MM57.

p141 LP23 2a and 2e We feel it is pointless in setting higher standards than required when they are qualified as ‘when practical’ or ‘when possible’. We feel a responsible or innovative developer who wants to achieve a higher standard will do so without any policy requirement and a developer who doesn’t simply will consider it not practical or not possible so they wont do it.

The policies concerning Climate Change SP10 and Sustainable Construction and Design LP23 lack ambition and are totally inadequate in respect of achieving the required net zero target set by Babergh District Council to be achieved by 2030. They pay lip service to “the idea” and as drafted are not sufficiently demanding in their requirements of those delivering developments over the period of the plan. Words such as “where appropriate”, “when practicable”, “minimise dependence on fossil fuels”, “encourage a proactive approach to improve on building regulation requirement” are just a few examples and which in a policy context will enable those who have no regard for implementing the step changes required will drive a coach and horse through these policies as drafted.

The policies concerning Climate Change SP10 and Sustainable Construction and Design LP23 lack ambition and are totally inadequate in respect of achieving the required net zero target set by Babergh District Council to be achieved by 2030. They pay lip service to “the idea” and as drafted are not sufficiently demanding in their requirements of those delivering developments over the period of the plan. Words such as “where appropriate”, “when practicable”, “minimise dependence on fossil fuels”, “encourage a proactive approach to improve on building regulation requirement” are just a few examples and which in a policy context will enable those who have no regard for implementing the step changes required will drive a coach and horse through these policies as drafted.

The Parish Council welcomes the updating of the policy to ensure sustainable construction and design.

g) “Demonstrate how it has incorporated sustainable building materials wherever possible” sounds like it will be easy to avoid by e.g. citing cost. Or are we really going to see construction using e.g. hempcrete, straw bales and rammed earth?

Members were disappointed at the ‘watering down’ of specific requirements for sustainable and active travel, as well as general sustainability in housing design and the use of renewables.

Policy to read:
4. 3. In meeting the above, all major developments332 are required to submit a
Sustainability Design and Construction Statement. This should be submitted at the
appropriate stage in the application process and that demonstrates how the principles set out in 32c)-32gh) will be incorporated into the design of the development. (NHS
exempt providing NHS Net Zero Building Standard)

MM57 - Does major development just mean large amounts of residential dwellings, or could it include
infrastructure as well?
Should a new GP surgery or health facility build be seen as major development and be required to
submit a Sustainability Design and Construction Statement then the ICB would like to request that
it be exempt. We request that it be exempt on the grounds that all NHS new builds and significant
refurbishment project that require HM treasury business case approval will be subject to the NHS
Net Zero Building Standard and would provide greater evidence.

MM67 - The ICB would encourage that an addition to the current wording is introduced to reflect the
importance of the IFS and IDP in establishing the suitability of community service infrastructure.
We would like it clearly included in the policy that a project approved through the IFS/IDP has
significantly more weight than that of a project not approved via IFS/IDP. The ICB would also in
addition to this, request that infrastructure classified as “critical” or “essential” in the IDP be
approved by committee unless serious and substantial grounds for refusal can be evidenced.
Looking at section 3 a and c in order:
• a. NHS England undertake a review of a practice should the request be made to close a
facility of any size. The assessment will include community need, list size, boundary of
practice etc, would this be considered independent by the LPA with regards to this
policy?
c. The community need and/or requirement is part of any assessment made before the
closure of a facility, but other factors have to also be considered in this process. If a
facility is deemed unsustainable then the ICB/NHS Trust need to be able to manage their
assets as to how they see fit.

MM70 - The ICB would like to request that before any new development large enough to impact on health
services gets planning approval, a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is completed by the applicant
as part of complying with paragraph 1 in this section. We would additionally ask that the term
infrastructure in this context includes workforce, digital and volunteers and not just the physical
building

MM71 - The ICB ensures that the necessary services are provided in the best possible locations based on
strategies and data. The ICB is supportive of the LPA’s intention of protecting land associated with
health facilities. However, the requirements for health commissioning and the form of provision
must remain a decision for local health commissioners. The NHS needs to preserve the flexibility
to fulfil its health commissioning obligations to meet the needs of the population at any time. As
stated previously, as commissioners, we should be afforded the ability to manage our estate in a
way that aligns with strategies both national and local and this is restricted by both LP28 and LP31. The ICB would request that health is included as part of any Community Use Agreement as
this would align with national and local strategies to utilise community facilities.

