1866/17 Finningham Road, Old Newton 2 Date of Response 22.1.18

Consultee Comments for Planning Application 1866/17

Application Summary Application Number: 1866/17 Address: Finningham Road Old Newton Suffolk Proposal: Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application Case Officer: Gemma Walker

Consultee Details Name: Mrs Karen Price Address: 1 Canhams Farm Cottages, Cow Green, Bacton Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 4HH Email: [email protected] On Behalf Of: Old Newton With Dagworth And Gipping Parish Clerk

Comments This application was discussed again at an extra planning meeting of 25th July 2018. Previous comments submitted by the parish council are still deemed valid and in addition, in February 2018 Historic England registered the moat as an ancient monumental site. Cllrs felt that the setting of this farmhouse and the moats are the most important aspect of this particular piece of land that is still strongly felt should be preserved. This site is not the parish council preferred site for housing development within the village area and sufficient houses to meet the villages needs could be constructed on more appropriate and available sites.

The damage to the setting is done by the whole development and will be marred by the whole development. NPPF highlighted the significance of the site, the sum total of the house moat and setting need to be preserved. Parish Council believe that this application would do untold harm to the setting. The development is too big It has been previously reported that the application of 56 houses in phase 1 is in excess of the needs of the village. Increased traffic movements on the B1113 because of the proposed development site still causes concern. The current infrastructure, including the small size of the village school is insufficient to deal with a development of this magnitude and there will therefore be a need for substantial upgrade of infrastructure facilities were this application be granted. Drainage issues are still a concern and historic issues and problems have not been addressed and this development will only exacerbate the drainage issues.

Historic England response did not object in principle to the application but did identify a number of issues that in their opinion does not meet planning criteria. The Parish Council believe this to be the case and would like to reinforce the comments made by Historic England. The Historic England response states that in policy terms the application fails paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Recommendations were made for the applicants to speak to the county archaeological advisors with regard to a programme of archaeological works under para 141. There is presently no evidence to support that this has been done. It is questionable as to whether the development meets MSDC policies with regard to protection of designated heritage assets. It is the Parish Councils belief that this application does not meet the tests for sustainable development set out in paras 14 and 17 on heritage grounds.

Cllrs agree with and support all comments made in objection in March 2018 and wish to highlight that the village has more than enough housing met by other sites that have approved outline planning that will not impact on the historic site of an Ancient Monument Site. The Parish Council know that we have other sites better suited for sustainable development. The Parish Council recognise that the applicants have had various conversations and have modified their plans to try to accommodate comments received, however they are still not convinced that this application is appropriate in terms of site and size for the village of Old Newton. All Cllrs voted in favour to object to this application on the above grounds.

Unanimous vote. Application Objected.

Karen Hall-Price Parish Clerk & RFO - Old Newton with Dagworth & Gipping Parish Council 01/08/2018

Your Ref: 1866/17 Our Ref: 570\CON\4694\17 Date: 19th December 2017 Highways Enquiries to: [email protected]

All planning enquiries should be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Email: [email protected]

The Planning Officer Mid Suffolk District Council Council Offices 131 High Street Ipswich Suffolk IP6 8DL

For the Attention of: Gemma Walker

Dear Sir,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - CONSULTATION RETURN 1866/17

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application LOCATION: Finningham Road, Old Newton, IP14 4EG ROAD CLASS: B1113

Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority recommends that any permission which that Planning Authority may give should include the conditions shown below:

I refer to the recently submitted revised layout and access drawings. These are numbered 7129/06 for access and visibility splays and 7129/01/D for overall site layout.

Drawing No. 7129/01/D, layout, overcomes the layout issues which I highlighted in my earlier 06/10/2017 comments.

Drawing No. 7129/06, access, indicates the required access visibility splays and the required footway connection to the existing footway from Falconer Avenue to the south. Although the drawing indicates a footway connection at 1.8m width this in fact is unlikely to be achieved as there is insufficient space available between the garden fences and the edge of the road. However, having measured the space available and the width of existing footways in the vicinity, a footway width of approx. 1.4 metres may be achieved. This is similar to the existing footways nearby. The existing telegraph pole will need to be moved as this would significantly reduce the footway width and be an obstruction to junction visibility. As appropriate notes are included on the submitted drawing to cover these items I am content that suitable conditions may now be recommended as follows:

1 AL 8 Condition: Prior to the new dwellings hereby permitted being first occupied, the driveways and accesses onto the new estate road shall be properly surfaced with a bound material for a minimum distance of at least 8 metres from the edge of the metalled carriageway, in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

Reason: To secure appropriate improvements to the vehicular access in the interests of highway safety.

2 D 1 Condition: Prior to the access being constructed the ditch beneath the proposed access shall be piped or bridged in accordance with details which previously shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form. (See Note 6).

Reason: To ensure uninterrupted flow of water and reduce the risk of flooding of the highway.

3 ER 1 Condition: Before the development is commenced, details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.

4 ER 2 Condition: No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approved details except with the written agreement of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory access is provided for the safety of residents and the public.

5 GPDO 2 Condition: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no direct means of vehicular access shall be constructed from Silver Street to the site.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure accesses are located at an appropriate position and/or to avoid multiple accesses which would be detrimental to highway safety.

6 P 1 Condition: The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on Drawing Number 7129/01/D as submitted for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area(s) shall be retained and used for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on site parking of vehicles is provided and maintained in order to ensure the provision of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway.

7 V 1 Condition: Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. 7129/06 as submitted and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction over 0.6 metres high shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow within the areas of the visibility splays.

Reason: To ensure vehicles exiting the drive would have sufficient visibility to enter the public highway safely and vehicles on the public highway would have sufficient warning of a vehicle emerging in order to take avoiding action.

8 Footway. Condition: Before any of the hereby approved dwellings are first occupied the Finningham Road frontage footway shall be provided linking the site with the with the existing footway to the south as shown on the submitted Drawing Number 7129/06.

Reason: To ensure that there is a safe pedestrian link between the development site and the existing footways on Finningham Road.

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

9 NOTE 02 It is an OFFENCE to carry out works within the public highway, which includes a Public Right of Way, without the permission of the Highway Authority. Any conditions which involve work within the limits of the public highway do not give the applicant permission to carry them out. Unless otherwise agreed in writing all works within the public highway shall be carried out by the County Council or its agents at the applicant's expense. The County Council's Central Area Manager must be contacted on Telephone: 01473 341414. Further information go to: https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/apply- for-a-dropped-kerb/ A fee is payable to the Highway Authority for the assessment and inspection of both new vehicular crossing access works and improvements deemed necessary to existing vehicular crossings due to proposed development.

10 NOTE 05 Public Utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal. The appropriate utility service should be contacted to reach agreement on any necessary alterations which have to be carried out at the expense of the developer. Those that appear to be affected are telegraph pole and stay to Finningham Road which need to be relocated. There is also overhead cables and a transformer at the Silver Street end of the site.

