REGULATION 15 SUBMISSION DRAFT LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018 - 2037
Photographer: Steve Thomson
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF LONG MELFORD PARISH COUNCIL CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 5 Introduction Transport and Parking Purpose 4 Introduction 60 Overview 5 Issues 62 Planning Authority 6 Policy Intentions 63 Plan Period 6 Policies 63 Stage of Plan 7 Community Objectives 67 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 6 The Neighbourhood Village Services and Facilities Location of Long Melford 8 Introduction 70 The Neighbourhood Plan Area 10 Healthcare Provision 70 Village History 10 Background 70 Contemporary Long Melford 14 Community Objective 72 Population 14 Primary and Pre-School Education 72 Households and their Housing 16 Background 72 Economic Activity 17 Community Objective 73 Village Events 21 Location for Staging Meetings and Events 74 Public Open Spaces 75 CHAPTER 3 Background 76 Characteristics and Vision Outdoor Play Facilities in the Village 83 Key Characteristics 22 Policy 83 Historic Character 22 Allotments 84 Rural Setting 23 Policy 84 Attractive Natural Environment 23 Public Rights of Way 85 Vibrant Village Centre 24 The Cemetery 86 Attractive Destination Additional Community Objectives for LMPC 86 for Visitors and Tourists 24 Key Challenges 24 CHAPTER 7 Vision 24 Business and Tourism Objectives whereby the Plan can Introduction 90 achieve this Vision 27 Issues 93 Policy Intentions 94 CHAPTER 4 Policies 95 Sustainable Growth and Housing Sustainable Development and Growth 28 CHAPTER 8 Introduction 29 Implementation of Neighbourhood Plan Policy Intentions 29 Development Management 98 The Need for Housing 30 Funding for Community Benefit 99 How Many Homes can Long Melford Review 100 Sustainably Accommodate? 31 The Call for Sites and their Assessment 33 Policies 38
2 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 3 APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Parish Profile Statistics 2018 - 2037 APPENDIX 2 Residents Survey APPENDIX 3 Call for Sites APPENDIX 4 Parking Survey 2018 APPENDIX 5 Traffic and Parking Group Report 2020 APPENDIX 6 Schools Project APPENDIX 7 Business Forum Notes
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS STATEMENT OF BASIC CONDITIONS STATEMENT OF CONSULTATION STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
All photos by Steve Thomson except: p23 Phil Buck; p65 Graham Eade; p79 (lower pic) Dave Watts; p78 Jo Dunnett; p80 Justin Lewis; pp91, 94, 96, 97 Lucy Hinde
All maps adapted by Jake Sales of Maps4Planners.com
2 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 3 INTRODUCTION
1PURPOSE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 1.1 1.2 Neighbourhood planning is a right for communities Neighbourhood Plans ensure that local communities introduced through the Localism Act 2011. are closely involved in the decisions which affect Communities can shape development in their them. Each plan can set out a vision for an area and areas through the production of Neighbourhood planning policies for the use and development of Development Plans (often referred to simply as the area’s land and buildings as well as reflecting the Neighbourhood Plans). aspirations of the community.
4 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 5 “EVERY EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO ENSURE THAT THE POLICIES AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE VIEWS OF THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTS OF LONG MELFORD PARISH”
1.6 OVERVIEW OF WHY A The Plan has also had regard to the policies of the Core NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN Strategy for Minerals and the Core Strategy for Waste, both produced by Suffolk County Council. A planning IS NEEDED document which will replace both of these documents is the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan (SMWLP), 1.3 adopted in July 2020. Long Melford is a community of around 3,500 people with approximately 1,600 homes and more than 100 1.7 businesses. It was designated as one of 10 (now 15) The Plan complies with the requirements of the core villages by Babergh District Council (BDC) in its conditions as set out in Paragraph 8(1)(a) of Schedule Core Strategy 2014. This means the village is the focus 4B of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as for development and services for nearby hinterland Amended). This is expanded upon in the Statement of villages, such as Acton and Great Waldingfield. Unlike Basic Conditions, which will be prepared in readiness the Long Melford Parish Plan 2006, upon which it for submission of the Draft Plan to BDC (See Plan builds, the Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan for Supporting Documents). 2018-2037 (the Plan), when adopted, will form part of the statutory planning framework. Together with the 1.8 INTRODUCTION BDC Local Plan, the Policies in the Plan will provide the Neighbourhood Planning Policies only influence basis for the determination of planning applications development that requires a planning application by BDC, the Planning Authority. and the Plan cannot therefore include Policies that fall outside planning control. During the public 1.4 consultations, a range of issues were identified, The Plan must respect previously committed which are dealt with in the Plan as Community developments (i.e. Weavers Tye, on Bull Lane and Objectives. Although Policies dealing with these Elms Croft, by Ropers Lane). However, it can shape cannot be delivered by a Neighbourhood Plan, they where development will go and what it will look like are considered by the Parish Council as important to in the future. pursue. Chapters 5 and 6 of the Plan therefore include both Policies and Community Objectives. For ease of 1.5 reference these are shown in different coloured boxes. The Plan has been prepared with regard to the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework 1.9 (NPPF 2019), as well as guidance set out in the National In aiming to achieve sustainable development, the Planning Practice Guidance. The Policies in the Plan Policies and Community Objectives in this Plan seek contribute towards the achievement of sustainable to meet a set of core objectives which are shown at the development, and they conform with the strategic end of Chapter 3. policies in BDC’s Local Plan 2006 and its Core Strategy 2014. BDC are currently working on an updated Joint Local Plan. The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Pre-Submission (Reg19) Document (Draft JLP) was published in November 2020. The Neighbourhood Plan has been prepared in general conformity with the strategic policies in the Draft JLP.
4 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 5 1. INTRODUCTION CONTINUED...
c) The supply of land for development can be identified in the Plan, and the take-up, which will 1.10 be monitored, will be determined by the market To take forward the Community Objectives and by the condition of the sites. identified during the period when the Plan has been d) It allows time for the issues identified in the Plan put together, the Parish Council set up a Parish to be addressed. Infrastructure Investment Plan (PIIP) with funding e) It is difficult ot anticipate developments further from developments where planning permission has ahead than 19 years. The Plan will be reviewed been granted . Initially, representatives from the when circumstances require it. Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) joined the Parish Clerk to operate the PIIP in accordance with Community Objective priorities set by the Parish Council. Then, from 2020, the PIIP became a central part of the operations of the Parish Council, with a committee of councillors and with guidance from the council’s Responsible Financial Officer.
PLANNING AUTHORITY
1.11 In December 2016, Long Melford Parish Council submitted an Area Designation Application to BDC to define the boundary of its Neighbourhood Plan area and thus to facilitate the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan. After completion of a statutory consultation period in February 2017, BDC confirmed the designated area, as shown in Map 1A. At that point, work commenced to produce the Plan.
PLAN PERIOD
1.12 It will cover the period 2018-2037. This 19-year period is appropriate for a number of reasons: a) It will correspond with the period applicable to the emerging Joint Local Plan. b) Household projections (i.e. the anticipated need for housing in the parish) are made for ten SUMMARYMap 1A: Parish OF Boundary of Long Melford. years but Government Guidance says they Source: Babergh District Council. should be applied to 19-year plans, subject to CONSULTATIONS review when new projections are published.
6 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 7 1.13 1.17 The Plan has been produced by a Neighbourhood Plan The NPSG has therefore consulted and listened to Steering Group (NPSG) of Parish Councillors and local the community and local organisations on a wide residents, appointed in January 2017 as a committee range of issues that are of relevance to the Plan. Every of the Parish Council. The members of the NPSG were effort has been made to ensure that the Policies and determined to involve as many residents as possible Community Objectives contained in this document in the work to produce the Plan, via a thorough take account of the views of the majority of residents programme of community involvement. For example, of Long Melford Parish. the programme included five public meetings, two forums for local businesses and a range of meetings with local service providers, organisations, specialists STAGE OF PLAN and individuals. 1.18 1.14 This draft of the Plan has been prepared for submission Central to the objective for widespread community to Babergh DC in accordance with Regulation 15 of The involvement was a village-wide survey of residents Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012. aged 15 and over, completed in May 2018. The Residents The draft Plan will be subject to further consultation Survey was distributed by around 100 volunteers and examination. Changes may then be made to the who collected 1,995 completed questionnaires, Plan dependent on comments received. representing a 75% response rate. 1.19 1.15 At an early stage it was established, from evidence The views of younger residents were also considered and soundings, that the Plan should focus on certain to be essential as part of the thorough programme priority issues, especially growth and housing. of community involvement. The NPSG therefore Consequently, not all possible topics are covered in arranged visits to two local secondary schools, to the Plan. It is anticipated that additional topics will be provide Neighbourhood Plan project sessions for covered in a review of the Plan. Long Melford resident pupils. 1.20 1.16 Long Melford Parish Council confirms that this is A full description of the community involvement the only Neighbourhood Plan for the parish of Long programme and those whom the NPSG consulted is Melford. provided in the Statement of Consultation (See Plan Supporting Documents). Further appendices then 1.21 include more on the community involvement work The appendices and supporting documents upon of the Steering Group, including the full results and which the Plan is based are available online at methodology of the Residents Survey (Appendix 2), www.longmelfordnp.co.uk details of the Schools Project (Appendix 6) and notes from the Business Forums (Appendix 7).
6 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 7 THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
2.1 This chapter is an introduction to Long Melford, its 2location, the extent of the Neighbourhood Plan area, its history and a statistical account of the population and the economic and social activity in the village.
LOCATION OF LONG MELFORD
2.2 Long Melford is situated in the South Suffolk From beginning to end the village is three miles in countryside. It is a large village, most of which length. The parish also includes properties in the lies along the former main road from Sudbury to hamlets of Bridge Street and Cuckoo Tye. The parish Bury St Edmunds, which follows the valley of the boundary extends to meet ten other parishes and is River Stour, crossing the Chad Brook, a tributary limited to the west by the River Stour, which forms the of the River Stour, and continuing northwards. natural border between Suffolk and Essex.
8 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 9
2 The Neighbourhood Area
2.1 This chapter is an introduction to Long Melford, its location, the extent of the Neighbourhood Plan area, its history and a statistical account of the population and the economic and social activity in the village.
Location of Long Melford
2.2 Long Melford is situated in the South Suffolk countryside. It is a large village, most of which lies along the former main road from Sudbury to Bury St Edmunds, which follows the valley of the River Stour, crossing the Chad Brook, a tributary of the River Stour, and continuing northwards. From beginning to end the village is three miles in length. The parish also includes properties in the hamlets of Bridge Street and Cuckoo Tye. The parish boundary extends to meet ten other parishes and is limited to the west by the River Stour, which forms the natural border between Suffolk and Essex.
2.3 Long Melford lies within the project area that is under review for a possible extension to Map 2A: The locationMap 2A: of The Long locationthe Dedham Melford of Long Vale within Melfordand Stour East within Valley A Eastnglia Area Anglia. .of Source: Outstanding Source: NPSG NPSGNatural Beauty (AONB), as shown in the map below (Figure 2B). The AONB itself is shown in darker green and the project area in lighter green. 7 2.3 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan Long Melford2019 – 2036lies within
the Dedham Vale and Stour Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Project Area, indicating its landscape value and helping to define the management of the local countryside. At the time of publication of the Plan the parish is not within the area currently being considered as an extension to the AONB. (See Map 2B where the AONB itself is shown in darker green and the Project Area in lighter green).
Map 2B: DedhamMap Vale 2B: and Dedham Stour Valley Vale andAONB Stour Project Valley Area AONB. Source Project: Dedham Area. Vale & Stour Valley AONB Project. Source: Dedham Vale & Stour Valley AONB Project
The Neighbourhood Plan Area
| LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 8 2.4 The Parish of Long Melford is shown in the map below (Figure 2C), delineated within a 9 green border. The neighbouring parishes are Alpheton and Shimpling (north), Lavenham, Acton and Chilton (east), Sudbury (south) and Stanstead, Glemsford, Liston and Borley, the latter two being parishes of Braintree District Council in Essex (west and south-west).
8 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN VILLAGE HISTORY
AREA 2.5 Long Melford parish is rich in archaeological remains, 2.4 with numerous sites listed in Suffolk County’s The Parish of Long Melford in the context of its position Historic Environment Record for the parish. The in East Anglia is shown in Map 2A. earliest records are from the Palaeolithic period, with The Neighbourhood Plan area first referred to in enclosures or ring ditches apparent as cropmarks, chapter 1 (Map 1A) is shown again below. Within that most likely from the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Evidence map, the Plan area is delineated within a pink border. from the Iron Age has been found with a cremation The neighbouring parishes are Alpheton and Shimpling burial site and several finds of coins. The Romans (north), Lavenham, Acton and Chilton (east), Sudbury left much evidence, including burial artefacts and (south) and Stanstead, Glemsford, Liston and Borley, bones, rare domestic items including a mirror, sword, the latter two being parishes of Braintree District knife and pottery, the remains of many buildings and Council in Essex (west and south-west). sections of road. There are two Roman villas listed in the village’s three Scheduled Monuments. The Water Conduit on the village green is the third Scheduled Monument. In addition, the village has two watermill sites and three pill boxes from World War II. There are outstanding examples of medieval and more recent history to be found at Holy Trinity Church, Kentwell and Melford Hall. The village also retains the remains of a Deer Park and the base of its original Market Cross, on its village green.
Map 1A: Parish Boundary of Long Melford. Source: Babergh District Council
10 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 11 2.6 founding, horse-hair weaving and mat making, with According to the Domesday survey of 1086, the village some of these continuing into the 20th century. There had a substantial manor, held by the Abbey of St are reminders of these village industries in the form Edmundsbury, and this included 50 acres of meadow, of cast iron bollards, foot scrapers and grave markers woodland for 60 pigs, two mills and a church. The made by Ward & Silver, the former local iron foundry. village is said to have been named from the ‘mill-ford’ crossing the Chad Brook, which is still visible at the 2.8 bottom end of the Green. The main street, which is There are many listed buildings within Long Melford’s wide by today’s standards, allows for free parking on Conservation Area and the majority of these line the both sides of the street. This was originally the road main thoroughfare through the village, Hall Street. between Sudbury and Bury St Edmunds, before the Most of these are Grade II listed and are Tudor in construction of the A134 bypass in 1991, and includes origin, although many were re-fronted with brick in a slight diversion of the Peddars Way, the most Georgian and Victorian times. The four Grade 1 listed important Roman road on the western side of East buildings are the Holy Trinity Church, the adjoining Anglia. Trinity Hospital and two Tudor houses and estates - Kentwell to the north of the Church and Melford Hall, 2.7 to the south. During the Anglo-Saxon period, it is thought that the local population lived in a series of scattered 2.9 hamlets. By the 13th century, Melford had acquired a Since the late 19th century, much of the residential Market Charter and was beginning to specialise in the housing built in the village can be attributed to the production of woollen cloth. This contributed greatly building firm, Cubitt Theobald. They have been a to its past and is still relevant as ‘Wool Towns’ tourist major employer in Long Melford since the 1880’s and publicity. The industrial and commercial growth saw still operate from their St. Catherine’s Road premises, the development of Hall Street, which is now the employing around 65 staff, the majority of whom live heart of the village. As the hamlets joined together, in or near to the village. ‘Long’ was added to the name to create the village that is known today. After 1700, the market for cloth 2.10 declined, but the village managed to acquire new After the Second World War, development took place industries such as paper making, oil distilling, iron to the east of the village including the introduction of council housing. The village then continued to grow, mainly via private developers, with ‘growth spurts’ accompanying major new developments, typically Harefield (built in 1967) and Roman Way (completed in the late 1980’s). This growth continues to the present day, with three separate housing estates currently under construction: Orchard Brook (formerly Fleetwood Caravans) in the village centre (48 dwellings), Weavers Tye (on Bull Lane) to the east of the village centre (71 dwellings) and Elms Croft (by Ropers Lane) to the south of the village centre (77 dwellings).
10 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 11 2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
2.11 2.13 2.14 The village had a railway station The village’s community groups The significant older population which opened in 1865, as part are numerous and well supported in the village is served by a range of the Stour Valley railway line by local residents and those from of specialist accommodation e.g. from Sudbury to Cambridge, via surrounding villages. The village Steeds Meadow, Melford Court, Clare and Haverhill. There was still retains a GP practice, primary Holy Trinity Hospital (not limited to also a branch line northward school (with pre-school), library older people but tends to be) and to Lavenham and on to Bury St and other essential services. Long Orchard Brook (a recent addition). Edmunds. This branch line closed Melford has two Local Nature in 1961 and the Stour Valley line Reserves and a major part of the and station closed in March 1967, village has Conservation Area as part of the Beeching cuts. The status, originally designated by old station building remains, now West Suffolk County Council in a private house and a significant 1973, and inherited by BDC at its section of the old railway line forms inception in 1974. one of the village’s nature reserves.
2.12 Long Melford’s history of Map 2C: Charles Verrons’ Map of 1801 commercial success from business and tourism also continues today, with a mix of businesses which are mainly focussed around Hall Street. Tourism is a valuable source of income and Holy Trinity Church, Kentwell and Melford Hall continue to draw in visitors. In 2017, the Nethergate Brewery, moved to the southern end of the village from its base in Essex. There are also a number of long-established farms. (For more on business and tourism in the village, see Chapter 7).
Map 2D Charles Verrons map of 1801. Source:
12 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 13
12 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2.15 Long Melford today is a place of considerable heritage Maps 2C and 2D show the parish and surrounding area significance. The history of Long Melford has featured in 1801 and 1898. These show earlier stages of the in the BBC series ‘The Great British Story’ as well as linear development pattern which is still evident in the many publications, and the village has a volunteer- village today. led Long Melford Museum & Heritage Centre, and a Historical Society which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2019.
Map 2D: Long Melford 1898
Map 2D Charles Verrons map of 1801. Source: Map 2E Long Melford 1898. Source: 12 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 13
12 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
13 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
2.18 CONTEMPORARY LONG Long Melford’s population age distribution shows MELFORD children aged 0-15, account for 13.9%, a lower proportion than in Babergh at 18.1% (18.9% England). 2.16 The statistical data which is shown and commented on 2.19 in following sections on Population, Households and The age ranges in the chart below include peak their Housing and Economic Activity, is taken from the economic activity (16-44 years), and standard CensusContemporary of 2011. For Long a full Melford record of the data concerned economic activity (45-64 years). The parish has a see Appendix 1. smaller proportion of people in the years of peak 2.15 The statistical data which is shown and commentedeconomic on activity:in following 28.6% sections compared on to 31.5% in Population, Households and their Housing and EconomicBabergh Activity, (39.4% is taken England). from the Census of POPULATION2011. For a full record of the data concerned see Appendix 1. 2.20 2.17 The data of the population aged 65 or over records BasedPopulation on the Census of 2011, Long Melford has a 26.8% for Long Melford, compared with 21.4% in population of 3,518 people which is broken down as Babergh (16.3% England). follows:2.16 Based on the Census of 2011, Long Melford has a population of 3,518 people which is broken down as follows:
Population Age Range 45
40
35
30
25
20 Percentage 15
10
5
0 Under 16 16-44 45-64 65+
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2A: Age Structure. Source: 2011 Census Table KS102EW Chart 2A: Age Structure (KS102EW). Source: Census 2011.
2.17 Long Melford’s population age distribution shows children aged 0-15, account for 13.9%, a lower proportion than in Babergh at 18.1% (18.9% England).
2.18 The age ranges above include peak economic activity (16-44 years), and standard economic activity (45-64 years). The parish has a smaller proportion of people in the years of peak economic activity: 28.6% compared to 31.5% in Babergh (39.4% England). 14 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 15 2.19 The data of the population aged 65 or over records 26.8% for Long Melford, compared with 21.4% in Babergh (16.3% England).
14 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036 General Health 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Percentage 15 10 5 0 Ver Good Good Fair Bad
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2B: Health and ProvisionChart 2B: of General Unpaid Health. Care Source: (KS301EW) 2011 Census. Source: KS301EW Census 2011.
2.20 Related to these age characteristics are the health figures: 21.4% of Long Melford 2.21 residents declared that their fair/bad2.22 health is limiting da -to-da activities a little or a lot, Related to these comparedage characteristics to 17.4% arein Babergh the health (17.6% The England household). composition picture is also influenced figures: 21.4% of Long Melford residents declared that by the age profile: 19.5% of the 1,661 households their fair/bad health2.2 is1 limiting Across allday-to-day three areas, activities unpaid a careare was single-person, similar at 10% aged-11%. 65 plus. A further 11.8% of little or a lot, compared to 17.4% in Babergh (17.6% households are families in which all persons are England). aged 65 plus. Both figures are higher than in the
Household Composition 25
20
15 Percentage
10
5
0 Single 65+ Famil 65+ Single under 65 Famil + children Single Parents
Long Melford Babergh England 15 Chart 2C: HouseholdChartLong 2C: CompositionMelford Household Neighbourhood Composition. (KS105EW) Source: .Plan Source 2011: CensusCensus Table 2011 KS105EW. 2019 – 2036 2.22 The household composition picture is also influenced b the age profile: 19.5% of the 1,661 households are single-person, aged 65 plus. A further 11.8% of households are families 14 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 in which all persons are aged 65 plus. Both figures are higher LONGthan MELFORD in the c NEIGHBOURHOODomparable areas PLAN. 2018-2037 | 15 Single person households with members ounger than 65 account for 16.4% of parish households. Households with dependent children make up 17.5% of parish households, mostl married or co-habiting couples (13.9%), with single parents accounting for 3.6% of this figure.
2.23 Long Melford sits between Babergh and England in terms of deprivation: 45.4% of households in the parish are not deprived in an dimension, compared to 47.5% in Babergh and 42.5% in England. The same pattern is displa ed in relation to households which are deprived in two, three or four dimensions: 22.4% of households in the parish. This means that over a fifth of Long Melford households or 371 households are deprived in at least two dimensions. (Note: dimensions in relation to deprivation data are indicators that are based on four selected household characteristics: emplo ment position, education level attained, general standard of health and housing situation).
16 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
comparable areas. Single person households with in Babergh and 42.5% in England. The same pattern is members younger than 65 account for 16.4% of parish displayed in relation to households which are deprived households. Households with dependent children in two, three or four dimensions: 22.4% of households make up 17.5% of parish households, mostly married in the parish. This means that over a fifth of Long or co-habiting couples (13.9%), with single parents Melford households or 371 households are deprived in accounting for 3.6% of this figure. at least two dimensions. (Note: dimensions in relation to deprivation data are indicators that are based on 2.23 four selected household characteristics: employment Long Melford sits between Babergh and England in position, education level attained, general standard of terms of deprivation: 45.4% of households in the parish health and housing situation). are not deprived in any dimension, compared to 47.5%
HOUSEHOLDS AND THEIR HOUSING
2.24 The counterpart to this is a lower proportion of Home ownership, with or without a mortgage: Long households in social rented housing: 15.7% in the Melford 65.6%, which compares with Babergh 71.9% parish and 18.2% in privately rented or rent-free (England 63.4%). accommodation.
Households and their Housing
Household Tenure 80
70
60
50
40
Percentage 30
20
10
0 Owned Social Rented Private Rented Shared
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2D: TenureChart – Households 2D: Tenure – (KS402EW) Households. .Source: Source: 2011 Census Census 2011 Table. KS402EW
2.24 Home ownership, with or without a mortgage: Long Melford 65.6%, which compares with Babergh 71.9% (England 63.4%). The counterpart to this is a lower proportion of households in social rented housing: 15.7% in the parish and 18.2% in privatel rented or rent- 16 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 17 free accommodation.
2.25 No households are reported as sharing a dwelling with another household. 90.6% occup a whole house or bungalow and 9.4% a flat, maisonette or apartment. The houses and bungalows are divided roughl one third each detached, semi-detached and terraced.
2.26 The Census also measured space standards b the number of persons per room. Long Melford scores well against both other areas: 83.3% of households at up to 0.5 persons per room, compared to 79.1% in Babergh (71.1% England). Onl eight households are at more than one person per room.
Source: Census 2011 -Households b Persons per Room (QS409EW)
17 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2.25 2.26 No households are reported as sharing a dwelling with The Census also measured space standards by the another household. 90.6% occupy a whole house or number of persons per room. Long Melford scores well bungalow and 9.4% a flat, maisonette or apartment. against both other areas: 83.3% of households at up to The houses and bungalows are divided roughly one 0.5 persons per room, compared to 79.1% in Babergh third each detached, semi-detached and terraced. (71.1% England). Only eight households are at more than one person per room.
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
2.27 2.28 The overall rate of economic activity among those aged Among the economically inactive two-thirds are 16-74 in the parish is lower at 68.5% than in Babergh retired, 11.0% are looking after a home or family, 6.4% 70.3% (England 69.9%). Among the economically are students and 9.3% are long-term sick or disabled. active, 72.0% are employed and 20.5% self-employed, the rate of self-employment being higher than in both other areas. Among the self-employed only 21.9% have employees, the balance 78.1% working either full or part-time, without employees. This gives a total of 282 people who are self-employed and working on their own. The figures for self-employed in Long Melford are generally higher than in the other areas.
Economic Activit
Economic Activit 80
70
60
50
40
Percentage 30
20
10
0 Full-time Part-time Self Emplo ed Unemplo ed Full-time Student
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2E: EconomicChart Activit 2E: Economic (QS601EW Activity.). Source: Source: 2011Census Census 2011 Table. QS601EW
2.27 The overall rate of economic activit among those aged 16-74 in the parish is lower at 68.5% than in Babergh 70.3% (England 69.9%). Among the economicall active, 72.0% are emplo ed and 20.5% self-emplo ed, the rate of self-emplo ment being higher than in both 16 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 17 other areas. Among the self-emplo ed onl 21.9% have emplo ees, the balance 78.1% working either full or part-time, without emplo ees. This gives a total of 282 people who are self-emplo ed and working on their own. The figures for self-emplo ed in Long Melford are generall higher than in the other areas.
2.28 Among the economicall inactive two-thirds are retired, 11.0% are looking after a home or famil , 6.4% are students and 9.3% are long-term sick or disabled.
18 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
Qualifications 30
25
20
15
Percentage 10
5
0 No 1-4 GCSE an 5+ GCSE A*-C 2+ A-levels Degree Apprenticeships Qualifications grade
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2F: Qualifications (KS501EW)Chart 2F: Qualifications.. Source: CensusSource: 2011 2011 Census. Table KS501EW
2.29 In terms of academic qualifications, 27.3% of residents aged 16 and over have no qualifications, which compares with 23% in the other areas. The difference in level of 2.29qualifications is significant at degree or equivalent: Long2.30 Melford 23.4%, compared to 25.8% Inin terms Babergh of academic, (England qualifications, 27.4%). However 27.3% ,of Long residents Melford The has socio-economic a slightl higher classification proportion of Long Melford agedapprentices 16 andhips over than have the otherno qualifications, areas. which residents aged 16-74, is similar to the other areas, compares with 23% in the other areas. The difference although there is a higher representation of small
in level of qualifications is significant at degree or employers and people working on their own account. 2.30 The socio-economic classification of Long Melford residents aged 16-74, is similar to the equivalent: Long Melford 23.4%, compared to 25.8% About 10% of residents are in higher managerial, inother Babergh, areas, (England although 27.4%). there is However, a higher representationLong Melford ofadministrative small emplo ers and and professional people working occupations and 20% hason theira slightly own higheraccount. proportion About 10% of ofapprenticeships residents are in higherin lower managerial, managerial, administrative administrative and and professional thanprofessional the other occupationsareas. and 20% in lower manageoccupations.rial, administrative Over 25% and of professionalresidents are in routine or occupations. Over 25% of residents are in routine or semisemi-routine-routine occupations. occupations.
18 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 19
19 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
Car/Van Availabilit 50 45 40 35 30 25
Percentage 20 15 10 5 0 No car/van One car/van Two cars/vans Three + cars/vans
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2G: Car orChart Van 2G: Availabilit Car or Van Availability. (KS404EW) Source:. Source: 2011 Census Table 2011 KS404EW.
2.31 Car (or van) ownership is lower than in Babergh but significantl higher than in England. Car ownership tends to be higher in rural areas, where alternative forms of transport are less 2.31 available and t pical distances travelled are greater. In urban areas car ownership is lower, Car (or van) ownership is lower than in Babergh but significantly higher than in England. Car ownership tends with better public transport and more accessible facilities. Just over 10% of households have to be higher in rural areas, where alternative forms of transport are less available and typical distances travelled three or more cars or vans. are greater. In urban areas car ownership is lower, with better public transport and more accessible facilities. Just over 10% of households have three or more cars or vans.
“GIVEN THE GROWING DISTANCES PEOPLE ARE PREPARED TO TRAVEL TO WORK … IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT LONG MELFORD RESIDENTS RELY HEAVILY ON THE CAR OR VAN FOR GETTING TO WORK”
18 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 19
20 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CONTINUED...
2.32 Travel to work is an important issue when considering the sustainability of a community such as Long Melford. The 2011 Census covers mode of travel to work but not distance. The figures show an interesting pattern, which reflects the geography of Long Melford and its surrounding area:
2.33 The majority of people drive to work in a car or van: Long Melford 70.2 % (+4.9% travelling as a passenger), compared to 72.5% in Babergh (England 62%). This is reflected in the proportion using public transport at only 4.6%, shared equally between train and bus. Working from home accounts for 8.3% and 10% walk or cycle.
2.34 Given the growing distances people are prepared to travel to work and the current pressures on public transport, it is not surprising that Long Melford residents rely heavily on the car or van for getting to work.
2.35 The greatest potential for reducing the need to travel for Long Melford residents appears to be in increased working from home and in maintaining or increasing employment opportunities in the village and industrial estates. The importance of local jobs shows again in the proportion of residents who walk or cycle to work: 10.5% in Long Melford, 12.3% Babergh (England 13.7%).