Anglian Water supports the amendments to the policy to incorporate flood mitigation measures. Whilst we note the deletion of the text "such as sustainable drainage systems" - we agree that the use of SuDS as flood prevention measures is addressed in Policy LP27 Flood Risk and Vulnerability.

We also welcome modification to criterion 5 to clarify the encouragement of water usage of not more than 100 litres per person per day. This aligns with the Government's Environment Improvement Plan which sets ten actions in the Roadmap to Water Efficiency in new developments including a new standard for new homes in England of 105 litres per person per day (l/p/d) and 100 l/p/d where there is a clear local need, such as in areas of serious water stress. It sets the intention to amend building regulations to achieve 100 litres per person per day in water stressed areas and therefore reinforces the policy approach.

See full representation

As modified, this policy continues to secure development which meets, and where possible exceeds, national building standards which Pigeon support. However, whilst the modifications to the policy seek to reduce ambiguity as required by paragraph 16 of the NPPF, Pigeon consider that further modifications can be made to the policy to ensure that it is evidenced how a decision maker should apply this policy to development proposals.

As presently modified, whilst some specific targets have been removed from parts of the policy, they remain in others, which has the ability to impact on the deliverability of schemes. Pigeon is of the view that the policy should require development to achieve Building Regulations in respect of CO2 emissions and water and energy efficiency standards and that anything in excess of these standards will be supported. This would be in recognition of the fact that dwellings built to Building Regulations are going to be substantially more efficient than the existing housing stock.

Finally, there are still parts of the policy, namely in relation to water efficiency which contradict each other and are unclear as to how they should be applied to any planning application. Pigeon remains of the view that part ‘5’ of the policy should be removed to address this.

This criterion should be deleted. If it is considered
to be necessary to encourage new developments to meet water efficiency standards that are
above the requirements contained in the Building Regulations, this should be stated in supporting
text to Policy LP25 instead along with the circumstances in which this standard will be encouraged.

Persimmon maintain that criterion 5 encouraging water efficiency above that required by Building
Regulations is not suitable for inclusion in policy. This criterion should be deleted. If it is considered
to be necessary to encourage new developments to meet water efficiency standards that are
above the requirements contained in the Building Regulations, this should be stated in supporting
text to Policy LP25 instead along with the circumstances in which this standard will be encouraged.

NHSPS support the principle of this policy but request that the policy recognise the specific requirements which are followed by the NHS through the ‘NHS Net Zero Standards.’

Policy LP23 Sustainable Construction and Design under Main Modification No. MM57 requires under Section 3 for all major development to submit a Sustainability Design and Construction Statement at the appropriate stage in the application, which should also be demonstrative of how principles 2c to 2h have been satisfied.
NHSPS supports the principle of Policy LP23 which seeks to promote sustainable construction and design in development but wish to draw the Council’s attention to the existing sustainability policies and standards within the NHS.

NHSPS support the intent of the Council to ensure all major development conform to sustainable design standards.
Planning guidance should also take into account the various drivers already in place to move the NHS to a net-zero carbon future. These include the ‘Delivering a Net-Zero National Health Service’ programme and the ‘NHS Net-Zero Standards’. These guidance documents are followed by the all NHS bodies in England, with the aim to reach the target of a Net-Zero NHS by 2040 (direct emissions) and 2045 (indirect emissions).
MM57 adds to Section 3 in stating that all major development are to submit a Sustainability Design and Construction Statement at an appropriate stage in the application process and should demonstrate how principles 2c to 2h have been incorporated in the development’s design. NHSPS support the principle of this policy but request that the policy recognise the specific requirements which are followed by the NHS through the ‘NHS Net Zero Standards.’

Rather than amend Part 2a of policy LP25 the HBF would recommend that it is deleted as it is not necessary to repeat building regulations nor state that future iterations of said
regulations should be adhered to.

Part e is suggested that the policy be amended to read:
“Onsite renewable and other low carbon energy generation will be required where viable and feasible."

