured.

2. Failure to comply with Policy CS4

2.1 The Core Strategy provides that "the new plan is to be jobs led not homes led" yet this Scheme promotes the opposite.

2.2 It is regrettable that the policy endorsement of approximately 1,050 residential units has suffered mission-creep, with the addition of a further 100 units, then further added to by the recent planning application for the Orchard site which forms part of the Chilton Woods application (Application Ref no DC/17/04052) by a further 130 units. 1,280 dwellings does not correspond to "approx. 1,050" dwellings. There is no justification for this. There is likely soon to be an application for "Birdland" also part of the strategic site.

2.3 The concept of development proposals being supported where they accord with the Development Plan receives full recognition in national and local planning policy, including in the NPPF. This should not be taken as a free pass to enable landowners and applicants to engage in an exercise in expanding development which policy has capped after careful and fully researched analysis, simply in order to advantage the developer at the expense of established existing communities. This is what is being allowed to happen here.

2.4 You will therefore understand why I am puzzled by the unconvincing attempt in the Officers' Report to portray the application as being in accordance with Policy CS4 as regards (a) - (n) inclusive, where the evidence in a number of respects clearly points in the other direction.

3. Reference to Secretary of State

3.1 I share Chilton Parish Council's concerns as recorded in their letter of 20 October for the reasons explained in that letter. I also consider that this application should not be considered by the BDC Planning Committee but rather it should be referred to the Secretary of State for consideration because of the Town & Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 ("2009 Direction") which specifies the types of development application which local planning authorities are required to refer to the Secretary of State for his consideration. This is such an application. The 2009 Direction applies to development which falls within the description in paragraph 5(1) which this application does.

PO-#27426959-v1

3.2 The purpose of the Direction is to ensure that for certain types of large scale development there is ministerial involvement in planning decisions. This development proposal falls within the description in paragraph 5.1 on the 2009 Direction in that:

(a) It is to be carried out on land "out of town". Most of this development is located in land within the parish of Chilton and the Western Employment Area is within the parish of Long Melford.

(b) The proposed development includes 81 office space.

(c) The development is not in accordance with one or more provisions of the development plan (e.g. policies CS1, CS4, CS19, CN14, EM08 and CN06).

(d) It consists of new floor space which will exceed 5,000 sq metres.

3.3 Accordingly it is in my view highly doubtful whether the right procedure to follow here is for Babergh DC to proceed to determine this case without referring it to the Planning Casework Unit, and inviting a ruling on whether the application should be called in for determination by the Secretary of State.

4. Delivery of all infrastructure, mitigations, planting and community facilities

4.1 The concerns which stem from what is a scheme falling short of being a clearly deliverable and viable scheme are exacerbated by a sense that there are very apparent risks here of corners being cut, mitigations being delayed, cut back and perhaps not delivered, and the ambitions of the scheme which persuaded the Sudbury area to be prepared to accommodate Chilton Woods being severely diminished and in some respects entirely lost, by a scheme which comes up woefully short of requirements. The documents assessing viability clearly record that there are significant risks here.

4.2 The neighbourhood is being asked to pay a huge price for development on this scale - and it would be an unforgivable breach of trust for a planning permission to be granted here which allows any room for non-delivery or under performance.

4.3 In recent times examples have been seen of steps taken to progress Section 106 Deeds of Planning Otjligations and to settle and then discharge planning conditions in ways that leave much to be desired in terms of compliance with good practice and a genuine endeavour to ensure that public participation is secured. That must not be allowed to happen here. At the very least, an absolutely unequivocal commitment on the part of Members of the Planning Committee and Planning Officers to engage fully on a continuing basis with representatives of the Parish Councils and other identified and interested stakeholders should be an indelible part of any acceptable development being progressed on Chilton Woods.

5. Generally

5.1 By any measure, this is a development on a very major scale which, if approved and built, would be bound to have huge irreversible impacts on the Sudbury area in perpetuity.