Travel to work 80
70
60
50
40
Percentage 30
20
10
0 Car/Van Public Transport Work from home Bic cle/Foot
Long Melford Babergh England
Chart 2H: Method of Travel to Work. Source: 2011 Census Table QS701EW Chart 2H: Method of Travel to Work (QS701EW). Source: Census 2011.
2.32 Travel to work is an important issue when considering the sustainabilit of a communit such as Long Melford. The 2011 Census covers mode of travel to work but not distance. The figures show an interesting pattern, which reflects the geograph of Long Melford and its 20 | LONG MELFORDsurrounding NEIGHBOURHOOD area: PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 21
2.33 The majorit of people drive to work in a car or van: Long Melford 70.2 % (+4.9% travelling as a passenger), compared to 72.5% in Babergh (England 62%). This is reflected in the proportion using public transport at onl 4.6%, shared equall between train and bus. Working from home accounts for 8.3% and 10% walk or c cle. 2.34 Given the growing distances people are prepared to travel to work and the current pressures on public transport, it is not surprising that Long Melford residents rel heavil on the car or van for getting to work.
2.35 The greatest potential for reducing the need to travel for Long Melford residents appears to be in increased working from home and in maintaining or increasing emplo ment opportunities in the village and industrial estates. The importance of local jobs shows again in the proportion of residents who walk or c cle to work: 10.5% in Long Melford, 12.3% Babergh (England 13.7%).
21 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
2.37 VILLAGE EVENTS The privately owned Kentwell holds historical re- enactment days as well as outdoor cinema, outdoor 2.36 music, rare breeds farm displays, ‘Scaresville’ (a The village has a variety of events for residents, visitors highly popular Halloween event which takes place and tourists. Several of these events benefit both the throughout the month of October and into early village and society in general, through charitable November) and a variety of seasonal celebrations donations. Examples include the ‘Leestock ‘Music which draw from different periods in history. Festival, held annually on the May Bank Holiday and ‘Project Seven Big Night Out’ which takes place each 2.38 November. Both of these events are held in the grounds The Old School and the Village Hall are centrally of Melford Hall which is owned by the National Trust. positioned in the village and are in use throughout the It has a full programme of events which attract many year, hosting craft, book and antique fairs, which draw Trust members as well as other visitors to the village. in residents and visitors.
20 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 21 CHARACTERISTICS AND VISION
3KEY CHARACTERISTICS HISTORIC CHARACTER 3.1 3.3 Long Melford is a lively and attractive, historic village The core of the village, including Hall Street, the set amid beautiful Suffolk countryside and farmland. village greens and properties abutting them are in a It attracts many visitors from nearby villages, towns Conservation Area and many of these properties are and from further afield. listed buildings. The best known, all Grade 1 listed, are Melford Hall, Kentwell, Holy Trinity Church and 3.2 the Trinity Hospital and these buildings embody the Its key characteristics need to be maintained or village’s historic character. enhanced if it is to continue to prosper and remain the vibrant village it is, both to live in and to visit. 3.4 It is vital to maintain and enhance the village’s historic character.
22 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 23 RURAL SETTING ATTRACTIVE NATURAL
3.5 ENVIRONMENT Long Melford is surrounded by farmland, which gives it a wonderful rural setting and a number of outstanding 3.8 views. It also benefits from a public rights of way The village has two Local Nature Reserves and network facilitating access to the countryside. important flood meadows, that are both important for outdoor recreation and bio-diversity. These and other 3.6 green areas need to be protected and enhanced for The village benefits from its proximity to other villages future generations. and to the historic town of Sudbury, but there is a distinct area of farmland and meadows between it and 3.9 Sudbury. Similarly, there is a clear area of farmland It is important that the village cares for the natural east of the Railway Walk as far as the A134 bypass. This environment and thinks about long term sustainability. rural setting is also reflected on the four main routes into the village, all of which are characterised by an attractive mix of fields, meadows and trees. CHARACTERISTICS 3.7 The routes into Long Melford, its treasured open spaces and the gap between Long Melford and AND VISION Sudbury should be protected from development and from the impact of nearby developments.
22 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 23 3. CHARACTERISTICS AND VISION CONTINUED...
3.15 VIBRANT VILLAGE CENTRE The challenges which Long Melford face in 2019 are in many respects a consequence of its past success 3.10 and the characteristics set out above. People enjoy Hall Street and Little St Mary’s are lined with this village and as time passes, more are choosing to interesting, varied and largely independently owned live here. The village is growing and with this growth shops, galleries and antique centres, beauty salons comes rising demand for services and pressure on the and hairdressers plus hotels, pubs, tea shops, village’s facilities. restaurants and much more. These are popular with residents and tourists alike and contribute greatly to 3.16 the village’s vibrancy and economic prosperity. Growth is a good thing and it is vital to the life of a community, but it has to be sustainable. The vision of 3.11 this Plan is to manage the coming phase of growth for Every effort should be made to support local the village and parish in a manner which encourages businesses and to ensure a positive experience when sustainability. people visit the village centre.
ATTRACTIVE DESTINATION VISION FOR VISITORS AND TOURISTS 3.17 This vision looks ahead to 2037, the final year of the 3.12 Plan Period and it visualises what the residents of Long Melford’s two halls and Holy Trinity church, its Long Melford might reasonably expect to see from this Country Park, its Railway Walk and its businesses project. Not all of it will be delivered by the Policies benefit greatly when people visit from outlying of the Plan; some things will follow as an addition villages and towns, or when tourists make the village to the Plan and others are included as Community a destination from further afield. Objectives, which will be worked on with other parties as appropriate before and after the Plan is adopted. 3.13 Continued support for tourism in Long Melford is 3.18 essential. Long Melford is a large village and there are real constraints on further growth, largely because of the rich heritage and landscape assets of the village. KEY CHALLENGES There is also a sense that the character of Long Melford would change, for the worse, if significant 3.14 additional development were to take place. However, Over time all communities have to deal with change any living organism needs to change, to adapt to a and to cope with challenges. In facing this in Long changing environment. So, in the vision of the Plan, Melford an appreciation of heritage is very important, by 2037 additional housing will have been provided but it is also essential not to become tied to the past in a sustainable fashion to enable all in the parish and to know when and how to embrace the future. to access satisfactory housing. In particular young people will have been able to secure a suitable home in Long Melford.
24 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 25 3.19 3.23 The heritage assets of the village, that are open to There will be a wide range of viable businesses and visitors, Kentwell Hall and gardens, Melford Hall and tourist facilities in and around the parish providing gardens, Holy Trinity Church and grounds and the employment and contributing positively to the local Conservation Area, will be maintained and enhanced economy and village life. and they will attract visitors from all sections of the community. They will make a bigger contribution to 3.24 the activities offered by the village. More generally the Long Melford, as a core village in the context of BDCs heritage assets will have been cared for and adapted Core Strategy 2014 and its emerging Joint Local Plan, to suit contemporary lifestyles and to ensure their is a service centre for ten hinterland villages. For the viability. sake of the people of the hinterland villages, Long Melford residents and the many visitors from further 3.20 afield, it is essential that the services provided in Long The natural features that surround the village Melford are maintained and improved. Key facilities and which help to define it, will be preserved and that will be flourishing and offering a high standard of enhanced. Where compatible with the main, usually service in the future are the shops and services focused agricultural, use of the land, access for the public will in Hall Street and Little St Mary’s, the GP surgery, the be facilitated. More people will want to walk or cycle primary school and the hospitality establishments. in the countryside, either on their way to a destination or for the enjoyment of exercise and the natural world. 3.25 The network of paths and bridleways will have been This Neighbourhood Plan is seen as the beginning of extended in order to open up either attractive circuits a new era of localism, in which the village will take or more non-motorised off-road routes to local more control over facilities and the environment destinations, with safe pedestrian routes joining all in Long Melford. Measures such as the Community parts of the village. Infrastructure Levy (CIL), of which the Parish Council will receive 25% once this Plan is adopted, will provide 3.21 funds with which to secure greater local control. For Fundamental to Long Melford’s success is the ability to more information about CIL, see Chapter 8. access its services safely and conveniently. In an ideal world through-traffic will have been largely eliminated 3.26 from Hall Street and there will be an easy mingling of Overall Long Melford will have been cared for, such shoppers parking, pedestrians, delivery vehicles and that it remains an attractive place to live, work and cars moving along Hall Street. This might borrow enjoy for families, for retirees, for young people and something from the concept of shared surfaces which children. have been successfully introduced elsewhere.
3.22 Increasingly the favoured mode of transport will be pollution-free electric vehicles, some of which will be operating as public transport. Owners of these vehicles will have access to charging points, not only at their homes but also in public places around the village. Walking is the ultimate sustainable form of transport and Long Melford will offer more attractive and safer opportunities for walking and cycling.
24 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 25 3. CHARACTERISTICS AND VISION CONTINUED...
Map 3A – Key Features. Source: NPSG
26 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 27 “THIS NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN IS SEEN AS THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA OF LOCALISM, IN WHICH THE VILLAGE WILL TAKE MORE CONTROL OVER FACILITIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN LONG MELFORD”
CORE OBJECTIVES WHEREBY THE PLAN CAN ACHIEVE THIS VISION
3.27 The core objectives which form the rationale to this Plan and which are intended to help to achieve its vision are shown below.
a) To protect and enhance the heritage assets of the parish and to promote access to those which are open to the public.
b) To protect and enhance the open spaces, the landscapes, and the Public Rights of Way within the parish and to facilitate more people having the opportunity to enjoy the countryside.
c) To protect and enhance our valuable natural environment.
d) To promote sustainable modes of travel, especially walking, cycling, electric cars and public transport.
e) To improve amenities and the character and atmosphere of the village centre for residents, visitors and local businesses.
) f To support and enhance viable businesses within the village and to provide the right conditions for the encouragement of employment.
) g To encourage tourism and to provide the right environment for a wide range of events to take place in the village.
h) To allocate land for housing development in sustainable locations to meet the demonstrated need for additional housing.
i) To ensure that additional developments include sufficient affordable housing, housing for local people and housing of different types.
j) To ensure that that the village services and facilities reflect the present needs of the population, with sufficient apacityc to also meet future needs. This applies to services such as the GP surgery and primary school but also to the facilities for recreation in the village.
The Policies and Community Objectives whereby the Plan will seek to fulfil these core objectives are set out in the following chapters.
26 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 27 SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING
4.1 “This can include allocating sites, the provision of The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) infrastructure and community facilities at a local 42019 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable level, establishing design principles, conserving and development at paragraph 11: enhancing the natural and historic environment and “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in setting out other development management policies.” favour of sustainable development. For plan-making “Neighbourhood plans can shape, direct and help to this means that: deliver sustainable development, by influencing local a) plans should positively seek opportunities to planning decisions as part of the statutory development meet the development needs of their area, plan. Neighbourhood plans should not promote less and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to development than set out in the strategic policies for rapid change;” the area, or undermine those strategic policies.”
4.2 4.3 The role of Neighbourhood Plans in setting out The objective for those strategic policies is set out in non-strategic policies (strategic policies being the paragraph 11: responsibility of Babergh District Council (BDC)) is “…. strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for described at paragraphs 28 and 29: objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses”
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 29 4.4 4.7 The Parish Council understands that it needs to In more detail, according to the 2011 Census of pursue policies that meet the three components Population: of sustainable development: economic, social and • Of 1,661 dwellings in the parish 91% are single environmental. The policies also need to provide for household dwellings and of these roughly one- an appropriate proportion of the needs for housing third are detached, one-third semi-detached and other uses that are identified strategically. and one-third terraced. • Of the same 1,661 dwellings some 40% are 4.5 owned outright, 26% owned with a loan, 16% In pursuit of these objectives, this Plan has allocated social rented and 18% privately rented. six sites for housing, one of which is for mixed employment and housing use whilst the rest are just for housing. All of these site allocations are identified 4.8 in this chapter. In order to understand the needs of the community and how the property market operates in Long Melford and surrounding communities, the Neighbourhood SUSTAINABLE INTRODUCTION Plan Steering Group (NPSG) has consulted: • Local residents through open days and the 4.6 Residents Survey. GROWTH AND Housing is the largest single land use in the parish apart • Landowners. from agriculture. It matters to the local community for • Estate agents with experience of Long Melford several reasons: and other local housing markets. HOUSING • It enables some 3,500 people (2011 Census of • Housing developers, private and social, who Population) to live in an attractive and well have experience and capability relevant to serviced village. Long Melford. • The attractiveness of the village puts housing prices and rents beyond the reach of some 4.9 people. Housing in other nearby settlements is These consultations have helped to identify not only more affordable. There is comment that local needs related to housing but also practical issues, people often struggle to access suitable housing for example concerning the deliverability of different in Long Melford. potential sites for housing. • Much of the housing is an important part of the historic character of the village. • Residents of Long Melford housing form the POLICY INTENTIONS most important of three markets for the village shops and services. The other markets are 4.10 residents of the surrounding hinterland villages The main issues that have emerged from the and visitors from further afield. consultations and from other evidence and which • The housing stock has expanded over the provide the intentions underpinning the Policies of years to meet the needs of residents and the Plan are: incomers. However, there is concern that the • To meet the justified need for additional scale of expansion risks damaging the character of housing in the parish. the village. Some 217 homes were under • To secure a degree of control over the scale, construction or permitted at the start of the Plan pace, location and types of housing over the Period (1/4/18). Plan Period.
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 29 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
• To ensure that a high proportion of figures should not need retesting at the neighbourhood additional housing is affordable and, within plan examination, unless there has been a significant that proportion, to reserve a significant change in circumstances that affects the requirement.” percentage for local people. • To ensure a high quality of design in future 4.14 housing development. Babergh DC and Mid Suffolk DC have published their Joint Local Plan (JLP), Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) 4.11 Document in November 2020. This responds to para The first three issues are addressed in this Plan. The 65 of NPPF by producing, inter alia: design issue has not been fully addressed. An initial • A housing requirement for Babergh District of policy on design is included in this Plan and further 7904 dwellings in total or 416 dwellings per proposals on design will be addressed once the Plan annum, for the period 2018-2037. has been made, either in Supplementary Planning • A total requirement for the Core Villages of 2699 Guidance or by means of a review of the Plan. dwellings for the same period. • A total requirement for Long Melford of 367 dwellings for the same period; 217 dwellings are THE NEED FOR HOUSING provided in planning permissions outstanding at April 2018, leaving a net requirement of 150 4.12 dwellings. The NPSG realised early in the preparation of the Plan • NPPF para 11 and Policy SP01 of the JLP state that housing had to be a priority issue within the Plan, that these requirements are minimal. for the following reasons: • Nationally there is a need for additional housing. • Local consultations and the Residents 4.15 Survey, produced in 2018 by the NPSG, It may be assumed that the requirements, including indicated a need for additional housing, that for Long Melford, “reflect the overall strategy for especially affordable housing and housing for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant local people. allocations” (NPPF, 2019, quoted above). That pattern and scale of development includes the expectation • Long Melford is a popular residential location. that Core Villages will be the focus for development within their functional cluster (Policy SP03, para 2 of 4.13 BMSDC Joint Local Plan, Pre-Submission (Regulation NPPF 2019 (para 65) requires that: 19) Document, November 2020 and Policy CS2 of “Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a BDC’s Core Strategy 2014). The figures may be open housing requirement figure for their whole area, which to change as the JLP progresses towards adoption. shows the extent to which their identified housing need An adjustment to the Long Melford requirement is (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring prompted by the consent on appeal, since the start areas) can be met over the Plan Period. Within this overall date of the JLP, for 150 homes on a site in Station Road; requirement, strategic policies should also set out a it means that the net requirement of 150 dwellings is housing requirement for designated neighbourhood met. It should be recalled that the requirement of 367 areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern dwellings is a minimum. and scale of development and any relevant allocations. Once the strategic policies have been adopted, these
30 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 31 4.19 HOW MANY HOMES CAN Policy SP04 of the JLP states: “designated LONG MELFORD SUSTAINABLY Neighbourhood Plan areas will be expected to plan to deliver the minimum housing requirements set out ACCOMMODATE? in Table 4.” That requirement for Long Melford is 367 dwellings which matches the total committed capacity 4.16 of Long Melford of 367 dwellings. An allowance must The Parish Council supports the provision of also be made, in accordance with the Draft JLP, for additional housing in the parish because there are windfall housing development. Using the evidence unmet needs and because additional population will presented in the Draft JLP such development will support the significant services offered in the village. result in some 19 additional dwellings. The fact that This will then help to justify additional investment in the requirement is a minimum and that there is a the improvement of services. risk not all planning consents will be implemented provides the opportunity for the Neighbourhood Plan 4.17 to consider particular needs that may not be met by The capacity of the village to support additional the committed schemes. housing development is now examined. In Long Melford at the commencement date of the 4.20 Neighbourhood Plan there were (according to the Those needs and particular constraints on JLP Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability development in Long Melford are considered in the Assessment, October 2020, Appendix D) outstanding following paragraphs: planning permissions for some 217 dwellings, of • NPPF 2019 stipulates that the estimated need which the most significant were Orchard Brook 48, should be seen as a minimum, not a target or Weavers Tye 71, Elms Croft 77, and the former Downs a maximum. Garage in Southgate Street 3. ). About half of these • The Neighbourhood Plan needs to consider were under construction at the relevant date (1/4/18), whether there are local needs that would not be meaning that there is little doubt about their delivery. met by the committed developments. The development of 150 dwellings on Station Road has outline consent; its development must await • The Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity the finding of a developer and the processing of a Assessment is particularly significant for Long significant number of detailed planning consents. Melford. The Assessment evaluates settlements with heritage significance according to the value of their heritage features, to the susceptibility 4.18 of those features to further development and to In the context of the Policy CS2 (of BDC’s Core the combined effect of value and susceptibility. Strategy 2014) on expectation of Core Villages (focus Long Melford is one of only two settlements for development within their functional cluster), in Babergh District to be scored “High” on all it is noteworthy that some 230 homes are under three counts. This means that the heritage construction or permitted in the hinterland villages of assets of the village are highly valuable, they Long Melford. These include: Acton 100, Cockfield 51, are highly susceptible to detriment attributable Great Waldingfield 32, and various smaller schemes to development and the combination of these in Alpheton, Cockfield, Lawshall, Stanstead totalling factors makes Long Melford especially vulnerable. approximately 50. The hinterland villages are making The Assessment gives guidance on the location a significant contribution to meeting the requirement and significance of heritage assets and on areas for homes in the Long Melford cluster. of the village where assets are particularly at . risk
30 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 31 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
The Assessment’s summary relating to Long (Appendix 2, Table H2): Melford is quoted: • Bungalows 58% “Long Melford is a well preserved medieval and early modern historic linear settlement of high • Two-bedroom houses 70% value. At the northern end of the settlement are • Three-bedroom houses 58% two large country houses, set within their • Sheltered housing 56% associated parkland, both of which are registered parks and gardens. The settlement is extremely This relates to the types of houses built not susceptible to change, with very limited the number of houses; additional dwellings may areas where development might sensitively be nevertheless be needed if the committed accommodated, given the extent of the boundary schemes do not respond to these needs. which is defined by the registered parks and • A different aspect of housing need is deprivation: gardens and by the earthworks associated with 22.4% of households in the parish are deprived the historic railway.” in two, three or four dimensions. Whilst this is only • In the Babergh/Mid-Suffolk JLP Topic Paper, slightly higher than in Babergh (19.4%) it means Settlement Hierarchy Review, July 2019, Long that over a fifth of Long Melford households Melford achieved the highest score of all or some 371 households are deprived in at least settlements other than towns for its availability two dimensions. This indicates a significant of services such as shops, schools, community need for affordable housing. 54% of respondents and recreational facilities, public transport in the Residents Survey indicated that they etc. This makes the village an attractive focus for were happy with BDC’s policy requiring 35% development. of new housing to be affordable. (Appendix 2, Table H4). The Inspector at the Station Road Inquiry (APP/D3505/W/18/3214377) concluded 4.21 that the 53 people then on the Housing Register Local needs have been examined in a number of with a preference for, or a link to, Long Melford dimensions: village was a reasonable indication of the need for • The 2011 Census of Population shows a affordable housing, which might be met by significantly higher proportion of people aged committed schemes and the Appeal proposal; 65 or over in the parish: 26.8% compared with however it did not take account of any need 21.4% in Babergh and 16.3% in England. In arising in relation to other villages in the Long addition, 21.4% of Long Melford residents Melford cluster. declared that their fair or bad health is limiting • Information on house sales gathered by their day-to-day activities a little or a lot, Rightmove from HM Land Registry (6/4/20) shows compared to 17.4% in Babergh and 17.6% in the average sale price in Long Melford at £341,085 England. Households in Long Melford are and a considerable range of prices for different skewed towards single-person households aged house types: 65 and over: 19.5% in the parish, 14.1% in Babergh and 12.4% in England. This all indicates • Detached: £439,715 a need for smaller properties easily accessible to • Terraced: £230,916 the surgery and other village services. • Semi-detached £287,307 • The Residents Survey expressed preferences for different types of housing; the following types The ratios of house prices to earnings produced attracted more than 50% of respondents saying by the Office for National Statistics give a broad they were needed or very much needed indication of the affordability of housing; for
32 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 33 Babergh the median ratio is 10.95 and the lower quartile ratio is 11.07. Ratios in the 1990’s were THE CALL FOR SITES AND 3 to 4. No ratios are produced for smaller areas; THEIR ASSESSMENT however Long Melford will probably display a similarly significant level of unaffordability. There 4.23 is a need for lower priced homes in Long Melford. Sites have been identified from several sources: • The Residents Survey indicated strong support • BDC’s Strategic Housing and Economic Land for new housing to be reserved for local Long Availability Assessment (SHELAA). Melford people: 91% of respondents were in • A public call for sites which was published in favour overall and 82% proposed that 11% up to the Melford Magazine, which is delivered to 1,650 35% or more of new housing should be so households in the parish. reserved. (Appendix 2, Table H5). None of the committed schemes reserves housing for local • An invitation to individual landowners to put people. forward sites for development. • The evidence indicates a need for various types • Third parties who were aware of sites that could of housing: be considered. • Properties suitable for small, elderly • The NPSG, who identified some sites. households with good access to village services. 4.24 • Affordable housing for rent, as defined in In all cases landowners and third parties were made NPPF, 2019, Annex 2. aware that, at this stage, all sites would be subject to • Affordable housing in other tenures, which detailed evaluation and that there was no commitment might include smaller properties and terraced to any site being allocated for development. properties. • Bungalows 4.25 • Housing reserved for local people. Thirty-three sites (Map 4A) were put forward and they • Uncharted needs arising from the hinterland were subject to three successive rounds of evaluation: villages that look to Long Melford and those • Strategic evaluation against three criteria: likely to arise later in the Plan Period (2018- greenfield vs brownfield; distance on foot to the 2037). centre of the village (the centre being taken as the Co-op or Budgens, whichever is the nearer) and heritage impact (based on the 4.22 Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment In order to assess the capacity of the parish to commissioned by the joint councils). accommodate development, particularly in response to the locally identified needs, a call for sites was made and a framework made for the assessment of sites. https://www.babergh.gov.uk/assets/Strategic- Planning/Current-Evidence-Base/Heritage-and- Settlement-Sensitivity
https://www.babergh.gov.uk/assets/Strategic- Planning/Current-Evidence-Base/Appendix-1- Babergh-settlement-assessments.pdf
32 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 33 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
• A detailed assessment based on BDC’s mapping more being developed. There was also a strong and of constraints (15 criteria) together with eight articulate reaction against the large (150 dwellings) additional criteria specific to Long Melford and development proposed on Station Road, which has mainly related to accessibility of village facilities. now been granted outline consent. • An assessment of the deliverability (readiness for development) of sites, sometimes drawing 4.29 on the advice of developers who had shown In order to assess the capacity of sites to accommodate suitable experience and capability to work in additional housing, a standard density of 25 dwellings Long Melford. per hectare has been used, a figure derived from the BDC Core Strategy. Clearly this will vary from site to 4.26 site. However, it is considered to be a reasonable The Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment average for present purposes. is particularly significant for Long Melford. Its findings have been set out in paragraph 4.20 above. The study concludes “The settlement is extremely susceptible to 4.30 It is anticipated that the Plan will cover a nineteen- change, with very limited areas where development year period starting in 2018, the period ending on the might sensitively be accommodated, given the extent of same date as the emerging JLP, 2037. the boundary which is defined by the registered parks and gardens and by the earthworks associated with the historic railway.” 4.31 It should be noted that four sites identified in the 4.27 SHELAA relate more to Sudbury and the proposed Scores were given to sites in the first and second Chilton extension than to Long Melford. These have rounds of evaluation, but they were not the only been recorded, but, whilst they will inevitably make factors influencing whether a site was taken forward. some contribution to meeting housing need in Long Other issues included: Melford which may lead to additional utilisation of village services, they have not so far been counted • The balance of sites between different parts of towards the capacity of the parish. the parish. • The size of sites (given the NPPF policy to provide small sites for smaller developers and the strong 4.32 preference in the Residents Survey for small Map 4A shows the location of the 33 sites assessed. The sites). strategic evaluation identified ten sites which scored • The opportunity for affordable housing. 7, 8 or 9 out of 9 possible points; all but one scored 9 points. However, in six of these cases the owner has • The desirability of maintaining a Rural Gap not supported the site being brought forward. Three between Sudbury and Long Melford. of the remaining four sites (A1, L1 and G1) scored 57 • The potential for public benefits related to a site. or more points against the detailed criteria (out of a potential total of 69 points). These sites are small 4.28 brownfield sites well within the built-up area. The Whilst most residents acknowledge the need for fourth site scored 54 points and is considered suitable more housing, they are very aware of the scale of for allocation. These sites have a capacity of 17 housing under construction and reluctant to see much dwellings.
34 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 35 4.33 and nature of development that might be acceptable In line with the approach of taking into account factors in the Plan. Finally, in the quest for sites that could other than the evaluation by points, consideration has meet local needs within the parish the NPSG looked been given to a further site, which has a particular at sites that would maintain and reinforce the linear justification: K1 is owned by a charity which is character of Long Melford. One site, F1 on the west side working with a developer to have the site developed of Rodbridge Hill, has been considered suitable for to maximise the affordable housing and the housing allocation on this basis. This site, subject to detailed for local people. The site scores poorly on the strategic layout, could accommodate some 30 dwellings, criteria (4 points), being greenfield and at some which would make the total capacity of the sites to be distance from the village facilities. Given that sites allocated 77. for affordable housing often have to be in cheaper locations and given the purpose of the developer, 4.35 it is considered a site to be supported for allocation, The assessment of sites is set out in Appendix 3. Here subject to conditions. The potential capacity is about is a summary of the key findings: 30 dwellings, making a total of 47 dwellings with the four sites previously identified. • The sites put forward include very few brownfield sites and very few sites within walking 4.34 distance of the village centre. Three further sites come into play if the threshold on • Heritage constraints impose limits on the strategic assessment is lowered to 6 points, but in development over large parts of the parish. two cases (H8 and C3) the owner has not supported • Partly because of the shortage of brownfield sites, the allocation of the site. The third site (C1) is a small which often offer a ready-made access, part of the proposed development in Station Road, inadequate access is a constraint on the where the owner was unwilling to consider a scale development potential of many sites.
34 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 35 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
Map 4A – Sites Assessed. Source: NPSG
36 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 37 • This constraint together with heritage and other significant constraints mean that few sites are capable of being delivered early in the Plan Period. • Given the strongly linear character of Long Melford, the NPSG has also looked for sites which might confirm that linear character. Two sites emerged but one owner was unwilling to contemplate an appropriate form and scale of development.
4.36 However, in the context of the committed supply and of the desirability of meeting particular needs in the parish, the NPSG has identified a number of sites to be allocated: • Three brownfield sites in the centre of the village, • A brownfield site at the southern end of the village, • A greenfield site at the north end of the village, and • A greenfield site that will complement existing linear development. Details of these sites and their future development are set out in Policies LM 2 Map 4B - Policies Map. Source: NPSG to LM 7.
4.37 The policies map (Map 4B) shows Long Melford's Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB, Policy LM 1) and the policies applicable to specific sites: Housing Allocations (Policies LM 2-7), Rural Gap (Policies LM 14) and Local Green Spaces (Policy LM 19, see Chapter 6).