Dear Sir/ Madam
Response by the Home Builders Federation to the Main modifications of Babergh and
Mid Suffolk Local Plan
1. Please find below the Home Builders Federation (HBF) response to the consultation on
the Main Modifications to the Local Plan. The HBF is the principal representative body
of the housebuilding industry in England and Wales and our representations reflect the
views of discussions with our membership of national and multinational corporations
through to regional developers and small local housebuilders. Our members account for
over 80% of all new housing built in England and Wales in any one year.
MM1
Modification is unsound as it lacks clarity as required by paragraph 16 of the NPPF and is
not effective.
2. The HBF recognise the importance of having a plan in place to support development and
that the only way to achieve this would be through a two-part local plan. However, we
are concerned that whilst the councils have committed to delivering a part 2 local plan
there is no policy committing the council to a timetable and no consequences should any
proposed timetable not be achieved. At the very least a timetable should be included in
the local plan as to when the part 2 local plan will be submitted for examination in order
to ensure that the proposed modification is effective and can be monitored.
MM8
3. The HBF supports the modification to reduce the contributions for affordable on
brownfield sites which better reflects the approach advocated in paragraph 59 of the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
MM50
Modification is unsound as it is inconsistent with government policy or effective.
4. Reference needs to be made in the policy or supporting text to the transition period for
the introduction of the mandatory 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG). At the time of
examination, it was intended that it would apply to all development from November 2023.
However, the Government have confirmed in its response to the recent consultation on
regulations and implementation of BNG1
this period has been extended to April 2024 for
small developments of less than 10 units or under 0.5 ha. The Council must be clear that
the 10% BNG will apply from these dates as set out in the Act and its supporting
regulations. In addition, the Government’s response also sets out its intention with
regards to exemptions and as such a statement confirming that the Council will deliver
mandatory requirements for BNG in line with the Environment Act would provide the
necessary clarity for applicants and decision makers.
5. The Council are also proposing to amend part 2 subsection e to state that the Council
will seek appropriate resources from developers for monitoring of biodiversity net gains.
The HBF consider it necessary that this reference to monitoring should be amended and
the statement that appropriate resources will be sought from developers for the
monitoring of biodiversity net gain. Whilst in some circumstances the most appropriate
way forward may be in the form of a payment, there may be other approaches to
monitoring of delivery that do not require a financial contribution. For example, where
BNG are secured through a conservation covenant the Government have stated in the
recent consultation2
that this is to be included in the price of the units and as such an
additional contribution would not be required. To ensure that there is sufficient flexibility n the policy we would suggest the following wording which is more consistent with that
used by Government in their response to the recent consultation.
“Monitoring of biodiversity net gains will be proportionate and where appropriate set out
as a planning condition or obligation”.
MM57
Modification is unsound as it is not needed as it is an unnecessary repetition of national policy
and lacks the necessary clarity required by the NPPF.
6. Rather than amend Part 2a of policy LP25 the HBF would recommend that it is deleted
as it is not necessary to repeat building regulations nor state that future iterations of said
regulations should be adhered to. These are mandatory standards that are delivered
outside of the planning system and as such do not need to be repeated. The same
applies to subsequent regulations and there is no need to stipulate that these will also
need to be met. Whilst their inclusion may not be considered problematic at present there
is the potential for the misapplication of future policy if any technical standards are
optional and require the Council to justify their inclusion though the local plan. Whilst we
recognise this is a hypothetical situation decision makers could potentially seek to apply
future optional standards without the necessary process for their adoption being
undertaken.
7. The HBF are concerned that the wording of part e could still lead to decision makers
asking for viability evidence to show that the most viable and feasible level of low carbon
energy is provided on site. The HBF recognise that this should be a consideration but
the viability or feasibility considerations should relate to its provision or not rather than
maximisation of onsite renewable energy provision. We would suggest the policy
amended to read:
“Onsite renewable and other low carbon energy generation will be required where viable
and feasible.”
8. The HBF still consider part f to be unsound. The 100 litres per person per day (lpppd)
water unsound as it goes beyond the optional technical standard in paragraph 56-014 of
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). NPPF states at paragraph 154 that technical
standards relating to sustainable buildings should reflect the Government’s policy for
national technical standards and should be set at the 110 lpppd option standard of PPG.
MM59
Modification is unsound as it is not consistent with national policy.
9. Part 2e requires developers to adhere to Building for Healthy Life framework. Whilst the
HBF is supportive of the use of Building for a Healthy Life the policy as written is too
prescriptive and requires development to adhere to a framework set out side of the local
plan making process. We would suggest that this is amended to “take account of…” or
“have regard to …”

Please see attached document.