11 NOTE 06 The proposal will require the piping of a ditch. As the proposal requires work affecting an ordinary watercourse, including a ditch, whether temporary or permanent, then consent will be required from Suffolk County Councils' Flood and Water Management team. Application forms are available from the SCC website:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/environment-and-transport/planning-and-buildings/land-drainage. Applications for consent may take up to 8 weeks to determine and will incur an additional fee.

12 NOTE 07 The Local Planning Authority recommends that developers of housing estates should enter into formal agreement with the Highway Authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the construction and subsequent adoption of Estate Roads.

13 NOTE 12 The existing street lighting system may be affected by this proposal. The applicant must contact the Street Lighting Engineer of Suffolk County Council, telephone 01284 758859, in order to agree any necessary alterations/additions to be carried out at the expense of the developer.

Section 106 Requirements - Public Right of Way Improvements.

The proposed development will have a direct impact on the local public rights of way (PROW) network, please refer to the map.

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

PROW are important for recreation, encouraging healthy lifestyles, providing green links, supporting the local economy and promoting local tourism.

The anticipated increased use of the PROW network of as a result of the development will require the following offsite improvement works to Old Newton Public Footpath 67, please refer to the attached plan:

FP67 is a well-used path leading to the community centre and the wider PROW network, including the promoted Middy Railway Footpath.

Surface improvement works - 300m length x min 1.5m width = 450m2 @ £25/m2 = £11,250.00

The subtotal of these works is £11,250.00 Staff time (design & project management) @ 12% = £1,350.00 Contingency @ 10% = £1,125.00

Total s106 funding requested from this development = £13,725.00

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

National Planning Policy Framework

The following sections of the NPPF bear relevance to Public Rights of Way:

Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy Para 28 - To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should…support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside.

Section 4 - Promoting sustainable transport Para 35 – refers to priority given to pedestrian and cycle movements, creating safe and secure routes to minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians and to consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

Section 8 - Promoting healthy communities Para 69 - Planning policies and decisions, in turn, should aim to achieve places which promote…safe and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public areas. Para 73 - Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. Para 75 - Planning policies should protect and enhance public rights of way and local authorities should seek opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to the rights of way network.

Suffolk County Council Strategies and Policies:

• The Rights of Way Improvement Plan which, inter alia, highlights the importance of development in rural areas should give people the greatest opportunity to access the countryside by walking and cycling, • The Walking Strategy, which seeks to ensure existing communities with a population over 500, and new developments over 10 dwellings have easy access to a one mile natural walk or 2ha of green space, within 500m of their home, • The Cycling Strategy, which seeks to promote a transfer to cycling (and walking) for short distance trips, plan and design for the future with cycling in mind and create a safe and cycle friendly environment, • The Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy for Suffolk, outcome 2 of which states Suffolk residents should have access to a healthy environment and take responsibility for the own health and wellbeing, • The Nature Strategy which seeks to ensure physical access improvements go hand-in-hand with wildlife sensitivity and quality interpretation, to enable people to access and understand our natural environment.

Yours faithfully

Mr Martin Egan Highways Development Management Engineer Strategic Development

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

Planning Applications – Suggested Informative

Statements and Conditions Report

AW Reference: 00026815

Local Planning Authority: Mid Suffolk District

Site: Finningham Road Old Newton, Old Newton with Dagworth

Proposal: Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application

Planning Application: 1866/17

Prepared by: Pre-Development Team

Date: 16 March 2018

If you would like to discuss any of the points in this document please contact me on 0345 606 6087 or email [email protected]

ASSETS

Section 1 – Assets Affected

1.1 There are assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement within or close to the development boundary that may affect the layout of the site. Anglian Water would ask that the following text be included within your Notice should permission be granted.

“Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991. or, in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.”

WASTEWATER SERVICES

Section 2 – Wastewater Treatment

2.1 The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Old Newton Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows

Section 3 – Foul Sewerage Network

3.1 The sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. We will then advise them of the most suitable point of connection.

Section 4 – Surface Water Disposal

4.1 From the details submitted to support the planning application the proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability of the surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage system directly or indirectly involves the discharge of water into a watercourse.

Should the proposed method of surface water management change to include interaction with Anglian Water operated assets, we would wish to be re-consulted to ensure that an effective surface water drainage strategy is prepared and implemented.

Section 5 – Trade Effluent

5.1 Not applicable

Consultation Response Pro forma

1 Application Number 1866/17 Finningham Road, Old Newton 2 Date of Response 22.1.18

3 Responding Officer Name: Paul Harrison Job Title: Heritage and Design Officer Responding on behalf Heritage of... 4 Summary and 1. The Heritage Team considers that the proposal Recommendation would cause (please delete those N/A) • less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset because it would erode the rural Note: This section must be setting of the listed Rookery Farmhouse. completed before the response is sent. The recommendation should be based on the information submitted with the application.

5 Discussion In our response on the original scheme we asked for the Please outline the layout to be revised to better respect the rural character reasons/rationale behind setting of the listed farmhouse. how you have formed the recommendation. The layout has now been amended to allow a Please refer to any substantially increased ‘green buffer’ between the guidance, policy or material development and the moated enclosure of the listed considerations that have farmhouse. In our view this reduces the level of harm to informed your low, and we recommend that you weigh this low level of recommendation. harm against public benefits of the scheme in accordance with para.134 of NPPF. 6 Amendments, Clarification or Additional Information Required (if holding objection)

If concerns are raised, can they be overcome with changes? Please ensure any requests are proportionate

7 Recommended Should your recommendation be favourable, we would conditions ask for a detailed scheme of hard and soft landscaping to be approved.

Please note that this form can be submitted electronically on the Councils website. Comments submitted on the website will not be acknowledged but you can check whether they have been received by reviewing comments on the website under the application reference number. Please note that the completed form will be posted on the Councils website and available to view by the public.

The Gardens Trust 70 Cowcross Street, London EC1M 6EJ Phone: (+44/0) 207 608 2409 Email: [email protected] www.thegardenstrust.org

[email protected]

14th March 2018 Research - Conserve - Campaign

Ms Gemma Walker Growth and Sustainable Planning Babergh District Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk IP1 2BX [email protected]

Dear Ms Walker,

Ref : 1866/17 Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application, Finningham Road, Old Newton, Suffolk

Thank you for consulting The Gardens Trust (GT) in its role as Statutory Consultee with regard to proposed development affecting a site included by Historic England (HE) on their Register of Parks & Gardens, as per the above application.

The Gardens Trust wrote a response to the original outline planning application in November 2016 (copy attached). Despite the recent amendments our views are unchanged so we would be grateful if your officers could please include our original letter in the decision making process. Since then the moats have been listed as Scheduled Ancient Monuments which adds an even greater level of significance to an important historical site. The revised drawings we note were submitted just prior to the SAM designation (22nd January 2018). Online it is not easy to calculate the exact distances from the plans, and although the drawings show the development has been moved closer towards the village, at the SW corner of the moat they are still only approx 15m away. This will still have a very detrimental effect upon the setting and views back to and from the moat. The setting of the SAM and Grade II listed Rookyard Farm are further compromised by the entrance to the development being only 30m from the edge of the moat with large visibility splays, combined with the existing entrance to the field being only approx 10m further along, giving a very busy cluttered feel to what had previously been a rural situation.