5.2 It follows that it is of paramount importance that any planning permission granted on this application would need to be of unquestioned robustness, such that the

PO-#27426959-v1

landowner (Suffolk County Council) and the local planning authority (Babergh District Council) are demonstrating an unflinching commitment to guarantee that the development would only be allowed to proceed on the basis that, throughout its construction and subsequent use and occupation, it conformed closely with adopted Core Strategy Policy CS4.

5.3 It would of course be wholly unacceptable were there to be any means by which the development could disintegrate into a piecemeal group of uses built out in a manner that would be a flagrant breach of the supposed justification for a comprehensive, plan-led Masterplan-guided, phased and viable development providing an integrated high-quality sustainable development, including reflecting the aspiration of Suffolk's Greenest County initiative. You will recognise there the essence of Policy CS4, from which I have directly quoted some of the phrases just referred to. By way of example, the lack of a Design Code for the development and, at the last minute issues about the phasing of the development, causes concern.

6. Draft planning conditions

6.1 It is imperative that the Committee is provided with a detailed set of draft planning conditions and expressly advised that, taken together, these would provide a sufficient level of control and protection before it was right for this project to progress to a resolution to grant, in line with the Officers' recommendations.

6.2 It is not understood why the position in this respect is as reflected in the Report, with the barest skeleton of an indication of the conditions proposed. As a result, the members cannot appreciate what are the nature of the conditions and obligations required to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms. The application should surely be referred back to the Committee in due course.

6.3 It goes without saying that representatives of local groups will wish to have a very close involvement in the evolution of the detail.

7. Section 106 planning obligations

7.1 The concluding section of the Officers' Report contains a Table beneath para 537, giving (in some cases) very precise levels of contribution, and in some cases providing very approximate and non-specific indications of the nature and level of the contribution being sought.

7.2 Notable for the very general nature of the description (again, this is very worrying) are obligations which would cover Community Woodland, Playing Fields, Open Spaces, the Sports Pavilion and Car Parking, Play Provision and the proposed Village Hall.

7.3 These are of course absolutely critical components against which neighbours and the members of the local community will be assessing and judging the acceptability of the proposed development.

7.4 The planning system operates in the public interest, to ensure that development is controlled, and that it delivers for the benefit of the local community necessary benefits and enhancements needed in order to make a scheme acceptable.

7.5 In a number of respects there is simply insufficient precision in the description of what is being offered here. The application needs to be supplemented in this respect, with the detail spelled out much more fully.

PO-#27426959-v1

7.6 As with the working up of conditions, it would be a serious mistake to fail to engage with local groups in progressing any detail to build up a secure, legally safe, set of planning obligations.

8. Heritage

There are important heritage assets within our parish at Chilton Hall and its historic park and gardens. We note that it is accepted by the officers that harm will occur to these heritage assets and that mitigation needs to be implemented in appropriate form by way of Section 106 obligations and planning conditions. Heritage England have advised on this and their advice is accepted and endorsed by your heritage team. Further, the Suffolk Preservation Society (SPS) have concerns, with which I agree, about the permitted heights across the employment zone on the eastern end of the site. If these heights are permitted it will introduce built form of a height and scale that is unprecedented in the immediate area. SPS recommend (see their letter of 20 June 2016) "...that the maximum height be reduced from fourteen metres to a more modest height not exceeding that of the adjoining smaller scale structures of which it will form a part." SPS also encourage additional planting. Please ensure that the planning conditions adequately reflect these requirements. Also I point out that there is no provision for the cost of structural landscaping/planting and earthwork buffers in the S.I06 costings and this also needs providing for.

9. Village Hall

I disagree that it would be appropriate for the village hall/community centre facilities to be shared or used as Police premises. The ambience of the village hall would be different from that on Police premises and the police premises would require a higher level of security. Accordingly such premises will need separate provision.

10. Construction Works

The proposed construction work and resulting traffic will be very intrusive, noisy, create dust and HGV vehicles will blight the lives of the residents of Aubrey Drive, Reynolds Way and nearby residential roads for many years. This should not be permitted. A detailed construction plan needs to be put in place now.

Yours sincerely

Lady Hart of Chilton

PO-#27426959-v1

babergh district council planning committee 25 … · document received from the parish council...

Documents