Chilton

Showing comments 1 to 17 of 17

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16519

Received: 11/09/2019

Respondent: Sudbury Town Council

Representation:

Sudbury Town Council are also concerned that land adjacent to Chilton Church has not been identified as future cemetery land in this new Local Plan – it was included in the previous Local Plan

Full text:

Please see below the comments from Sudbury Town Council in response to the draft Local plan:

SP02 – Affordable housing – STC have concerns about ‘clawback’ and whether this has ever been tested – for example Walnuttree development – if proved, money could be allocated for affordable housing elsewhere in Sudbury.
Suggest adding following statement to policy – a clawback should be considered if the viability study proves to be too conservative

SP08 – Infrastructure Provision – no reference made to Sudbury relief road nor Strategic Routing – suggest adding the following statement in paragraph a) – commitment to improving highways in Sudbury and improving road infrastructure

SP09 – Cross boundary mitigation of effects on Protected Habitats Sites – add – want to see route of emerging Gainsborough Trail protected

SP10 – Climate Change – welcome this policy but words ‘encourage and support’ are not strong enough to achieve what the policy is aiming to do

LP03 – Residential Extensions and Conversions – would like to see bungalows given more protection and prevented from conversion to houses – there is a shortage of this type of property – request that wording such as in SP6 be added ‘ bungalows to remain in perpetuity through the removal of permitted development rights’

LP07 Affordable Housing – recommend statement regarding clawback be added as recommended in Policy SP02

LP17 and 18 – Biodiversity and Landscape – fully support these policies but concerns about ability to enforce proposals

LP23 – Sustainable Construction and Design – concerns about quoting only 2013 legislation – recommend addition of following statement ‘or any subsequent more recent legislation or council policy which would lead to a greater reduction in C02 emissions’

Sudbury Town Council are also concerned that land adjacent to Chilton Church has not been identified as future cemetery land in this new Local Plan – it was included in the previous Local Plan

All other proposed policies were supported.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16846

Received: 20/09/2019

Respondent: Great Waldingfield Parish Council

Representation:

A combination of traffic both residential and commercial will use the B1115 Lavenham onto Bury St Edmunds, then Ipswich and Colchester using Valley farm rd. Human nature being what it is people will look for shorter alternative routes and not use the A134. This all adds on to a very unsuitable infrastructure. Valley farm rd itself is not suitable for high volumes of traffic; it is already experiencing speeding traffic from both directions. Should the additional 20 dwellings from the GW built up boundary go ahead then these will have the additional difficulty of being some distance from village amenities whilst also having to cross a busy road, not the ideal especially if there are young children.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17096

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Preservation Society

Representation:

We note that the settlement boundary is drawn tight to the health centre and excludes the land to the north and east. This is welcome as we consider that any future development of this land must respect the important heritage assets of Chilton Hall and Chilton Church.

Full text:

We note that the settlement boundary is drawn tight to the health centre and excludes the land to the north and east. This is welcome as we consider that any future development of this land must respect the important heritage assets of Chilton Hall and Chilton Church.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17720

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Sudbury Area Green Belt Group

Representation:

Site SS0590 has the area's best wildlife, and is a valued green access space, with superb views of Chilton Church. Based on Natural England's assessment, we criticise biodiversity's non-appearance in the site assessment, and ask how it could be compensated for? To build alongside massive development at Chilton Woods is illogical.

Full text:

SS0590 Land east of Waldingfield Road and north of Church Field Road, Sudbury (HENNEY FIELD, beside Health Centre):
We must oppose this proposal on several grounds, and point out this is the only case in the Sudbury/ Gt Cornard are where we oppose any building (other than possibly on the west edge furthest from the Church). First, why on earth would this be considered in addition to the massive adjacent developments to the east, which include the Chilton Woods plan? Second, why do we often hear that a decision to build, merely follows on from this area being included in the Industrial Estate, when it never has been included in any area earmarked for industry/ employment? Third, its quality as heritage, wildlife habitat and open green space is of the very highest for a site so close to town, and apart from the riverside meadows, is the land best fitting the Accessible Natural Greenspace definition. We object that the SHELAA assessment’s constraints identified for this site, refer to Highways and Heritage, but not to Biodiversity or Open Space, and we strongly urge they will need to figure in any planning decision.