36 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 37 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICIESPOLICY LM 1 POLICY LM 1, GROWTH AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
This Plan provides for around 77 dwellings to be developed in the Neighbourhood Plan area between 2018 and 2037. This growth will be met through i) the allocation of the following sites as identified in separate policies in this Plan and on the Policies Map (4B):
• Site G1, Spicers Lane, Policy LM 2 • Site D1, Borley Road, Policy LM 5 • Site L1, Cordell Road, Policy LM 3 • Site K1, High Street, Policy LM 6 • Site A1, Cordell Road, Policy LM 4 • Site F1, Rodbridge Hill, Policy LM 7
ii) small windfall sites and infill plots of one or two dwellings within the Built-Up Area Boundary, as defined in this Plan, that come forward during the Plan Period and are not identified in the Plan; and
iii) conversions and new development opportunities outside the Built-Up Area Boundary in accordance with paragraph 79 of the NPPF.” A Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) is defined on Map 4B; it surrounds the existing settlement of Long Melford, the sites allocated for development in this Plan and the site in Station Road that has been granted planning permission for 150 homes. It supports Policy LM1 , Growth and Sustainable Development.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 1
4.38 The 77 dwellings on allocated sites exceed the requirement set by Babergh DC. The surplus of 77 dwellings is an appropriate contingency given that, whilst landowners have expressed support for their sites being allocated, there is no guarantee that the sites will be brought forward for housing development in the Plan Period (2018- 2037). Furthermore it is Government Policy that the housing need for any given area should be seen as a minimum. The Parish Council is satisfied that the total number of dwellings on allocated sites will fulfil the need identified by the District Council, meet the local needs identified by the Parish Council and comply with the requirements of Government Policy in NPPF. The Plan allocates sites for more than enough housing to meet the requirement identified for Long Melford; they are supported within the BUAB; the Parish Council will not support development beyond this boundary other than in exceptional circumstances. “GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OLDER PEOPLE IN THE PARISH, THERE IS A NEED FOR SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ACCESSIBLE LOCATIONS”
38 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 39 POLICY LM 2, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: G1, SPICERS LANE
Land at Spicers Lane (identified on Map 4C and on the Policies Map) is allocated for the development of a single dwelling subject to there being: i) Minimal detrimental impact on the Conservation Area ii) Minimal detrimental impact on neighbouring properties iii) Satisfactory access and full and satisfactory parking provision within the site according to SCC guidance
Map 4C - Policy LM 2, Allocation of Sites for Development: G1, Spicers Lane Source: NPSG
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 2
4.39 Brook is subject to flooding. Any application for Given the significant number of older people in the planning permission should comply with Policy LM 12, parish, there is a need for suitable accommodation in Addressing Flood Risk in order to eliminate the risk of accessible locations. This is one of very few available flooding on the site and to avoid exacerbating the risk brownfield sites within the built-up area which also of flooding in the valley of the Chad. offers very good accessibility, within walking distance, to village facilities. 4.41 The provision of sufficient on-site parking is important 4.40 as there is pressure on public parking in this part of Parts of the site are subject to a low risk of surface the village. (See Appendix 4 – Parking Survey). water flooding and the valley of the adjacent Chad
38 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 39 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 3, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: L1, CORDELL ROAD
The site at Cordell Road (identified on Map 4D and on the Policies Map) is allocated for three dwellings subject to there being: • Minimal detrimental impact on the Conservation Area • Minimal detrimental impact on neighbouring properties • Satisfactory access and parking provision in accordance with SCC Guidance. The capacity is notional and depends on the detailed layout of the site. The housing is to be reserved for occupants over 55 years of age. Imaginative and careful design is needed for a small site within the built-up area and the Conservation Area. Visibility splays will need to be 2.4m x 43m for the vehicle access unless this would compromise the character and quality of the Conservation Area; a lesser requirement may be acceptable in the latter circumstance.
2.3There Long is Melford an existing lies within sewer the project in Anglian area that Water’s is under reviewownership for a possible within extension the boundary to of the site and the site layout theshould Dedham be Valedesigned and Stour to Valley take Areathis ofinto Outstanding account. Natural Beauty (AONB), as shown in the map below (Figure 2B). The AONB itself is shown in darker green and the project area in lighter green.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 3
4.42 This is a small site which the owner wishes to develop. Given the significant number of older people in the parish, there is a need for suitable accommodation in accessible locations. This is one of very few available brownfield sites within the built- up area which also offers very good accessibility, within walking distance, to village facilities. Older people being less likely to
Map 2B: DedhamMap Vale 4D and - Policy Stour LMValley 3, Allocation AONB Project of Sites Area for. Source Development:: Dedham Vale & Stour drive, there will be local benefits Valley AONB Project. L1, Cordell Road Source: NPSG in a reduction of traffic on Cordell
The Neighbourhood Plan Area
2.4 The Parish of Long Melford is shown in the map below (Figure 2C), delineated within a green border. The neighbouring parishes are Alpheton and Shimpling (north), Lavenham, 40Acton | LONG and ChiltonMELFORD (east), NEIGHBOURHOOD Sudbury (south) PLAN and Stanstead, 2018-2037 Glemsford, Liston and Borley, the LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 41 latter two being parishes of Braintree District Council in Essex (west and south-west).
8 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2036
Road and wider sustainability benefits in reduced car 4.48 mileage. The proximity of the site to village facilities The Parish Council would like to see the existing indicates that it would be suitable for small (one- and commercial tenants on the site relocated provided two-bedroomed) dwellings. it can be achieved viably. The site is currently in employment use, for which it is considered unsuitable in the terms of Policy LM 25, Change of Use: 4.43 Employment to Residential: Constraints which will need to be taken into account in the development of the site are its location in the • The site is bounded by residential neighbours Conservation Area and the proximity of neighbouring on both the Cordell Road and Hall Street sides; properties. employment uses commonly make bad neighbours for residential property. 4.44 • The site is small and narrow, allowing little The visibility splays accord with SCC’s standards. space for screening between the workshops and However, they will need to be designed to comply with their residential neighbours. the Conservation Area policy (CN08 in Babergh DC’s Local Plan Alteration No.2, 2006 or its replacement • The site and its buildings detract from the in a subsequent (strategic) development plan for character and appearance of the Conservation Babergh). Area. • Access from the site for pedestrians and 4.45 commercial vehicles is onto a stretch of Cordell The provision of sufficient on-site parking is important Road that is congested, with parked cars reducing as there is pressure on public parking in this part of the road to one-way operation at the village. (See Appendix 4 – Parking Survey). nearly all times; it is unsuitable in terms of residential amenity and inefficient in terms of business operations for commercial vehicles 4.46 to be reliant on access via this part of Cordell The existing (Anglian Water) infrastructure is protected Road. by easements and should not be built over or located in private gardens where access for maintenance and • Change of use of the site will bring a major benefit repair could be restricted. The existing sewer should in additional housing for older people. be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian • The Neighbourhood Plan provides for Water’s existing asset may be required employment development on site D1 in Borley Road.
4.47 4.49 There is a low (1000-year) risk of surface water flooding The Parish Council will support a proposal for the in the adjacent road (Cordell Road); any proposed change of use of the site to residential and for a well- development must avoid exacerbating this risk. designed scheme. The net benefit set out in Policy LM 25, Change of Use: Employment to Residential, is considered to be achieved in the above allocation.
40 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 41 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 4, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: A1, CORDELL ROAD, ADJACENT TO REAR OF BULL HOTEL
The site on Cordell Road (identified on Map 4E and on the Policies Map) is allocated for three dwellings, subject to there being: • Minimal detrimental impact on the Conservation Area • Minimal detrimental impact on neighbouring properties • Satisfactory access and parking provision in accordance with SCC Guidance. The capacity is notional and depends on the detailed layout of the site. The housing is to be reserved for occupants over 55 years of age. Imaginative and careful design is needed for a small site within the built-up area and the Conservation Area. Visibility splays will need to be 2.4m x 43m for the vehicle access unless this would be compromised by the constraints of the Conservation Area; a lesser requirement may be acceptable in the latter circumstance. There is an existing sewer in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take this into account.
Map 4E - Policy LM 4, Allocation of Sites for Development: A1, Cordell Road Source: NPSG
42 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 43 4.54 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 4 There is a low (1000-year) risk of surface water flooding in the adjacent road (Cordell Road); any proposed 4.50 development must avoid exacerbating this risk. This a small site located within the built-up area. Its advantages are that it is a small, brownfield site near 4.55 to the village centre with an owner willing to bring The site is currently in employment use (but currently the site forward for development. Constraints which with no employment at the site), for which it is will need to be taken into account in the development considered unsuitable in the terms of Policy LM 25, of the site are its location in the Conservation Area Change of Use: Employment to Residential: and the proximity of neighbouring properties. The proximity of the site to village facilities indicates that it • The site is bounded by residential neighbours would be suitable for small (one- and two-bedroomed) on both the Cordell Road and Hall Street sides dwellings designed for older occupiers. Older people and by vacant land belonging to the Bull Hotel being less likely to drive, there will be local benefits to the north; employment uses commonly make in a reduction of traffic on Cordell Road and wider bad neighbours for residential property. sustainability benefits in reduced car mileage. • The site is small and narrow, allowing little space for screening between the workshop and its 4.51 residential neighbours. The visibility splays accord with SCC’s standards. • The site and its buildings detract from the However, they will need to be designed to comply with character and appearance of the Conservation the Conservation Area policy (CN08 in Babergh DC’s Area. Local Plan Alteration No.2, 2006 or its replacement in a subsequent (strategic) development plan for • Access from the site for pedestrians and Babergh). commercial vehicles is onto a stretch of Cordell Road that is congested, with parked cars reducing the road to one-way operation at nearly 4.52 all times; it is unsuitable in terms of residential The provision of sufficient on-site parking is important amenity and inefficient in ermst of business as there is pressure on public parking in this part of operations for commercial vehicles to be reliant the village. (See Appendix 4 – Parking Survey). on access via this part of Cordell Road. • Change of use of the site will bring a major benefit 4.53 in additional housing for older people. The existing (Anglian Water) infrastructure is protected by easements and should not be built over or located • The Neighbourhood Plan provides for in private gardens where access for maintenance and employment development on site D1 in Borley repair could be restricted. The existing sewer should Road. be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian 4.56 Water’s existing asset may be required. The Parish Council will support a proposal for the change of use of the site to residential and for a well- designed scheme. The net benefit set out in Policy LM 25, Change of Use: Employment to Residential is considered to be achieved in the above allocation.
42 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 43 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 5, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: D1, LAND IN BORLEY ROAD
This site on Borley Road (identified on Map 4F and on the Policies map) is allocated for mixed use development comprising approximately 300 sqm of employment / workshop / studio units and up to 10 new dwellings. idance. The site is not expected to provide affordable housing in accordance with Policy LM 9, Affordable Housing or to provide housing for local people in accordance with Policy LM 10, Housing Reserved for Local People, or less expensive market housing in accordance with Policy LM 11, Provision of Less Expensive Market Housing. Any application for planning permission for the site must be accompanied by an assessment of the potential impact of the proposed development on the B1064/Borley Road junction; if necessary, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed. Pedestrian access to Ropers Lane shall be provided and maintained from the site. The site is adjacent to Flood Zone 3 in the Stour Valley. Any application for planning permission should comply with Policy LM 12, Addressing Flood Risk in order to eliminate the risk of flooding on the site and to avoid exacerbating the risk of flooding in the valley of the Stour. This is land that may have been affected by contamination (having been excavated and filled) as a result of its previous uses. Sufficient information should be provided with any planning application to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF for dealing with land contamination. This should take the form of a Preliminary Risk Assessment (including a desk study, conceptual model and initial assessment of risk), and provide assurance that the risk to the water environment is fully understood and can be addressed through appropriate measures. The Parish Council will look for a high standard of amenity in any proposed development, particularly as to the relationship between the residential and employment uses and their access arrangements. This should include green space between the two uses. Proposals for the site should retain the hedgerow and trees forming the boundary of the site to Borley Road in order to maintain a green aspect to the development on an important route into the village.
The partial loss of an employment site at this location JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 5 is considered to be justified. The net benefit set out in Policy LM 25, Change of Use: Employment to 4.57 Residential is considered to be achieved in the above This is a brownfield site of approximately 0.75 allocation. hectares, which is currently partly used for the sale of produce and vehicle storage. The proposed employment development (300 sq.m.) matches 4.58 the existing area (sq.m.) of employment space. The The green space required on the site should serve employment premises on the site are old and support both the residential and the employment occupiers; very little employment. Mixed use development is a passive recreation may be appropriate. viable way of increasing the employment potential of the site, whilst providing needed additional housing.
44 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 45 4.59 The owner wishes to see the site brought forward for development. The site is accessed from Borley Road. The site also has frontage to Ropers Lane, allowing safe access for pedestrians to Rodbridge Hill, buses and village facilities.
4.60 In view of the conditions of the site that may need to be remediated, of other infrastructure risks and of the requirement to provide employment space, this site is not required to comply with Policies LM 9, Affordable Housing, LM 10, Housing for Local People or LM Map 4F- Policy LM 5, Allocation of Sites for Development: 11, Provision of Less Expensive D1, Land in Borley Road. Source: NPSG Market Housing.
4.61 development proposals within the Fluvial Flood Zone Whilst the site is some distance from the village of the River Stour and its tributaries (which includes facilities, it is next to the Country Park and near Flood Zones 2 and 3) must be accompanied by a Flood Nethergate Brewery and Taproom, a popular gathering Risk Assessment (FRA). A sequential approach should place. The employment space will bring jobs onto the be applied to development proposals in order to direct site which are accessible on foot to residents in the them to the areas of lowest flood risk. southern part of the village; the Parish Council would welcome a limited amount of retail activity which 4.63 would also provide a service to local people. There is a risk of surface water flooding on the road adjacent to the site and a lower risk of flooding at the 4.62 entrance to the site and in the NW corner of the site. It is (all bar a very small area in the NW corner of the Any application for development of the site needs to site) outside Flood Zones 2 and 3 (fluvial flooding); comply with Policy LM 13, Addressing Flood Risk. the site has been filled and the land is higher than the adjacent land to the south and west. The owners have 4.64 no recollection of any part of the site being flooded The site is within the Special Landscape Area, but the within the last 60 years. A factor in the reduced risk site is well screened by trees on the north and west of flooding is said to be the closure of several mills boundaries, enabling the impact of any development on nearby sections of the River Stour. Any future to be minimised.
44 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 45 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 6, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: K1, LAND WEST OF HIGH STREET
The site on land west of High Street (identified on Map 4G and the Policies Map) is allocated for a minimum of 30 new residential dwellings, subject to detailed layout and subject to there being: i) Not less than 66% of the dwellings developed as affordable housing ii) Minimal detrimental impact on the Conservation Area and on Kentwell grounds iii) Minimal detrimental impact on neighbouring properties iv) Satisfactory access and parking provision in accordance with SCC Guidance. The scheme should include a green or similar facility available to the public. Consideration should be given to linking the green or other public facility to the public footpath (St Edmund Way) which runs into Kentwell grounds along the southern boundary of the site. Proposals should include enhancement of the potential natural capital of the common land, trees, hedgerows and pond on the site, especially on the eastern side of the site; treatment of this part of the site should also have regard to its position on an important entry route into the village. Acceptable access for vehicles and pedestrians will need to be made across the common land. At least half the affordable housing should be reserved for local people, local people being as defined in the Hamilton Trust. This provision relating to local people subsists as long as this site remains in the control of the Hamilton Trust; otherwise Policy LM 10, Housing for Local People applies. There is an existing sewer and water main in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take this into account. Due to the size and location of this site on the medieval town road front it is required that an archaeological evaluation be undertaken and submitted with any planning application.
4.66 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 6 The Hamilton Trust will provide for the affordable rented homes to be maintained as affordable rented 4.65 homes in perpetuity. Development of this site is not The advantages of this site are that it is owned by a subject to the provisions of Policies LM9, LM10 and charity willing to make the land available on terms LM11 because of the special character and objectives which enable 66% affordable housing. Hamilton Trust, of the landowner; should the Hamilton Trust cease to the landowner, is required to provide for local people be the owner of the site, those policies will apply. in need by the terms of its trust: “The Hamilton Charity having its object the benefit of poor persons or persons in reduced circumstances who shall have been resident 4.67 in Long Melford for not less than three years.” The constraints of the site are its distance from village facilities, heritage concerns, and its location beyond but adjacent to the Built Up Area Boundary.
46 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 47 Map 4G - Policy LM 6 , Allocation of Sites for Development: K1, Land west of High Street. Source: NPSG
4.68 The properties have been developed over the period This site is suitable for development and the owner is from 1964 to 2016, apparently without objection and willing to bring it forward for development; architects even with the encouragement of the Kentwell estate have already produced several schemes for the site. as vendor of the land. The layout of the site and the design of the homes should seek to minimise the impact on the grounds 4.71 of Kentwell Hall, a registered park and garden. The In the terms of NPPF 2019 para 196 it is unlikely that proposed public facility could be an outdoor gym, this proposed development would cause even ‘less green or a playground, which would link well with the than substantial harm’ to the Kentwell heritage asset; St Edmund Way public footpath. if it did, it is considered that the benefit of affordable homes on this scale and for local people, together 4.69 with the provision of a public recreational facility The capacity of at least 30 homes is based on the outweighs any less than substantial harm. standard density less a notional allowance for heritage protection and a public facility. 4.72 The existing (Anglian Water) infrastructure is protected 4.70 by easements and should not be built over or located This site continues a pattern of development whereby in private gardens where access for maintenance and some 14 properties (from Kentwell Hall gates in the repair could be restricted. The existing sewer and water south to this site) have been developed on land sold main should be located in highways or public open by Kentwell Hall; the western boundaries of these space. If this is not possible a formal application to properties are the eastern wooded boundary of the divert Anglian Water’s existing assets may be required. Kentwell grounds, as is the case for the present site.
46 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 47 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 7, ALLOCATION OF SITES FOR DEVELOPMENT: F1, LAND WEST OF RODBRIDGE HILL AND OPPOSITE ROPERS LANE
This site opposite Ropers Lane (identified on Map 4H and on the Policies Map) is allocated for residential development with an estimated capacity of about 30 dwellings. The site is expected to provide affordable housing in accordance with Policy LM 9, Affordable Housing and with Policy LM 10, Housing Reserved for Local People. The open market housing should be less expensive house types in accordance with Policy LM 11, Provision of Less Expensive Market Housing. Due to the size and location of this site near to a Roman Villa (an ancient monument) and the possibility of burials near the Roman Road, it is required that an archaeological evaluation be undertaken and submitted with any planning application. There is an existing sewer and water main in Anglian Water’s ownership within the boundary of the site and the site layout should be designed to take this into account. Any scheme proposal must also: • Create a new defensible boundary on its eastern side and access arrangements such that the rest of the field is not opened up for development. • Reserve 15% of the land area for allotments. • Retain the hedgerow and trees forming the boundary of the site to Rodbridge Hill in order to maintain a green aspect to the development at an important entrance to the village. Any planning application for the proposed development must also be accompanied by a statement setting out: • The adequacy and accessibility of the bus stops on either side of Rodbridge Hill from the site and measures that will be undertaken by the applicant to improve them if necessary. • Proposals for the safe crossing of Rodbridge Hill by pedestrians.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 7
4.73 4.74 Affordable social and less expensive market housing There is a willing owner and the site could be developed are required because of the need for social housing in a reasonable timescale, subject to planning and because market housing is not affordable to many permission. The site is greenfield, which has to be local households. Reserving housing for local people considered because of the lack of brownfield sites. The complements the provision of affordable housing: the site is part of a larger field and the part to be developed overall aim is to assist local people to access housing will be defined by extending a line south from the rear they can afford, either social or market, in the place of the curtilages of the existing properties to the north. where they have important family and employment The proposed housing will then continue the line of connections. the existing development. This eastern boundary is to
48 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 49 be defined in accordance with the Policy and justified 4.76 in the planning application. Allotments are needed as The provisions relating to bus stops and the crossing there is a waiting list for allotments in the village and of Rodbridge Hill are designed to increase the there is expected to be additional demand from the opportunities for safe and sustainable access to and residents of the committed and planned housing. from the site. It is some distance from the village centre which is consistent with the long linear nature of the village. The site is near the Country Park and 4.75 near Nethergate Brewery and Taproom, a popular A small section of the adjacent road is subject to a gathering place. one in 1000-year risk of surface water flooding; the development should avoid exacerbating this risk. The existing (Anglian Water) 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 sewer should be located in highways or public open space. If this is not possible a formal application to divert Anglian Water’s existing asset may be required.
Map 4H - Policy LM 7, Allocation of Sites: F1, Land east of Rodbridge Hill. Source: NPSG
48 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 49 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 8, IMPACT AND CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENTS
All new development proposals must demonstrate that an appropriate level of services, facilities and infrastructure (including but not limited to GP Surgery and primary school capacity), are available or will be provided to serve the proposed development. Proposals for residential development should be smaller than 30 units; the Parish Council will support schemes of 30 units or fewer, subject to other criteria in the development plan. Major (more than ten residential units or more than 0.5 hectares) development proposals should be accompanied by an assessment, which takes into account firstly any cumulative impact taken with other existing commitments in the village, secondly the cumulative impact of different aspects of the proposal and which demonstrates: • That the scale and character of the proposal respects the landscape, landscape features, streetscape/town scape, heritage assets, important spaces, entry points to the village and historic views into and out of the village; • The proposal will make a positive contribution to the local character, shape and scale of the area; and • That a Heritage Impact Assessment has been carried out according to recognised principles, taking into account, amongst other evidence, the Settlement and Heritage Sensitivity Assessment, 2018 and that steps have been taken to mitigate any potential harm.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 8
4.77 Proposals for residential development must be demonstrated to be well related to the existing pattern of development in Long Melford. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Parish Council support smaller schemes which provide opportunities for smaller builders and developers who are more likely to build out their schemes within a reasonable time period. Two-thirds (67%) of respondents in the Residents Survey put schemes of 20 or fewer units as their first preference and a further one-fifth of respondents put schemes of 40 or fewer units as their first preference (Appendix 2, Table H1). The Parish Council, bearing in mind many developers’ preference for larger schemes, considers 30 homes as the maximum scale of development for the scale and character of the existing built scene.
4.78 The Settlement and Heritage Sensitivity Assessment, 2018, gave Long Melford the highest possible ranking for heritage value, susceptibility to change or development and sensitivity, which combines value and susceptibility. The history and character of the village is also fundamental to its economic and social well-being e.g. the attraction of visitors and new residents. It is important that insensitive development should not undermine these qualities of the village.
50 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 51 “THE PARISH COUNCIL SUPPORTS THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE PARISH BECAUSE THERE ARE UNMET NEEDS AND BECAUSE ADDITIONAL POPULATION WILL SUPPORT THE SIGNIFICANT SERVICES OFFERED IN THE VILLAGE ” POLICY LM 9, AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Affordable housing, as defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF, will be provided at a rate of 35% of all housing units in schemes comprising ten or more units or with a site area of 0.5 hectares or more, unless it is demonstrated that the scheme would not be viable on that basis. The affordable housing is to be divided 50% affordable rented, 25% starter homes, 25% other affordable routes to home ownership. These are all as defined in NPPF 2019 Annex 2, unless applicants propose and justify a different split within the affordable housing, between affordable rented units and affordable home ownership units, subject to a minimum of 10% of units for affordable home ownership and a minimum of 10% of affordable homes for rent.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 9
4.79 This policy is designed to address the inability of certain groups to access acceptable housing within the village because prices and rents have risen beyond their reach. The Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Joint Annual Monitoring Report 2017-2018 (July 2018) showed the ratio of median house price to median earnings to be 11.0 in Babergh, 8.7 in Suffolk and 9.68 in East England. The provision of affordable housing received strong support in the Residents Survey. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents, or 1,356 people, rated affordable housing very important compared to privately rented or privately-owned housing and 54% (1,079 people) were satisfied with BDC’s requirement (in the Core Strategy) for 35% of new housing to be affordable (Appendix 2, Tables H3 and H4). 35% is the proportion adopted in the BMSDC Joint Local Plan - Pre-Submission Reg.19 2020, Policy SP02. . 10% affordable home ownership is Government policy in NPPF para 64 (schemes of 10 or more homes). 10% affordable homes for rent is required to ensure that each significant scheme provides a proportion of the most accessible housing option. The flexibility built into Policy LM9 follows that set out in the Babergh Mid-Suffolk District Council Homes and Housing Strategy and Action Plan 2019.
4.80 It is recognised that exceptional conditions obtain on Site K1 west of High Street and site D1 Borley Road, such that this policy will not apply.
4.81 The 50:25:25 split of affordable housing is based on the evidence provided in para 7.05 of the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Pre-Submission Reg.19 2020,. As this is a District-wide split, the policy provides the option for applicants to demonstrate a different local pattern of need.
50 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 51 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
“WITHIN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE PROVIDED, 50% SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE EXCLUSIVELY TO LOCAL PEOPLE ”
POLICY LM 10, HOUSING RESERVED FOR LOCAL PEOPLE
Within the affordable housing to be provided (both affordable housing for rent and subsidised routes to home- ownership, as defined in Annex 2 of NPPF 2019), 50% shall be made available exclusively to local people. For clarity and purely as an illustration, were a development to comprise 28 dwellings, 10 would be affordable and 5 of the 10 would be reserved for local people. Local people are defined as having a local connection with Long Melford as follows. An individual who on the date of the consideration of their eligibility for the particular type of affordable housing: 1) had their only or principal home in the parish of Long Melford for a continuous period of not less than two years and in the event that there are no or insufficient individuals qualifying under this sub-paragraph then the choice of person shall default (in no particular order of priority) to individuals fulfilling the criteria set out in the following paragraphs 2 - 4 2) has, or a member of whose household has, a parent, child, brother or sister (which includes half-brothers/ sisters and step-mothers/fathers), whose only or principal home is and has been for a continuous period of not less than two years in the parish of Long Melford and wishes to be near that relative, or 3) is employed in the parish of Long Melford and has been continuously so employed for two years, 4) can provide satisfactory written evidence to the Parish Council of his or her former residency in the parish of Long Melford for three years out of the immediately preceding five years. In the event that no person qualifying under the criteria set out in paragraphs 1 - 4 who is willing and able to accept the terms of an occupancy of one of the affordable housing units is identified, then such criteria shall be applied to a person who is in housing need and references to the parishes of Acton, Alpheton, Boxted, Cockfield, Great Waldingfield, Lawshall, Shimpling, Stanstead and, outside Babergh, Foxearth & Liston and Borley, shall be substituted. For the purposes of Policy LM 6, Land West of High Street, so long as the land remains in the control of the Hamilton Trust, local people are defined as in the terms of the Hamilton Trust: “The Hamilton Charity having its object the benefit of poor persons or persons in reduced circumstances who shall have been resident in Long Melford for not less than three years.” In recognition of the constraints affecting site D1 in Borley Road. Policy LM 10 does not apply to the development of that site.
52 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 53 “THE RESIDENTS SURVEY CONDUCTED FOR THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN INDICATED STRONG SUPPORT FOR NEW HOUSING TO BE RESERVED FOR LOCAL LONG MELFORD PEOPLE”
4.84 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 10 The parishes listed in the Policy are the 10 hinterland villages defined in Map 4 of the BDC Core Strategy 2014; 4.82 Long Melford is one of the core villages which provide The aim of this policy is to enable those with a stake a focus for development for the listed hinterland in the local area to find acceptable accommodation at villages. The BMSDC Joint Local Plan Pre-Submission an affordable cost and to assist with the recruitment Reg.19 2020 continues to identify core and hinterland and retention of staff in the services provided in villages, but does not link named hinterland villages the village. It will contribute to a stronger and more with a particular core village; nevertheless the cohesive community. grouping in the Core Strategy remains valid for the present purpose. 4.83 In the Residents Survey 91% of respondents, or 1,810 people, favoured reserving housing in new developments for local people (Appendix 2, Table H5).
POLICY LM 11, PROVISION OF LESS EXPENSIVE MARKET HOUSING
Where indicated in the allocation Policies and in development proposals that may come forward in the future the Parish Council will seek a significant proportion, appropriate to the particular development proposal, of less expensive market housing. Affordability is to be achieved not through a direct subsidy, but through the selection of house types to be developed in the scheme. The developer is required to demonstrate a range of house types and their estimated selling prices and to agree a mix of types with the Parish Council. The mix will be a condition of any planning consent that may be granted. Sites D1 and K1 are not required to comply with this policy; they provide other forms of accessible housing or they are subject to development constraints that would undermine the viability of less expensive market housing.
4.86 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 11 Housing market evidence shows that there is a considerable difference between the average sale 4.85 prices of different house types in Long Melford: The Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Joint Annual Monitoring detached: £439,715; terraced: £230,916; semi- Report 2017-2018 (July 2018) showed the ratio of detached: £287,307. Few terraced properties have median house price to median earnings to be 11.0 been built recently in Long Melford, yet terraced in Babergh, 8.7 in Suffolk and 9.68 in East England. properties are a prominent part of the inherited This means that many households are excluded from housing stock (for example St Catherine’s Road and market housing (and social housing is accessible to Station Road) and they are a valuable part of the local only a small proportion of the population). housing offer.
52 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 53 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 12, ADDRESSING FLOOD RISK
On any site where there is a risk of fluvial or surface flooding and where development is proposed, the application for planning permission must be accompanied by a clear statement of the nature and scale of the risk and by a description of the measures that will be taken to reduce the risk of flooding on either the application site or adjacent land as a result of the proposed development. On larger sites, more than 10 dwellings or more than 0.5 hectare, the proposals should incorporate sustainable urban drainage. Proposals should comply, as appropriate, with SCC’s Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 12
4.87 The policy is designed to reduce the risk of flooding, which might affect either a development site or adjacent land which becomes vulnerable to a flood risk as a result of a proposed development. The flood maps prepared by the Environment Agency and provided by the County and District Councils indicate extensive areas of the parish as subject to fluvial flooding, especially along the valleys of the Glem, the Stour and the Chad. There are also extensive areas subject to surface or pluvial flooding. Where there is a flood risk related to an allocated site, this has been indicated in the relevant policy justification.
54 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 55 POLICY LM 13, ENCOURAGING BIODIVERSITY
Within development proposals, design features which provide gains to biodiversity will be encouraged. Landscaping and planting should support wildlife, connect to and enhance wider ecological networks, and include nectar rich planting for a variety of pollinating insects. Divisions between gardens, such as walls and fences, should enable movement of species, such as hedgehogs, between gardens and green spaces. Existing ecological networks should be retained. The provision of bird and bat breeding boxes and of ponds will be encouraged, in particular boxes suitable for swifts which need to be at least 5m. above the ground. Lighting which may disrupt wildlife will be discouraged. The Parish Council endorses the hierarchical approach set out in Policy LP18, para 1 of the BMSDC Joint Local Plan Pre-Submission Reg.19 2020.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 13
4.88 The Parish Council is keen to promote a greener parish and to encourage wildlife wherever possible. In the Residents Survey 2018, 70% of respondents considered public footpaths and public green spaces each as essential (Appendix 2, Table SF6).