The Gardens Trust objects to this application.

Yours sincerely,

Margie Hoffnung Conservation Officer The Gardens Trust

Ian Ward Planning Department Mid Suffolk District Council 131 High Street Needham Market IP6 8DL

13 th July 2017

Dear Ian,

RE: 1866/17 Outline application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application. Finningham Road, Old Newton

Thank you for sending us details of this application, we have the following comments:

We have read the ecological survey report (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2016) and we are satisfied with the initial findings of the consultant and agree with the recommendations for biodiversity enhancements.

We note that the consultant has recommended further surveys for great crested newts, reptiles and foraging bats. We would request that these are undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Also, if works haven’t commenced within a year of the initial survey (by June 2017), a further breeding birds survey, with a focus on skylarks should be undertaken to determine bird usage of the site.

At present, we must object to this application due to a lack of information on protected species. We would be happy to provide further comment once these surveys have been undertaken.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require anything further.

Yours sincerely

Jill Crighton Conservation Planner

23 July 2018

Gemma Walker Mid Suffolk District Council Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX

By email only

Dear Gemma,

Thank you for requesting advice on this application from Place Services’s ecological advice service. This service provides advice to planning officers to inform Mid Suffolk District Council planning decisions with regard to potential ecological impacts from development. Any additional information, queries or comments on this advice that the applicant or other interested parties may have, must be directed to the Planning Officer who will seek further advice from us where appropriate and necessary.

Application: 1866/17 Location: Finningham Road Old Newton Suffolk Proposal: Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be the subject of a Reserved Matters application

Thank you for re-consulting Place Services on the above application.

No objection subject to securing biodiversity mitigation and enhancement measures

Summary We have reviewed the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2016); Breeding Bird Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Assessment (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Reptile Survey and Outline Mitigation Strategy (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2018); and Bat Activity Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, July 2018) supplied by the applicant, relating to the likely impacts of development on Protected & Priority habitats and species.

We are satisfied that there is sufficient ecological information available for determination.

This provides certainty for the LPA of the likely impacts on Protected and Priority species/habitats and, with appropriate mitigation measures secured, the development can be made acceptable. I support the reasonable biodiversity enhancements that should also be secured by a condition of any consent.

This will enable LPA to demonstrate its compliance with its statutory duties including its biodiversity duty under s40 NERC Act 2006.

The ecological mitigation and enhancement measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2016); Breeding Bird Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Assessment (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Reptile Survey and Outline Mitigation Strategy (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2018); and Bat Activity Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, July 2018) should be secured and implemented in full. This is necessary to conserve Protected and Priority species.

Tit is recommended that the following should be submitted to local planning authority: • A Biodiversity Mitigation Method Statement should be delivered to ensure clear mitigation measures for Protected and Priority species are provided to onsite contractors during the construction phase. • A Wildlife Sensitive Lighting Design Scheme should be provided to ensure that the identified bat foraging routes are subject to appropriate lighting levels • A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan should be provided to ensure that a suitable implementation/management of biodiversity enhancements and landscape features.

Impacts will be minimised such that the proposal is acceptable subject to the conditions below based on BS42020:2013.

Submission for approval and implementation of the details below should be a condition of any planning consent.

Recommended conditions

1. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: BIODIVERSITY MITIGATION METHOD STATEMENT “A Biodiversity Mitigation Method Statement, providing the proposed mitigation measures and/or works contained in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2016); Breeding Bird Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Assessment (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, May 2018); Reptile Survey and Outline Mitigation Strategy (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, June 2018); and Bat Activity Survey (Geosphere Environmental Ltd, July 2018), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.”

Reason: To conserve Protected and Priority species and allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations 2017, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species)

2. PRIOR TO OCCUPATION: WILDLIFE SENSITIVE LIGHTING DESIGN SCHEME “A lighting design scheme for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the

provision of appropriate lighting contour plans, lsolux drawings and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory.

All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the scheme and maintained thereafter in accordance with the scheme. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.”

Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations 2017, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species)

3. PRIOR TO OCCUPATION: LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN “A Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior occupation of the development.

The content of the LEMP shall include the following. a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed, including details and locations of biodiversity enhancement measures. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period). g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long- term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.”

Reason: To allow the LPA to discharge its duties under the UK Habitats Regulations, the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 as amended and s40 of the NERC Act 2006 (Priority habitats & species)

Please contact us with any queries.

Yours sincerely,

Hamish Jackson GradCIEEM BSc (Hons) Junior Ecological Consultant

[email protected]

Place Services provide ecological advice on behalf of Mid Suffolk District Council Please note: This letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to this particular matter. From: Consultations (NE) Sent: 27 July 2018 15:17 To: BMSDC Planning Mailbox Subject: 1866/17 Consultation Response

Dear Sir or Madam

Our ref: 253161 Your ref: 1866/17

Natural England has no comments to make on this application.

Natural England has not assessed this application for impacts on protected species. Natural England has published Standing Advice which you can use to assess impacts on protected species or you may wish to consult your own ecology services for advice.

Natural England and the Forestry Commission have also published standing advice on ancient woodland and veteran trees which you can use to assess any impacts on ancient woodland.

The lack of comment from Natural England does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment. Other bodies and individuals may be able to provide information and advice on the environmental value of this site and the impacts of the proposal to assist the decision making process. We advise LPAs to obtain specialist ecological or other environmental advice when determining the environmental impacts of development.

We recommend referring to our SSSI Impact Risk Zones (available on http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ and as a downloadable dataset) prior to consultation with Natural England. Further guidance on when to consult Natural England on planning and development proposals is available on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-planning-authorities-get-environmental-advice

Yours faithfully

Alice Watson Consultations Team Natural England Electra Way Crewe Business Park Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ Tel: 0300 060 3900 [email protected] www.gov.uk/natural-england

From:Ipswich, Planning Sent:19 Jul 2018 15:26:15 +0100 To:BMSDC Planning Mailbox Subject:RE: MSDC Planning Re-consultation Request - 1866/17 Attachments:FINAL Development Management Consultation Checklist 160725 (002).docx

Thank you for your email.

We are returning this consultation without comment because we have checked the application and it is not clear why we have been consulted. Please find attached a consultation checklist which explains when to consult us.

If, after reconsideration, you still need us to comment on this planning application, please specify why.

If you confirm why we have been appropriately consulted, our 21 day statutory consultation period will start. If not, we will take no further action.

We have adopted this approach because we are currently receiving large numbers of inappropriate consultations. These significantly reduce the time and staff resources we have to provide you with timely statutory consultation responses.

Kind Regards

Charlie Christensen Sustainable Places Planning Advisor – East Anglia Area (East) Environment Agency | Iceni House, Cobham Road, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP3 9JD [email protected] External: 020 847 45593 | Internal: 45593

National Customer Contact Centre: 03708 506506

(Weekday Daytime calls may cost 8p plus up to 6p per minute from BT Weekend Unlimited. Mobile and other providers’ charges may vary.)

Do your future plans have environmental issues or opportunities? Speak to us early!

If you are planning a new project or development, we want to work with you to make the process as smooth as possible. We offer a tailored advice service with an assigned project manager giving you detailed and timely specialist advice. Early engagement can improve subsequent planning and permitting applications to you and your clients’ benefit. More information can be found on our website here.

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 July 2018 13:30 To: Ipswich, Planning Subject: MSDC Planning Re-consultation Request - 1866/17

Please find attached planning re-consultation request letter relating to planning application - 1866/17 - Finningham Road, Old Newton, Suffolk,

Kind Regards

Planning Support Team

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council.

Babergh District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council (BMSDC) will be Data Controllers of the information you are providing. As required by the Data Protection Act 2018 the information will be kept safe, secure, processed and only shared for those purposes or where it is allowed by law. In some

Your ref: 1866/17 Our ref: Old Newton – Finningham Road IP14 4EG 00051145 Date: 26 June 2017 Enquiries to: Neil McManus Tel: 01473 264121 or 07973 640625 Email: [email protected]

Mr Ian Ward, Growth & Sustainable Planning, Mid Suffolk District Council, Council Offices, 131 High Street, Needham Market, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP6 8DL

Dear Ian,

Old Newton: Finningham Road, IP14 4EG – developer contributions

I refer to the outline planning application with access, landscaping and layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and scale to be the subject of a reserved matters application.

Whilst most infrastructure requirements will be covered under Mid Suffolk’s Regulation 123 list of the CIL charging schedule it is nonetheless the Government’s intention that all development must be sustainable as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). On this basis the County Council sets out below the infrastructure implications with costs, if planning permission is granted and implemented.

Site specific matters will be covered by a planning obligation or planning conditions.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 204 sets out the requirements of planning obligations, which are that they must be: a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) Directly related to the development; and, c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The County and District Councils have a shared approach to calculating infrastructure needs, in the adopted Section 106 Developers Guide to Infrastructure Contributions in Suffolk.

Mid Suffolk District Council adopted their Core Strategy in September 2008 and Focused Review in December 2012. The Core Strategy includes the following objectives and policies relevant to providing infrastructure:  Objective 6 seeks to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure to support new development; this is implemented through Policy CS6: Services and Infrastructure.

Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

 Policy FC1 and FC1.1 apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development in Mid Suffolk.

Community Infrastructure Levy

Mid Suffolk District Council adopted a CIL Charging Schedule on 21st January 2016 and will charge CIL on planning permissions granted after 11th April 2016. Mid Suffolk are required by Regulation 123 to publish a list of infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure that it intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.

The current Mid Suffolk 123 List, dated January 2016, includes the following as being capable of being funded by CIL rather than through planning obligations:  Provision of passenger transport  Provision of library facilities  Provision of additional pre-school places at existing establishments  Provision of primary school places at existing schools  Provision of secondary, sixth form and further education places  Provision of waste infrastructure

As of 6th April 2015, the 123 Regulations restrict the use of pooled contributions towards items that may be funded through the levy. The requirements being sought here would be requested through CIL, and therefore would meet the new legal test. It is anticipated that the District Council is responsible for monitoring infrastructure contributions being sought.

The details of site specific contribution requirements related to the proposed scheme are set out below:

1. Education. Refer to the NPPF paragraph 72 which states ‘The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education’.

The NPPF at paragraph 38 states ‘For larger scale residential developments in particular, planning policies should promote a mix of uses in order to provide opportunities to undertake day-to-day activities including work on site. Where practical, particularly within large-scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties.’

SCC anticipates the following minimum pupil yields from a development of 56 dwellings, namely: a. Primary school age range, 5-11: 14 pupils. Cost per place is £12,181 (2017/18 costs). b. Secondary school age range, 11-16: 11 pupils. Cost per place is £18,355 (2017/18 costs). c. Secondary school age range, 16+: 2 pupils. Costs per place is £19,907 (2017/18 costs).

The local catchment schools are Old Newton CEVC Primary School and Stowupland High School.

Based on existing forecasts SCC will have no surplus places available at the catchment primary and secondary schools. On this basis SCC will seek CIL funding for at least £412,253 (2017/18 costs) to mitigate the impact of the development.

The scale of contributions is based on cost multipliers for the capital cost of providing a school place, which are reviewed annually to reflect changes in construction costs. The figures quoted will apply during the financial year 2017/18 only and have been provided to give a general indication of the scale of contributions required should residential development go ahead. The sum will be reviewed at key stages of the application process to reflect the projected forecasts of pupil numbers and the capacity of the schools concerned at these times.

Clearly, local circumstances may change over time and I would draw your attention to paragraph 12 where this information is time-limited to 6 months from the date of this letter.

2. Pre-school provision. Refer to the NPPF ‘Section 8 Promoting healthy communities’. It is the responsibility of SCC to ensure that there is sufficient local provision under the Childcare Act 2006. Section 7 of the Childcare Act sets out a duty to secure free early years provision for pre-school children of a prescribed age. The current requirement is to ensure 15 hours per week of free provision over 38 weeks of the year for all 3 and 4 year-olds. The Education Bill 2011 amended Section 7, introducing the statutory requirement for 15 hours free early years education for all disadvantaged 2 year olds. From these development proposals SCC would anticipate up to 6 pre-school pupils.

In the ward of Bacton and Old Newton there is currently a surplus of places predicted in September 2017. Therefore a contribution for early years is not required for this development.

Please note that the early years pupil yield ratio of 10 children per hundred dwellings is expected to change and increase substantially in the near future. The Government announced, through the 2015 Queen’s Speech, an intention to double the amount of free provision made available to 3 and 4 year olds, from 15 hours a week to 30.

3. Play space provision. Consideration will need to be given to adequate play space provision. A key document is the ‘Play Matters: A Strategy for Suffolk’, which sets out the vision for providing more open space where children and young people can play. Some important issues to consider include:

a. In every residential area there are a variety of supervised and unsupervised places for play, free of charge. b. Play spaces are attractive, welcoming, engaging and accessible for all local children and young people, including disabled children, and children from minority groups in the community. c. Local neighbourhoods are, and feel like, safe, interesting places to play.

d. Routes to children’s play spaces are safe and accessible for all children and young people.

4. Transport issues. Refer to the NPPF ‘Section 4 Promoting sustainable transport’. A comprehensive assessment of highways and transport issues will be required as part of the planning application. This will include travel plan, pedestrian & cycle provision, public transport, rights of way, air quality and highway provision (both onsite and off-site). Requirements will be dealt with via planning conditions and Section 106 as appropriate, and infrastructure delivered to adoptable standards via Section 38 and Section 278. This will be coordinated by Suffolk County Council FAO Sam Harvey.

Suffolk County Council, in its role as local Highway Authority, has worked with the local planning authorities to develop county-wide technical guidance on parking which replaces the preceding Suffolk Advisory Parking Standards (2002) in light of new national policy and local research. It has been subject to public consultation and was adopted by Suffolk County Council in November 2014.

5. Libraries. The libraries and archive infrastructure provision topic paper sets out the detailed approach to how contributions are calculated. A contribution of £216 per dwelling is sought i.e. £12,096, which will be spent on enhancing provision at the nearest library. A minimum standard of 30 square metres of new library space per 1,000 populations is required. Construction and initial fit out cost of £3,000 per square metre for libraries (based on RICS Building Cost Information Service data but excluding land costs). This gives a cost of (30 x £3,000) = £90,000 per 1,000 people or £90 per person for library space. Assumes average of 2.4 persons per dwelling. Refer to the NPPF ‘Section 8 Promoting healthy communities’.

6. Waste. All local planning authorities should have regard to both the Waste Management Plan for England and the National Planning Policy for Waste when discharging their responsibilities to the extent that they are appropriate to waste management. The Waste Management Plan for England sets out the Government’s ambition to work towards a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management.

Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy for Waste states that when determining planning applications for non-waste development, local planning authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, ensure that:

- New, non-waste development makes sufficient provision for waste management and promotes good design to secure the integration of waste management facilities with the rest of the development and, in less developed areas, with the local landscape. This includes providing adequate storage facilities at residential premises, for example by ensuring that there is sufficient and discrete provision for bins, to facilitate a high quality, comprehensive and frequent household collection service.

SCC requests that waste bins and garden composting bins should be provided before occupation of each dwelling and this will be secured by way of a planning

condition. SCC would also encourage the installation of water butts connected to gutter down-pipes to harvest rainwater for use by occupants in their gardens.

7. Supported Housing. In line with Sections 6 and 8 of the NPPF, homes should be designed to meet the health needs of a changing demographic. Following the replacement of the Lifetime Homes standard, designing homes to the new ‘Category M4(2)’ standard offers a useful way of fulfilling this objective, with a proportion of dwellings being built to ‘Category M4(3)’ standard. In addition we would expect a proportion of the housing and/or land use to be allocated for housing with care for older people e.g. Care Home and/or specialised housing needs, based on further discussion with the local planning authority’s housing team to identify local housing needs.

8. Sustainable Drainage Systems. Section 10 of the NPPF seeks to meet the challenges of climate change, flooding and coastal change. National Planning Practice Guidance notes that new development should only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of flooding if priority has been given to the use of sustainable drainage systems.

On 18 December 2014 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles) made a Ministerial Written Statement (MWS) setting out the Government’s policy on sustainable drainage systems. In accordance with the MWS, when considering a major development (of 10 dwellings or more), sustainable drainage systems should be provided unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. The MWS also provides that, in considering planning applications:

“Local planning authorities should consult the relevant lead local flood authority on the management of surface water; satisfy themselves that the proposed minimum standards of operation are appropriate and ensure through the use of planning conditions or planning obligations that there are clear arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development. The sustainable drainage system should be designed to ensure that the maintenance and operation requirements are economically proportionate.”

The changes set out in the MWS took effect from 06 April 2015.

A consultation response will be coordinated by Suffolk County Council FAO Jason Skilton.

9. Fire Service. Any fire hydrant issues will need to be covered by appropriate planning conditions. SCC would strongly recommend the installation of automatic fire sprinklers. The Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service requests that early consideration is given during the design stage of the development for both access for fire vehicles and the provisions of water for fire-fighting which will allow SCC to make final consultations at the planning stage.

10. Superfast broadband. Refer to the NPPF paragraphs 42 – 43. SCC would recommend that all development is equipped with high speed broadband (fibre optic). This facilitates home working which has associated benefits for the transport

network and also contributes to social inclusion; it also impacts educational attainment and social wellbeing, as well as improving property prices and saleability.

As a minimum, access line speeds should be greater than 30Mbps, using a fibre based broadband solution, rather than exchange based ADSL, ADSL2+ or exchange only connections. The strong recommendation from SCC is that a full fibre provision should be made, bringing fibre cables to each premise within the development (FTTP/FTTH). This will provide a network infrastructure which is fit for the future and will enable faster broadband.

11. Legal costs. SCC will require an undertaking from the applicant for the reimbursement of its reasonable legal costs associated with work on a S106A for site specific mitigation, whether or not the matter proceeds to completion.

12. The above information is time-limited for 6 months only from the date of this letter.

The above will form the basis of a future bid to Mid Suffolk District Council for CIL funds if planning permission is granted and implemented.

I would be grateful if the above information can be presented to the decision-taker.

Yours sincerely,

Neil McManus BSc (Hons) MRICS Development Contributions Manager Strategic Development – Resource Management cc Carol Barber, Suffolk County Council Sam Harvey, Suffolk County Council Floods Planning, Suffolk County Council

6 The Archaeological Service ______

Resource Management Bury Resource Centre Hollow Road Bury St Edmunds Suffolk IP32 7AY

Philip Isbell Corporate Manager – Development Management Planning Services Mid Suffolk District Council 131 High Street Needham Market Ipswich IP6 8DL Enquiries to: Rachael Abraham Direct Line: 01284 741232 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Our Ref: 2017_1866 Date: 29th June 2017 For the Attention of Ian Ward

Dear Mr Isbell

PLANNING APPLICATION 1866/17– LAND BETWEEN SILVER STREET AND FINNINGHAM ROAD, OLD NEWTON: ARCHAEOLOGY

This application lies in an area of high archaeological interest recorded in the County Historic Environment Record. The proposed development area is situated immediately south of a medieval moated site (ONW 001) and to the north of Cross Green. As a result, there is high potential for encountering archaeological remains at this location and the proposed works would cause significant ground disturbance that has potential to damage any archaeological deposit and below ground heritage assets that exist.

There are no grounds to consider refusal of permission in order to achieve preservation in situ of any important heritage assets. In accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework, any permission granted should be the subject of a planning condition to record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset before it is damaged or destroyed.

The following two conditions, used together, would be appropriate:

1. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording. b. The programme for post investigation assessment. c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording. d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation. e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation. f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. No building shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 1 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.

REASON: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Core Strategy Objective SO 4 of Mid Suffolk District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2008) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

INFORMATIVE: The submitted scheme of archaeological investigation shall be in accordance with a brief procured beforehand by the developer from Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Conservation Team.

I would be pleased to offer guidance on the archaeological work required and, in our role as advisor to Mid Suffolk District Council, the Conservation Team of SCC Archaeological Service will, on request of the applicant, provide a specification for the archaeological investigation. In this case, an archaeological evaluation, consisting of a geophysical survey and trial trenched evaluation, will be required to establish the potential of the site and decisions on the need for any further investigation (excavation before any groundworks commence and/or monitoring during groundworks) will be made on the basis of the results of the evaluation.

Please let me know if you require any clarification or further advice.

Yours sincerely

Rachael Abraham

Senior Archaeological Officer Conservation Team Consultation Response Pro forma

1 Application Number 1866/17

2 Date of Response 6/12/2017

3 Responding Officer Name: Hannah Bridges Job Title: Waste Management Officer Responding on behalf of... Waste Services 4 Recommendation (please delete those N/A) No objection subject to condition

Note: This section must be completed before the response is sent. The recommendation should be based on the information submitted with the application.

5 Discussion Wheeled bin presentation points have not been included Please outline the on the latest maps. Please include a unique bin reasons/rationale behind presentation point for each of the plots, the presentation how you have formed the points need to be to the edge of the curtilage at the end of recommendation. the private drives. Please specify the type of bins are the Please refer to any flats going to have individual sets or communal bins, if guidance, policy or material communal bin are chosen for the six flats a bin store is considerations that have require for the storage of the bins near to the entrance of informed your the shared drive. Ensure that the road is suitable for a 32 recommendation. tonne refuse collection vehicle to manoeuvre on.

6 Amendments, Clarification or Additional Information Required (if holding objection)

If concerns are raised, can they be overcome with changes? Please ensure any requests are proportionate

7 Recommended conditions Please ensure that the point in the discussion are covered.

OFFICIAL Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that proper consideration be given to the potential life safety, economic, environmental and social benefits derived from the provision of an automatic fire sprinkler system. (Please see sprinkler information enclosed with this letter).

Consultation should be made with the Water Authorities to determine flow rates in all cases.

Should you need any further advice or information on access and fire fighting facilities, you are advised to contact your local Building Control in the first instance. For further advice and information regarding water supplies, please contact the Water Officer at the above headquarters.

Yours faithfully

Mrs A Kempen Water Officer

Copy: Mr L Thurlow, Thurlow Architects ltd, The Studio, 61 Hardwick Lane, Bury St Edmunds IP33 2RB Enc: Sprinkler information

[email protected]

____ ,,______·------·-----·------We are working towards rr1aking Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and macJe using a chlorine free procc::ss. OFFICIAL From: Nathan Pittam Sent: 29 June 2017 11:10 To: X Delete Aug 17 - Planning Admin Subject: 1866/17. EH - Land Contamination.

M3 : 195334 1866/17. EH - Land Contamination. SH, Street Record, Finningham Road, Old Newton, STOWMARKET, Suffolk. Outline planning application with Access, Landscaping and Layout to be considered for the erection of up to 56 dwellings with vehicular access from Finningham Road, Old Newton. Appearance and Scale to be ...

Many thanks for your request for comments in relation to the above application. I have reviewed the application and can confirm that, based on the information submitted, I have no objection to the proposed development from the perspective of land contamination. I would only request that we are contacted in the event of unexpected ground conditions being encountered during construction and that the developer is made aware that the responsibility for the safe development of the site lies with them.

Regards

Nathan

Nathan Pittam BSc. (Hons.) PhD Senior Environmental Management Officer

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils – Working Together

Email: [email protected] Work: 01449 724715 Mobile:: 07769 566988 websites: www.babergh.gov.uk www.midsuffolk.gov.uk

From:RM Floods Planning Sent:15 Sep 2017 07:41:53 +0100 To:BMSDC Planning Mailbox Cc:Dylan Jones Subject:2017-09-15 JS Reply Finningham Road, Old Newton, Suffolk, Ref 1866/17

Dear Dylan Jones,

Subject: Finningham Road, Old Newton, Suffolk, Ref 1866/17

Suffolk County Council, Flood and Water Management have reviewed application ref 1866/17.

We have reviewed the following submitted documents and we recommend approval of this application subject to conditions:

 Flood Risk Assessment & Appendices ref IP16_199_11 Rev A dated September 2017 o Appendix A: Proposed site layout o Appendix B: Topographical Survey o Appendix C: Environment Agency Flood Mapping o Appendix D: Geosphere Infiltration Test Report o Appendix E: Anglian Water Sewer Records o Appendix F: Surface Water Flood Mapping o Appendix G: Green Field Runoff Calculations o Appendix H: Proposed surface water drainage calculations o Appendix I: Surface Water Drainage Strategy Drawing IP16_199_11/SK001A o

We propose the following condition in relation to surface water drainage for this application.

1. Concurrent with the first reserved matters application(s) a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall be in accordance with the approved FRA and include: a. Dimensioned plans and drawings of the surface water drainage scheme; b. As the use of infiltration is not possible then modelling shall be submitted to demonstrate that the surface water runoff will be restricted to Qbar or 2l/s/ha for all events up to the critical 1 in 100 year rainfall events including climate change as specified in the FRA; c. Modelling of the surface water drainage scheme to show that the attenuation/infiltration features will contain the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including climate change; d. Modelling of the surface water conveyance network in the 1 in 30 year rainfall event to show no above ground flooding, and modelling of the volumes of any above ground flooding from the pipe network in a 1 in 100 year climate change rainfall event, along with topographic plans showing where the water will flow and be stored to ensure no flooding of buildings or offsite flows; e. Topographical plans depicting all exceedance flowpaths and demonstration that the flows would not flood buildings or flow offsite, and if they are to be directed to the surface water drainage system then the potential additional rates and volumes of surface water must be included within the modelling of the surface water system;

2. The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site for the lifetime of the development.

3. Concurrent with the first reserved matters application(s) details of the implementation, maintenance and management of the surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure clear arrangements are in place for ongoing operation and maintenance of the disposal of surface water drainage.

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of all Sustainable Urban Drainage System components and piped networks have been submitted, in an approved form, to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s Flood Risk Asset Register.

Reason: To ensure all flood risk assets and their owners are recorded onto the LLFA’s statutory flood risk asset register as per s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act.

5. No development shall commence until details of a construction surface water management plan detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction is submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The construction surface water management plan shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To ensure the development does not cause increased pollution of the watercourse in line with the River Basin Management Plan.

Informatives

 Any works to a watercourse may require consent under section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991  Any discharge to a watercourse or groundwater needs to comply with the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003  Any discharge of surface water to a watercourse that drains into an Internal Drainage Board catchment may be is subject to payment of a surface water developer contribution

**Noted I have not reviewed the foul drainage proposals**

Kind Regards

Jason Skilton

Flood & Water Engineer

Suffolk County Council

Tel: 01473 260411

Fax: 01473 216864

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 September 2017 14:04 To: RM Floods Planning Subject: Planning Consultation Request - 1866/17

Please find attached planning consultation request letter relating to planning application - 1866/17 - Finningham Road, Old Newton, Suffolk,

Kind Regards

Planning Support Team

Ian

Having looked at this proposal I cannot see any additional arboricultural implications and therefore my comments remain largely the same as for the previous application 3814/16 –

I have no objection in principle to this application subject to it being undertaken in accordance with the protection measures indicated on the accompanying Tree Protection Plan. Whilst a small number of trees are proposed for removal these are generally of limited amenity value and their loss will have negligible impact on the appearance and character of the local area. If you are minded to recommend approval we will also require a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement in order to help ensure the protective measures referred to are implemented effectively. This information can be dealt with as part of reserved matters.

Regards

David Pizzey Arboricultural Officer Hadleigh office: 01473 826662 Needham Market office: 01449 724555 [email protected] www.babergh.gov.uk and www.midsuffolk.gov.uk Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together From: David Pizzey Sent: 29 June 2017 13:46 To: Ian Ward Cc: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow Subject: 1866/17 Finningham Road, Old Newton.

Ian

Having looked at this proposal I cannot see any additional arboricultural implications and therefore my comments remain largely the same as for the previous application 3814/16 –

Regards

David Pizzey Arboricultural Officer MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM

TO: Gemma Walker – Senior Planning Officer

From: Julie Abbey-Taylor, Professional Lead – Housing Enabling

Date: 5/12/2017

SUBJECT: - Application Reference: M/1866/17/OUT

Proposal: Application for Outline Planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of up to 56 dwellings at Land off Silver Street and Finningham Road, Old Newton.

Key Points

1. Background Information

A development proposal for up to fifty-six (56) residential dwellings.

This is an open market development and should offer 20 affordable housing units which = 35% policy compliant position.

2. Housing Need Information:

2.1 The Ipswich Housing Market Area, Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SMHA) document, updated in 2017, confirms a continuing need for housing across all tenures and a growing need for affordable housing. A new SHMA is currently being written but outcomes are not available at the time of this consultation.

2.2 The 2017 SHMA indicates that in Mid Suffolk there is a need for 94 new affordable homes per annum. Ref1

2.3 Furthermore, by bedroom numbers the affordable housing mix should equate to:

Ref2 Estimated proportionate demand for affordable new housing stock by bedroom number Bed Nos % of total new affordable stock 1 46% 2 36% 3 16%

Page 1 Ref1: SHMA 2012, p.122, Summary section Ref2: SHMA 2012, p.121, Table 9.22.1 Ref3: SHMA 2012, p.141, Table 12.1.9 Ref4: 4+ 2% 2.4 This compares to the estimated proportionate demand for new housing stock by bedroom size across all tenures.

Ref3Estimated proportionate demand for all tenure new housing stock by bedroom number Bed Nos % of total new stock 1 18% 2 29% 3 46% 4+ 6%

2.5 The Council’s 2014 Suffolk Housing Needs Survey shows that there is high demand for smaller homes, across all tenures, both for younger people, who may be newly forming households, and also for older people who are already in the property owning market and require different, appropriate housing, enabling them to downsize. Affordability issues are the key drivers for this increased demand for smaller homes.

2.6 The Council’s Choice Based Lettings system currently has circa.1003 applicants registered for affordable housing in Mid Suffolk at November 2016.

2.8 The Council’s Choice Based Lettings system currently has 14 applicants registered for affordable housing, who are seeking accommodation in Old Newton as at January 2017. This site is a S106 planning obligation site so the affordable housing provided will be to meet district wide need hence the 890 applicants registered is the important number.

3. Preferred Mix for Open Market homes. A schedule of the detail for the open market mix (36 dwellings) has been provided in the Design and Access statement and on plan 7129-05. There are: - 5 x 2 bed bungalows shown @ 70sqm 7 x 2 bed houses shown a@ 79 – 102 sqm 21 x 3 bed houses shown @ 74 – 131 sqm 3 x 4 bed bungalows shown @ 138 – 201 sqm

The inclusion of bungalows/chalet bungalows is welcomed as this will provide opportunities for older people to downsize.

• The 2014 Suffolk Housing Survey shows that, across Mid Suffolk district:

o 12% of all existing households contain someone looking for their own property over the next 3 years (mainly single adults without children). The types of properties they are interested in are flats / apartments, and smaller terraced or

Page 2 Ref1: SHMA 2012, p.122, Summary section Ref2: SHMA 2012, p.121, Table 9.22.1 Ref3: SHMA 2012, p.141, Table 12.1.9 Ref4: semi-detached houses. Although this is not their first preference, many accept that the private rented sector is their most realistic option.

o 25% of households think their current property will not be suitable for their needs in 10 years’ time.

o 2 & 3 bed properties are most sought after by existing households wishing to move. o Suitable housing options for more elderly people are less available within the current housing stock. 6% of all households have elderly relatives who may need to move to Suffolk within the next 3 years.

4. Preferred mix for Affordable Housing

4.1 The most recent information from the Mid Suffolk’s Council’s Housing Register shows 14 applicants registered who have a connection to Old Newton.

4.2 20 of the proposed dwellings on the development are for affordable housing. These have been offered in the form of: - Rented (14): - • 6 x 1 bed 2-person flats @ 49sqm • 6 x 2 bed 4-person houses @ 85sqm • 2 x 3 bed 5-person houses @ 94 sqm

Shared Ownership (6): - • 5 x 2 bed 4 -person houses @ 79 sqm • 1 x 3 bed 5 -person house @ 95 sqm

The above mix is requested to be included in the S106 agreement.

In regard to the proposed scheme, this application has taken on board comments previously made in regard to the previous layout and mix with the exception of the bungalows which had been part of the AH mix previously and have now been deleted which is a significant disappointment.

I am pleased to see that the affordable and open market homes are all accessed off the same road, not segregated as they were before. The affordable housing units are pepper-potted across the site now which makes for a more inclusive development.

There is also much better distribution of the affordable homes across the development so I welcome the changes that the applicant has made to the layout and dwelling locations within the development.

5. Other requirements for affordable homes:

Page 3 Ref1: SHMA 2012, p.122, Summary section Ref2: SHMA 2012, p.121, Table 9.22.1 Ref3: SHMA 2012, p.141, Table 12.1.9 Ref4: • Properties must be built to current Homes and Communities Agency Housing Design Technical Standards March 2015. Space standards provided do meet with this standard.

• The council is granted 100% nomination rights to all the affordable units on first lets and minimum of 75% of relets.

• All flats must be in separate blocks and capable of freehold transfer to an RP.

• Adequate parking provision is made for the affordable housing units

• All affordable units to be designed and built so as to be tenure blind.

Julie Abbey-Taylor, Professional Lead – Housing Enabling

Page 4 Ref1: SHMA 2012, p.122, Summary section Ref2: SHMA 2012, p.121, Table 9.22.1 Ref3: SHMA 2012, p.141, Table 12.1.9 Ref4:

EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE

Ms Gemma Walker Direct Dial: 01223 582710 Mid Suffolk District Council Endeavour House Our ref: P00816270 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk IP1 2BX 1 August 2018

Dear Ms Walker

T&CP (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 & Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990

FINNINGHAM ROAD, OLD NEWTON, SUFFOLK Application No. 1866/17

Thank you for your letter of 18 July 2018 regarding further information on the above application for planning permission. On the basis of this information, we offer the following advice to assist your authority in determining the application.