The relevant history here (see "Chilton, the first 3,000 years" by David Burnett and Valerie Herbert) is that the farmland was bought from the County Council by Chiron Diagnostics, who planned a prestige headquarters building on the corner now occupied by the Health Centre, with the rest of the land to be landscaped; so when this was pre-empted by Bayer buying the Chiron company, and the land eventually passing to Caverswall Holdings and the NHS, there was no precedent for extensive building; and in our view the local councils have failed in not enabling Caverswall’s employment proceeding at Chilton Woods. Planning permission was at one stage given here to Caverswall but quashed on judicial review; one often hears locally that the permission was overturned on "technical grounds" however the reasons were genuine planning ones about the inadequate regard for the damaging nature of the approval.

Looking at the current assets, we see that this site is exceptional as accessible natural greenspace. Until the owners wilfully disced this land into ruts in 2017, walkers were to be seen here at every hour of every day. It is the nearest large space to the most populated part of Sudbury. The view of the Church (and Grange Farm etc beyond) is superb; and this area would seem to merit special protection under the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment Final Report - March 2018.

Another particular asset is high biodiversity, since after the 2017 discing damage, Natural England made an Environmental Impact Assessment showing two types of grassland Priority Habitat (in 2019 we provided Mr Philip Ishbell of Babergh with Natural England’s letter of 21/9/17); we have an e-mail from James Meyer of Suffolk Wildlife Trust, saying “In Babergh, County Wildlife Sites and Priority habitats both seem to fall under their ‘Core Strategy policy CS15’ so receive similar recognition”. A previous ecologist’s report for a planning application was deficient in not identifying these grassland types.

We add that the NHS portion of this land did not meet this Natural England Designation, but that the need here for strategic services for Sudbury, would seem to be much greater than for a private development.

After the discing, Natural England wrote to advise “these works were in breach of the Regulations”, and their letter of 21/9/17 stated “Natural England is required to consider whether the operations would have required consent …... we have concluded that, in the light of the information available, the project carried out and the type of land affected would have fallen within the scope of the Regulations …... This is because the land …... supports the following environmental assets: …...”. The letter then stated “our grassland specialists has confirmed that the discing is not likely to have caused any long-term damage, and that the disced areas would still be considered to be priority habitat …… the grassland will return within a short space of time”, so we must expect restoration by the owners of this whole field; and, for instance, the exceptional assemblage of scarce butterflies, though now reduced, still thrives where the grass has been trodden flat again by walkers, even though the disced area has been invaded by thistles and the grass can’t now be mown.

If this biodiverse part of the site were built on, the phrase "enhancement for biodiversity" would be rendered pretty meaningless. Alternatively, the necessary “compensation” would have to support the great numbers of uncommon butterflies that were there before the owners wilfully disced it in 2017; by converting the County Council land between that site and Chilton Church into grassland; and logically require the developer to pay for this land and the work.

We welcome Babergh’s recommendation to restrict development on this land to 25 houses on heritage grounds, we look forward therefore to a reinstatement of the land that will prevent it becoming either an expanse of thistles growing up with trees, or a set of suburban gardens, and to a final decision that any building will not diminish the special wildlife here.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18016

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Tony Foster

Representation:

land to the north east/east/south east of the Siam Health Centre - Site not allocated for employment use, seems from the maps that it does not appear to be available to build houses on. Developers plans show proposed houses to be extremely close to the boundary of the Chilton Hall estate/gardens obscuring views into and out of the historic area. How can the developers apply for planning permission on this site when the area is not up for development? If there were to be any development on the site, surely it should be health based.