4.89 Paragraph 174 of the NPPF states that plans should “identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for Biodiversity.”
4.90 Swifts are regular summer visitors to Long Melford, but their nesting sites are diminishing because of modern building methods. The Parish Council values swifts as a feature of the Long Melford summer and wishes to encourage their visits and their breeding.
54 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 55 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 14 PROTECTION OF RURAL GAP
The area hatched green on Map 4I is designated as a Rural Gap, within which development will not be supported other than in exceptional circumstances.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 14
4.91 4.93 Development is taking place on a significant scale The Policy is consistent with NPPF 2019 in a number at the southern end of Long Melford village (i.e. the of key respects: Ropers Lane development, Elms Croft). Development at the northern end of Sudbury has until recently • Paragraph 15 on plan-making. been contained by Melford Road/the water meadows • Paragraph 28 which sets out the role of non- and by the northern by-pass (A134). However, strategic policies (in Neighbourhood Plans). development has now encroached north of the by- pass (i.e. Tesco, which is partly in Long Melford parish, • Paragraph 127 which states that ‘Planning and Woodhall Business Park). This raises a concern policies and decisions should ensure that that two communities with very distinctive identities, developments: …c) are sympathetic Long Melford and Sudbury, may begin to merge and to local character and history, see their identities compromised. Furthermore, the including the surrounding built environment southern approach to Long Melford through open and landscape setting.’ countryside is very important to the character of the • Paragraph 135 on the (non)establishment of new village as a rural community not a suburb. Green Belts, which recognises that similar protection to that offered by Green Belts will 4.92 be appropriate in other circumstances than those quoted and that normal planning and The purposes of the Rural Gap are: development management policies will • To check the unrestricted expansion of Sudbury be employed. and to prevent it from merging with surrounding villages. 4.94 • To check the unrestricted expansion of Long The Policy relates to a small area of the parish; it is Melford and to prevent it from merging with not a comprehensive or extensive bar to development Sudbury. and it provides for exceptions if they are justified. The • To preserve the setting and special character of Parish Council does not justify this Policy by reference communities north of Sudbury. to NPPF, 2019, paras 99 and 100. • To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
56 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 57 Map 4I – Policy LM 14. Rural Gap. Source: NPSG
56 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 57 4. SUSTAINABLE GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 15, MITIGATING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
The Parish Council will look for opportunities to achieve public benefits from development proposals. The Council will seek to ensure that any impacts of proposed development are mitigated by appropriate s.106 or s.278 or other suitable obligations. In relation to the following sites identified in the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan: Consultation Draft – August 2017: SS0811, SS0904, SS0297, SS1028 which may be part of a strategic development to accommodate the growth of Sudbury, Long Melford Parish Council will expect to receive its due share of any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments attributable to the sites and to have the opportunity to seek s.106 or s.278 contributions in respect of any impacts arising within Long Melford. Due share means the CIL attributable to the development of the land situated within Long Melford parish.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 15
4.95 The aim of this policy is to secure funds properly due to the Parish Council enabling the Council to create a safer and more congenial lifestyle for both new residents and the existing population and to ensure that infrastructure capacity and quality keep pace with development and the growth of population.
“WHILST MOST RESIDENTS ACKNOWLEDGE THE NEED FOR MORE HOUSING, THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF THE SCALE OF HOUSING UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND RELUCTANT TO SEE MUCH MORE BEING DEVELOPED”
58 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 59 58 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 59 TRANSPORT AND PARKING
INTRODUCTION SOUTHERN APPROACH
5.1 5.2 The main route through Long Melford village centre is The southernmost section of the B1064 begins in open the B1064, which begins at the roundabout junction of fields and is bordered by only a handful of properties. 5the A131 and A134 to the south and ends at the forked There is a 40mph speed limit which reduces to 30mph junction with the A1092 on the Green. A 7.5-ton weight shortly before the crossroads with Borley Road and limit applies to limit heavy traffic through the village, Mills Lane. Northbound, an illuminated warning and the A134 bypass takes a large proportion of the sign alerts drivers to the dangers of that junction2. traffic (of all types) between Sudbury and Bury Nevertheless, residents report a tendency for speeding St Edmunds. Nevertheless, the B1064 still in this area, both from northbound cars failing to slow carries high volumes of traffic at peak times1, to the new limit and southbound cars speeding up due with motorists driving between Sudbury to the downhill incline of the road and the prospect of and the villages to the west (e.g. Glemsford, the increased limit3. Cavendish, Clare and Haverhill) along the A1092.
1 A road traffic survey over seven days in March 2017 recorded average daily volumes of 6,495 vehicles northbound and 6,373 south bound. 2 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 18 incidents, including 3 serious incidents, from 1999-2019 of which 6 incidents (2 serious) were from 2015- 2019. 3 The same road traffic survey recorded 50% of northbound vehicles, and 86% of southbound vehicles, exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph.
60 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 61 5.3 Street), the carriageway narrows as it passes between The following section, comprising Rodbridge Hill the Bull Hotel to the south and Church House to the and Station Road, is increasingly built-up, with some north. Traffic often slows at this point as two-way residential properties directly bordering the B1064 and traffic is possible only for the narrowest of vehicles, a number of side-turnings leading to small residential resulting in a build-up of traffic past the Cordell Road estates. On-street parking in Station Road reduces the junction to one side and into Hall Street to the other. effective width of the carriageway4, causing drivers The junction with Hall Street is further complicated by to proceed more cautiously when traffic is flowing in the service road for the houses on the Little Green, and both directions, but the downward slope and good the staggered junction with Chemist Lane opposite. sight lines encourage greater speeds when there is no oncoming traffic5. NORTHERN APPROACH 5.4 Southgate Street, the final section of the southern 5.6 approach to the village centre, is bordered by a row of Vehicles coming south on the A134 are directed to cottages and a working farm to the west, and the large the village centre via the A1092. A 30mph speed limit Roman Way residential estate to the east. This is set is introduced shortly after turning off the A134. The back from the road by large green areas either side of A1092 is a long straight road bordered by a number the Roman Way junction. The green to the south has of houses on both sides. The speed limit is frequently a low hedge dividing it from a strip of grass adjacent exceeded despite being monitored regularly by to the road which is used as additional parking by mobile speed enforcement camera vans. Shortly after residents of the Southgate Street cottages. the Harefield side-turning, which leads to a small residential estate, there is a public house and garden centre to the east and the entrance to Kentwell Hall EASTERN APPROACH Tudor mansion to the west. At the Green, where the route of the A1092 continues west, the road layout 5.5 in fact draws traffic south onto the B1064. The wide The primary route into the village centre from the expanse of the Green, and the downward incline of east is Bull Lane. After the intersection with the the road, encourages speeding as the road continues A134 bypass, which is itself a notoriously dangerous past Melford Hall, over the Chad Brook at Hall Mill junction6, a 30mph speed limit is introduced. The road Bridge, to the junction with Bull Lane which marks the is bordered by farmland to the north and a recently beginning of the village centre. developed housing estate to the south. Residents report a tendency for speeding7, despite rumble strips and a mini-roundabout at the junction with Sampson Drive. The following section runs through extensive housing, with the Old Court cul- de-sacs to the north, and the Shaw Road and Cordell Road estates to the south, to which Bull Lane provides the sole means of vehicular access. From the junction with Cordell Road to the T-junction with the B1064 (Hall
4 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 15 incidents along this stretch, including 1 fatal incident, from 1999-2019. 5 A road traffic survey over 7 days in July 2016 recorded 18% of northbound vehicles and 15% of southbound vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph. 6 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 24 incidents, including 6 serious incidents and 2 fatal incidents, from 1999-2019. 7 A road traffic survey over 7 days in March 2016, close to the junction with Cordell Road, recorded 5% of eastbound and 3% of west bound vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph.
60 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 61 5. TRANSPORT AND PARKING CONTINUED...
WESTERN APPROACH The Residents Survey (See Appendix 2) also showed a strong response favouring measures to improve 5.7 road, pedestrian and cycle safety, especially within The A1092 brings traffic, including a large number the village centre. Many of the concerns of Long of HGV's to/from Glemsford, Cavendish, Clare Melford residents are outside the orbit of planning, and Haverhill. Initially bordered on both sides by and are addressed in the Community Objectives. The residential properties, the road forks as it enters the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) requested Green; the A1092 follows the left-hand fork to turn a small Traffic & Parking (T&P) Sub-group be formed to north to the junction with the A134, though the road investigate and formulate proposals to address these layout gives priority to traffic turning south towards Community Objectives, which are reported on later in the village centre. Additional turnings at this junction, this chapter. Church8 Walk to the north and the access road for houses on the Green, create a complex junction, 5.10 particularly for pedestrians walking between the The village is poorly served by public transport with a village centre and the church . As the road crosses the limited bus service, with no service north of the Green Green it ends at a T-junction with the B1064, where the up to the A134 by-pass and no bus service on Sundays acute angle of the junction and poor sight lines result or in the evenings. This creates reliance on the car to in frequent collisions9. get around (See Charts 2G and 2H in Chapter 2 and their related text). Car dependence will increase as people 5.8 move into the new developments of Weavers Tye (on Long Melford is a core village, as defined by the Bull Lane) and Elms Croft (by Ropers Lane), as these Babergh District Council (BDC) Core Strategy 2014, are outside the village centre. The village, especially with a range of shops and services that support its centre, suffers from frequent traffic congestion local residents and surrounding hinterland villages. and a shortage of parking for residents, visitors and Tourism has an influence on traffic numbers with large workers. Cars, vans and in some cases, lorries park numbers of people visiting the two historical homes on or across pavements, sometimes in a disorderly and imposing church at the top of the Green. The wide fashion, forcing pedestrians, disability scooters and range of shops, restaurants and hotels in Tudor wood- people with push-chairs and young children to pass in framed buildings add to the attraction of the village the road. The main car park, operated by LMPC, which and to parking pressures for visitors and residents serves the village centre is located by the Old School. alike. It is currently in poor repair, unlit, poorly signed and is some distance from the retail heart of the village, thus it is very under-utilised even at peak times. ISSUES 5.11 5.9 Public access to electric vehicle charging points is, at From the May 2017 Public Consultation, concern was present, limited to a small number of sites in Sudbury. expressed by local residents at the impact of new Yet the Government is encouraging the motor industry development in the village and the resultant rise in to provide greater numbers of electric or hybrid-electric population. There was also concern about increased vehicles and in July 2018 it announced it was taking vehicle numbers and higher vehicle speeds, especially steps towards a ‘massive roll-out of infrastructure to along the full length of the B1064 through the centre support the electric vehicle revolution.’ (Source: www. of the village. Comments were also raised about gov.uk). the safety of the Bull Lane junction with the B1064. 8 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 6 incidents, including 1 serious incident, from 1999-2019 of which 2 incidents were from 2015-2019. 9 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 12 incidents, including 1 serious incident, from 1999-2019 of which 5 incidents were from 2015-2019.
62 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 63 5.12 improved parking arrangements, better signs and a Issues with traffic, parking and pedestrian safety focus on pedestrian safety. detract from the visitor experience in the village centre and thus are likely to have a negative impact on visitor 5.15 numbers and the local economy. These issues are complex, especially in a village of significance in heritage terms and responsibility for many of them rests with SCC Highways Department. POLICY INTENTIONS A study and action plan for the public areas in the village centre was undertaken by the T&P Sub-group, 5.13 made up of local people with a good knowledge of The Plan cannot reduce flows of traffic in a growing their subject matter and with local experience. As well village but it can require developers to promote as providing recommendations to address traffic and sustainable initiatives which reduce the impact of parking issues, this study is expected to have a positive traffic and which lead to better and safer movement by impact on the resident and visitor experience in the bicycle and on foot. It can also require developers to village and thus prove beneficial to local businesses. recognise the rapidly growing demand from potential customers for electric or hybrid-electric vehicles. 5.16 Where appropriate and with the approval of the Parish 5.14 Council, Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds The Plan can require developers to comply with could be used to assist with the implementation of and preferably exceed Suffolk County Council (SCC) recommendations made by the T&P Sub-group. For guidelines on the provision of off-road parking. more information on CIL please see Chapter 8 on the In the village centre the Plan can seek to improve implementation of the Neighbourhood Plan. the experience for visitors and residents through POLICIES
POLICY LM 16, SUSTAINABLE TRAVEL
Where relevant, development should encourage sustainable travel, reduce car use and, where possible, improve accessibility to public transport. Developers must ensure that their site is linked to village facilities (including, but not limited to the village convenience stores, GP Practice and primary school) by safe and adequately lit footways and, if possible, cycleways, which connect with existing footways and cycleways.
Planning applications for developments that will generate significant amounts of traffic movement must be accompanied by a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement. Travel Plan measures will be required as set in the SCC Travel Plan Guidance.
Guidance on Transport Assessments, Transport Statements and Travel Plans should be sought from SCC
62 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 63 5. TRANSPORT AND PARKING CONTINUED...
Map 5A – Policy LM 16. Sustainable Travel. Source: NPSG
64 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 65 5.18 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY This Policy also echoes paragraph 103 of the NPPF LM 16 (February 2019): “Significant development should be focused on 5.17 locations which are or can be made sustainable, The overriding message from the public meetings through limiting the need to travel and offering a held with residents and the Residents Survey has genuine choice of transport modes.” been that whilst a substantial majority (90% of respondents to the Survey or 1,798 people) accepted 5.19 the need to allocate sites in the parish for potential In paragraph 102, the NPPF requires that development future development, with a resultant likely increase proposals focus on transport issues: in the population of Long Melford, that growth must “... at the earliest possible stage, so that opportunities be sustainable. With growth will come an increase to promote walking, cycling and public transport use in traffic flows and a need for sustainable travel are identified and pursued.” initiatives and reduced reliance on car use. (Appendix 2, Table H6).
POLICY LM 17, PARKING GUIDELINES
Proposals for all new development in Long Melford must comply with and preferably exceed current or any superseding SCC Parking Guidance when calculating the minimum number and size of off-street parking spaces. Layout designs must demonstrate that street widths are sufficient to accommodate on-street parking within the design, to deter parking on or across foot and cycleways. A Transport Assessment or Statement (Policy LM 16) must show how the proposed development would accommodate vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians safely and efficiently.
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/ parking-guidance/
64 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 65 5. TRANSPORT AND PARKING CONTINUED...
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 17 5.20 SCC Parking Guidance 2019 focuses on the adequacy of off and on-street parking in new developments. Provision of good off-street parking also leads to greater cycle usage. Guidance from Cyclenation in 2014 – ‘Make Space for Cycling: A guide for new developments and street renewals.’ http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org advises that residents’ perceptions of street safety and their willingness to let children own and use cycles are undermined by ad hoc on-street parking. Developments that exhibit high cycle ownership and use tend to be those without parking problems or fears about safety.
POLICY LM 18, CHARGING POINTS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS Electric vehicle charging points should be made available by developers at every new residential dwelling as set out in SCC’s Parking Guidance
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 18 5.21 In July 2018, the UK Government announced that electric charging points for all new homes may become mandatory as part of its ‘Road to Zero’ (emissions) policy. There will be a ban on petrol and diesel new car sales by 2030. Research from the AA shows that by 2030, the number of electric cars on UK roads is expected to rise to 19% of the total, overtaking the number of diesel cars (estimated then at 17%). At present 1% of vehicles in the UK are electric, whilst diesel accounts for 39%: https://www.theaa.com/about-us/newsroom/electric- vehicle/aa-members-predict-electric-to-overtake-diesel-within-nine-years
5.22 In the Residents Survey, 1,278 respondents (64%) considered electric vehicle charging points to be either essential or fairly important for new developments. (Appendix 2, Table SF6).
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES 5.23 During 2020, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) requested a Traffic & Parking (T&P) Sub-group be formed to investigate and formulate recommendations, and to address two Community Objectives, namely to facilitate improvements to the village centre and to promote the provision of charging points for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles in public places. The Sub-group met on several occasions including a walk through the village centre to assess first-hand the problems and issues identified above. A number of distinct issues were identified and potential solutions were considered and evaluated. A full copy of the T&P report and recommendations can be found in Appendix 5. In order to assess the flows of traffic through the village, an unofficial count of vehicle movements was undertaken at three separate locations on a small number of days and times. A further count of vehicles parked in Little St Mary’s and Hall Street was undertaken during the Covid-19 lockdown in April 2020 when few if any commercial or visitor vehicles were present, in order to determine the number of parking spaces typically used by residents.
66 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 67 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 1, TRAFFIC AND PARKING INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE THE VILLAGE CENTRE
A reduction in the impact of traffic in terms of speed, volume, congestion and pollution, improved village centre parking, easier accessibility to public transport, better and safer movement by bicycle and on foot and better signage.
5.24 5.26 The T&P Sub-group obtained and reviewed numerous From the Residents Survey: documents relevant to the long-term planning of village transport, traffic and parking, including: • 1,838 people, or 92% of respondents, felt that pedestrian safety in the village was either • Road traffic survey data important or very important. • Suffolk County Council Policy for 20mph speed • 1,556 people, or 78% of respondents, agreed or s limit strongly agreed that traffic calming was appropriate in the village. • Parking survey data prepared for the Neighbourhood Plan • 1,277 people, or 64% of respondents, were in favour of a 20mph zone along Hall Street in the • Department for Transport Manual for Streets village centre. • Hamilton Baillie Associates’ Traffic in Villages – A • 1,277 people, or 64% of respondents, agreed or tool kit for communities strongly agreed with the need for safe cycle • House of Commons Transport Committee report routes or cycle lanes. (Appendix 2, Tables TP1 on Pavement Parking and TP2). • Department for Transport Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 5.27 • Department for Transport Local Transport Note A Suffolk Highways Speed Data report from March 1/07 - Traffic Calming 2017 showed that over 50% of the 11,000 daily traffic movements along the 30mph limit Little St Mary’s section of the B1064 were travelling at between 30mph 5.25 and 40mph. The Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for BDC (and Mid-Suffolk DC) from March 2018 by Place Services, shows the sensitivity of Long Melford to detriment from inappropriate development. Heritage risk adds to the case for a careful study of the options, if appropriate by professional advisers. To view the Sensitivity Assessment, follow this link: https://www.babergh.gov.uk/assets/Strategic- Planning/Current-Evidence-Base/Heritage-and- Settlement-Sensitivity
66 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 67 5. TRANSPORT AND PARKING CONTINUED...
5.28 • 1,305 respondents (65%) requested properly A Parking Survey was carried out in May 2018. This marked out parking bays. showed a number of issues relevant to how parking • 1,060 respondents (53%) favoured timed parking could be improved in the village centre: limits (with resident schemes for houses/ businesses). (Appendix 2, Table TP3). • Some 50% of village centre parking spaces are taken by residents and businesses for long periods of time and are thus unavailable for short 5.30 term visits. The NPSG held two business forums in 2018 to provide evidence for the Plan from local businesses. • In particular, spaces tend to be fully taken up Both forums added to the case for improvements to in areas of the village adjacent to the more the village centre, especially in areas such as parking, popular shops. accessibility to retail premises, pedestrian/cycle safety • Conversely more spaces are available in the and signage. See Appendix 7. southern part of the village centre, but that is further away from the majority of shops. 5.31 • Despite more availability of spaces in the The main recommendations of the T&P Sub-group for southern part of the village centre, the road the Parish Council to consider, applicable to LMCO 1, narrows there with the highest incidence of are shown below. Full information on these and further parking problems (e.g. parking partly on recommendations are in the report in Appendix 5: pavements, double parking or obstructing access to premises). Recommendation: Commission traffic surveys by Suffolk Highways to establish current volumes • The main car park designated for village and speeds of traffic. (Recommendation 1 in the full centre use, at the Old School, is very under- report). utilised. Improvements to this car park have been agreed by the LMPC and are underway. The Recommendation: Introduce a 20mph speed Village Hall car park has been re-surfaced and is limit through the village centre. (Recommendation available for public use when not required by 2 in the full report). events at the Hall. Recommendation: Purchase additional vehicle For information about the Parking Survey and its full activated signs and deploy them on the approach results, see Appendix 4. roads to the village centre on a rotation basis. (Recommendation 3 in the full report). 5.29 Build out the pavement at In relation to parking concerns, the Residents Survey Recommendation: key points in Little St. Mary’s and Hall Street in order is also relevant: to provide narrower crossings for pedestrians and/or • 1,509 respondents (76%) favoured more parking to provide space for social areas. (Recommendation posts in the village centre (to prevent vehicles 4 in the full report). from encroaching on pavements). Recommendation: Install additional street • 1,471 respondents (74%) wanted a new off-street furniture (planters and/or signage) at the entrances car park which would be nearer the heart of the to the village centre in order to increase the sense village. of entering a residential and commercial community • 1,356 respondents (68%) supported some kind area. (Recommendation 5 in the full report). of residents’ parking scheme.
68 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 69 Recommendation: Provide additional marking Recommendation: Provide visual or physical of parking bays in order to improve parking barriers to prevent parked vehicles from encroaching behaviours and density. (Recommendation 9 in the onto the pavement. (Recommendation 10 in the full full report). report).
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 2, CHARGING POINTS IN PUBLIC PLACES
Charging Points in Public Places: developing electric vehicle charging points for public car parks and dedicated on-street parking bays within the village.
5.32 rise and fall as needed as well as the more familiar In the Residents Survey 1,210 respondents (60%) pedestal type. Location of the points and costing considered the installation of electric charging points of the various types will need to be investigated. in public places in the village to be either essential or • Public car parks should have charge points for fairly important. visitors. Which scheme should the village adopt? The Parish Council is seeking funding for two 5.33 electric vehicle charging points to be installed at The growth in electric vehicle ownership will provide the Old School Car Park. both challenges and opportunities for Long Melford. The NPSG wishes the village to embrace this new 5.35 technology and to use it to the benefit of residents The main recommendations of the T&P Sub-group for and visitors alike. It is an important part of the the Parish Council to consider, applicable to LMCO 2, Neighbourhood Plan. are shown below. Full information on these and further recommendations are in the report in Appendix 5: 5.34 Recommendation: The installation of EV For Long Melford residents there are a number of charging points at the two village car parks. practical issues which need to be addressed with a (Recommendation 17 in the full report). variation of terraced and detached housing to consider. There is a need to increase the availability of on-street Recommendation: To investigate potential charging points in residential streets where off-street locations in Hall Street and Little St Mary’s for parking is not available, thereby ensuring that off- on-street EV charging points and identify costs for street parking is not a pre-requisite for realising the different types of charging unit. (Recommendation benefits of owning a plug-in electric vehicle. This is 18 in the full report). a village wide problem, not just for the village centre and the following issues need to be considered: • Charge points must be mounted on the pavement and not in the road, so how will this impact pedestrians and the movement of mobility scooters? There are a range of different charge point options. Points can be integrated into existing lamp posts, pop-up versions which
68 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 69 VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
6.3 INTRODUCTION A substantial section of the Residents Survey focused on the services and facilities needed to support the 6.1 village. Overwhelmingly, access to healthcare was National and district planning policies endorse rated as the facility that mattered most to the village; sustainable development that is adequately supported next came the primary school/pre-school, then green 6by local provision of health care, education, access to space, the village hall and other services and facilities. green space and facilities for all age groups.
6.2 Long Melford is a core village, providing many services and facilities to its residents, those living in the HEALTHCARE - BACKGROUND hinterland villages and those visiting from further afield. It boasts: 6.4 The GP practice consists of surgeries in Long Melford • Fine historic buildings. and Lavenham. Patients can be seen at either surgery. • A wide range of shops, hospitality outlets and The practice has four GP partners and four salaried GPs. key services - including a doctors’ surgery, a The doctors are supported by a team which typically primary school and fire station (see Map 6A). comprises a nurse practitioner, nursing staff, health care assistants, a practice manager and support staff. • Open spaces within the village - (see Map 6B). There is a dispensary in the Long Melford surgery for
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 71 use by those living in the outlying villages without pharmacies. The practice provides health care for almost 9,500 patients in 19 villages covering a wide area.
6.5 Private health care in Melford is provided by a dental surgery, osteopathy, chiropractic and physiotherapy practices. There is a residential care home in the centre of the village and another on the southern approach. The Sudbury Health Centre, three miles from the village, provides other health care services including phlebotomy. The Long Melford Good Neighbours Scheme plays an important role in helping those without transport and/or who have a disability to attend medical appointments including the Lavenham Surgery, the Health Centre, West Suffolk Hospital and Addenbrooke’s Hospital Cambridge.
Map 6A - Village Facilities. Source: NPSG
6.6 6.7 At a July 2018 meeting with members of the GP practice The practice has no immediate plans for expansion and the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG), to manage the inevitable increase in patient numbers issues raised in the Residents Survey around capacity from the 350 new homes, mainly in the Orchard Brook and waiting times for appointments were discussed. (formerly Fleetwood Caravans), Weavers Tye (on Bull The GPs explained that priority for appointments was Lane), Elms Croft (by Ropers Lane), and Station Road being given to those with urgent medical conditions. developments. They acknowledge that the extra The problem was not the space available in the demand will create a challenging situation. building but the difficulty in recruiting doctors and nurses.
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 71 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
6.8 (Appendix 2, Table SF2). Almost 40% of respondents Seventy-one per cent of respondents to the Residents who are registered with the practice (593 people) said Survey (1,409 people) ranked the Doctors’ Surgery as that getting a routine appointment was the service the most important of the listed Long Melford services that needed most improvement. This response and facilities (Appendix 2, Table SF1). However, only mirrored that in the May 2017 Neighbourhood Plan 8% (126 people) thought that the standard of service Public Consultation. had improved over the last two years; 43% (648 http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/ people) thought that it had stayed about the same uploads/2018/12/Surgery-Comments-Public-Mtg- and 45% (676 people) thought that it had deteriorated May-2017.pdf
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 3, HEALTHCARE SERVICES
The Parish Council will consult with the GP practice and Patient Participation Group and will offer support for improved and expanded healthcare provision within the village, when appropriate.
PRIMARY AND PRE-SCHOOL CAPACITY EDUCATION - BACKGROUND 6.12 The school has the capacity for 210 children (seven 6.9 classes for 30 children each) and currently provides Long Melford Primary School has been associated education for 199 children. The new Orchard Brook, with the Church of England since its formation in 1895. Weavers Tye and Elms Croft developments will In 2016, it joined the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and obviously see an increase in the demand for places as Ipswich Multi-Academy Trust and became a Church of will the Station Road development when completed. England Academy. The school is mixed entry to Year 6. There is nursery provision for children from three years old. FUNDING
6.10 6.13 Academy status followed the school being put into As an Academy, the school is paid per pupil by central Special Measures after an OFSTED inspection in 2015. government. For renovations, the school would However, following an OFSTED inspection in July normally need to bid for funds from the central 2019, the school was rated as ‘Good’ in all categories. government ‘Conditions Improvement Fund’ and In 2019, the headteacher reported that in the last two the bid will compete with hundreds of others from academic years, the school looked to have exceeded academies all over the country. SCC is responsible for national averages in all areas and its pupil numbers new building and new facilities required to expand the had risen. school places.
6.11 The school moved to its current premises, which was then a new building, in 1974.
72 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 73 6.14 6.16 In addition, money has been paid in s.106 and The outline planning permission for the Station Rd Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a result of the site includes the provision of land for an early years planning permissions being given for the Orchard setting. However, the school is able to provide parents Brook, Weavers Tye, and Elms Croft developments. with nursery provision and care from 7.30 am to 6.00 The Diocese has been given s.106 money in order that pm. The current headteacher believes that having the toilets and drains can be replaced in the main part the nursery as part of the school offers children the of the school. opportunity of being part of the school community at the age of three, which means that the transition into THE FUTURE school for their Reception Year is not an issue.
6.15 6.17 The School advises that, as well as the toilets and In the Residents Survey, the school was ranked as drains mentioned above, the following infrastructure second in importance to only the GP practice among issues need to be addressed: village facilities (Appendix 2, Table SF1). The school was also rated as very important to the village by • Improvements are needed to the changing 84% of respondents (1,682 people) and the nursery/ rooms and to the heating and lighting systems. pre-school as very important by 72% of respondents (1,442 people) (Appendix 2, Table SF3). • The outdoor swimming pool is unusable and needs to be renovated or removed. • The lack of a purpose-built nursery/pre-school building. • Inadequate on-street parking for parents driving their children to and from school.
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 4, SUPPORTING THE SCHOOL
The Parish Council will support the provision of a new nursery and improved facilities at the school.
72 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 73 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
LOCATIONS FOR STAGING a number of grants, principally from the National Lottery and Babergh District Council, have enabled MEETINGS AND EVENTS essential repairs and renovations to the building to be carried out. Furthermore, the car park has been 6.18 resurfaced, redesigned and is now open to the public, The Village Hall and the Old School are the two thus providing extra parking spaces in the centre of principal venues in Long Melford where meetings and the village. events can be held. In addition, the United Reformed Church and the Royal British Legion hold meetings and events. It should also be noted that the Football Club THE OLD SCHOOL has received significant funds through grants that will enable it to rebuild its clubhouse which it intends to 6.20 open for functions and events. The Old School is a listed building and is located at the southern end of the Green. It is run and maintained by the Community Association for the benefit of the THE VILLAGE HALL local community. Like the Village Hall, it is well used hosting classes, clubs, societies, exhibitions and fairs. 6.19 However, the adjacent public car park is in a poor The Village Hall is off Hall Street, at the end of Chemist condition. The Parish Council has succeeded in securing Lane, opposite the Bull Hotel. The opinion expressed a 30-year lease on the land from the landowner, which in the Residents Survey was fairly evenly divided as to will enable it to carry out improvements and continue whether Long Melford needed a new village hall (see to offer parking facilities at this site. Appendix 2 Table SF4). Subsequent to the Survey,
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 5, RESURFACING AND IMPROVING THE CAR PARK AT THE OLD SCHOOL
The Parish Council will seek to obtain match funding from Babergh District Council and raise further grant funding to enable the resurfacing work and improvements that are required with the car park at the Old School.
74 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 75 6.23 OPEN GREEN SPACES - A large part of Long Melford’s attraction as a rural and historic BACKGROUND village is its extensive open green spaces, detailed below.
6.21 Long Melford’s historic core and its setting within the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Stour Valley Project Area are key to the village’s popularity and underpin the tourist economy on which it thrives.
6.22 The River Stour, its tributary the Chad Brook, and associated floodplains, provide natural green corridors through the village and the basis for its Special Landscape Area classification. Long Melford accounts for a high proportion of the Special Landscape Areas designated in the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No.2, 2006, para 6.24 – this is reproduced below with Long Melford parts picked out in italics: • the Stour Valley from Long Melford to the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: • an area south of Bury St Edmunds:. • the valleys of the rivers Glem, Box, Brett and Chad Brook: • the Dodnash area: Map 6B • parts of the Gipping Valley and areas to the west of it: and • the historic parklands of Melford Hall, Kentwell Hall and the former Map 6B - Open Spaces. Source: NPSG Tendring Hall.
74 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 75 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 19, DESIGNATION OF LOCAL GREEN SPACES
The following green spaces are designated Local Green Spaces in accordance with the terms of paragraphs 99- 101 of National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The designated green spaces are shown on the Policies Map.
JUSTIFICATION: TESTED AGAINST NPPF 2019 PARAGRAPH 100 CRITERIA GREEN SPACE All of the Green Spaces Designated comply with Paragraph 100 c) (Local in character and not an extensive tract of land).
Paragraph 100 b) Paragraph 100 a) Demonstrably special to a local community and CRITERIA, IN SUMMARY Proximity to community holds a particular local significance e.g. beauty, served. historic significance, recreational value (including as playing field), tranquility or richness of wildlife.
These green spaces were created as an integral part of two distinctive 1960s and 1970’s housing developments. Their landscape of grass and mature trees provides an important setting for the houses. It is available to the wider community for recreation and the spaces, which stretch along sections of the main road through the village, are an important Harefield, Roman Way and All are in prominent feature for those passing by. There are proposals, related Southgate Gardens (Green locations in the heart of the to the development of the Station Road and former petrol Frontages) community. filling station sites, for a footpath to be created on the east side of Station Road, a path which might in the future be continued north via the Southgate Gardens/Roman Way green space towards the village centre; a well-designed path would be compatible with the character and function of this space.
76 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 77 Cordell Place includes the principal recreational facility within an area that was built as Council Housing. The housing which surrounds Cordell Place is significant in Cordell Place is the central displaying many of the features of the Garden Suburb feature of a large area of movement. The recreation ground, which accommodates Cordell Place (Central Green housing immediately east a playground and a football pitch, is consistent in character Area) of the village centre. It is with the wide grass verges and quite generous gardens of available and accessible to the area. Cordell Place is important to Long Melford for its the wider community. contribution to the significant architecture of the Cordell area and for being the only public area for active recreation in the village.
This green space is the former railway line that used to run from Sudbury to Bury St Edmunds. Its importance to the village lies in its historical interest (it still feels like a railway line, albeit without rails), in its nature conservation interest, in its role as a defensible boundary of the built- up area and in its place in a network of footpaths on the eastern side of the village. It is a Local Nature Reserve This forms the eastern and its recorded reptile and amphibian species include border of the village and Slow Worm, Viviparus Lizard, Grass Snake, Common Frog, Melford Walk can be accessed at several Common Toad and Smooth Newt. Over 60 bird species have points along its length. been identified and the Walk hosts breeding territories that include summer visitors such as Chiffchaff and Blackcap. Twenty-two species of butterfly have been seen and a variety of moth species, including Elephant Hawk Moth and Humming Bird Hawk Moth. Odonata species recorded comprise Brown Hawker, Emperor Dragonfly and Common Blue Damselfly. The Walk is home to a number of less common plant species, including Lesser Calamint, Dwarf Elder, Greater Knapweed and occasional Bee Orchids.
76 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 77 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
This attractive country park serves Long Melford, its hinterland villages and other nearby communities. It is a Local Nature Reserve comprising areas of grassland, woodland, river frontage and flooded pits. It is very popular and typically hosts around 112,000 visitors a year. It has a café and picnic facilities as well as paths The country park is at the laid out throughout the park. It is managed by the Parish southern end of the village. Council with the help of local volunteers, operating via It is accessible on foot via a Management Plan which was established in 2020 with the path that runs from Long substantial input from Suffolk Wildlife Trust. The park has Melford to Sudbury and it recorded over 20 species of butterfly, including Speckled Country Park is adjacent to the B1064 Wood and Small Heath, whilst its resident reptile and which is the spine road of amphibian species include Grass Snake, Slow Worm, the village, though the main Common Frog, Common Toad, Smooth Newt and Great entrance is in Borley Road. Crested Newt. Resident birds include the two main species There is a car park. of Woodpecker, Moorhen, Coot, Mallard and Mute Swan as well as Great, Blue, Coal, Long-Tailed and Marsh Tit. Spring and summer migrants are seen annually in the form of Chiffchaff, Willow Warbler, Blackcap, Garden Warbler, Sedge Warbler, Common and Lesser Whitethroat. The Park has notable riverside plant species including Water Forget- me-Not, Water Figwort and Butterbur.
"THE VILLAGE HAS TWO LOCAL NATURE RESERVES AND IMPORTANT FLOOD MEADOWS, THAT ARE BOTH IMPORTANT FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION AND BIO-DIVERSITY. THESE AND OTHER GREEN AREAS NEED TO BE PROTECTED AND ENHANCED FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS."
78 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 79 The meadows are significant for the village, in spite of there being no public access, for a number of reasons: • Liston Lane runs from Little St Mary’s westwards to Liston Church; it forms the northern border of these meadows. From New Road to Liston Church, it is The meadows form the a Quiet Lane. Liston Lane, in combination with the western boundary of the fields on the north side of the Lane, is probably the Stour Meadows south of Liston village, close to the village most popular walking area in the village; the meadows Lane centre. They are farmland on the south side are a vital and very attractive part of and there is no public the scene for this walking area. access. • The meadows provide the setting for historic properties, many of them listed, on Little St Mary’s. • The meadows are the site of a Roman villa, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. • The meadows include typical flood plains for the River Stour, which forms their western boundary.
The meadows form the western boundary of These meadows, which, via a number of public footpaths, the village, close to the provide access to open countryside, the River Stour and village centre. A number the Chad Brook, are, in combination with Liston Lane, of routes link the village probably the most popular walking area in Long Melford. Stour Meadows north of Liston to the meadows. They The paths link to other paths to the north and east. The Lane are farmland and there is former railway line to Cambridge crosses the meadows extensive public access to and some relics of the railway (e.g. level crossing gates and the meadows via several a platelayer’s hut) add historical interest to the site. The public footpaths which cross Parish boundary cuts across these meadows. the meadows.
78 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 79 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
The sports ground is owned by the Community Association and used for cricket in summer and for junior football in winter. A new long lease for the Cricket Club has recently been agreed, with an underlease which ensures junior football in the winter. The cricket club fields two league teams on both Saturdays and Sundays during the season, mid-week teams and runs two Colts teams. It also hosts Suffolk over 60s fixtures. It is a valued recreational facility The sports grounds are next for the village. Football Club (including the to each other on the western A public footpath runs alongside the boundary with the practice/training area behind edge of the village and well football club. the main pitch) and Cricket connected by footpaths, The football club is one of the oldest in the country, dating Field. as well as by road, to the from 1868. It owns the main pitch and car park and has village. first team and reserve team fixtures here throughout the football season. It also has a long lease on adjacent land, on which there are practice/training pitches. There is a thriving junior Colts and Fillies section. A new £730,000 clubhouse is being built with the help of funding from the Football Foundation, Babergh District Council, Long Melford Parish Council and the Hamilton Trust.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 19
6.24 6.25 The designated Local Green Spaces all have a long- In responses to the Residents Survey, the protection term place in the community and their designation is and enhancement of green spaces within the village consistent with the sustainable development of the was ranked third (after the GP practice and school) in parish. They define the landscape features for the terms of important facilities for the village (Appendix village. They are an essential part of the character of 2, Table SF1). These green spaces already are, or have the village for residents and for visitors. the potential to be, used both to encourage wildlife or as areas for active outdoor recreation.
80 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 81 6.26 Street, Chemist Lane and Bull Lane), making The Green Spaces listed below are also important it very conspicuous for both pedestrians and features of the village. The Greens, like many of the passing traffic. It is used for community events green verges within the historic core of the village, e.g. carol singing and a short service to accompany are owned by the Hyde Parker family but accessible the switching on of the village centre Christmas to all. The Greens have strong protection as both lights and the lights on the Christmas tree (which registered common land and registered village greens is situated each year on Little Green). The and therefore do not need the protection provided in significance of the Little Green is enhanced by Policy LM 19. The same applies to Melford Hall Park it being immediately adjacent to the Chad Brook and Kentwell Hall Grounds, which are Registered and to a swathe of green space which runs east Parks and Gardens. along the Brook. • The Green - This is one of the most important • Chapel Green - This is the central feature of a open spaces in the village. It sits below the group of historic houses and a former malting in impressive Grade 1 listed Holy Trinity church the southern part of the village. Opposite is the and opposite Melford Hall, a popular National site of a former chapel. Trust destination for visitors. The upper section of the Green above the A1092 suffers damage • Melford Hall Park - A Registered Park and from car-users who park on it. Interested parties Garden which provides the historic setting for including owners of The Green, Melford Estates, Melford Hall, the site of a number of community along with the Church, the Parish Council and events and which is bordered on its south side by the Black Lion hotel are establishing what is the Chad Brook. needed to improve and better define the area • Kentwell Hall Grounds – A Registered Park where parking is allowed and to address the and Garden which provides the setting for the problem of unauthorised vehicular access. Hall, and which hosts a large number of • Little Green - It provides an attractive and educational and recreational events. The important setting for a row of listed buildings, for Grounds are also very popular with walkers. the historic Bull Hotel and a green entry to the village centre. It sits on a busy junction (Hall
POLICY LM 20, PROVISION OF NEW GREEN SPACES
All residential development applications comprising ten or more units or with a site area of 0.5 hectares or more should provide appropriate multi-use green space within the site and this should be retained for the life of the development. The green space should extend to 10% of the total site area as a minimum. Applicants should assess the potential for supporting biodiversity within the planned green space and set out their proposals for supporting biodiversity in their application. Applicants should set out how their proposals will contribute to reducing climate change and mitigating the effects of climate change.
80 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 81 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 20
6.27 BDC’s Core Strategy 2014 (Policy CS14, Green Infrastructure) calls for the protection and expansion of green spaces and biodiversity. A key aim of the Plan Policies is to strengthen support for this policy to ensure the retention and expansion of public open green space, nature conservation and environmentally friendly approaches.
6.28 In November 2020, BDC, together with Mid Suffolk District Council, launched a Biodiversity Action Plan. Within the Plan was the intention to work with town and parish councils and local communities to achieve its biodiversity aims.
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 6, THE PROMOTION OF BIODIVERSITY
The Long Melford NPSG has formed a Biodiversity Working Group whose remit includes an examination of ways in which the village could be made more environmentally friendly. The group will also investigate how more land, both public and private, could be dedicated to nature.
The Biodiversity Working Group and Parish Council will support the initiatives that have been adopted by BDC and will take active steps to secure the implementation of the initiatives in Long Melford.
82 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 83 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 7, THE REDUCTION OF CARBON EMISSIONS
The Biodiversity Working Group and Parish Council will actively seek deliverable opportunities to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. The Parish Council will use its own powers and funds to act directly and to encourage others to realise the opportunities for the benefit of the local and global communities.
OUTDOOR PLAY FACILITIES
6.29 6.30 The Cordell Place play equipment needs to be The Orchard Brook development has a short gym trail. improved. Opinions and evidence received through There is a small play area at Elms Croft with three the Plan Public Consultation Days and the Residents pieces of equipment suitable for small children. There Survey demonstrate that there is a strong demand is no provision for play equipment on the Weavers Tye to improve outdoor play and leisure facilities in the site. village. Furthermore, as new developments extend the village away from the centre, outdoor play areas may be required to serve the northern and southern parts of the village.
POLICY LM 21, PROVISION OF OUTDOOR PLAY EQUIPMENT
All planning applications comprising ten or more residential units or with a site area of 0.5 hectares or more should provide appropriate outdoor play equipment, unless the development is to be occupied exclusively by people over the age of 55. The choice and details will depend on the scale, nature and location of the proposed development and must be agreed with the planning authority and the Parish Council prior to the determination of the application.
6.32 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY LM 21 There were 107 specific comments relating to provision of facilities for children and teenagers 6.31 made by respondents in the Residents Survey. There Eighty-four per cent of respondents (1,689 people) to were also 77 comments relating to sports amenities the Residents Survey indicated that play equipment of which a majority were for facilities that are not in parks was either essential or fairly important (see currently provided in the village. Appendix 2, Table SF5).
82 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 83 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
“OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE RECEIVED THROUGH THE PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION DAYS AND THE RESIDENTS SURVEY DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE IS A STRONG DEMAND TO IMPROVE OUTDOOR PLAY AND LEISURE FACILITIES IN THE VILLAGE”
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 8, DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF OUTDOOR PLAY EQUIPMENT
The Parish Council will set up a working group with the remit to investigate the demand for outdoor play equipment in parts of the village other than the centre.
6.35 ALLOTMENTS With the additional population arising from current and proposed developments and noting the trend 6.33 towards smaller gardens, it is likely that demand for There are allotments in two relatively central locations allotments will rise. in the village; alongside the Chad Brook (behind the Cricket Club and Orchard Brook development) 6.36 and alongside the Railway Walk (behind Oliver’s “Allotments have a vital role in connecting people to Close). These are owned and managed by the same the process of food production, enabling them to grow landowner and there is currently a short waiting list fresh, cheap food whilst reducing food miles.” for those wanting a plot. ‘Growing in the Community’, the Local Government Association. 6.34 In the Residents Survey, allotments were considered essential or fairly important by 82% of respondents (1,631 people). (Appendix 2, Table SF6).
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 9, AVAILABILITY OF LAND FOR MORE ALLOTMENTS
The Parish Council will investigate the demand for more allotments. If there is such demand, it will approach landowners to inquire into the availability of additional land for use as allotments.
84 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 85 PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
6.37 6.38 Long Melford has footpaths, bridleways and cycleways The NPSG set up a Footpath and Cycle Path working that are mostly maintained by Suffolk County Council group whose remit included drawing up a plan for and afford residents and visitors access to the parish circular walks. This project has now been surrounding countryside. completed. The working group will now focus on the plan for cycle paths.
POLICY LM 22, PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The Public Rights of Way network will be protected and enhanced. Where possible developers should take the opportunity to expand and improve pedestrian and cycle links.
JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2018/12/Leisure-Comments-Public-Mtg- LM 22 May-2017-1.pdf
6.39 6.41 Ninety-four per cent of respondents to the Residents The parish has a network of footpaths which should Survey (1,887 people) indicated that the enhancement be protected from the impact of development. Where and preservation of public footpaths was either possible, development should be sympathetic to essential or fairly important. these rights of way and should seek to establish links between them. 6.40 Support for public footpaths and cycle links was also evident at the May 2017 Neighbourhood Plan Consultation – see Statement of Consultation with the Supporting Documents to this Plan.
84 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 85 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 10, PROMOTION OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY
The Parish Council will work with Suffolk County Council and other partners to promote Long Melford as a tourist centre for walkers and cyclists.
acquire land for cemetery provision by agreement or THE CEMETERY by compulsory purchase. The Parish Council will seek to acquire such land in order to enable an increase in 6.42 the cemetery’s capacity and is setting aside funds in The cemetery is adjacent to Holy Trinity church and is order to do so. maintained by the Parish Council. At current rates of occupation, cemetery capacity will be exhausted by 6.44 2030. Fifty-two per cent of respondents to the Residents Survey (1,034 people) indicated that a green burial site 6.43 was either essential or fairly important (see Appendix Under powers granted in section 124 of the Local 2 Table SF6). Government Act 1972, the Parish Council is able to
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVE LMCO 11, EXPANSION OF CEMETERY PROVISION
The Parish Council will consider the creation of a green cemetery.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES FOR VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES
COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES UNDERWAY Objectives. As a result of the information gathered in drafting the Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan, the OR COMPLETED following projects have been undertaken in order to promote the development of the village’s services and 6.45 facilities. Prompted by the results of the Residents Survey, • The Parish Council, BDC and others awarded the views expressed at Neighbourhood Plan Public grants for the essential improvements to be Consultations and at the Business Forums, the Parish made to the Village Hall and its car park. These Council has completed a number of Community have now been implemented. The Village Hall
86 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 87 “THE PARISH HAS A NETWORK OF FOOTPATHS WHICH SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT. WHERE POSSIBLE, DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE SYMPATHETIC TO THESE RIGHTS OF WAY AND SHOULD SEEK TO ESTABLISH LINKS BETWEEN THEM ” car park is now available for use by residents, OTHER COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES visitors and those who work in the village, adding extra parking spaces for shoppers in Hall Street FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PARISH or walkers in the nearby countryside. COUNCIL • Results from the Residents Survey indicated very strong support for enhancing or introducing 6.46 new public footpaths. The sponsored circular The following Community Objectives represent a series walks project has now been completed. The of possible projects that were brought to the attention walks are as follows: of the Parish Council during the preparation of the Plan given the strong support for them expressed by - The Woolpatch Walk, 0.5 -1.5 miles; respondents to the Residents Survey. It is not the task - The Mill Walk, 2.5 miles; of the Plan to test and evaluate them, but they cover important areas and they are presented as a menu - The Indigo Walk, 3.5 miles; for the Parish Council to select priorities. The order - The Nethergate Walk, 5 miles; in which they are recorded below is not a suggested order of priority. - The Hare Walk, 7 miles. There are leaflets with maps and descriptions of the 6.47 walks available at various village locations including A working group, or separate groups, will be the telephone box in Hall Street that is known as the established by the Parish Council to advance these Walkers’ Hub and at the Country Park. They are also Community Objectives. The progress of this work available in telephone boxes by the Hare Pub and in will be reported regularly at Parish Council meetings, Bridge Street, and can be downloaded at especially when a Community Objective is achieved http://www.longmelford-pc.gov.uk/long-melford- quickly or if queries arise. All Community Objectives nature-reserves-circular-walks/ will be formally reviewed with the Parish Council once a year. See Map 6C for an overview of these walks and other public footpaths. • Recycling Facilities - There was strong support • The Public Realm Study for the village centre that from respondents to the Residents Survey for the was proposed in the text for the earlier enhancement, preservation or introduction (Regulation 14) Neighbourhood Plan document of new recycling facilities. The Parish Council has, for the present, been deferred. However, will consider the provision of more widespread the ‘Long Melford in Bloom’ project was public recycling facilities. This will be with the introduced to increase the attractiveness of the aim of expanding these facilities within the village centre and thus increase footfall needed village and beyond the existing relatively central to sustain the shops, public houses and hotels locations in the car parks adjacent to the Old etc. School and the British Legion. Increased and more widespread recycling facilities falls within • The Parish Council has given financial support to the spirit of BDC’s Core Strategy 2014, Policy CS both the football and cricket clubs enabling them 15. to improve their sites and facilities.
86 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 87 6. VILLAGE SERVICES AND FACILITIES CONTINUED...
Map 6C - Public Footpaths. Source: NPSG
88 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 89 • Public Seating and Toilet Facilities in Hall • Improved Recreational Facilities Street - There is virtually no public seating in the for Teenagers - The only public facilities for centre of the village, and little elsewhere other village teenagers are located at Cordell Place than the Greens. Seating on some of the verges where there is a football pitch with goalposts and and parts of the pavements in Hall Street at a teenage ‘hang out’ pod. Results from the strategic sites would be valuable to residents Residents Survey indicated the need to provide and visitors. The Parish Council has set up a more activities for the under-18s. Further working group to investigate the provision of evidence came from the pupils who took part public seating in Hall Street and elsewhere in the in the two School Project Days (see Appendix 6, village. The working group will seek to work Schools Project). Pupils aged 11 to 16, who were with the landowner of the verges and Suffolk Long Melford residents, took part in these County Council. sessions and felt provision of equipment and facilities for the younger generations in the The only public toilets in Melford are at the top village was inadequate. of the Green, in the Country Park and in the Parish Council office in Cordell Road just behind the Bull Given the extent of new development in Long Hotel in Hall Street. The first two are well away Melford and the paucity of existing facilities, it from the village centre, and the latter is closed would seem prudent to anticipate that further when the Parish Council office is closed except to youth recreation facilities will be needed to those people who have Radar Keys. The Parish meet BDC’s Access Standard for Youth Play Council will set up a working group to determine Space. The Parish Council will investigate the the best way forward to improve the provision of demand for different types of teenage public toilets in the centre of the village. recreational facilities and possible locations. • Additional Sports Facilities - Suggestions expressed in the Residents Survey as to what sports facilities would be desirable included tennis courts, a badminton court, a basketball court and a bowling green. The Parish Council will investigate the demand for additional sports facilities and where they could be located.
88 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 89 BUSINESS & TOURISM
• Lifestyle outlets – candlemaker, antiques INTRODUCTION centres, interior lifestyle centre and art galleries. 7.1 Long Melford has an enviable range of businesses • Healthcare providers – a GP Surgery, a 7including: pharmacy, a physiotherapy and chiropractic clinic, an osteopath, and a dental surgery. • Hospitality providers - hotels, pubs, a brewery with bar and taproom, restaurants, B&Bs, tea • Post office. coffee shops, takeaway outlets, and an ex servicemen’s social club. • Beauty and hair salons and barbers.
• Food outlets -two convenience stores, a • Specialist retailers including clothes shops, a butchers, a bakery, a wine shop at The Swan rug and carpet centre and a wool shop. Deli and a mobile fishmonger. • Several long-established farms within the • Professional services – a veterinary surgery, parish. business and financial services, architects, estate agencies, several building companies • Other businesses include –a bus and taxi and an undertaker. company, a garden centre, a clothes repair and alterations shop, a saddlery, an upholsterer, a sign-writer and a charity shop.
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 91 7.2 7.4 Many of the businesses listed above attract tourists The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group hosted two and visitors from neighbouring areas to the village. business forums in the village, in March and May 2018. In addition, the village’s magnificent Holy Trinity These were set up in cooperation with members of Church and two stately homes, Kentwell and Melford the Long Melford Business Association but they were Hall (both of which stage a variety of hugely popular attended by member and non-member businesses. events) act as magnets for tourists and locals alike. The topics raised and discussed at these forums have Visitors to Long Melford can learn more about the made a key contribution to the Policies in this chapter village by visiting its Museum & Heritage Centre. and have also had an impact elsewhere in the Plan. In total, 22 local businesses were represented at those 7.3 forums. By far the greatest concerns from those who These local businesses, services and facilities form attended related to parking issues and poor signage in the bulk of the local economy and whilst most can be the village centre, but the forums also covered change found in or near the village centre, there are businesses of use of premises and measures to help Long Melford throughout the whole parish including, for example, as a primary destination of choice for visitors and The Historic Bridge Street Guesthouse in the hamlet tourists. Notes from both Business Forums are shown of Bridge Street at the northern end of the Plan Area. in Appendix 7. There is also a trend towards more people working from home, greatly assisted by improvements made to broadband coverage over recent years.
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 91 7. BUSINESS & TOURISM CONTINUED...
Map 7A: Business Locations. Source: NPSG
92 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 93 7.8 ISSUES The local economy clearly stands to benefit from 7.5 sustainable development and the growth of the village population. However, the impact on village businesses There has been encouraging evidence of recent of the trend to online shopping requires care and business investment in the parish since the start of the attention to the village centre, to enhance the visitor Plan Period: experience and to enable Long Melford’s businesses • the refurbishment of The Black Lion; to continue attracting support and patronage from • a relocated and larger bakery; residents and visitors alike. • the addition of a wine shop at The Swan Deli; • the conversion of part of The Mill to include bed and breakfast facilities; 7.9 • a new butchers to fill the gap left by the retirement The village, especially in its centre, suffers from of the long-standing Ruse family butchers; frequent traffic congestion and a shortage of parking • a substantially re-furbished antique and interior for residents, visitors and workers. For more detail lifestyle centre (with Pullman café); on parking and traffic issues in the village centre see • a new coffee shop; Chapter 5. Issues with traffic, parking and pedestrian • a new Indian restaurant; safety detract from the visitor experience in the village • there has also been significant expansion and centre and thus are likely, over time, to have a negative improvements to several existing beauty/hair impact on visitor numbers and the local economy. salons and tea/coffee shops. • In the south of the village, the arrival of the 7.10 Nethergate Brewery has provided a welcome Long Melford welcomes the arrival of new businesses boost to the local economy and the company but the modern trend towards home working and acquired additional land, adjacent to the site, in the change of use of premises, or part-premises, 2019, enabling investment in its shop, taproom from residential to business use, whether in the and parking facilities. village centre or more widely afield in the parish, needs careful attention. A new business in a rural or 7.6 residential area can have a positive effect in economic Despite this significant inward investment (including terms but also, potentially, a detrimental impact on the receipt of substantial grant funding at the football the rural character of the parish or on the well-being club to support a major clubhouse improvement - see of residents. Chapter 6 Policy LM 19, list of designated Local Green Spaces), the village has, nevertheless, been affected 7.11 by several business closures and a number of mainly Farms are an important part of the local economy. retail units remaining vacant or proving slow to rent. As well as employing 1.4% of the local working population aged 16-74 (2011 Census), they maintain 7.7 the extensive landscape which provides a unique Great care is needed with requests for a change of setting for the village and which includes havens business premises to non-employment or residential for wildlife and recreational opportunities. The only use. There is long-term evidence in the parish of significant planning issue relating to farming that retail or business premises switching to residential has arisen thus far in the Plan Period, is the potential use, at which point their potential to provide future allocation of farmland for residential development. employment usually ends. Consequently such This has been considered in Chapter 4. permission for change of use should not be lightly given.
92 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 93 7. BUSINESS & TOURISM CONTINUED...
7.13 POLICY INTENTIONS There is also an intention to support and encourage 7.12 small businesses, especially those which can occupy existing underutilised premises. It is the intention of the Policies that follow to promote business and tourism in the parish against a background of sustainable development and 7.14 population growth. It is important the parish does Noting and accepting the intentions above, these all it can to retain its existing range of businesses and Policies will consider applications for change of use of encourage new businesses to set up. But equally it residential premises to business or mixed use and vice must mitigate the negative consequences of growth versa, on their individual merits. on resident and visitor experiences. The Plan must seek to foster the right environment for businesses, residents and visitors alike. This can be achieved by input to areas such as the flow of traffic, the quality of signs, parking availability, pedestrian safety and maintenance of the historic character and ambiance of the village.
94 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 95 POLICY LM 23, SUPPORT THE LOCAL ECONOMY
This Plan seeks to support local businesses, local tourist facilities and the local economy, but at the same time it seeks to protect the amenity and environment of the parish. Applications for new business or tourism and leisure facilities (or for expansion to existing business/facilities) are welcome and will be viewed on their merits, with support contingent on their compliance with Development Plan and national planning policies. The Parish Council will support applications from small businesses (i.e. micro businesses of fewer than ten employees), especially where these can use existing employment land or premises.
7.18 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY The Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan (JLP) LM 23 Pre-Submission (Reg 19) Document, Policy LP12 1(a) addresses the requirement of local planners to 7.15 promote sustainable development when assessing The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF: planning applications for employment purposes: February 2019 – Paragraphs 80 and 81) states that “Proposals for employment use must: (a) Be sensitive to planning policies: the surroundings, including any residential and other “should help create the conditions in which businesses amenity, landscape and heritage assets.” can invest, expand and adapt” and “should seek to address potential barriers to 7.19 investment” (e.g.” inadequate infrastructure…or a Census data shows that whilst the overall rate of poor environment”). economic activity among those aged 16-74 in the parish is marginally lower (68.5%) than in Babergh 7.16 (70.3%) and in England (69.9%), the figures for self- NPPF (February 2019-Paragraph 8) includes as part employed in Long Melford are generally higher than of its definition of sustainable development, an in other areas. Among the economically active in the economic objective which seeks: village, 20.5% are self-employed, a higher percentage “to help build a strong, responsive and competitive than in Babergh and England. Of the self-employed, economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right almost 22% employ staff, many of whom are local types is available in the right places and at the right people. This data shows the importance of the self- time to support growth, innovation and improved employed sector to the village. (Source: Census 2011). productivity” 7.20 7.17 The employed sector is also an extremely important The same paragraph includes an environmental part of the economy of the parish: nearly 70% (those objective which seeks: who travel more than 2 kms to their employment) “to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, bring income into the parish from jobs held elsewhere. built and historic environment; including making Their ability to travel to a range of jobs by different effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, forms of transport needs to be supported using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.”
94 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 95 7. BUSINESS & TOURISM CONTINUED...
POLICY LM 24, CHANGE OF USE: RESIDENTIAL TO EMPLOYMENT
Applications for residential property to be converted or adapted for employment use, or mixed use, will be judged on their merits, taking account of public benefit, impact on neighbour amenity and other material considerations. Each application must demonstrate adequate parking, according to SCC policies and standards. Generally, applications for change of use to small scale employment which relate predominantly to land or premises within a residential curtilage, will be supported, provided:
• There are no direct sales from the site; • The hours of operation are compatible with residential use; • the employment of people not normally resident at the address is no greater than the number of those employed there who are so resident; and • The business does not involve significant noise, dust, fumes or other emissions, outdoor storage or frequent delivery/collection which could adversely affect local amenity.
7.23 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY However, the JLP Pre-Submission (Reg 19) Document, LM 24 Policy LP12 1(a) applies again here. Specifically: “Proposals for employment use must: (a) Be sensitive 7.21 to the surroundings, including any residential and other In relation to rural communities NPPF (February 2019 amenity, landscape and heritage assets.” - Paragraph 83) states that planning policies: “should support a prosperous rural economy… (through 7.24 the) …. expansion of all types of business in rural areas, Where residents work from home, planning permission both through the conversion of existing buildings and may not be required. However, if a business operating well-designed new buildings” from home expands over time, consideration of the implications of such growth will be needed, including 7.22 the possible requirement for planning permission. The JLP Pre-Submission (Reg 19) Document, paragraph 14.02 on Employment Development, encourages development of employment sites: “… of the right type, in the right place…” Then in paragraph 14.04, the policy on small scale employment and flexible working practices recognises the importance of Micro operators and SME’s (Small and Medium Enterprises) in the predominantly rural Babergh district, noting that these can thrive in the home. Specifically, the policy seeks: “…to accommodate Micro and SME operators positively by making provision for small scale employment and flexible working practices in appropriate locations.”
96 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 97 POLICY LM 25, CHANGE OF USE: EMPLOYMENT TO RESIDENTIAL
Planning applications to redevelop or use existing or vacant employment land, sites and premises for non- employment purposes, will be permitted if the applicant can demonstrate that their retention for an appropriate employment use has been fully explored. This may be undertaken in one of the two following ways: • By an agreed and sustained marketing campaign, undertaken for a minimum of 6 months, by an independent assessor and at a realistic asking price, on a range of terms and in an appropriate format. • Where agreed in advance, the applicant can demonstrate that the land, site or premises are inherently unsuitable or not viable for all forms of employment related use. A proposal must not give rise to an amenity conflict with existing or proposed employment uses/activities in the vicinity of the land, site or premises.
It is recognised that there may be an overriding environmental or community benefit from redevelopment to residential use, or change to another business or community use, which outweighs the benefit of the current employment use continuing. When such benefit is relevant, it will be considered when applications are assessed.
7.26 JUSTIFICATION FOR POLICY In the JLP Pre-Submission (Reg 19) Document, LM 25 paragraph 14.05, both councils consider: “that availability of employment opportunities – 7.25 particularly in rural areas – is essential to maintain NPPF (February 2019 - Paragraph 83) states that sustainable communities.” They therefore “seek to planning policies should enable: retain viable employment use on existing employment “‘the retention……of accessible local services and premises, but also enable other commercial uses, such community facilities, such as local shops, meeting as small-scale retail, services and other facilities.”. places, sports venues, open space, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.” 7.27 However, in paragraph 14.08 the councils consider a potential change of use which the NPSG considers as relevant, selectively, to a village like Long Melford, where there is a high degree of heritage sensitivity: “On some sites it may be appropriate to undertake a “land swap” whereby employment land/premises can be redeveloped with another use and the employment uses can be developed elsewhere on a new site. This could be beneficial for businesses to provide modern premises, and it could be beneficial for local amenity if employment uses were located away from residential areas.”
96 | LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 97 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
Parish Council does not decide planning applications, DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT it is consulted on all applications. Its consultation responses, if they are to be taken seriously by BDC 88.1 in deciding applications, will also need to be in The main purpose of this Plan is to enable Long Melford accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan, unless to be included in decisions over future developments material planning conditions indicate otherwise. which will be proposed via planning applications to Babergh District Council (BDC). 8.4 The benefit of the Neighbourhood Plan is that, whereas 8.2 previously residents and the Parish Council could Once the Plan is adopted, it will become part of the only make representations on planning applications/ Development Plan. The other part is the BDC Plan i.e. development proposals, they now have a set of the current Core Strategy 2014. This is expected to be policies which, once the Plan is adopted, will need to replaced by the Babergh and Mid-Suffolk Joint Local be followed by BDC and other decision makers, for Plan. example, when planning appeals are considered. 8.3 Applications for planning permission, submitted to BDC for development in Long Melford, must be decided in accordance with the Development Plan (i.e. the Babergh and Long Melford Plans), unless material planning conditions indicate otherwise. Whilst the
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 99 FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY REVIEW
BENEFIT 8.11 The Parish Council will review, at regular intervals, the 8.5 Policies and Community Actions laid out in this Plan, Planning law has provided mechanisms whereby in order to check whether they are being applied as developers contribute funds to mitigate the impact intended, whether it takes account of circumstances of their development (e.g. loss of wildlife habitat, that may have changed since its adoption and whether increased congestion). These funds can be applied overall the Plan is as effective as intended. to expanding the capacity of local infrastructure (e.g. expanding a school, or providing a library). More is 8.12 expected of larger developments, as their effects or It is also understood that the new Joint Local impacts are greater. The two main mechanisms are Plan might require a review of the Long Melford Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 Neighbourhood Plan to make sure it is still compliant agreements. with any new strategic policies. 8.13 8.6 It is possible that the Neighbourhood Plan will be Section 106 (s.106) agreements, also known as reviewed at other times because of changes to relevant planning obligations, are the older instrument. local policies, national policies and legislation. It is They are designed to deal with the immediate local accepted that the Plan will have changes made to it effects of a development and are negotiated case by during its life. There should not be an expectation case between the applicant/developer and the local that it will be rigidly adhered to, without change, for planning authority (BDC). They are used, for example, that period. It must be remembered that the overall to secure affordable housing and additional school objective of the Plan is to assist and support future capacity. Planning obligations may only constitute a development, not to debar it. reason for granting planning permission, if they meet the following tests. They should be:
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.
• Directly related to the development.
• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.
8.7 The funds have to be spent in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
“THE PARISH COUNCIL WILL REVIEW, AT REGULAR INTERVALS, THE POLICIES AND COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES LAID OUT IN THIS PLAN”
LONG MELFORD NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2037 | 99 Appendix 1
Parish Profile, Census Statistics
1.1 The Tables in this Appendix have been used to support the information in chapter 2, section 4 of the Plan. They provide a profile of the parish of Long Melford in terms of:
Population Households and their Housing Economic Activity. 1.2 They also provide a comparison with Babergh District Council and England. With the exception of Table 13, the figures have been taken from the 2011 Census (National Statistics, Nomis, 2011 Census, Long Melford Parish). The reference in brackets after each Table title is the Table number in the Census results.
Table 1 Age Structure (KS102EW) Long Melford Babergh England People % People % People % All Usual Residents 3,518 87,740 53,012,456 Age 0-4 148 4.2 4,451 5.1 3,318,449 6.3 Age 5-9 151 4.3 4,868 5.5 2,972,632 5.6 Age 10-15 191 5.4 6,600 7.5 3,731,755 7 Age 16-19 123 3.5 3,997 4.6 2,689,439 5.1 Age 20-24 126 3.6 3,958 4.5 3,595,321 6.8 Age 25-44 757 21.5 19,639 22.4 14,595,152 27.5 Age 45-64 1,078 30.6 25,471 29 13,449,179 25.4 Age 65-84 785 22.3 16,206 18.5 7,480,401 14.1 Age 85+ 159 4.5 2,550 2.9 1,180,128 2.2 Total 3,518 87,740 53,012,456
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 2 Health and Provision of Unpaid Care (KS301EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All usual residents 3,518 100 87,740 100 53,012,456 100 Day-to-day activities limited a lot 324 9.2 6,333 7.2 4,405,394 8.3 Day-to-day activities limited a little 430 12.2 8,910 10.2 4,947,192 9.3 Day-to-day activities not limited 2,764 78.6 72,497 82.6 43,659,870 82.4 Very good health 1,457 41.4 40,875 46.6 25,005,712 47.2 Good health 1,307 37.2 31,433 35.8 18,141,457 34.2 Fair health 551 15.7 11,624 13.2 6,954,092 13.1 Bad health 158 4.5 3,023 3.4 2,250,446 4.2 Very bad health 45 1.3 785 0.9 660,749 1.2 All usual residents, provision of care Provides 1-19 hours of unpaid care per week 282 8 6,819 7.8 3,452,636 6.5 Provides 20-49 hours of unpaid care per week 48 1.4 1,020 1.2 721,143 1.4 Provides 50 or more hours of unpaid care per week 80 2.3 1,877 2.1 1,256,237 2.4 All providing care 410 11.7 9,716 11.1 5,430,016 10.2
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 3 Household Composition (KS105EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All households 1,661 100 37,522 100 22,063,368 100 One-person household; aged 65 and over 324 19.5 5,306 14.1 2,725,596 12.4 One-person household; other 272 16.4 5,264 14 3,940,897 17.9 One family; all aged 65 and over 196 11.8 4,407 11.7 1,789,465 8.1 One family; married or same-sex civil partnership couple; no children 257 15.5 6,191 16.5 2,719,210 12.3 One family; married or same-sex civil partnership couple; dependent children 180 10.8 6,080 16.2 3,375,890 15.3 One family; married or same-sex civil partnership couple; all children non-dependent 108 6.5 2,191 5.8 1,234,355 5.6 One family; cohabiting couple; no children 92 5.5 1,909 5.1 1,173,172 5.3 One family; cohabiting couple; dependent children 51 3.1 1,472 3.9 890,780 4 One family; cohabiting couple; all children non-dependent 4 0.2 148 0.4 108,486 0.5 One family; lone parent; dependent children 60 3.6 1,906 5.1 1,573,255 7.1 One family; lone parent; all children non-dependent 54 3.3 1,120 3 766,569 3.5 Other household types 63 3.8 1,528 4.1 1,765,693 8 1,661 37,522 22,063,368
Table 4 Households by Number of
Dimensions of Deprivation (QS119EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Households 1,661 100 37,522 100 22,063,368 100 Household is Not Deprived in Any 754 45.4 17,823 47.5 9,385,648 42.5 Dimension Household is Deprived in 1 Dimension 536 32.3 12,438 33.1 7,204,181 32.7 Household is Deprived in 2 Dimensions 315 19 6,177 16.5 4,223,982 19.1 Household is Deprived in 3 Dimensions 53 3.2 1,020 2.7 1,133,622 5.1 Household is Deprived in 4 Dimensions 3 0.2 64 0.2 115,935 0.5 1,661 100 37,522 100 22,063,368 100
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 5 Car or Van Availability (KS404EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Households 1,661 37,522 22,063,368 No cars or vans 286 17.2 5,294 14.1 5,691,251 25.8 One car or van 726 43.7 15,251 40.6 9,301,776 42.2 Two cars or vans 478 28.8 12,469 33.2 5,441,593 24.7 Three or more cars or vans 171 10.3 4,508 12 1,628,748 7.4 1,661 37,522 22,063,368 All cars or vans 2,281 55,747 25,696,833 Average cars/vans per household 1.37 1.49 1.16
Table 6 Tenure – Households (KS402EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Households 1,661 37,522 22,063,368 Owned; Owned Outright 658 39.6 14,861 39.6 6,745,584 30.6 Owned with mortgage or 432 26 12,120 32.3 7,229,440 32.8 loan Shared ownership 8 0.5 178 0.5 173,760 0.8 Social rented (Local 261 15.7 4,912 13.1 3,903,550 17.7 Authority or other) Private rented & rent 302 18.2 5,451 14.5 4,011,034 18.2 free 1,661 37,522 22,063,368
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 7 Households by Persons per Room (PPR) (QS409EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Households 1,661 100 37,522 100 22,063,368 100 Up To 0.5 PPR 1,384 83.3 29,698 79.1 15,695,637 71.1 Over 0.5 and Up To 1.0 PPR 268 16.1 7,543 20.1 5,904,342 26.8 Over 1.0 and Up To 1.5 PPR 8 0.5 241 0.6 343,583 1.6 Over 1.5 PPR 1 0.1 40 0.1 119,806 0.5 1,661 100 37,522 100 22,063,368 100
Table 8 Households by Type of Accommodation (QS402EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Households 1,661 37,522 22,063,368 Unshared Dwelling; Total 1,661 100 37,514 100 21,985,413 99.6 Unshared Dwelling; Whole House or Bungalow; Total 1,505 90.6 34,877 93 17,235,610 78.1 Of which Unshared Dwelling; Whole House or Bungalow; Detached 517 34.4 15,624 44.8 4,949,216 28.7 Unshared Dwelling; Whole House or Bungalow; Semi-Detached 500 33.2 11,125 31.9 6,889,935 40 Unshared Dwelling; Whole House or Bungalow; Terraced (Including End- Terrace) 488 32.4 8,128 23.3 5,396,459 31.3 Unshared Dwelling; Flat, Maisonette or Apartment; Total 156 9.4 2,552 6.8 4,668,839 21.2 Of which Unshared Dwelling; Flat, Maisonette or Apartment; Purpose-Built Block of Flats or Tenement 119 76.3 2,047 80.2 3,624,359 77.6 Unshared Dwelling; Flat, Maisonette or Apartment; Part of a Converted or Shared House (Including Bed-Sits) 17 10.9 267 10.5 834,083 17.9
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Unshared Dwelling; Flat, Maisonette or Apartment; In Commercial Building 20 12.8 238 9.3 210,397 4.5 Unshared Dwelling; Caravan or Other Mobile or Temporary Structure 0 0 85 0.2 80,964 0.4 Shared Dwelling 0 0 8 0 77,955 0.4
Table 9 Economic Activity, (QS601EW)
Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Usual Residents Aged 16 to 74 2,566 100 63,075 100 38,881,374 100 Economically Active; Total 1,758 68.5 44,347 70.3 27,183,134 69.9 Of which All employees 1,266 72 33,012 74.4 20,349,832 74.9 Of which Employee; Part-Time 387 30.6 9,578 29 5,333,268 26.2 Employee; Full-Time 879 69.4 23,434 71 15,016,564 73.8 All self-employed 361 20.5 8,023 18.1 3,793,632 14 Of which Self-Employed with Employees; Part-Time 16 4.4 300 3.7 148,074 3.9 Self-Employed with Employees; Full-Time 63 17.5 1,403 17.5 715,271 18.9 Self-Employed Without Employees; Part-Time 95 26.3 2,255 28.1 990,573 26.1 Self-Employed Without Employees; Full-Time 187 51.8 4,065 50.7 1,939,714 51.1 Economically Active; Unemployed 87 4.9 1,879 4.2 1,702,847 6.3 Economically Active; Full-Time Student 44 2.5 1,433 3.2 1,336,823 4.9 Economically Inactive; Total 808 31.5 18,728 29.7 11,698,240 30.1 Of which Retired 538 66.6 11,468 61.2 5,320,691 45.5 Student (including Full-Time Students) 52 6.4 2,129 11.4 2,255,831 19.3 Looking After Home or Family 89 11 2,671 14.3 1,695,134 14.5 Long-Term Sick or Disabled 75 9.3 1,593 8.5 1,574,134 13.5 Economically Inactive; Other 54 6.7 867 4.6 852,450 7.3
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 10 Qualifications (KS501EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All residents aged 16 and over 3,028 100 71,821 100 42,989,620 100 No qualifications 826 27.3 16,367 22.8 9,656,810 22.5 Highest qualification: level 1 414 13.7 10,385 14.5 5,714,441 13.3 Highest qualification: level 2 499 16.5 12,560 17.5 6,544,614 15.2 Highest qualification: apprenticeship 126 4.2 2,818 3.9 1,532,934 3.6 Highest qualification: level 3 332 11 8,337 11.6 5,309,631 12.4 Highest qualification: level 4 & above 708 23.4 18,539 25.8 11,769,361 27.4 Other qualifications 123 4.1 2,815 3.9 2,461,829 5.7 3,028 71,821 42,989,620 Notes Level 1: 1-4 GCSE's, any grade Level 2: 5+ GCSE's, grades A*-C Apprenticeship Level 3: 2+ A levels Level 4: Degree Or equivalents at all levels
Table 11 Socio-Economic Classification Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Usual Residents Aged 16 to 74 2,566 100 63,075 100 38,881,374 100 Occupations 1. Higher Managerial, Administrative and Professional 243 9.5 6,651 10.5 4,045,823 10.4 2. Lower Managerial, Administrative and Professional 576 22.4 14,379 22.8 8,132,107 20.9 3. Intermediate 317 12.4 8,217 13 4,972,044 12.8 4. Small Employers and Own Account 372 14.5 7,942 12.6 3,662,611 9.4 5. Lower Supervisory and Technical 175 6.8 4,681 7.4 2,676,118 6.9 6. Semi-Routine Occupations 398 15.5 9,219 14.6 5,430,863 14 7. Routine Occupations 305 11.9 6,688 10.6 4,277,483 11 8. Never Worked & Long-Term 85 3.3 1,819 2.9 2,180,026 5.6 Unemployed Not Classified 95 3.7 3,479 5.5 3,504,299 9 2,566 100 63,075 100 38,881,374 100
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Table 12 Method of Travel to Work (QS701EW) Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All Usual Residents Aged 2,566 63,075 38,881,374 16 to 74 Not in Employment 904 20,825 13,718,653 Net, in employment 1,662 100 42,250 100 25,162,721 100 Work Mainly at or From 138 8.3 3,252 7.7 1,349,568 5.4 Home Underground, Metro, 2 0.1 80 0.2 1,027,625 4.1 Light Rail, Tram Train 37 2.2 1,515 3.6 1,343,684 5.3 Bus, Minibus or Coach 39 2.3 937 2.2 1,886,539 7.5 Taxi 1 0.1 87 0.2 131,465 0.5 Motorcycle, Scooter or 12 0.7 275 0.7 206,550 0.8 Moped Driving a Car or Van 1,166 70.2 28,734 68 14,345,882 57 Passenger in a Car or Van 82 4.9 1,912 4.5 1,264,553 5 Bicycle 34 2 851 2 742,675 3 On Foot 141 8.5 4,345 10.3 2,701,453 10.7 Other Method of Travel 10 0.6 262 0.6 162,727 0.6 to Work 1,662 100 42,250 100 25,162,721 100
Table 13 Distance travelled to work - 2001 Census Long Melford Babergh England No. % No. % No. % All people 1,649 40,296 22,441,497 Works mainly at or from 216 13.1 4,888 12.1 2,055,224 9.2 home Less than 2 kms 290 17.6 8,108 20.1 4,484,082 20 2 kms to less than 5 kms 413 25 4,984 12.4 4,510,259 20.1 5 kms to less than 10 kms 114 6.9 5,373 13.3 4,094,614 18.2 10 kms to less than 20 176 10.7 7,523 18.7 3,412,081 15.2 kms 20 kms to less than 40 190 11.5 3,850 9.6 1,725,445 7.7 kms 40 kms and over 140 8.5 3,218 8 1,095,254 4.9 No fixed place of work 107 6.5 2,251 5.6 991,537 4.4 Outside UK or offshore 3 0.2 101 0.3 73,001 0.3
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
1,649 40,296 22,441,497
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2037
Appendix 2
Residents Survey: Methodology and Results
Survey Methodology Page 1 Survey Results Page 9
Survey Methodology
2.1 This section contains notes on the conception, design, construction, operation and analysis of the residents’ survey from a technical point of view. Background 2.2 The Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan (the Plan) started in December 2016 with an application to the planning authority for a designated area to be the subject of the Plan. That was granted in February 2017, and the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) began to gather evidence from public meetings, forums with local businesses and a wide range of meetings with stakeholders in the community. These provided a rich stream of issues, problems and suggestions to be considered for the Plan. By February 2018 plans were being made for a village-wide survey of residents’ opinions to consolidate and give weight to the information gathered so far. 2.3 Twelve years previously between 2005 and 2007 Long Melford had developed a Parish Plan (PP2006) with similarities to the new Plan. That earlier plan included several surveys. Among them was a very successful household questionnaire with an outstanding rate of response. It would be valuable if a similar level of success could be achieved again in 2018. 2.4 It was obvious at this stage that a full Residents Survey, if it were to be done, would be on the critical path among the tasks needed to complete the Plan. Careful management would be required to achieve it without losing time waiting for resources or delayed decisions. What kind of survey? 2.5 Designing good surveys is an art as well as a science. People are not generally fond of filling-in paper forms, but telephone surveys may be still less popular. Subtle compromises are needed between making the questions few, short and snappy, and on the other hand finding that what comes back does not discriminate enough to be useful, and may have been subject to gross misunderstandings. 2.6 In February 2018 the NPSG had more or less decided to follow the example of PP2006 and use a paper questionnaire form to be distributed by hand around the village. The decision about how to get the data back and analyse it was still up in the air.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
2.7 The obvious choice was to follow the advice of Community Action Suffolk (CAS) who have helped many village teams with their plans. CAS have a standard questionnaire software product “QA” available on-line at http://qa.1sixty.net. The QA on-line option 2.8 QA is a versatile piece of software based on the Internet. Given a user account, the village team can design its own questions and arrange them as it wishes in sections within the questionnaire. Paper copies of the forms from this design can be printed, and the system generates separate passwords for all the respondents. 2.9 Data capture is through the Internet. Either the respondent themselves uses their password to call-up the questionnaire on-screen and fill it in, or else the paper form is filled in and has to be collected by someone else. The collector then uses the specific password for that respondent to put the data in through the net. 2.10 Analysis is relatively simple. The questions are set up with a fixed range of possible answers. These may be as straightforward as Yes/No, or allow many options, with either “Choose One”, or “Tick all that apply”. The first stage of analysis summarises the responses to that specific question according to the options chosen by the respondents. Further stages are possible, linking two or more questions together, so that for example you can discover how many of those who said “Yes” to Question 1 also said “North”, “South”, “East” or “West” to Question 2. 2.11 These analysis results are only available on-line (though they can obviously be captured by the screen-print function). There is no way to export the full database for deeper analysis in another system. Evaluating QA 2.12 The freedom to specify whatever questions may be required is vital. One of the major features of the QA system is that the designer can shuffle the questions and re-define the possible answers as well as the sections and sub-sections of the questionnaire at will. However, although there are several allowable types of question, it is extremely awkward to incorporate “ranking” questions, where people are asked to arrange a set of options in their personal order of preference. 2.13 Open-ended questions (expecting plain text as an answer) are almost impossible. There are no facilities at all for analysing the results. 2.14 Printing paper copies of the questionnaire is possible, but they are cramped and unattractive to look at unless a great deal of further editing is done to improve the layout 2.15 Data entry of the results has to be done through the Internet. That is good if you can rely on your respondents to have Internet access, and a modest fluency in IT. Even if you can’t, and have to collect paper forms and use a data-entry team to transfer the information, the Internet input means that it is not difficult to find helpers, and there is no problem of scale. 2.16 As far as it goes, the analysis feature of the QA system is good too. It is easy to use, though it gets tedious when answers to more than two questions need to be related. It does not make it at all easy to generate cross-tabulations or to do even simple statistics if they are required. As stated above, it has no facilities for dealing with spontaneous text comments.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
2.17 Considering all the above, it was decided not to proceed with CAS and the QA system.
The alternative 2.18 If the QA system was not to be adopted, the questionnaire would have to be designed as a normal paper document. Fortunately, a volunteer was available with the necessary document-design software and using it would avoid the constraints inherent in the QA layouts. Doing the work in-house would take about the same effort overall to produce an attractive result. 2.19 Similarly, if the QA on-line database was not to be used, some other database system would be required. The same local volunteer had many years of experience in designing databases, and was able to help. Using “Filemaker Pro”, a well-established piece of software, it was then not too hard to generate a new custom-built system to match the questionnaire design as it developed. 2.20 The questionnaire was seen as having “a mere twenty questions” so to begin with the database structure was expected to be quite simple. 2.21 The tricky part of this approach is the data-entry stage. With a home-made database it was unlikely to be possible to put it on the Internet. There would therefore be no opportunity for respondents to enter their own data (this looks like a restriction, but is probably a good feature!). 2.22 A data-entry team of volunteers would be required, using a segmented version of the new database. There would be challenges of installing that on a variety of personal computers, and of specialised training for the data-input task. The choice 2.23 The most important concerns in making a decision were: • Ease of use: The quality of the questionnaire document must be very good in all respects, to encourage the highest possible completion rate. • In-depth analysis: In 2006, the database results had been exported from the VA system (a precursor to the QA software) to a Filemaker database for analysis. This had been instrumental in achieving the depth and quality of reporting characteristic of PP2006. • Keyboard volunteers: In 2006 it had been possible to recruit a team of 14 data-entry volunteers who had handled all the input for a larger and more complicated questionnaire form than was now proposed. • Time for development, testing and deployment: According to the schedule, the questionnaire was to be distributed in May 2018, and if at all possible, the results should be available by the end of June. This was a much shorter timescale than had been achieved in 2006. 2.24 On 28th February 2018 the committee felt that the overriding concern was to achieve a good response. In 2006 some 77% of households had filled in and returned a very large and complex questionnaire. There seemed to be a chance of achieving much the same in 2018 if the same methods were adopted.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
2.25 The elements of the decision were therefore: • The questionnaire form would be designed along the same lines as in 2006, with a large typeface and adequate room for handwritten answers. Document design and layout would be done in-house, using the text of questions, instructions and other material defined or chosen by the committee members. • A large team of volunteers (approaching 100 people) would be needed to do house-to- house deliveries and to collect the questionnaire forms after they had been filled-in. This labour-intensive method had been the key to the high response rate in 2006. • There was no point in trying to use on-line data entry direct from the public. o If that were the only method available, response would be very poor, and would also be biased away from the substantial elderly population in Long Melford. • If direct on-line data entry was an option, it would be impossible to keep track of who had completed the form and who had not. The ‘chivvying’ role of the volunteers in 2006, handing out the forms and collecting them back, could not be effective. • A second and much smaller team (perhaps 20) of volunteer keyboard operators would be recruited to transfer the written answers from the questionnaire forms into the database. • One person would be responsible for the design and construction of a Filemaker database to contain the questionnaire answers. This would be used both for data entry (using a set of screen layouts to match the paper forms) and later for analysis of the results. Design of the questionnaire 2.26 Once it was agreed that the questionnaire should be distributed as a paper document, many design decisions fell into place: • It would be printed in colour on A3 sheets folded and stitched to A4 size. • A highly-legible font was essential (Lucida Grande 12 pt.), and suitably large spaces allowed for hand-written answers. • The questions would be organised in four sections dealing with Housing, Traffic and Parking, Services and Facilities, and General. • Great care would be given to explaining on the form the purpose and context of each of the questions. • Equal care was needed to make the instructions to the respondent clear and simple. This was obviously to do with choosing the words, but also highlighting them in colour and italics. • With colour available, a handful of photographs of local scenes were added to improve the visual appearance and to ‘pace’ the text. 2.27 It appears from residents’ comments at the time and from the overall success of the survey that the one-off design of the questionnaire document helped in making it acceptable to the residents.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
2.28 The process of developing the questions in the various working groups, assembling them into a coherent 12-page document layout and passing it on to the printer was completed before the end of April 2018, two months from the start. Database options 2.29 The QA database (had it been used) is not accessible to the end user for anything other than putting data in. Even the designer of a new survey has no control over its deep structure, though she or he can obviously choose parameters, section titles and question types from the range provided. That deep structure by necessity has to be a complex abstraction to cope with the needs of a wide range of surveys each with their own special characteristics. 2.30 The situation with Filemaker Pro was entirely different. The complexity of the new database only had to reflect the complexity of the concepts expressed in this particular questionnaire, with no concern about future generalisations. One of the key decisions by the NPSG was that residents would be treated as individuals and each given their own copy of the questionnaire. There would be no attempt to link them together in households or any other grouping. This makes sense when the purpose is to elicit individual opinions. (It would not, of course, be adequate if a census were being attempted of motor vehicles or of housing stock.) 2.31 The result was a very simple database structure with essentially one large table holding all the fields required. The pattern was: Field type number of fields Text 112 Number 30 Timestamp 3 Summary 15 Calculation 8 Total 168 2.32 The total number of fields may be surprising, considering that there were only twenty questions on the form. Most questions, however, had several options or suggestions on different lines and generally each of those lines requires its own field in the database to contain the responses for that particular line as distinct from the others. 2.33 The majority of the fields were coded as text to aid understanding and accuracy of data input. There is, for example in the Transport section a question (TP1, part 3) which asked “Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: ‘The village should have safe cycle routes or cycle lanes’” 2.34 In the database there is a field to hold the responses, and it is named ‘TP1_3CycleRoutes’. It is a text field, and the entries in that field are in the form “1_Strong agree”, “2_Agree”, 3_Disagree”, and so on… 2.35 Simple number fields were used for recording the rankings of people’s preferences. (There has to be a separate field for each option put forward in the question, so there are
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 many more numeric fields than questions of this type.) 2.36 Timestamps were part of the administrative structure of the database, so that the creation and completion of each record (i.e. one specific questionnaire form) could be known if needed. 2.37 The Summary and Calculation fields were used in analysis. Getting to the people 2.38 The questionnaire forms were distributed throughout the village starting on 10 May 2018. Each volunteer distributor was assigned a street or other well-defined set of dwellings and was asked to make several visits to each front door. The first was to pass over as many questionnaire forms as there were residents at that address of the age 15 years and upwards. Further visits (agreed whenever possible with the residents) were made to collect the completed forms in separate blank envelopes for anonymity. 2.39 The result was a stream of hundreds of completed questionnaires beginning a few days after the distribution, and continuing to the end of the month; 31st May 2018. 2.40 The questionnaire forms (in their blank envelopes as collected) were physically shuffled and then taken from the envelopes, numbered and bundled in sets of 25. These batches of 25 were then distributed to the data-entry keyboards by a co-ordinator and subsequently collected back again to the centre. The challenge of data-entry 2.41 The database design included specialised screen layouts for data entry. These matched very closely the layout of the questionnaire form, section by section and question by question. Most answers could be entered by mouse-clicks, using ‘radio-buttons’ on the layout to define the acceptable entries (e.g. ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘_blank’). A few questions required numbers instead of clicks (to handle ranked preferences) and others allowed plain text answers from the resident to be typed in using the keyboard. 2.42 Spontaneous written comments in unexpected places on the questionnaire were also keyed into the database and subsequently analysed. If a resident felt the comment worth making, it was deemed to be worth recording too. Manpower on keyboards 2.43 The time needed to complete data entry varied from one form to another depending particularly on the amount of text (if any). The average was around 5 minutes per form at the beginning, though several keyboard volunteers became much faster with practice. With roughly 2000 forms to handle and a practical output of 10 to12 forms per hour per keyboard, the workload was somewhere between 150 and 200 man-hours in total. 2.44 Just over 20 people offered to help with data entry, using their own computers at home, with a copy of the database software. There were slight variations from person to person in the way the system was set up, depending on whether they had a Windows or Macintosh operating system, and how up-to date it was. In order to comply with software license provisions, the basic pattern was to distribute an empty clone of a restricted ‘Run- Time’ package that would work with this specific database and no other. 2.45 The database designer created the distribution package (in both Windows and Macintosh variants) and provided individual training sessions for each of the keyboard volunteers. Nine were up and running by 10th May 2018 to catch the first questionnaires
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 returned, and a further ten were brought in by the beginning of June. Three others dropped out of the running for good reasons. 2.46 While a few of the keyboard volunteers managed only one or two batches, others ran up to eight or more (i.e. 200 questionnaires and over). They were busy people in their normal lives, and their commitment to the job was most impressive.
2.47 The first batch was registered as completely entered on 20th May, and the final one on 13th June. Quality control 2.48 Human beings make errors. An obvious question is therefore, “How trustworthy are the results in the database?” 2.49 As explained above, the design of the database itself was intended to aid accuracy at every stage. For the vast majority of the questions the answers could only be chosen from a pre-defined list. What’s more, the data actually entered (usually with a mouse-click) was in text that corresponded to the options the form-filler had been given. This reduces errors in the first place and makes checking and correction easy. 2.50 As the first few batches came back from the keyboards, the database records were inspected and compared with the paper questionnaires. It became obvious that: • Errors were rather rare. • By far the commonest error was a keyboard click in the wrong place. • Some operators were more reliable than others. 2.51 As a result, a very straightforward control policy was adopted: • A full batch (25 questionnaire forms) would be inspected for each keyboard volunteer. That inspection would count the ‘click’ errors found, and correct them on the spot. • A threshold figure would be set (10 detected errors of that type in the batch), below which performance was deemed acceptable, and no further inspections would be done for that operator. Note that each form involved over 100 ‘clicks’, so a batch of 25 forms required roughly 2500 ‘clicks’ in total. Ten errors in 2500 is 0.4%. • For those with a higher error rate in their sample batch, their whole output would be inspected in the same way, and any errors found would be corrected. 2.52 This was not the most efficient scheme possible, but was simple and effective, if tedious. The outcome was to ensure an overall error rate on ‘clicks’ of substantially less than half of one percent (i.e. roughly one random error per two or three forms). The effects of these errors would most often be to have a ‘_blank’ instead of the intended answer. The remainder gave a change to an adjacent option (e.g. ‘disagree’ rather than ‘agree’). 2.53 In analysis, however, as the summary numbers were counted up for each question, they were so clearly divided between the options (by at least several percent) that the small potential error from wrong ‘clicks’ would have had no effect on the interpretation. Assembling the database 2.54 The database was designed to make it easy for the keyboard operator to export the results at any stage in the format of a MS Excel workbook. The Excel files were sent by email
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 to a co-ordinator who ran a quarantine system to keep each operator’s work in storage until quality checks had been completed (including any corrections). 2.55 The keyboard team were encouraged to send interim results at the end of each batch, rather than waiting for the end. This made it relatively easy to pick up where records had gone missing or serial numbers corrupted in the stress of learning the new procedure. It also provided a safety-net back-up in case there had been loss or damage to the local databases. 2.56 Finally, when any one operator reached the end of their assigned batches, the Excel file they then generated was read back into the central database and merged with the others. 2.57 The whole process worked smoothly, and with only very minor problems. Analysis and reports 2.58 The basic approach to analysis and reporting was to summarise the numbers of answers in each category to each sub-question across the whole population of questionnaire forms. 2.59 The Filemaker Pro database software has good facilities for searching, sorting and summarising records with particular specified characteristics. It was then easy to transfer these totals and sub-totals to MS Excel spreadsheets for reporting, and in many cases to display them graphically too. 2.60 The results of this work can be seen from page 10 below. Weighting experiments 2.61 Three of the questions on the form called for respondents to rank several possibilities in order of their own preference using e.g. numbers 1 to 5 for five options. This type of question is a frequent source of trouble because the respondents sometimes find it difficult to work out their preferences in such detail, and can easily misinterpret the instructions. Thus, there were multiple cases of people using the number ‘1’ twice or three times in the same ranking, or ranking only two or three of the options they were given. 2.62 It seemed possible that these irregularities in the responses might bias the analysis one way or another. If each ‘1’ were given full value as a first preference, for example, people who had not kept to the rules would be handed an unfair share of voting influence. A rather detailed investigation was launched, in which a specially-written computer program worked out weighted values for the preferences expressed on each questionnaire so that the total score for each person was the same, but the distribution between the options followed whatever indications they had given. 2.63 It became clear quite quickly that with these database results, any reasonable weighting scheme would give exactly the same summary ranking as the original simple totals. The bias effect was there, but too small to have a noticeable effect. 2.64 For that reason, the results published below in this appendix do not include the weighting experiments. The historic results are still available on file, however, if required for inspection. Conclusion 2.65 The Residents Survey was an outstanding success. From the decision to go ahead with an in-house design at the beginning of March 2018, full results were available to the various Plan working parties by the beginning of July 2018. The population of village residents expressed their views with admirable clarity; with approximately 2,655 questionnaires
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 distributed and 1,995 completed and returned, the response rate of 75% is outstanding. 2.66 This could not have been achieved without the dedication and hard work of a very large number of villagers, who volunteered their services for questionnaire distribution and collection and for data entry from the filled-in paper forms to the database.
Survey Results
2.67 This link will take you to the original questionnaire document: http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/LMNPQuestionnaire.pdf
2.68 The questions on the questionnaire form fall into four sections: • Housing • Transport and Parking • Services and Facilities • General In this appendix, each section of results begins on a fresh page.
2.69 For each question and sub-question on the form, the numbers of responses in each category are summarised in a table. Generally, the rows match the options offered in the question and the columns the various responses (Yes/No/blank, Good/Indifferent/Bad/blank. etc.). Wherever possible each number is followed by a percentage, to assist in interpretation. 2.70 The total number of questionnaire forms returned was 1,995. This was 75% of the approximate 2,655 questionnaires distributed. 2.71 In a few of the questions (e.g. H5 about whether housing should be reserved for local people) at least some respondents either misunderstood the instructions or chose to ignore them, producing some apparently illogical results. Nevertheless, those results have been included in the tables on the following pages as they give the best information available about the wishes of the people concerned. 2.72 It has not been possible to present the very large number of written text comments in this appendix. But we hope to make them available on the web site in due course.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Housing H1 Several smaller developments or one big one? Please put numbers 1-5 to rank these options in order of preference where 1 is your first choice and 5 is your least favourite choice
Rank > % of % of % of % of % of 0 % of 1 1995 2 1995 3 1995 4 1995 5 1995 (blank) 1995 Total Max 20 1331 67% 253 13% 107 5% 52 3% 94 5% 158 8% 1995 Max 40 373 19% 1147 57% 68 3% 75 4% 84 4% 248 12% 1995 Max 60 107 5% 88 4% 1353 68% 24 1% 129 6% 294 15% 1995 Max 80 54 3% 64 3% 36 2% 1380 69% 157 8% 304 15% 1995 ove 80 67 3% 10 1% 11 1% 22 1% 1572 79% 313 16% 1995 tota 1932 1562 1575 1553 2036 1317
H2 What kind of homes? What do you think are the village’s housing requirements for the future? Please tick one box per row
ch Rating -> mu
Very much needed % of 1995 Yes, needed % of 1995 Needed but not % of 1995 Not needed % of 1995 blank % of 1995 Total Flats 182 9% 376 19% 557 28% 572 29% 308 15% 1995 Bungalows 478 24% 669 34% 414 21% 221 11% 213 11% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
1-bed houses 228 11% 485 24% 557 28% 394 20% 331 17% 1995 2-bed houses 529 27% 866 43% 268 13% 134 7% 198 10% 1995 3-bed houses 427 21% 740 37% 407 20% 194 10% 227 11% 1995 4-bed houses 83 4% 262 13% 598 30% 811 41% 241 12% 1995 and . . .
H2 continued
but but
ch Rating -> mu
eeded N
Very much needed % of 1995 Yes, needed % of 1995 not % of 1995 Not needed % of 1995 blank % of 1995 Total Sheltered housing 425 21% 698 35% 388 19% 284 14% 200 10% 1995 Housing reserved for Key workers 291 15% 477 24% 437 22% 523 26% 267 13% 1995
H3 Who are the new homes for? With any new development in Long Melford, what type of ownership do you consider most important? Please tick one box per row
Rating ->
Very important % of 1995 Fairly important % of 1995 Not important. % of 1995 blank % of 1995 Total Privately owned. 707 35% 818 41% 357 18% 113 6% 1995 Privately rented 193 10% 1000 50% 662 33% 140 7% 1995 Affordable housing 1356 68% 443 22% 143 7% 53 3% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
H4 How much affordable housing? Are you happy with the Babergh District Council policy that 35% of any new housing development should be ‘affordable’? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Response number % of 1995 Yes 1079 54% No 865 43% blank 51 3%
Total 1995 100%
If your answer is ‘No’, what other proportion would you suggest? (Please select one)
10% 20% 35%
- - -
Response Zero % line of total 01% % line of total 11% % line of total 21% % line of total subtotal Left than more 35% % line of total blank % line of total total Line ‘No’ 63 7% 145 17% 163 19% 24 3% 395 458 53% 12 1% 865 Note that a few people who answered ‘Yes’ or ‘blank’ also made a suggestion:
‘Yes’ 1 0% 4 0% 3 0% 11 1% 19 19 2% 1041 96% 1079 blank 3 6% 1 2% 1 2% 4 8% 9 6 12% 36 71% 51
Total 67 3% 150 8% 167 8% 39 2% 423 483 24% 1089 55% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
H5 Housing reserved for local people? Do you feel that some of the affordable housing provided in new developments should be reserved for local Long Melford people? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Response number % of 1995 Yes 1810 91% No 141 7% blank 44 2%
Total 1995
If your answer is ‘Yes’, what proportion of the whole development would you suggest should be reserved? Please select one:
10% 20% 35%
- - -
of line line of
Response 01% % total 11% line % of total 21% line % of total more 35% than line % of total blank line % of total line total ‘Yes’ 171 9% 432 24% 502 28% 671 37% 34 2% 1810 Note that a few people answered ‘No’ or ‘blank’ and still made a suggestion. ‘No’ 1 1% 1 1% 2 1% 1 1% 136 96% 141 blank 2 5% 1 2% 6 14% 6 14% 29 66% 44
Total 174 9% 434 22% 510 26% 678 34% 199 10% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
H6 Should our plan allocate actual sites for development? Do you agree that the village neighbourhood plan should allocate actual sites for potential development? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ Response number % of 1995 Yes 1798 90% No 121 6% blank 76 4%
Total 1995
H7 Whereabouts should new developments be? Assuming that sites are to be allocated for development in the LMNP, what types of sites would you prefer to see allocated? Please put one tick to show your preference in each pair
d
First option option First preferred % of 1995 option Second preferre % of 1995 blank % of 1995 Total Brownfield OR 1602 80% Greenfield 140 7% 253 13% 1995 Within a short distance of the village centre OR 858 43% Further away 934 47% 203 10% 1995 On the main roads into village OR 303 15% Not so visible 1465 73% 227 11% 1995 Large sites OR 74 4% Small or medium-sized sites 1717 86% 204 10% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Transport and Parking TP1 Road safety? Please tell us how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: Please tick one box per row
Strongly agree % Agree % Disagree % Strongly disagree % blank % total The village needs ‘traffic calming’ measures in key places. 959 48% 597 30% 277 14% 119 6% 43 2% 1995 Hall St. should be a 20mph zone. 716 36% 561 28% 491 25% 184 9% 43 2% 1995 The village should have safe cycle routes or cycle lanes. 543 27% 734 37% 462 23% 183 9% 73 4% 1995
TP2 Safety on the pavements? Considering pedestrian safety in the village, these suggestions are: Please tick one box per row
Very important % Fairly important % Not at all important % not Better at all % blank % total Pedestrian safety in key places (e.g.an island in the middle of a busy road). 1288 65% 550 28% 82 4% 39 2% 36 2% 1995 Light-controlled crossings for pedestrians in key places. 1028 52% 709 36% 158 8% 61 3% 39 2% 1995 Pavements without parked cars and level enough for children’s and old people’s wheeled vehicles. 1280 64% 505 25% 105 5% 42 2% 63 3% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
TP3 Car parking? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to whether you favour the following:
Yes % No % blank % Total A new off-street car park nearer to Hall Street than the Old School car park? 1471 74% 457 23% 67 3% 1995 Parking subject to time-limits in Hall Street? (with resident scheme for houses/businesses) 1060 53% 853 43% 82 4% 1995 Clearly-marked parking bays in Hall Street? 1305 65% 613 31% 77 4% 1995 More posts along Hall Street to prevent cars blocking the pavement? 1509 76% 423 21% 63 3% 1995 Residents’ parking schemes for selected streets around the wider village? (e.g. St. Catherine’s Road) 1356 68% 543 27% 96 5% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Village Services and Facilities SF1 Which of our services and facilities matters most? Please rank the following services and facilities in order of need if funds were available to improve them. Put numbers 1 to 6 to show the order of your preference, where 1 is your first choice and 6 is your least-favourite choice.
% of % of % of % of % of % of 0 total Ranking 1 1995 2 1995 3 1995 4 1995 5 1995 6 1995 blank
Doctors’ surgery 1409 71% 330 17% 79 4% 55 3% 31 2% 59 3% 32 1995
Primary school 409 21% 967 48% 227 11% 158 8% 116 6% 62 3% 56 1995
Library 54 3% 120 6% 485 24% 557 28% 584 29% 123 6% 72 1995
Village halls and meeting rooms 79 4% 163 8% 509 26% 622 31% 464 23% 90 5% 68 1995
Public open spaces 213 11% 264 13% 537 27% 365 18% 486 24% 69 3% 61 1995
Other (please write below) 56 3% 38 2% 51 3% 46 2% 56 3% 522 26% 1226 1995
Note: although in this question there were 769 positive ratings of "Other", only 481 of them (63%) also defined what "Other" they referred to. The rest left the suggestion space blank.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
SF2 What about our doctors’ surgery? The surgery may have to increase capacity. With development will come increased demand. How can the surgery best meet that demand? Please put numbers 1 to 3 to rank the following in order of importance to the village, where 1 is your first choice and 3 is your least favourite choice
Ranking % of % of % of 0 % of 1 1995 2 1995 3 1995 blank 1995 total If possible, extend the existing surgery 1211 61% 423 21% 280 14% 81 4% 1995 Build on a new site within the village 453 23% 877 44% 545 27% 120 6% 1995 Open a third surgery (in addition to LM and Lavenham) 342 17% 506 25% 1032 52% 115 6% 1995
Are you a patient of the Long Melford Practice? Please answer Yes or No: Response number % of 1995 Yes 1515 76% No 439 22% blank 41 2%
Total 1995
If your answer is ‘Yes’, how do you view the trend in the standard of service provided by the surgery over the last two years? Please tick one of the following boxes
Trend ->
service % of % of % of % of
line line line line Line
patient? The has improved total about Stayed the same total Has deteriorated total blank total total ‘Yes’ 126 8% 648 43% 676 45% 65 4% 1515 Note that a few people answered ‘No’ or ‘blank’ and still gave an opinion: ‘No’ 0 0% 4 1% 7 2% 428 97% 439 blank 3 7% 10 24% 12 29% 16 39% 41 Total 129 6% 662 33% 695 35% 509 26% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
SF3 What are your thoughts on the school? How would you rate the importance of our primary school and pre-school to the village? Please tick one box per row
Very important . % of total Fairly important . % of total Not at all important . % of total blank % of total total Primary school 1682 84% 201 10% 45 2% 67 3% 1995 Pre- school 1442 72% 400 20% 54 3% 99 5% 1995
If you have a child/children of primary school age, does he/she/they attend our village school? Please tick one of the following boxes: % of line % of line Not Yes total No total applicable blank total Child attends LM primary school 111 41% 162 59% 273 [no child that age] 1481 241 1722 Total 111 5.6% 162 8.1% 1995 People whose children attend the primary school were invited to comment, and 89 did so.
If you have a child/children of pre-school age, does he/she/they attend our village pre-school? Please tick one of the following boxes: % of line % of line Not Yes total No total applicable blank total Child attends LM pre-school 24 14% 151 86% 175 [no child that age] 1523 297 1820 Total 24 1.2% 151 8.1% 1995 People whose children attend the pre-school were invited to comment, and 18 did so.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
SF4 Do we need a new village hall? If funding were available, would you support the creation of a new multi-purpose village hall and community centre, with outside facilities and parking? Please answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’:
Response Number % of 1995 ‘Yes’ 990 49.6% ‘No’ 872 43.7% blank 133 6.7%
Total 1995 If you answered ‘Yes’, what services should be provided there? Please tick one box per row:
ial t
needed
lank mportant Essen 1995 %of I 1995 %of OK Yes 1995 %of Not 1995 %of B 1995 %of Total Sports hall 343 17% 475 24% 261 13% 135 7% 781 39% 1995 Library 228 11% 450 23% 387 19% 149 7% 781 39% 1995 Parish council office 146 7% 345 17% 496 25% 214 11% 794 40% 1995 Heritage centre/museum 158 8% 415 21% 467 23% 160 8% 795 40% 1995 Meeting/event rooms 340 17% 469 24% 298 15% 115 6% 773 39% 1995 Other . . . 82 4% 71 4% 24 1% 77 4% 1741 87% 1995 Notes: a) There were 216 comments in the 'Other' space, recommending extra features. b) Most, but not all of the 'No' voters for a new hall left all options blank. (About 90 (i.e. 10% of them) did not, but entered some preferences.)
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
SF5 What about leisure? If funds were available, how important is it to you to provide or improve the following leisure facilities and amenities for residents and visitors? Please tick one box on each row:
of 1995 Essential % of 1995 Fairly Important % of 1995 Not at all important % blank % of 1995 total Play equipment in parks 767 38% 922 46% 175 9% 131 7% 1995 Outdoor sporting activities: e.g. ball games, a BMX track 489 25% 959 48% 401 20% 146 7% 1995 Other activities for under-18s 775 39% 946 47% 132 7% 142 7% 1995 Activities for 65s and over 648 32% 1083 54% 143 7% 121 6% 1995 Public seating and toilets in Hall Street 1049 53% 643 32% 238 12% 65 3% 1995 Cricket club 362 18% 1072 54% 402 20% 159 8% 1995 Football club 401 20% 1068 54% 370 19% 156 8% 1995 Other . . .. 94 5% 79 4% 92 5% 1730 87% 1995 Note: There were 199 comments in the ‘Other’ category. SF6 How green is our village? If funds were available, how important is it to you to enhance, preserve or introduce any of the following to promote our environment? Please tick one box on each row:
mportant Essential % of 1995 Fairly Important % of 1995 all at Not I % of 1995 blank % of 1995 total Recycling facilities 1321 66% 532 27% 52 3% 90 5% 1995 Public footpaths 1402 70% 485 24% 40 2% 68 3% 1995 Public green spaces 1403 70% 472 24% 34 2% 86 4% 1995 Allotments 575 29% 1056 53% 241 12% 123 6% 1995 A community orchard 195 10% 664 33% 994 50% 142 7% 1995 A green burial site 261 13% 773 39% 819 41% 142 7% 1995 Electric car-charging points in public places 344 17% 866 43% 669 34% 116 6% 1995 Electric car-charging points in new 452 23% 826 41% 587 29% 130 7% 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 developments
General Questions G1 What is your gender? Please tick one box Gender number % of total female 1043 52.3% male 929 46.6% other 2 0.1% blank 21 1.1%
total 1995
G2 What age group are you? Please tick one box
Age band number % of total 15 - 17 35 1.8% 18 - 24 79 4.0% 25 - 44 310 15.5% 45 - 59 453 22.7% 60 - 74 714 35.8% 75 - 84 290 14.5% over 85 88 4.4% blank 26 1.3% total 1995
G3 How long have you lived in Long Melford? Please tick one box Years number % of total 00 - 01 120 6.0% 01 - 05 367 18.4% 06 - 15 453 22.7% 16 - 25 343 17.2% 26 - 50 461 23.1% 51or more 219 11.0% blank 32 1.6%
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 total 1995
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Appendix 3, Call for Sites The Call for Sites and their Assessment Sites have been identified from several sources: a. Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils’ Joint Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) b. A public call for sites which was published in the parish magazine, which was delivered to 1650 households in the parish. c. An invitation to individual landowners to put forward sites for development. d. Third parties who were aware of sites that could be considered. e. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, members of which identified some sites. In all cases landowners and third parties were made aware at this stage that all sites would be subject to detailed evaluation and that there was no commitment to any site being allocated for development. 33 sites were put forward and they were subject to three successive rounds of evaluation: 1. A strategic assessment (Table 1 a-d below) against three criteria: greenfield vs brownfield; distance on foot to the centre of the village (the centre being taken as the Co-op or Budgens, whichever is the nearer) and heritage impact (based on the Heritage and Settlement Report, 2018, by Essex Place Services and commissioned by the joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils). 2. A detailed assessment (Table 2 a-d below) based on the joint Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils mapping of constraints (15 criteria) together with eight additional criteria specific to Long Melford and mainly related to the accessibility of village facilities. 3. An assessment of the deliverability of sites, sometimes drawing on the advice of developers who had shown suitable experience and capability to work in Long Melford.
The Heritage and Settlement Report is particularly significant for Long Melford. The report assesses settlements with some heritage significance according to the value of their heritage features, to the susceptibility of those features to further development and to the combined effect of value and susceptibility. Long Melford is one of only two settlements in Babergh District to be scored “High” on all three counts, meaning that the heritage assets of the village are highly valuable, they are highly susceptible to detriment attributable to development and the combination of these factors makes Long Melford especially vulnerable. The report gives guidance on the location and significance of heritage assets and on areas of the village where assets are particularly at risk.
Results and Provisional Allocations
Scores were given to sites in the first and second rounds of evaluation, but they were not the only factors influencing whether a site was taken forward. Other issues were the balance of sites between different parts of the parish, the size of sites (given the NPPF policy to provide small sites suitable for smaller developers), the opportunity for affordable housing, the desirability of maintaining a Rural Gap between Sudbury and Long Melford and the potential for public benefits related to a site. Whilst most residents acknowledge the need for more housing, they are very aware of the scale of housing under construction and reluctant to see much more being developed. There has also been a strong and articulate reaction against the large (150 dwellings) development proposed on “Skylark Fields.”
In order to assess the capacity of sites to accommodate additional housing, a standard density of 25 dwellings per hectare has been used, a figure derived from the BDC Core Strategy. Clearly in practice this will vary from site to site. It is considered to be a reasonable average for present purposes.
It is proposed that the plan will cover a nineteen-year period starting in 2018, matching the emerging Joint Local Plan.
It should be noted that four sites identified in the SHELAA relate more to Sudbury and the proposed Chilton extension than to Long Melford. These have been recorded, but, whilst they will inevitably make some contribution to meeting housing need in Long Melford, they have not so far been counted towards meeting that need.
The key findings of the assessment of sites are summarised here:
The sites put forward include very few brownfield sites and very few sites within walking distance of the village centre; the latter has not been counted as a compelling constraint given the famous ‘long’ character of Long Melford. However, we have looked for opportunities to provide additional amenities in the more distant parts of the village.
Heritage constraints impose limits on development over large parts of the parish.
Partly because of the shortage of brownfield sites, which often offer a ready-made access, access is a constraint on the development potential of many sites.
This constraint together with heritage and other significant constraints mean that few sites are capable of being delivered within the first five years of the Plan.
However, in the context of the committed supply identified in the parish and of the desirability of meeting particular needs in the parish, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) have identified a number of sites to be allocated in the first five years:
o Three brownfield sites in the centre of the village, which can be brought forward quite readily and which can provide housing for those needing to have easy access to village facilities; their capacity will flow from detailed designs; we have estimated that they can provide provisionally seven units.
o A site at the north end of the village, which is owned by a charity and which could provide significantly more affordable housing than the minimum requirement; this could accommodate 20-38 houses (possibly some being market housing if a larger scheme is brought forward). The developer will be encouraged to provide a public amenity for the northern end of the village, possibly a green linked to the adjacent public footpath. o
Table 1 shows the strategic assessment; the 33 sites being presented in Tables 1a - 1d. Table 2 shows the detailed assessment; the 33 sites being presented in Tables 2a - 2d. Strategic Assessment Table 1a Assessment Criteria/Sites H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 F1 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 Assessment Criteria/Sites H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 F1 Heritage Settlement Sensitivity Assessment: 1 = affected by report recommendations; 3 = not affected; 2 = indirectly or partially 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 Totals: Top scores (7-9) yellow; score 6 blue 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 9 5
Table 1b Assessment Criteria/Sites Q1 C1 D1 M1 A1 L1 N1 R1 J1 K1 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Heritage Settlement Sensitivity Assessment: 1 = affected by report recommendations; 3 = not affected; 2 = indirectly or partially 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Totals: Top scores (7-9) yellow; score 6 blue 4 6 7 5 9 9 9 9 9 4
Table 1c Assessment Criteria/Sites C2 P1 G1 W1 C3 SS0967 SS0811 SS0557 SS1028 H10 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 Heritage Settlement Sensitivity Assessment: 1 = affected by report recommendations; 3 = not affected; 2 = indirectly or partially 3 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.5 Totals: Top scores (7-9) yellow; score 6 blue 9 9 9 3 6 3 3 3 3 5.5
Table 1d Assessment Criteria/Sites S1 F2 W2 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 3 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 Heritage Settlement Sensitivity Assessment: 1 = affected by report recommendations; 3 = not affected; 2 = indirectly or partially 3 3 1 Totals: Top scores (7-9) yellow; score 6 blue 5 5 5
Detailed Assessment Table 2a Assessment Criteria/Sites H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 F1 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 Safe & satisfactory access: Cars: Yes 3; No 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pedestrians: Yes 3; No 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Cycles: Yes 3; No -1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Distance on foot to bus stop 580m or less 3; more 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Distance on foot to LM primary school 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 Distance on foot to surgery 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 1 Sufficient utilities capacity Yes 3; No 1 Site affected by constraints: measured under impacts below
Impacts For each impact occurring: 1 = direct; 2 = indirect/partial; 3 = none Site extends beyond defensible boundary & offers no new defensible boundary 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 Conservation Area 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 Special Landscape Area 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Built Up Area Boundary 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 Ancient Woodland 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 County Wildlife Sites 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Flood risk high, Zone 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Local Nature Reserves 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Protected Species* SSSI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Agric land quality: Grades 1 and 2 (out of 5) 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Historic Gardens 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 Listed Buildings 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 Assessment Criteria/Sites H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 F1 Sched Anc Monuments 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Historic Environmental Record (not assessed) Open spaces, playing fields, greens, allots 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (now NPPF) ** Transport capacity; no data available Neighbouring uses: compatible w res devt 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 incompatible 1 Utilities, pipeline, STW; to check with undertakings Total score 54 56 50 54 52 59 59 57 59 55 Rank 19= 15= 27= 19= 23= 10= 10= 14 10= 18 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 F1 Table 2b Assessment Criteria/Sites Q1 C1 D1 M1 A1 L1 N1 R1 J1 K1 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Safe & satisfactory access: Cars: Yes 3; No 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Pedestrians: Yes 3; No 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Cycles: Yes 3; No -1 1 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Distance on foot to bus stop 580m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Distance on foot to LM primary school 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 Distance on foot to surgery 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Sufficient utilities capacity Yes 3; No 1 Site affected by constraints: measured under impacts below Impacts For each impact occurring: 1 = direct; 2 = indirect/partial; 3 = none Site extends beyond defensible boundary & offers no new defensible boundary 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 2 Conservation Area 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 Special Landscape Area 1 3 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 Assessment Criteria/Sites Q1 C1 D1 M1 A1 L1 N1 R1 J1 K1 Built Up Area Boundary 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 Ancient Woodland 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 County Wildlife Sites 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Flood risk high, Zone 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Local Nature Reserves 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Protected Species* SSSI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Agric land quality: Grades 1 and 2 (out of 5) 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 Historic Gardens 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Listed Buildings 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 Sched Anc Monuments 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Historic Environmental Record (not assessed) Open spaces, playing fields, greens, allots 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (now NPPF) ** Transport capacity; no data available Neighbouring uses: compatible w res devt 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 incompatible 1 Utilities, pipeline, STW; to check with undertakings Total score 47 58 54 52 67 67 60 66 65 51 Rank 31 13 19= 23= 1= 1= 9 3= 5 26 Q1 C1 D1 M1 A1 L1 N1 R1 J1 K1 Table 2c Assessment Criteria/Sites C2 P1 G1 W1 C3 SS0967 SS0811 SS0557 SS1028 H10 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Safe & satisfactory access: Cars: Yes 3; No 1 3 3 3 3 1 0 0 3 0 1 Pedestrians: Yes 3; No 1 3 3 1 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 Cycles: Yes 3; No -1 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 Distance on foot to bus stop 580m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 1 3 3 Distance on foot to LM primary school 1150m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 Distance on foot to surgery 1150m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 Sufficient utilities capacity Assessment Criteria/Sites C2 P1 G1 W1 C3 SS0967 SS0811 SS0557 SS1028 H10 Yes 3; No 1 Site affected by constraints: measured under impacts below
Impacts For each impact occurring: 1 = direct; 2 = indirect/partial; 3 = none Site extends beyond defensible boundary & offers no new defensible boundary 3 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Conservation Area 2 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Special Landscape Area 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Built Up Area Boundary 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 Ancient Woodland 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 County Wildlife Sites 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 Flood risk high, Zone 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 Local Nature Reserves 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Protected Species* SSSI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Agric land quality: Grades 1 and 2 (out of 5) 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 Historic Gardens 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Listed Buildings 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 Sched Anc Monuments 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Historic Environmental Record (not assessed) Open spaces, playing fields, greens, allots 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 (now NPPF) ** Transport capacity; no data available Neighbouring uses: compatible w res devt 3; 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 incompatible 1 Utilities, pipeline, STW; to check with undertakings Total score 63 66 62 52 61 48 49 56 50 56 Rank 6 3= 7 23= 8 30 29 15= 27= 15= C2 P1 G1 W1 C3 SS0967 SS0811 SS0557 SS1028 H10
Table 2d Assessment Criteria/Sites S1 F2 W2 Brownfield 3/greenfield 1 1 1 3 Safe & satisfactory access: Cars: Yes 3; No 1 1 1 3 Pedestrians: Yes 3; No 1 1 3 3 Cycles: Yes 3; No -1 1 3 3 Distance on foot to bus stop 580m or less 3; more 1 3 3 3 Distance on foot to LM primary school 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 Distance on foot to surgery 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 Distance on foot to Coop/Budgens 1150m or less 3; more 1 1 1 1 Sufficient utilities capacity Yes 3; No 1 Site affected by constraints: measured under impacts below Impacts For each impact occurring: 1 = direct; 2 = indirect/partial; 3 = none Site extends beyond defensible boundary & offers no new defensible boundary 1 1 3 Conservation Area 3 3 2 Special Landscape Area 1 1 1 Built Up Area Boundary 1 1 1 Ancient Woodland 3 3 3 County Wildlife Sites 3 3 3 Flood risk high, Zone 3 3 3 3 Local Nature Reserves 2 3 3 Protected Species* SSSI 3 3 3 Agric land quality: Grades 1 and 2 (out of 5) 3 3 3 Historic Gardens 3 3 2 Listed Buildings 3 3 2 Sched Anc Monuments 3 3 3 Historic Environmental Record (not assessed) Assessment Criteria/Sites S1 F2 W2 Open spaces, playing fields, greens, allots 3 3 3 (now NPPF) ** Transport capacity; no data available Neighbouring uses: compatible w res devt 3; 2 3 3 incompatible 1 Utilities, pipeline, STW; to check with undertakings Total score 47 53 56 Rank 31= 22 15= S1 F2 W2
The strategic evaluation identified ten sites which scored 7, 8 or 9 out of 9 possible points; all but one scored 9 points. However, in six of these cases the owner has not supported the site being brought forward. Three of the remaining four sites (A1, L1 and G1) scored 57 or more points against the detailed criteria (out of a potential total of 69 points). These sites are small brownfield sites well within the built-up area. The fourth site scored 54 points and is considered suitable for allocation. These sites add up to 25 dwellings.