Historic England Advice We are aware that during the course of the planning application the significance of the Rook Yard Farm double moat (LEN 1451408) has been identified, and that it became a Scheduled Monument in February 2018. The site is a rare double moat and valued for both the preservation of medieval archaeology within the interior spaces between the moats, and for the form and shape of the moat ditches. The designation means it scores highly in evidential and historic values and it is an important historical site in relation to the historical development of the landscape in this part of Suffolk. Moated enclosures were an important feature of the medieval farming landscapes and therefore its relationship to the local landscape forms part of its significance and setting.

In terms of impact, we have previously concluded that the main part of the development (the housing) would not have a direct impact upon the monument; however the development is directly adjacent to the monument and is very much within its rural setting. Our concern remains that the development would erode the rural context of the monument which would result in harm to its significance. The contribution made to the significance of the asset from its setting needs to be assessed by the applicant in order to determine how the development will impact upon it. In effect to show how the development will change this rural setting, and whether there is scope to adapt the layout and plan form of the proposal to reduce this impact. Further information is therefore required in this regard. Moats are also known as water

24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU Telephone 01223 582749 HistoricEngland.org.uk

Historic England is subject to both the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and Environmental Information Regulations (2004). Any Information held by the organisation can be requested for release under this legislation.

EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE bodies and any changes to the hydrology of the local area that would impact upon the water levels would be harmful to its significance. This is of particular relevance to these amended plans which now show a series of underground rainwater attenuation tanks and an ecology pond in the area adjacent to the moat. The concern here is that these works would have an impact upon the water table and would draw water away from the scheduled monument and would alter the hydrology of the moat itself. This would result in harm to it significance. This is explored further below

In policy terms the revised National Planning Policy Framework identifies protection and enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of achieving sustainable development (see Chapter 2) and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system (paragraphs 7- 14). Conserving and enhancing the historic environment is set out in Chapter 16.

Of particular relevance is Paragraph 189 that requires the applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected (both designated and non-designated) and that the level of detail should be sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. In this case the assessment of the impact should be determined and used to inform the layout of the development. Paragraph 190 says the local planning authority should ‘identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise’. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal’

In addition, paragraph 192 says that when determining planning applications, account should be taken of ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’ and, ‘ the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. Paragraph 193 requires planning authorities to place ‘great weight’ on the conservation of designated heritage assets, and states that the more important the asset the greater the weight should be. It also recognises that significance can be harmed by development within the setting of an asset. Paragraph 194 states that ‘any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification’, and this paragraph also states that ‘non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets’. Paragraph 196 recognises that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Paragraph 199 makes provision for developers ‘to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage

24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU Telephone 01223 582749 HistoricEngland.org.uk

EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact’.

As discussed in our previous letter we are aware this is an outline application, and in terms of the approach taken by the applicant we support the open space allocation at the eastern end of the development area. We consider this area of open space is essential to provide a landscape buffer between the scheduled monument and the edge of the development. It is well proportioned and provides a generous allocation of public open space. We also support the use of an active frontage with houses facing onto the open area. In relation to the amended plans we note the change in the layout of the flats, but would like to repeat that the applicant needs to provide a full assessment of the impact of the development on the setting and significance of the monument. In particular, this assessment is needed to inform the layout of the various buildings within the development area, the likely visibility, scale and mass of the houses and the flats from the edge of the monument, and whether these elements need to be moved, changed or mitigated in some way to reduce any harm.

We also wish to raise a serious concerned about the use of the buffer area for underground rainwater attenuation and an ecology pond. In relation to the underground water attenuation tanks, whilst we accept this may be a good place in which to place this feature we have a real concern that this would have an may impact on the water table and water levels in the moat. Should rainwater attenuation tanks affect the water table in the moat then it would, in policy terms, be harmful to that asset. Further assessment needs to be undertaken to reassure us that the local water table would be unaffected, prior to this item being agreed.

The ecology pond, with its associated 1.3m high fence is also a concern. In a similar way to the rainwater attenuation, this new feature may have the effect of drawing water away from the adjacent moat. We are concerned that the conservation measures have not been well thought out, for example, is it really necessary to have a new pond, adjacent to an existing and long established water body, and would it harm or impact the existing water body. Our preference would be for this feature and its associated 1.3 m fence to be removed from the scheme to or relocated. For example would it be possible to move it to the other end of the development to increase biodiversity alongside the proposed ‘balancing pond’. If it is deemed necessary in this location then we would recommend that a hydrological assessment is sought from the developer in order to determine the likely impact upon the moat. In addition, these new features (attenuation tanks and pond) will have an impact upon any non-designated below ground archaeology, and therefore this part of the development will need to be assessed as part of any archaeological mitigation under paragraph 199 of the NPPF.

Recommendation Although we do not object in principle to the development of this land; we have concerns about the level of information provided, and that the application currently fails

24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU Telephone 01223 582749 HistoricEngland.org.uk

EAST OF ENGLAND OFFICE paragraph 189 of the NPPF (previously paragraph 128) and recommend these and our other points are addressed prior to submitting revised application. We are increasingly concerned about the lack of information provided by the applicant in relation to the impact upon of the development upon the significance of the moat through a development within its setting. The new revised layout also provides new concerns in relation to the pond and rainwater attenuation.

We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs [189, 193, 194 and 199] of the NPPF.

Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us.

Yours sincerely

Will Fletcher Inspector of Ancient Monuments E-mail: [email protected] cc: Abby Antrobus

24 BROOKLANDS AVENUE, CAMBRIDGE, CB2 8BU Telephone 01223 582749 HistoricEngland.org.uk

From: Fletcher, Will Sent: 02 October 2018 18:25 To: Mark Russell ; Robinson, Joanne Subject: Re: 1866/17

Dear Mark

Many thanks for providing the additional information. The attenuation system information is very helpful and we accept that it is unlikely to impact the water levels in the moat and therefore this is acceptable.

Likewise I don't pretend to be an expert on newts therefore would presume the NE policy is based on either legislation and/or policy and we would accept that the other pond is necessary. The creation of this feature would however need to be included in the archaeological mitigation.

Best wishes

Will

We have also clarified matters with Ingent (previously JMS Engineers (East Anglia) Ltd) who completed the surface water investigation and proposals. Their engineer has clarified that: -

The proposed surface water system on site including the proposed weholite attenuation tank under the POS area will be a completely sealed attenuation solution and will not affect the existing adjacent moat.

The proposed pond to the north of the access road is for ecology reasons only and does not form part of the surface water attenuation designs on site. The pond is not to be excessively deep and is likely to be only approximately 300mm deep, which based on its current location, would put the base of the pond level at 61.00, which is above the top water level of the adjacent moat at all. Should the proposed pond require a base level lower than 60.97 impermeable lining can be used as a pond liner at detailed design state.

Based on the above, the surface water and ecology proposals would have no effect on the moat and its standing. If further clarification is required from the surface water designer we can forward their e-mail confirming the above.

As indicated above we can move the pond to approximately 2 metres from the access road but based on the engineers findings see no reason this would be initially required. If you feel this is appropriate please do not hesitate to contact me.

We hope this resolves the concerns of Historic England.

Kind regards,

Lionel.

Lionel Thurlow

Architect/Director

For and on behalf of

ThurlowArchitects