Full text:

Dear sir
I am writing to protest about the development company called Caverswall and the West Suffolk NHS trust in their attempt to develop the site to the north east/east/south east of the Siam Health centre. Originally their outline application called for 235 houses on the site. But very shortly before a planned meeting with Chilton Parish council was due to take place, a revised plan was published. This revised and late arriving proposal called for 190 houses and a care home.
The site I believe is not allocated for employment use and it seems from the maps in the JLP, that it does not appear to be available to build houses on. Some of the land on this site (closer towards Waldingfield Rd) was, I thought, to be NHS owned land. In the developers application however, a care home is planned to be elsewhere on the site. It was also noted that some of the proposed houses on the eastern part of the site would be extremely close to the boundary of the Chilton Hall estate/gardens, thereby showing another example of visually obscuring views into and out of the historic area.
How can the developers apply for planning permission on this site when the area is not up for development?
If there were to be any development on this site, surely it should health based, I.e. a pharmacy within the health centre. A walk in medical centre, which may be needed to cope with burgeoning population of Sudbury. With Chilton Woods (up to 1150 dwellings), the Great Cornard site (up to 500 dwellings) and the Orchard site north of the Waldingfield Rd.

Thank you for your attention
Tony Foster

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18020

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: The Gardens Trust

Representation:

We have objected to several applications affecting the setting of Chilton Hall and its Registered park and are glad to note that the area of land fronting Church Field Road (which Caverswall/Prolog have previously sought to develop as warehousing) has now been ‘whitelisted’ and is not allocated for any development at all. We fully support the comments within Appendix 1 of the Heritage
Sensitivity Assessment (see footnote), and we are glad that your officers have recognised the heritage significance of this area. The Gardens Trust strongly supports the removal of the allocation of employment use for the site and suggests that there should also be no future allocation for residential housing on this particularly sensitive area of land.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18026

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: 1961 ADRIAN BECKHAM

Representation:

Support the 'whitelisting' of land fronting Church Field Road, Chilton. There is an important manorial connection between the Church and Hall. Developers propose that housing would be built right up to the strip of woodland which is the only barrier between Chilton Hall and the historic park and gardens. Heritage organisations such as Historic England , the Gardens Trust, Suffolk Gardens Trust ,the Churches Conservation Trust and Chilton Parish Council and I have objected to the past proposed development on this site because of the harm that would be caused to St Mary’s Church, Chilton Hall, the listed wall around the walled garden and the historic park and gardens themselves. If the site is to be developed surely it should be for healthcare purposes only.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18085

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Tom Mauder

Representation:

SHELAA site ref: SS0590
I wish to express my objection to the proposal to use the above site for housing.
Whilst I am aware of the government pressure to build more homes, as well as the shortage of money in the NHS, I am quite certain that this proposal is a serious mistake. The NHS land at Churchfield Road is essential for the inevitable need to expand the health centre within a few years. The foresight to have extra land available is now proposed to be wasted for short term financial benefit.
The population growth that is expected locally due to the large number of houses being built or planned around Sudbury, together with the ever increasing demand for NHS services means that the site will be invaluable in the near future to provide the services the local community will need. Additionally the expanded use of the Health centre will also require extra parking space.
We are used to house building outstripping essential infrastructure especially roads, but to go forward with house building on this site seems to me to be entirely illogical short-termism.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18151

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Caverswall Enterprises Ltd / Highbridge Properties PLC & West Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust

Agent: Vincent & Gorbing Ltd

Representation:

We object to the non allocation of Land north of Church Field Road for residential development.


• The site is allocated for employment use in the adopted Local Plan
• Part of the site was considered suitable for residential use in the 2017 SHELAA
• Part of the site was considered suitable for employment use in the 2017 SHELAA
• Part of the site is considered suitable for residential use in the 2019 SHELAA
• There is no evidence to explain why the site has not been allocated for residential development
• The site is suitable, available and achievable

Full text:

For Babergh:

Paragraph 9.8 in the draft JLP states that specific development locations are identified on the Policies Map at the end of the document. There is no specific policy in the plan setting out a list of the proposed housing allocations, or the contribution that each allocation will make towards the total housing requirement.

Paragraph 9.8 continues to say that the new development locations have been identified with consideration to consultation responses, the availability and deliverability of sites, the preferred spatial distribution pattern, the sensitivities and constraints of the area and the infrastructure capacity and opportunities. Sites judged to perform best overall against the above criteria have been proposed in the draft local plan while alternative sites have been discounted because they are ‘less consistent with the criteria overall’.

Land north of Church Field Road, Sudbury is allocated in the adopted Local Plan for employment use. The draft JLP is proposing to de-allocate the land from employment use.

Details of the site were submitted in August 2016 through the ‘call for sites’ process; at that time the site was promoted for mixed use to include both residential and employment use. The 2017 SHELAA concluded that for housing use, the site was suitable and achievable. Highways, impact on the structural landscaping belt bordering the site and impact of the industrial estate to the north of the site were identified as requiring further investigation. In summary, the SHELAA concluded that partial development of the site would potentially be considered suitable, taking identified constraints into consideration.

The 2017 SHELAA concluded that ‘the site is assessed as suitable for employment development, but consideration needs to be given to the mitigation of Chilton Hall immediately to the north east of the site. The site could form an extension to the existing employment site of Chilton Woods Industrial Estate to the south’.

The 2017 SHELAA therefore considered Land to the north of Church Field Road to be suitable, available and achievable for both housing (partial) and employment.

Land north of Church Field Road (Site SS0590) has been considered as part of the SHELAA Update (July 2019). The SHELAA Update states that the site is considered to be suitable, available and achievable. Under the ‘Suitability’ assessment, the same considerations that were identified in the 2017 SHELAA are highlighted (highways, TPO landscape belt and neighbouring employment uses), and a further consideration (heritage) has been included for further investigation.

In concluding, the 2019 SHELAA states that ‘The site is potentially considered suitable for residential development, taking identified constraints into consideration. However only part development (road frontage along Waldingfield Road and Church Field Road) recommended to mitigate heritage impact’.

It is assumed that the new heritage constraint identified in the 2019 SHELAA is based upon the Heritage Settlement Sensitivities Assessment for Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils, which advises that Chilton Hall is still discernibly separate from the edge of Sudbury and would be susceptible to any development which infilled this small section of open landscape between it and the edge of Sudbury. The church and hall have a highly significant historic relationship, they are therefore of particular susceptibility to any development on the land directly between the two.

It should however be noted that the Report also advises in respect of areas such as Sudbury that are encroaching upon surrounding parishes such as Chilton, that for future development the importance of the siting of the heritage assets and their historic relationship and setting to other assets needs to be preserved.

It is considered that land north of Church Field Road does not materially contribute to the setting or significance of any heritage assets and it is therefore contented that the proposed allocation of the site for residential use would not cause harm to the significance of any designated heritage asset. As part of any allocation it would be anticipated that evidence to justify this position would be required.

Despite the conclusions drawn in the SHELAA, Land north of Church Field Road has not been allocated for housing development in the draft JLP, and there is no evidence to justify this position, and no explanation as to why it was not considered as an alternative to the allocated sites (Sites LA039, LA040, LA041 and LA042), within the town in the Sustainability Assessment. The proposed settlement boundary has been drawn tightly around Church Field Road and Waldingfield Road, preventing the land from coming forward in the future as part of the 20% buffer allowed for in Policy SP04.

We object to the non allocation of Land north of Church Field Road for residential development.

In summary,
• The site is currently allocated for employment use in the adopted Local Plan, reflecting it’s suitability as a site for development.
• Part of the site was considered suitable for residential use in the 2017 SHELAA
• Part of the site was considered suitable for employment use in the 2017 SHELAA
• Part of the site is considered suitable for residential use in the 2019 SHELAA
• There is no evidence or justification to explain why the site has not been allocated for residential development
• The site is suitable, available and achievable

Paragraph 120 in the NPPF states:

‘Where the local planning authority considers there to be no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for the use allocated in a plan:
a) they should, as part of plan updates, reallocate the land for a more deliverable use that can help to address identified needs (or, if appropriate, deallocate a site which is undeveloped)….

Given that there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward for employment use on the land, it is considered that the site should be re-allocated for residential development in order to meet the identified housing need.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19006

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: The Churches Conservation Trust

Representation:

The Churches Conservation Trust owns St. Mary’s Church on the corner of the proposed development site, we are concerned that additional houses, without additional infrastructure facilities may cause problems of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood. As the Joint Local Plan has not allocated the site, we would oppose the planned development, until the infrastructure has been more carefully considered, in conjunction with the Joint Local Plan and impending Neighbourhood plan.

In addition, we would welcome consultation regarding the Neighbourhood Plan, to see how your community’s church can be included into the infrastructure of the village, and in particular, with regards to the use of the building as a community venue for a variety of purposes, not all of them specifically religious.

Full text:

Dear Sir,
As a representative of The Churches Conservation Trust who owns St. Mary’s Church on the corner of the proposed development site, we are concerned that additional houses, without additional infrastructure facilities may cause problems of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood.

As the Joint Local Plan has not identified Church Fields Road to be a development site, our view would be for us to oppose the planned development, until the infrastructure for the whole of Chilton, and in particular, the area around our church has been more carefully considered, in conjunction with the Joint Local Plan and impending Neighbourhood plan.

In addition, we would welcome consultation regarding the Neighbourhood Plan, to see how your community’s church can be included into the infrastructure of the village, and in particular, with regards to the use of the building as a community venue for a variety of purposes, not all of them specifically religious.

If we are able to attend subsequent meetings, please do let me know.

Kind regards,

Simon Wiles

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19242

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Gardens Trust

Representation:

We are very pleased to see that your emerging Joint Local Plan is proposing that the land immediately to the south of Chilton Hall up to Church Field Road will be “whitelisted” and immune from any future development. We support this wholeheartedly and trust this will prevent any proposals for development now or in the future on this area.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19251

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Lady Hart of Chilton

Representation:

Some of the description about the heritage assets and the locality is inaccurate and thus downplays the significance of the heritage assets. Object to the use of the word 'Curtilage' and an inaccurate term to use in relation to the historic park and gardens.Descriptions elsewhere about other heritage assets contain more detail. Accordingly a revised paragraph is proposed in full submission (page 2).

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19252

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Lady Hart of Chilton

Representation:

I wholeheartedly support the drawing of the settlement boundary tight on the Health Centre thereby excluding the land to the south and east including the site marked in green with an x in full submission. Strongly support that the site is no longer allocated for any development to conserve and preserve the heritage assets from further harm. This corresponds with what CPC intend to propose/achieve in our emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19372

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Chilton Parish Council

Representation:

Regarding the place maps and the section on Chilton which is at page 159 and 160 of JLP some of the description about the heritage assets and the locality is inaccurate and thus downplays the significance of the heritage assets. We object to the use of the word “Curtilage” as an inaccurate term to use in relation to the historic park and gardens.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19374

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Chilton Parish Council

Representation:

We wholeheartedly support the drawing of the settlement boundary tight to the Health Centre thereby excluding the land to the south and the east.We also strongly support that this land marked green should be whitelisted and no longer allocated for any development to conserve and preserve the heritage assets from further harm.“However, the hall is still discernibly separate from the edge of Sudbury and would be susceptible to any development which infilled this small section of open landscape between it and the edge of Sudbury.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19726

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Valerie Herbert

Representation:

I write to support land at Church Field road remaining undeveloped for the following reasons:
Heritage Sensitivity Assessment Report recognised the importance of the historical relationship between Chilton Hall, its garden and the Church.
This will be challenged by an application to build up to 130 properties on the site. This would deny the opportunity to recognise this as open space which is badly needed.
Chilton Hall and St Mary's are both unique and have much cultural worth as the only remaining historic buildings in Chilton have significance far beyond thier boundaries.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19925

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Maybury

Representation:

Support site SS0948 not being in the JLP. It is Not suitable for development as entrance would be off the residential area and to a small roundabout where there is an HGV limitation. No direct safe traffic route to main roads. Heritage buildings abound the boundaries including the public house. No safe pedestrian or cycle routes into the village further. Should be disregarded.

Full text:

see scanned submission

Attachments: