LA045 - Land south of Tamage Road, Acton

Showing comments 1 to 18 of 18

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16281

Received: 19/08/2019

Respondent: Linda Critchley

Representation:

Should be a hinterland village not a core. Village has no work. Two local factories shutting down leading to many looking for work. This will only cause harm to a small village. Roads can only just manage the existing traffic and everyone will need a car. Newman's Green is only wide enough for one car.

Full text:

Please see attached document

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16462

Received: 06/09/2019

Respondent: Mr James Lawson

Representation:

Add a new para (below healthcare) as follows “VI. Contributions to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.”

Full text:

Add a new para (below healthcare) as follows “VI. Contributions to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.”

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 16913

Received: 21/09/2019

Respondent: Acton Parish Council

Representation:

Site should not be made available for residential housing for two reasons:
(i) it sits outside the existing Acton Settlement Boundary;
(ii) In view of the fact that approval of 100 dwellings has already been granted within the parish on land south east of Barrow Hill (application 17/02751) development of this
site will have an adverse cumulative impact on community infrastructure.

Draw attention to Policy SP03 para D(iv) that "the cumulative impact of proposals will be a major consideration" in Hinterland Villages.

Parish Council has responded, recommending refusal of planning application DC/19/03126 on the site. Recommend settlement boundary is redrawn to exclude this site.

Full text:

Please see attached for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17062

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher Moss

Representation:

Infrastructure – sewage disposal, telephone/broadband service, road systems, electricity supply.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Support

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17397

Received: 26/09/2019

Respondent: Bloor Homes Eastern

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

Acton is a highly sustainable location for growth, which benefits from a range of existing shops and services, including a convenience store, public house, primary school, village hall, church, recreation ground/play area and allotments.
Furthermore, Acton also benefits from regular bus services, providing frequent connections to Bury St Edmunds, Sudbury and Colchester. As has been demonstrated, the site is suitable, available, achievable and viable, and is deliverable within the first five years of the plan period. As recognised within the Joint Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation materials, there are no constraints which would affect the suitability of the site for residential development. Bloor Homes are therefore supportive of site LA045 for residential development.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17684

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Aaron McCormack

Representation:

Acton is a small, quaint village with basic infrastructure. It is surrounded by minor roads which struggle with the current amount of traffic using them. Any more vehicles pose a serious safety risk to the entire village and surrounding area. The sewage system for the entire village is basic and is already at full capacity. With the other housing development beginning behind the high street Acton's facilities are stretched enough. Schools and health services in the area are also at capacity and the two biggest employers in the area are closing down so there are little employment opportunities.

Full text:

Acton is a small, quaint village with basic infrastructure. It is surrounded by minor roads which struggle with the current amount of traffic using them. Any more vehicles pose a serious safety risk to the entire village and surrounding area. The sewage system for the entire village is basic and is already at full capacity. With the other housing development beginning behind the high street Acton's facilities are stretched enough. Schools and health services in the area are also at capacity and the two biggest employers in the area are closing down so there are little employment opportunities.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17700

Received: 28/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Bloomfield

Representation:

Objection to Acton's re-designation as a core village, lacking the range and variety found in nearby core villages of Long Melford and Lavenham, with just one shop and pub.
Housing development doubled the village size in 1970s.
In 1993 the Planning Inspector said Sudbury Road junction with High Street was below standard and unable to be improved for the number of houses it served.
No metalled footpaths from Acton to surrounding settlements. (Sudbury 6.5km, Long Melford 3km from Acton).
Delphi factory closing with limited alternative employment opportunities.
Land south of Tamage Road already subject of existing planning application DC/19/03126.

Full text:

Objection to Acton's re-designation as a core village, lacking the range and variety found in nearby core villages of Long Melford and Lavenham, with just one shop and pub.
Housing development doubled the village size in 1970s.
In 1993 the Planning Inspector said Sudbury Road junction with High Street was below standard and unable to be improved for the number of houses it served.
No metalled footpaths from Acton to surrounding settlements. (Sudbury 6.5km, Long Melford 3km from Acton).
Delphi factory closing with limited alternative employment opportunities.
Land south of Tamage Road already subject of existing planning application DC/19/03126.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17800

Received: 29/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Simon Oldfield

Representation:

When the council's own contributions throughout these documents are verbose (neither clear nor concise) it's pretty laughable that Council Tax Payers are squeezed for space. Local democracy ?
The plan should uphold Acton's CURRENT status as a Hinterland village and this unsupportable and fiercely opposed Tamage Road development should be ruled out at a stroke. The planning authority appears to have colluded with the developer in fictitiously elevating Acton to Core village status - when this is merely a highly contentious proposal in the JLP. Again - this flies in the face of local democracy.

Full text:

When the council's own contributions throughout these documents are verbose (neither clear nor concise) it's pretty laughable that Council Tax Payers are squeezed for space. Local democracy ?
The plan should uphold Acton's CURRENT status as a Hinterland village and this unsupportable and fiercely opposed Tamage Road development should be ruled out at a stroke. The planning authority appears to have colluded with the developer in fictitiously elevating Acton to Core village status - when this is merely a highly contentious proposal in the JLP. Again - this flies in the face of local democracy.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 17917

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Nigel Chapman

Representation:

Facts and evidence establishing that Acton should be classified as a hinterland village not core.

Full text:

I attended the Joint Local Plan Consultation Meeting held at Lavenham Village Hall on Wednesday 14th August.
In the presence of Katherine Steel (Assistant Director of Corporate Resources), Matt Deacon (Senior Policy Planner) clearly explained that the hamlet, hinterland and core classifications used within the document were allocated as part of a desk top exercise.
This methodology meant that they did not always represent the situation on the ground and that if I was able to evidence to you the allocation of Acton as core contained within the Joint Local Plan was incorrect it would be changed to hinterland.
The "other retail" category for the Acton point scoring should be 0, the facilities are outside the Acton boundary. There is no minimum or other distance set according to the Joint Local Plan.
The “Strategic Employment” category (Delphi and Advent) is more than 5km away and should score 0.
The Bull Lane Industrial site is a lot of Small Scale Employment Units which only score 1 as a whole.
The “Town/Urban Area” (according to the metric is Sudbury) category is more than 5km away and should score 0.
If you deduct the points that I have mentioned, then Acton should score 14.

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18110

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Mr Stephen Le Grys

Representation:

This development will interfer with a Badgers Sett.

Badgers are a protected species afforded protection in law.

Acton has 5 key protected wild life species. The species are;

Badger
Bat
Great Crested Newt
Otter
Water Vole

Babergh Council Leader John Ward, has stated a commitment to protecting wild life, their habitate and wildlife corridors. I would like the Council to honor this commitment and not allow development in Acton.

Full text:

Please see attachment

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18207

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr David Payne

Representation:

This site was subject to a previous District Plan inquiry 25 years ago. the inspector favoured the objectors then, nothing has changed for that decision to be different in fact the infrastructure within the village has disappeared since then.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18213

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mrs Jane Payne

Representation:

This site was subject to a previous District Plan inquiry 25 years ago. the inspector favoured the objectors then, nothing has changed for that decision to be different in fact the infrastructure within the village has disappeared since then.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18236

Received: 27/09/2019

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Spurgeon

Representation:

This site was subject to a previous District Plan inquiry 25 years ago. the inspector favoured the objectors then, nothing has changed for that decision to be different in fact the infrastructure within the village has disappeared since then.

Full text:

Please see attached consultation response

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18304

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

Representation:

A flood risk assessment should be carried out to identify suitable mitigation and a deliverable strategy for the disposal of surface water. Where possible development should avoid proportions of the site with predicted or historic flooding.
Nearby Rights of Way should be protected and enhanced to enable access to the countryside and enable active transport. In particular footpath 15 should be enhanced.
There is a need to construct along the site frontage and link this to the existing footway network. This should be recognised in the IDP and required within the planning policy.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Attachments:

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18534

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Site LA045 lies to the south of the existing settlement of Acton and is bounded by existing roads which will help contain any further development. There are no known designated heritage assets within the site boundary which would be affected by the development of this site however, the Grade II listed Vicarage lies to the east of the site. Any development of the site has the potential to impact upon this heritage asset.

Full text:

Please see attachment for full submission.

Comment

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 18676

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Anglian Water

Representation:

There is an existing rising main (pressurised sewer) located within proposed allocation at LA045 - Tamage Road, Acton. Where this is the case, the site layout should be designed to take this into account. The existing asset(s) should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing asset(s) within the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

We would therefore ask that the following wording or similar be included in relevant allocation policies:

‘There is an existing sewer(s)/water mains (delete as appropriate) in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take these into account’

Full text:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Preferred Options. The following response is submitted on behalf of Anglian Water.

I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response.

Part 1 – Objectives and Strategic Policies

Policy SP08 – Infrastructure Provision

Anglian Water is supportive of Policy SP08 as it requires that applicants should consider the impact of development proposals on existing infrastructure.

Policy SP10 Climate Change

Policy SP10 as drafted states that all major development proposals will require to take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting climate change. As part of which reference is made to water supply.

However Policy LP23 of the Local Plan refers to the optional higher water efficiency standard applying to all residential development. Therefore the wording which appears in the first paragraph of Policy SP10 is inconsistent with the Local Policies which form part of the Local Plan. We would therefore suggest that reference to all development proposals as opposed to major development proposals.

Part 2 – Local Policies

Policy LP16 Environmental Protection

2. Pollution

Reference is made to consider the potential for amenity impacts as a result of new development proposals arising from polluting activities. Consideration should also be given to on amenity impacts for future residents or occupiers of residential development when is adjacent or close to existing uses.

Our concern is to prevent encroachment of occupied land and buildings which could give rise to future amenity loss and impose additional constraints on the operation of our assets particularly water recycling centres (formerly wastewater treatments works) and pumping stations. Planning permission must only be granted where it has been demonstrated that the proposed development would not be adversely affected by the normal operation.

It is therefore suggested that the following text is added to the follow point a.:

‘Development will be required to demonstrate that amenity impacts are avoided where it is located adjacent to or close to existing uses with the potential to have amenity impacts. This would include an assessment of any identified amenity impacts and how the continued operation of the existing use(s) would not prejudiced ’

Policy LP23 Sustainable Design and Construction

The Environment Agency in their document entitled ‘Water Stressed Areas Final Classification (2013)’has advised the Secretary of State that the areas classified as 'Serious' in the final classification table should be designated as 'Areas of serious water stress'. The Anglian Water company area is considered to be such an area and includes Babergh and Mid Suffolk (the plan area).

The Housing Standards Review Cost Impact report (2014) prepared for DCLG advises that the cost of introducing such a standard would be between £6-£9 per dwelling.

The above report is available to view at the following address:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/353387/021c_Cost_Report_11th_Sept_2014_FINAL.pdf

Anglian Water consider that the addition of the optional higher water efficiency standard and associated cost will not make the Plan unviable.

Therefore Anglian Water fully supports the inclusion of the optional higher water efficiency standard.

Anglian Water as a water company is keen to encourage increased water efficiency/re-use as part of new residential developments. To support this we are offering financial incentives for residential developers that demonstrate that water use would be 100 litres/per person/per day at the point of connection.

As outlined in our current Developer charges the fixed element of zonal charge for water supply would be waived where this can be demonstrated. We are also actively working with developers to install green water systems in new homes including rainwater/stormwater harvesting and water recycling systems. Further details of Anglian Water’s approach to green water proposals is available to view at:
https://www.anglianwater.co.uk/developers/green-water.aspx

It is therefore proposed that the wording of final sentence of Policy LP23 is amended as follows:

‘5. All residential developments are encouraged to achieve 100 litres per person per day. This is in addition to criterion 1.c in accordance with recommendation from Anglian Water. Water reuse and recycling and rainwater and stormwater harvesting and other suitable measures should be incorporated wherever feasible to reduce demand on mains water supply.’

Policy LP26 Flood Risk

Reference is made to directing development to locations with the least impact on water resources. Water resources for public water supply are managed by water companies on a larger geographical scale than individual development sites. It is therefore suggested that reference to water resources is removed from Policy LP26.#

15.74 – Supporting Text

Reference is made to documents produced by Suffolk County Council and CIRIA relating to surface water management. The text should also refer to Anglian Water’s Surface Water Policy, SuDs Adoption Handbook and Sewers for Adoption Version 8 (which includes SuDs features for the first time).

Policy LP27 Sustainable Drainage Systems

We note that reference is made to developers consulting with the relevant authorities in relation to wastewater treatment capacity. It is for Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker to comment on the available capacity at the receiving water recycling centre and public sewerage network as part of the planning application process rather than Suffolk County Council in their role as LLFA for surface water management.

There is also a need to emphasise that the use of SuDs will be positively supported in principle given the benefits of such measures. As well as distinguishing between surface water and foul drainage as set out in the Policy LP27 as drafted which should be separated wherever possible.

In addition the final paragraph of Policy LP27 refers to adoption by the SuDS Approval Body. Schedule 3 of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010 was not implemented as originally intended. As such Suffolk County Council is a statutory consultee for surface water management rather than a SuDS Approval Body.

It is therefore proposed that Policy LP27 be amended as follows:

‘2. Require all development to mitigate against existing and potential flood risks (including fluvial, surface, coastal and sewer) through application of a sequential approach to flood risk and implementation of Sustainable Drainage Systems, and risks to ground or surface water quality.

3. Developers will be required to demonstrate they have consulted with relevant authorityies regarding wastewater treatment capacity (Anglian Water and the Local Flood Authority at Suffolk County Council). Demonstrate that capacity within the foul sewerage network and receiving water recycling centre is available or can be made available in time to serve the development.

3. 4. If new development or redevelopment proposals require surface water management measures changes to the drainage network (including rain water harvesting and greywater recycling), adequate mitigation which avoids any risks and/or detrimental impacts must be provided and implemented SuDS Approval Board adoption prior to occupation. Further details of maintenance and adoption by an appropriate body should also be provided at application stage. ’

Policy LP31 Managing Infrastructure Provision

Anglian Water is supportive of Policy LP31 as it requires that planning permission will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that there is or will be sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the development.

Part 3 – Babergh Settlements

We note that a significant number of allocation sites have been identified for both councils.

The allocation policies as drafted cross refer to Local Plan policies generally. As such the expectation is that water supply, water efficiency/re-use, foul drainage, sewage treatment and surface water management etc. is addressed in the other part of the plan. However the policies in the earlier part of the plan do not appear to have considered the encroachment of Anglian Water’s existing assets.

For example there is an existing rising main (pressurised sewer) located within proposed allocation at LAA045 - Tamage Road, Acton.

Where this is the case, the site layout should be designed to take this into account; this existing infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and repair could be restricted. The existing asset(s) should be located in highways or public open space. If it is not possible to accommodate the existing asset(s) within the design then diversion may be possible under section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

We would therefore ask that the following wording or similar be included in relevant allocation policies:

‘There is an existing sewer(s)/water mains (delete as appropriate) in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take these into account’

Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know.

Regards,
Stewart Patience
Spatial Planning Manager

Anglian Water Services Limited

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19105

Received: 30/09/2019

Respondent: Suffolk Constabulary

Agent: Lawson Planning Partnership Ltd.

Representation:

Insert a new paragraph (below healthcare provision) as follows:
VI. Contributions, to the satisfaction of the LPA, towards police facilities provision.

Full text:

Please see attachments for full submission.

Attachments:

Object

BMSDC Joint Local Plan Preferred Options (interactive)

Representation ID: 19332

Received: 24/09/2019

Respondent: Mr M Poulter

Representation:

Land at Tammage Road is currently outside of the residential boundary of the village and was subject to a planning inquiry some years ago. The Inspectorate upheld that the site could not be build upon and nothing has changed to change these reasons. Infrastructure and services have actually disappeared from the village since then.

Full text:

See attached full representation

Attachments: