MM67.

2. b wording would allow for the closure of a viable facility prior to any development and then a declaration that the facility is not performing any functional role. The wording could be changed to prevent the closure of a facility and subsequent redevelopment where a viable facility was present.

3) c. ...as evidenced in local Neighbourhood Plans.

3) c. ...as evidenced in local Neighbourhood Plans.

We are concerned that this policy area should be robust at the very earliest opportunity.

LP30 Open Spaces deleted, additional text LP28 -
We understand that this policy will be strengthened further with Part 2.

However, we are concerned that this policy area should be robust at the very earliest opportunity.

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.

As amended, Policy LP28 has been reworded so that reference is no longer made to a service or facility being of ‘value’ to the community. Instead, this has been replaced with more quantifiable requirements which are that it is no longer performing a functional role or that it is not needed for an economically viable alternative community use. Pigeon supports this modification to the policy.

Amended Wording
“2. Loss of Services and Facilities
Development involving or comprising of the loss of an existing community facility, service or
premises, which is currently or last used to provide such use, will only be permitted if either:
a. Compensatory provision of an alternative or improved facility will be provided in an
equally accessible or improved location; or
b. The applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that the service or facility is not viable and
is no longer performing a functional role in its current or future form and it is not needed
for an economically viable alternative community use; or
c. The loss or change of use of an existing built community facility is part of a wider public
service estate reorganisation”
This change would directly address the issues outline above; and would ensure that the NHS is
able to effectively manage its estate, disposing of unneeded and unsuitable properties where
necessary, to enable healthcare needs to be met.

Policy LP28 Services and Facilities Within the Community under Main Modification No. MM67
states that the loss of services and facilities will only be permitted if either an alternative or
improved facility is re-provided, or it is demonstrated that the service or facility is no longer viable
which would include a marketing period. Section 3a of Policy LP28 under Main Modification No.
MM67 states that to demonstrate that a service is no longer viable, it would be required to include
“a sustained marketing period normally of 6 months, undertaken at a realistic asking price and
on a range of terms and in an appropriate format by an independent qualified assessor”. NHSPS
recognise the amendment made to section 3a of Policy LP28 and the added wording including
‘normally’ to the 6-month marketing period criterion, but require for further amendments to be
made. NHSPS supports the provision of sufficient, quality community facilities, but objects to
specific wording within this policy. We would request that policy wording amendments are made
to support the principle that where the NHS can demonstrate a health facility will be changed as
part of NHS estate reorganisation programmes, this will be sufficient for the local planning
authority to accept that a facility is neither needed nor viable for its current use, and therefore that
the principle of alternative uses for surplus NHS land and property will be fully supported, without
falling under the requirement of a 6-month marketing period.

In order to enable the NHS to be able to promptly adapt its estate to changing healthcare
requirements, it is essential that all planning policies enable flexibility within the NHS estate. On
this basis, NHSPS would advise the Council that policies aimed at preventing the loss or change
of use of community facilities and assets, where healthcare is included within this definition, can
potentially have a harmful impact on the NHS’s ability to ensure the delivery of facilities and
services for the community. Where such policies are overly restrictive, the disposal of surplus and
unsuitable healthcare facilities for best value can be prevented or delayed, which in turn delays
vital re-investment in the NHS estate.
The NPPF is clear in stating that Local Plans should adopt policies that “take into account and
support the delivery of local strategies to improve health, social and cultural well -being for all
sections of the community” (Paragraph 93b).
It is important that policies consider that some public service providers, such as the NHS, routinely
undertake strategic reviews of their estates. Reviews of the NHS estate are aimed at improving
the provision of healthcare services by increasing efficiencies, including through the disposal of
unneeded and unsuitable properties. This means that capital receipts from disposals, as well as
revenue spending that is saved, can be used to improve facilities and services.
Disposals of surplus sites that are no longer needed for healthcare purposes are often an
important component of funding new and improved health provision in the locality, and this must
not be restricted through imposed marketing requirements.
There are separate, rigorous testing and approval processes employed by the NHS to ensure the
right facilities are in the right place at the right time. An NHSPS property can only be released for
disposal or alternative use once NHS Commissioners have confirmed that it is no longer required
for the delivery of NHS services. Furthermore, NHSPS estate code requires that any property to
be disposed of is first listed on “e-PIMS”, the central database of Government Central Civil Estate
properties and land, which allows other public sector bodies to consider their potential use for it.

line with NPPF paragraph 121, where NHS Commissioners can demonstrate that sites are no
longer required for the provision of services, there should be a presumption that such sites are
suitable for housing (or other appropriate uses) and should not be subject to restrictive policies or
periods of marketing.
With this in mind, we are keen to encourage that flexibility be granted to the NHS via the wording
of any planning policy. The modification which involves additional wording is recognised, but the
marketing requirement in this policy removes the flexibility needed by the NHS to deliver clinical
commissioning strategies and meet the needs of the community. Further amendments to this
policy will ensure that the NHS can promptly and efficiently respond to the healthcare
requirements of residents through the evolution of its estate.
For the reasons outlined above, we recommend that the wording of Policy LP28 be amended as
follows:
Amended Wording
“2. Loss of Services and Facilities
Development involving or comprising of the loss of an existing community facility, service or
premises, which is currently or last used to provide such use, will only be permitted if either:
a. Compensatory provision of an alternative or improved facility will be provided in an
equally accessible or improved location; or
b. The applicant can sufficiently demonstrate that the service or facility is not viable and
is no longer performing a functional role in its current or future form and it is not needed
for an economically viable alternative community use; or
c. The loss or change of use of an existing built community facility is part of a wider public
service estate reorganisation”
This change would directly address the issues outline above; and would ensure that the NHS is
able to effectively manage its estate, disposing of unneeded and unsuitable properties where
necessary, to enable healthcare needs to be met.

In your new text (p44 Modifications Document), you describe what ‘open space’
includes. We strongly suggest that it should include a specific reference to AVRAs.
AVRAs seem to have been removed by stealth; there is no reference to them in the
November 2020 Pre-Submission Document. We suggest an extra bullet point under
the new text beginning ‘Open Spaces includes’ (Modifications Schedule P.44). this
bullet point could be stated simply as ‘All AVRAs’.

We are dismayed at the deletion of LP30 ‘Designated Open Spaces’, as a policy in its
own right and its incorporation into LP28. One of the big takeaways from the
pandemic was the importance of open space (in all its aspects) to the wellbeing and
quality of life of all ages and abilities. In our own parish council we committed our
largest project outlay, at this time, on enhancing part of the public footpath system,
specifically to address the importance of access to open space.
In your new text (p44 Modifications Document), you describe what ‘open space’
includes. We strongly suggest that it should include a specific reference to AVRAs.
AVRAs seem to have been removed by stealth; there is no reference to them in the
November 2020 Pre-Submission Document. We suggest an extra bullet point under
the new text beginning ‘Open Spaces includes’ (Modifications Schedule P.44). this
bullet point could be stated simply as ‘All AVRAs’.
The ’disappearance’ of AVRAs was the focus of one of our representations to the
Inspector. A representative of the Parish Council spoke at one of the Inspector’s
online meetings (September/October 2021?). At this meeting (You Tube > BMSDCJLP
> Matter 1 (question 1.3) consultation) the Inspector said, that in the light of what he
had heard, he was asking BMSDC to look again at Open Space. It was our
representative’s view that an assessment of the place of AVRAs would be part of that
process. The Inspector invited our representative to attend a later session on Open
Space; unfortunately, soon after this the Inspection was paused.
2. Our second representation to the Inspector concerned the redrawing of the village
boundary (without consultation or notification) in the Pre-Submission (Reg 19)
Document November 2020, which moved the two AVRAs on The Street, Shimpling,
from inside the village boundary to outside of it. We note that in the Draft Online
Policy Map, the two AVRAs have been reinstated as falling inside the BUAB and we
welcome this.
We note that your Online Policy Map seems to have reverted entirely to the BUAB
shown on a previous map produced by Babergh dated 2007. However, there was a
small amendment to the BUAB (shown in JLP Preferred Options (Reg 18) Consultation
Document July 2019). In this document the Place Map for Shimpling is shown on
P.243. The BUAB opposite Gents Lane has been extended so that it juts out to
enclose two buildings recently built. We would therefore like to have the Online
Policy Map amended to reflect the change shown in the Place Map on P.243 of the
July 2019 document

Please see attached document.

Please see attached document.

SCC welcomes the changes to this policy and considers it sound.

Please see attached full document.

Please see attached full document.

Please see attached full document

Please see attached full document