MM57 Page 104 Policy Paragraph LP25
Sustainable construction and design – this modification needs to include ‘nonresidential development’ in point 4 to be of relevance to new intensive livestock and
poultry building development, specifically to include plans to decommission and demolish buildings when redundant and return the land to agricultural use in order to
minimise the potential for residential development in the countryside and to protect, conserve and enhance the landscape and the environment.

In general, I support the proposed main modifications.
The following comments represent my views in relation to some of the proposed
main modifications (MM20, MM47, MM48, MM49 and MM57), where I feel that the
policy wording could be revised to more effectively meet the Joint Local Plan’s
strategic objectives, particularly in light of new evidence concerning the expansion of
the intensive poultry industry.
1) Summary of New Evidence
1.1 Poultry meat production growth
Cranswick Plc has indicated its intension to increase the volume capacity of the
poultry meat processing factory located on Eye Airfield through recent press
announcements:
“Cranswick said broad investment plans were firmly on track with "several substantial
projects in progress which will enhance the capability of and add capacity to several
of our flagship production facilities as well as driving through further operating
efficiencies". (Business Live 2/2/23)
The factory at Eye is regarded by Cranswick as a ‘flagship production facility’.
Proposed expansion of the factory is substantiated by a recent application to the LPA
on 24th April 2023, for a Screening Opinion:
DC/23/01969 | Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion request for
proposed production building facility and mill building | Eye Airfield Business Park
Eye
An expansion of the poultry meat factory’s processing capabilities, in conjunction
with Cranswick’s stated objective to produce meat to the ‘Better Chicken
Commitment’ standards for intensive broiler units (stocking levels per square metre
lower compared to the Red Tractor scheme) means that the company will need to
increase the number of intensive poultry units in its supply chain in order to grow the
requisite number of birds for processing at the factory.
1.2 Impact on water resources
The operation of intensive poultry units requires extremely high water useage.
Essex & Suffolk Water (ESW) recently made its position very clear in an ongoing
planning application within the Hartismere Water Resources Zone
(DC/21/06824 | Planning Application - Erection of 6no poultry houses with associated
admin blocks, feed bins and ancillary development. (EIA Development)):
See attachment: Appendix A – Letter from William Robinson (Water Resources &
Supply Strategy Manager) to Philip Isbell (Chief Planning Officer, BMSDC) dated 6th
February 2023.
In summary, ESW objected to the planning application for the following reasons:
• The development is likely to result in an increase in mains water use which
will require an increase in groundwater abstraction to levels likely to be
unsustainable as confirmed through our AMP7 WINEP groundwater
abstraction sustainability investigations and documented in our dWRMP24;
• in the absence of supply headroom in our Hartismere water resource zone,
new non-domestic water demand would lead to us exceeding the annual
licensed quantities on our abstraction licences; and
• based on current programmes, new supply schemes will not be operational
until 2032 at which point the moratorium will be lifted.
In order to overcome the objection, ESW requested a Grampian condition to ensure
that the development could prove to be water neutral; this would entail the
construction of a grey water reuse storage reservoir to be filled by a combination of:
• Rainwater harvesting
• Diversion of land drainage flows
• A new groundwater or surface water abstraction
The Environment Agency has confirmed that it will not grant abstraction licences
(required for more than 20,000 litres per day) due to current water stress levels in the
Hartismere Water Resources Zone (see attachment: Appendix B – letter from the
Environment Agency to the LPA, dated 1/2/23).
The groundwater abstraction in ESW’s proposed Grampian condition refers to
unlicenced extraction of water (up to 20,000 litres per day).
If this approach to overcoming ESW’s moratorium on ‘new non-domestic supplies’ in
the Hartismere Water Resources Zone is adopted for other planning applications for
more intensive poultry units in the period to 2032, then the potential for harm caused
by the cumulative impact is likely to be very high.
An increase in unlicenced groundwater abstraction could lead to extreme use of
groundwater resources causing serious issues including (not exclusively) ecological
environment deterioration, land subsidence, vegetation degradation, reduction of
water in streams, rivers and lakes and deterioration of water quality.
2) Comments on Proposed Main Modifications in Light of New Evidence
2.1 MM20 Page 50 Policy Paragraph SP05
6. Any application for non-domestic proposals requiring heavy water usage across
the two Districts will be required to demonstrate that sufficient water capacity is
available through a Water Supply Management Statement in liaison with the relevant
water supply company. Any use of this nature in the Hartismere Water Resource Zone
(Mid Suffolk District) will be prohibited until confirmation of sufficient water capacity
by the relevant water supply company (currently anticipated from 2032).
To be more effective, this modification needs to specify that the Water Supply
Management Statement will be expected to include a cumulative impact analysis of
proposed alternative water sources…. (or similar).
2.2 MM47 Page 89 New policy supporting text
Importantly, whilst an individual intensive livestock and/or poultry development may
be acceptable, the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments nearby
should also be taken into account.
To be effective and consistent, the word ‘should’ ought to be replaced with ‘must’ –
see (3) in MM48 Page 89:
3 Where an individual intensive livestock or poultry development is considered
acceptable, the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments
nearby must also be taken into account.
2.3 MM48 Page 89 New Policy
To be effective point 4 needs to protect existing residential buildings or sensitive land
uses and should be amended to include the following text:
4 Proposals for residential buildings or other sensitive land uses within 400m of
established intensive livestock and/or poultry units will be subject to special
consideration. Likewise, proposals for intensive livestock and poultry units
within close proximity to existing residential buildings or sensitive land uses
will be subject to special consideration. Such proposals which would be
subject to significant adverse environmental impact will not be permitted.
2.4 MM49 Page 90 Policy Paragraph LP17
4. WATER
a. Comply with the relevant SCC Construction Surface Water Management Plan.
b. Demonstrate protection and where practicable enhancement of groundwater, surface
water features and must not lead to a deterioration in the quality of the environment to help
achieve the objectives254 of the Water Framework Directive.
To be effective this modification needs to address the cumulative impact of an
increase in groundwater abstraction, as evidenced in 1.2 ‘Impact on Water
Resources’ above and as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal (p2) as follows:
22: The NPPF sets out information about the purposes of local plan-making, stating
that plans should
• Be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between planmakers and communities, local organisations, businesses, infrastructure
providers and operators and statutory consultees;
23. In terms of sustainable social, environmental and economic development;
however significant adverse impacts in any of those areas should be avoided.
Also, as evidenced in the Sustainability Appraisal Table 1 Key Sustainability Issues
(p 4) as follows:
“Due to Babergh and Mid Suffolk having numerous rivers running through their areas
(eg the River Gipping and River Brett), there is a need to ensure that not only the
rivers are protected but that all water sources including groundwater are too. Many
areas in BMSDC are covered by Source Protection Zones.”
“Anglian Water provides for Babergh District and much of Mid Suffolk, whilst Essex
and Suffolk Water provides for parts of Mid Suffolk – both districts are prone to
drought. Due to water being imported from elsewhere in the country, there must be
effective and reliable water systems in place to reduce any harm associated with
droughts. There are particular areas under significant water stress, such as within
the Hartismere Water Resource Zone in north east Mid Suffolk. Here, there are
short- and medium- term potable water capacity issues resulting in restrictions upon
new non-domestic water supply until 2032. The likelihood of droughts may increase
as a result of climate change, and it should be noted that there is significant crossover between water resource availability and water quality.”
To be more effective, MM49 should include an additional sub-paragraph, such as:
c. Demonstrate in a Water Supply Management Statement, in liaison with the
relevant water supply company, that ground water abstraction (licenced or
otherwise), does not lead to a deterioration in the quality of the environment, taking
into account the cumulative impacts resulting from similar developments in the
district(s) … (or similar)
2.5 MM57 Page 104 Policy Paragraph LP25
Sustainable construction and design – this modification needs to include ‘non residential development’ in point 4 to be of relevance to new intensive livestock and
poultry building development, specifically to include plans to decommission and
demolish buildings when redundant and return the land to agricultural use in order to
minimise the potential for residential development in the countryside and to protect,
conserve and enhance the landscape and the environment.
Appendices A & B attached.

The parties fully agree with and support the aim of achieving sustainable, energy efficient
development that reduces carbon emissions wherever possible. However, as per previous
representations on this policy, the requirements in this policy to deliver energy and water savings
above mandatory Building Regulation standards still lack the justification required for the policy
to be found sound.

Please see attached full document.

Please see attached full document