In line with the approach of taking into account factors other than the evaluation by points, consideration has been given to a further site, which has a particular justification: K1 is owned by a charity which is working with a developer to have the site developed for a significant proportion of affordable housing. The site scores poorly on the strategic criteria (4 points), being greenfield and at some distance from the village facilities. Given that sites for affordable housing often have to be in cheaper, off-centre locations and given the purpose of the developer, it is considered a site to be supported for allocation, subject to conditions. The potential capacity is about 30 dwellings, making a total of 55 dwellings with the four sites previously identified.
Three further sites come into play if the threshold on the strategic assessment is lowered to 6 points, but in two cases (H8 and C3) the owner has not supported the allocation of the site. The third site (C1) is a small part of the proposed Skylark Field development, where an appeal is pending, and the owner is unwilling to consider a scale and nature of development that might be acceptable in the Plan (see Policy H9)(update: permission has been granted on appeal for 150 dwellings on the larger site). Finally, in the quest for housing capacity within the parish the NPSG looked at sites that would maintain and reinforce the linear character of Long Melford. One site, F1 on the west side of Rodbridge Hill, has been considered suitable for allocation. This site, subject to detailed layout, could accommodate some 30 dwellings, which would make the total capacity of the sites to be allocated 85. (Update: the housing capacity of site D1 has been reduced to facilitate a mixed use development; the total capacity is 77 dwellings.)
Appendix 4
Parking Survey 2018: Methodology and Results
Survey Background
4.1 Parking problems were highlighted as one of the major concerns of residents and it was agreed that a working group be set up to investigate and report on the current situation regarding parking places and parking habits.
4.2 In October 2017, a meeting was held between members of the working group, Babergh District Council (BDC) and Suffolk County Council (SCC) Highways. The aim of the meeting was to define the scope of Long Melford’s traffic and parking issues, to determine which aspects should form part of the Plan and to put forward initial ideas about possible Policies and Community Objectives, along with the evidence needed to support them. http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/traffic-gp-October-2017.pdf
4.3 In February 2018, an Open Day was set up to attract volunteers to join the different working groups that would help to produce the Plan. Following on from the October 2017 meeting, the possible Policies and Community Objectives, and the evidence needed to support them were discussed as part of the Open Day. Volunteers were duly signed up to the Traffic & Parking Group where projects would be discussed. http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/traffic-gp-Feb-18.pdf
4.4 In March 2018, the first Traffic & Parking working group volunteer meeting was held. Twenty-six volunteers attended the meeting to discuss and decide on projects to be carried out by the group. http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/TP-05-03-18-Minutes-no- volunteer-names.pdf
4.5 In April 2018, a Parking Survey volunteer instruction meeting was held. Volunteers were instructed on the survey procedure, how to complete the forms and the areas of the village they were to monitor. Each area was to be monitored three times a day over three separate days in one week. Monitoring included estimating the total number of parking spaces available and identifying vehicles parked and their duration. They were also to identify badly parked vehicles and those obstructing the pavements. http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Parking-Zone-Maps-V2.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Survey-Forms.pdf
1 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
4.6 In June 2018, a further volunteer working group meeting was held. Nineteen attended this meeting where the Parking Survey results were presented. Recommendations for Policies and Community Objectives were then discussed for potential inclusion in the draft Plan. These were subsequently presented to the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. (NPSG). http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/traffic-gp-meeting-June-2018.pdf
Survey Results
Data Collection 4.7 Volunteers were asked to complete three surveys of parking, to include two mid-week and one on a Saturday. For each survey, parking and (estimated) free space figures were recorded at three times of the day: Morning – 10am till 11am, Afternoon – 2pm till 3pm, and Evening – 6pm to 7pm.
4.8 Volunteers were asked to identify “Repeat vehicles” – those parked in the same location at different times. Volunteers also recorded instances of problem parking, and the use of disabled spaces.
4.9 For collection purposes, each side (East and West) of Hall Street and Little St. Marys was divided into five zones, broadly: Zone A: The Bull Hotel to the Crown Hotel Zone B: The Crown Hotel to the Co-op Zone C: The Co-op to the George and Dragon Zone D: Melford Court to the Saddlery Zone E: The Saddlery to Chapel Green
Parking at the village hall (Zone F) and Old School (Zone G) was also recorded.
2 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
4.10 The data was cleaned and adjusted to reflect errors or omissions in the original data collection and is set out in Table 1 below. Note that, due to volunteer availability, for each survey some data was collected on different days (highlighted in yellow).
Table 1 Survey Data Morning Afternoon Evening Repeat Vehicles Zone Side of Street Section Date Day of Week Parked Free Parked Free Parked Free M & A M & E A & E M & A & E A Total East 16/04/2018 Monday 35 16 40 10 41 12 11 0 2 9 B Total East 16/04/2018 Monday 26 4 26 3 18 11 10 0 0 11 C Total East 16/04/2018 Monday 23 13 19 17 20 17 8 1 2 6 D Total East 16/04/2018 Monday 37 16 30 23 26 27 12 0 0 7 E Total East 16/04/2018 Monday 11 23 20 14 18 16 2 1 3 5 A Total West 17/04/2018 Tuesday 35 3 35 5 12 28 16 0 0 2 B Total West 16/04/2018 Monday 27 14 27 14 20 21 6 2 1 3 C Total West 16/04/2018 Monday 11 27 18 20 15 23 2 0 2 5 D Total West 16/04/2018 Monday 26 9 19 10 28 7 6 1 0 8 E Total West 09/04/2018 Monday 19 12 13 18 15 16 5 0 1 6 F Total North 16/04/2018 Monday 6 44 8 42 12 38 1 0 0 3 G Total North 23/04/2018 Monday 10 61 26 45 16 55 1 0 2 0 Grand total 266 242 281 221 241 271 80 5 13 65 A Total East 26/04/2018 Thursday 34 17 48 7 40 10 14 0 7 2 B Total East 26/04/2018 Thursday 26 8 30 2 23 8 5 0 2 7 C Total East 19/04/2018 Thursday 25 11 20 15 12 24 9 1 1 5 D Total East 19/04/2018 Thursday 30 23 28 25 22 31 12 0 0 7 E Total East 19/04/2018 Thursday 13 21 16 18 19 15 2 2 2 5 A Total West 19/04/2018 Thursday 34 9 38 4 25 16 11 0 0 8 B Total West 19/04/2018 Thursday 34 9 38 9 27 15 15 1 3 7 C Total West 19/04/2018 Thursday 19 19 19 19 15 23 7 0 0 6 D Total West 19/04/2018 Thursday 27 7 24 10 22 14 3 1 3 5 E Total West 12/04/2018 Thursday 16 10 16 14 14 15 1 0 0 7 F Total North 19/04/2018 Thursday 14 36 9 41 5 45 1 1 1 1 G Total North 25/04/2018 Wednesday 16 55 14 57 25 46 2 0 0 1 Grand total 288 225 300 221 249 262 82 6 19 61 A Total East 14/04/2018 Saturday 48 4 54 0 41 14 16 1 3 8 B Total East 14/04/2018 Saturday 31 1 31 1 22 7 10 0 1 7 C Total East 21/04/2018 Saturday 22 16 27 9 18 18 5 0 2 6 D Total East 21/04/2018 Saturday 27 29 33 23 20 36 4 1 1 9 E Total East 21/04/2018 Saturday 18 16 25 9 15 19 2 1 3 9 A Total West 21/04/2018 Saturday 31 9 34 6 19 20 9 0 3 8 B Total West 21/04/2018 Saturday 39 9 43 5 23 20 13 1 0 6 C Total West 21/04/2018 Saturday 23 15 21 17 17 21 7 0 0 8 D Total West 21/04/2018 Saturday 24 10 28 3 22 10 4 2 5 8 E Total West 14/04/2018 Saturday 22 9 19 12 17 14 3 1 2 9 F Total North 21/04/2018 Saturday 10 40 16 34 3 47 0 0 1 0 G Total North 28/04/2018 Saturday 77 0 70 1 5 66 7 0 0 0 Grand total 372 158 401 120 222 292 80 7 21 78
3 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Overall capacity
4.11 The number of parked vehicles and the estimated number of free spaces together give an indication of the total capacity. Due to difficulty in estimating free spaces, and the variable density of parking, the observed capacity ranged from 502 to 530 (381 to 409 excluding the village hall and Old School), as set out in Table 2 below. The variation in this number also suggests that parking is somewhat disorderly. The average capacity was 515, of which 121 are at the Village Hall and Old School, and 394 are in Hall Street and Little St. Mary’s.
Table 2 Total Capacity
Total Capacity Survey/Time 1 2 3 Side/Zone Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening Morning Afternoon Evening East 204 202 206 208 209 204 212 212 210 A 51 50 53 51 55 50 52 54 55 B 30 29 29 34 32 31 32 32 29 C 36 36 37 36 35 36 38 36 36 D 53 53 53 53 53 53 56 56 56 E 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 West 183 179 185 184 191 186 191 188 183 A 38 40 40 43 42 41 40 40 39 B 41 41 41 43 47 42 48 48 43 C 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 D 35 29 35 34 34 36 34 31 32 E 31 31 31 26 30 29 31 31 31 North 121 121 121 121 121 121 127 121 121 F 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 G 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 71 71 Grand Total 508 502 512 513 521 511 530 521 514
Free Spaces
4.12 The number of free spaces (averaged over the three surveys) by zone and time of day is given in Chart 1 below (Chart 2 shows the same data, but by categorised first by time of day, then zone). Zones F and G (the village hall and Old School car park) have been excluded. The points to note are:
All zones were observed to have free spaces, at all times of the day, for all three surveys. Zones A and B (The Bull Hotel to The Crown Hotel, and the Crown Hotel to the Co-op) generally have the fewest free spaces. There are fewer spaces in the afternoon than either morning or evening.
4 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Chart 1
Free spaces by Zone and Time of Day 45 40 35 30 25 20 15
Number Number of spaces 10 5
0
Evening Evening Evening Evening Evening
Morning Morning Morning Morning Morning
Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon A B C D E Zone and Time of Day
Chart 2 Free spaces by Time of Day and Zone 45
40
35
30
25
20
15 Number Number of spaces 10
5
0 A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day and Zone
5 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Weekday compared to weekend parking 4.13 Chart 3 below shows the number of free spaces by time of day (average over the two weekday surveys compared with the Saturday survey). In Chart 4 this data is broken down by zone.
4.14 Points to note: In the morning and evening, the number of free spaces is broadly similar for weekdays and Saturdays (though zone D has more spaces available on Saturday than weekdays). In the afternoon, there are fewer spaces available on Saturday than weekdays (in total and for each individual zone). Zones A and B have fewer free spaces on Saturday morning and afternoon than the corresponding times on weekdays. Chart 3 Free spaces by Time of Day Weekday v. Saturday 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Morning Afternoon Evening
Weekday Saturday
Chart 4
6 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Free spaces by Time of Day and Zone Weekday v. Saturday 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Weekday 15
Number Number of spaces Saturday 10 5 0 A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day and Zone
Occupancy 4.15 Comparing absolute numbers of free spaces for different zones does not take into account the different capacity of the zones. Chart 5 below shows an alternative measure, Occupancy, i.e. the number of parked cars as a proportion of the capacity for each zone and time of day.
4.16 Points to note:
Even at its peak, occupancy is below 90%. Occupancy is higher in the afternoons than the mornings or evenings, except in zone D where it is marginally higher in the morning.
Chart 5
Average Occupancy by Zone and Time of Day 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Occupancy 30%
20%
10%
0%
Evening Evening Evening Evening Evening
Morning Morning Morning Morning Morning
Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon Afternoon A B C D E Zone and TIme of Day
7 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Repeat Parking 4.17 Charts 6 and 7 below show the number of vehicles parked, averaged over the three surveys, categorised according to whether each vehicle was parked:
All day (morning and afternoon) and evening. Morning and afternoon, but not evening. Afternoon and evening. Morning and evening, but not afternoon. Short-stay (only morning, or afternoon, or evening).
4.18 The first (Chart 6) shows absolute numbers of vehicles, whereas the second (Chart 7) shows the relative proportions. Points to note:
Over 50% of cars parked in the morning and afternoon are parked for both morning and afternoon. Only 50% of spaces are therefore available for the short-stay parking
Chart 6
Repeat Vehicle Analysis 300
250
200
Short-stay 150 Afternoon and Evening Morning and Evening Morning and Afternoon
Number Number of vehicles 100 All Day and Evening
50
0 Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day
Chart 7
8 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Repeat Vehicle Analysis 100%
90%
80%
70%
60% Short-stay 50% Afternoon and Evening Morning and Evening 40% Morning and Afternoon
Proportionof vehicles 30% All Day and Evening 20%
10%
0% Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day
Disabled Parking 4.19 There are seven disabled spaces in Hall Street / Little St. Mary’s. Chart 8 below shows the proportion of those spaces in use for each survey / time of day.
4.20 Point to note:
The disabled parking bays were not all occupied on any survey or time of day. This suggests the volume of disabled parking bays is appropriate.
Chart 8
Disabled Parking Occupancy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Survey 1 40% Survey 2 Occupancy 30% Survey 3 20% 10% 0% Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day
4.21 Vehicles parked in disabled bays should display a Blue Badge. Chart 9 below shows the proportion of vehicles which were observed to be displaying a Blue Badge. 9 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
4.22 Points to note: In the morning, Blue Badges were in use by all vehicles parked in a disabled bay on all the surveys. In the afternoon and evening, fewer vehicles were displaying a Blue Badge, suggesting greater abuse of the disabled spaces at these times.
Chart 9 Use of Blue Badges 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Survey 1 40% Survey 2 30% Survey 3 20% 10%
ProportionshowingBluea Badge 0% Morning Afternoon Evening Time of Day
Problem Parking 4.23 Volunteers were asked to record any instance of problem parking, categorised as follows:
Wheels on pavement – thereby reducing the width of the pavement and potentially inhibiting pedestrian movement. Over-hanging the pavement – likewise reducing the width of the pavement. Double-parked – potentially blocking parked cars and/or obstructing the road. Straddling two spaces – so reducing the number of parking spaces available. Obstructing Road – causing vehicles to either stop or slow down to pass oncoming vehicles and/or to pass between the parked car and traffic islands. Obstructing Access – potentially blocking a resident’s (or business’) access to or from their property.
4.24 The number of such incidents as a proportion of the total number of parked cars, is given in Chart 10 below. This is further broken down by zone and side of road in Charts 11 and 12.
4.25 Points to note:
In aggregate, over 11% of parked vehicles exhibited one of the parking problems set out above. The key issue is parking with wheels on the pavement in zone E (from the Saddlery to Chapel Green). This is a well-known problem, as the road narrows at this point. Even setting this problem to one side, zone E is disproportionately affected by other parking problems. All zones have some problem parking, which suggests that additional measures are required to improve parking behaviour.
10 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Chart 10
Problem parking as a proportion of total parking 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0%
0.0% Proportionof parked vehicles
Parking problem
Chart 11
Problem parking as a proportion of total parking, by Zone and Side of Street 70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% Obstructing Access Obstructing Road 30.00% Straddling two spaces Double Parked 20.00% Overhanging Pavement Proportionof problem parking Wheels on Pavement 10.00%
0.00% East West East West East West East West East West A B C D E Zone and Side of Street
11 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Chart 12
Problem parking as a proportion of total parking, by Zone and Side of Street 30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
Obstructing Access 15.00% Obstructing Road Straddling two spaces 10.00% Double Parked
Proportionof problem parking Overhanging Pavement 5.00%
0.00% East West East West East West East West East West A B C D E Zone and Side of Street
12 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Appendix 5
Traffic and Parking Group Report 2020
Introduction 5.1 The draft Neighbourhood Plan includes a number of specific planning policies but also proposes a number of Community Objectives to address particular issues facing the village. The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) requested a small Subgroup be formed to investigate and formulate proposals to address two of these Community Objectives, considering the period up to year 2037:
Community Objective LMCO 1 Improve the Village Centre:
A reduction in the impact of traffic in terms of speed, volume, congestion and pollution, improved village centre parking, easier accessibility to public transport, better and safer movement by bicycle and on foot and better signage.
Community Objective LMCO 2, Charging Points in Public Places:
Developing electric vehicle charging points for public car parks and dedicated on-street parking bays within the village.
Work undertaken 5.2 The Subgroup comprised Ian Bartlett, Phil Buck, John Dunlea and Graham Eade, who acted as Chair and the contact point for the NPSG. The subgroup met on several occasions including a walk through the village centre to assess first-hand the problems and issues identified above. A number of distinct issues were identified (documented herein as Recommendations), and potential solutions were assessed. In order to assess the flows of traffic through the village, a count of vehicle movements was undertaken at three separate locations on various days and times. A count of vehicles parked in Little St Mary’s and Hall Street was undertaken during the first Covid-19 lockdown in April 2020, when few if any commercial or visitor vehicles were present, in order to determine the number of parking spaces typically used by residents.
5.3 The subgroup also obtained and reviewed numerous documents and other sources of information relevant to the long-term planning of village transport, traffic and parking, including:
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 1 of 17
Road traffic survey data Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan questionnaire results Suffolk County Council Policy for 20mph speed limits Parking survey data prepared for the Neighbourhood Plan Department for Transport Manual for Streets Hamilton Baillie Associates’ Traffic in Villages – A toolkit for communities House of Commons Transport Committee report on Pavement Parking Department for Transport Road Traffic Forecasts 2018 Department for Transport Local Transport Note 1/07 - Traffic Calming The crashmap.co.uk website Active Travel in Sudbury, a report by a local cycling campaigner
5.4 The subgroup subsequently met with Suffolk County Council’s Community Liaison Engineer Matthew Fox to discuss the issues and potential solutions.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 2 of 17
Recommendations
5.5 The Subgroup’s recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 1: Commission traffic surveys by Suffolk Highways to establish current volumes and speeds of traffic.
Recommendation 2: Introduce a 20mph speed limit through the village centre.
Recommendation 3: Purchase additional vehicle-activated signs and deploy them on the approach roads to the village centre on a rotation basis.
Recommendation 4: Build out the pavement at key points in Little St. Mary’s and Hall Street in order to provide narrower crossings for pedestrians and/or to provide space for social areas.
Recommendation 5: Install additional street furniture (planters and/or signage) at the entrances to the village centre in order to increase the sense of entering a residential and commercial community area.
Recommendation 6: Complete the resurfacing of the Old School Car Park
Recommendation 7: Install official sign for the Village Hall Car Park.
Recommendation 8: Adopt a policy to ensure no net loss of parking spaces for the village centre.
Recommendation 9: Provide additional marking of parking bays in order to improve parking behaviours and density.
Recommendation 10: Provide visual or physical barriers to prevent parked vehicles from encroaching onto the pavement.
Recommendation 11: For Little St. Mary’s conduct targeted consultation with residents and businesses regarding solutions to avoid pavement parking, given the government-proposed ban.
Recommendation 12: Provide dedicated parking bays on the east side of Southgate Street, to avoid unsightly parking on the grass verge.
Recommendation 13: If this proves successful, consider a similar arrangement for the Roman Way green.
Recommendation 14: Complete the installation of a pedestrian refuge island near Budgens
Recommendation 15: Re-landscape the grass bank near the Co-op to provide an endpoint for pedestrians crossing using the Pedestrian Refuge Island.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 3 of 17
Recommendation 16: Broaden the pavement on the east side of Hall Street (hence shortening the parking spaces which are currently very long), from the Bull Hotel to Chestnut Terrace, using movable street furniture (e.g. planters) to mark the revised edge of the pedestrian area.
Recommendation 17: Complete the installation of EV charging points at the two village car parks.
Recommendation 18: Investigate potential locations in Hall Street and Little St Mary’s for on-street EV charging points and identify costs for different types of charging unit.
5.6 Although some of these recommendations are already being pursued by the Parish Council and others, they are included here for completeness. Full details of the issues and recommendations are provided below.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 4 of 17
Setting the Scene
5.7 The main route through Long Melford village centre is the B1064, which begins at the roundabout junction of the A131 and A134 to the south and ends at the forked junction with the A1092 on the Green. A 7.5-ton weight limit applies to limit heavy traffic through the village, and the A134 bypass takes a large proportion of the traffic (of all types) between Sudbury and Bury St Edmunds. Nevertheless, the B1064 still carries high volumes of traffic at peak times1, with motorists driving between Sudbury and the villages to the west (e.g. Glemsford, Cavendish, Clare and Haverhill) along the A1092. 5.8 Although the Subgroup was invited to focus on the village centre, it is worthwhile to describe the primary routes by which it is approached:
Southern approach
5.9 The southernmost section of the B1064 begins in open fields and is bordered by only a handful of properties. There is a 40mph speed limit which reduces to 30mph shortly before the crossroads with Borley Road and Mills Lane. Northbound, an illuminated warning sign alerts drivers to the dangers of that junction2. Nevertheless, residents report a tendency for speeding in this area, both from northbound cars failing to slow to the new limit and southbound cars speeding up due to the downhill incline of the road and the prospect of the increased limit3.
5.10 The following section, comprising Rodbridge Hill and Station Road, is increasingly built-up, with some residential properties directly bordering the B1064 and a number of side-turnings leading to small residential estates. On-street parking in Station Road reduces the effective width of the carriageway4, causing drivers to proceed more cautiously when traffic is flowing in both directions, but the downward slope and good sight lines encourage greater speeds when there is no oncoming traffic5.
5.11 Southgate Street, the final section of the southern approach to the village centre, is bordered by a row of cottages and a working farm to the west, and the large Roman Way residential estate to the east. This is set back from the road by large green areas either side of the Roman Way junction. The green to the south has a low hedge dividing it from a strip of grass adjacent to the road which is used as additional parking by residents of the Southgate Street cottages.
1 A road traffic survey over seven days in March 2017 recorded average daily volumes of 6,495 vehicles northbound and 6,373 southbound. 2 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 18 incidents, including 3 serious incidents, from 1999-2019 of which 6 incidents (2 serious) were from 2015-2019. 3 The same road traffic survey recorded 50% of northbound vehicles, and 86% of southbound vehicles, exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph. 4 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 15 incidents along this stretch, including 1 fatal incident, from 1999-2019. 5 A road traffic survey over 7 days in July 2016 recorded 18% of northbound vehicles and 15% of southbound vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph. Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 5 of 17
Eastern approach
5.12 The primary route into the village centre from the east is Bull Lane. After the intersection with the A134 bypass, which is itself a notoriously dangerous junction6, a 30mph speed limit is introduced. The road is bordered by farmland to the north and a recently developed housing estate to the south. Residents report a tendency for speeding7, despite rumble strips and a mini- roundabout at the junction with Sampson Drive. The following section runs through extensive housing, with the Old Court cul-de-sacs to the north, and the Shaw Road and Cordell Road estates to the south, to which Bull Lane provides the sole means of vehicular access. From the junction with Cordell Road to the T-junction with the B1064 (Hall Street), the carriageway narrows as it passes between the Bull Hotel to the south and Church House to the north. Traffic often slows at this point as two-way traffic is possible only for the narrowest of vehicles, resulting in a build-up of traffic past the Cordell Road junction to one side and into Hall Street to the other. Where the carriageway narrows, is also marked for pedestrian use.
5.13 The junction with Hall Street is further complicated by the service road for the houses on the Little Green, and the staggered junction with Chemist Lane opposite.
Northern approach
5.14 Vehicles coming south on the A134 are directed to the village centre via the A1092. A 30mph speed limit is introduced shortly after joining the A1092. The road is bordered by a number of houses on both sides. Shortly after the Harefield side-turning, which leads to a small residential estate, there is a public house and garden centre to the east and the entrance to Kentwell Hall Tudor mansion to the west. At the Green, where the route of the A1092 continues west, the road layout in fact draws traffic south. The wide expanse of the Green, and the downward incline of the road, encourages speeding as the road continues past Melford Hall, over the Chad Brook at Hall Mill Bridge, to the junction with Bull Lane which marks the beginning of the village centre. Residents report vehicles speeding up as they exit the village centre and failing to slow as they approach it.
Western approach
5.15 The A1092 brings traffic from Glemsford, Cavendish, Clare and Haverhill. Initially bordered on both sides by residential properties, the road forks as it enters the Green; the A1092 follows the left-hand fork to turn north to the junction with the A134, though the road layout gives priority to traffic turning south towards the village centre. Additional turnings at this junction, Church Walk to the north and the access road for houses on the Green, create a complex junction, particularly for pedestrians walking between the village centre and the church8. As the road crosses the Green
6 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 24 incidents, including 6 serious incidents and 2 fatal incidents, from 1999-2019. 7 A road traffic survey over 7 days in March 2016, close to the junction with Cordell Road, recorded 5% of eastbound and 3% of westbound vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph. 8 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 6 incidents, including 1 serious incident, from 1999-2019 of which 2 incidents were from 2015-2019. Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 6 of 17
it ends at a T-junction with the B1064, where the acute angle of the junction and poor sight lines result in frequent collisions9.
Village Centre
5.16 The stretch of the B1064 comprising Little St Mary's and Hall Street is a mix of residential homes and independently owned shops and services that support local residents and surrounding hinterland villages. Tourism has an influence on traffic numbers with large numbers of people visiting the two historical homes and imposing church at the top of the Green. The wide range of shops, restaurants and hotels in Tudor wood-framed buildings add to the attraction of the village and to parking pressures for visitors and residents alike.
5.17 Although there is extensive provision for parking along both sides of Little St Mary’s and Hall Street, demand for spaces is high. Cars, vans and in some cases, lorries park on or across pavements, sometimes in a disorderly fashion, forcing pedestrians, disability scooters and people with pushchairs and young children to pass in the road particularly at the southern end. Issues with traffic, parking and pedestrian safety10 detract from the visitor experience in the village centre and are likely to have a negative impact on visitor numbers and the local economy.
5.18 Little St Mary's is a 2-way road bordered by a mix of small to mid-sized terraced cottages. Most are residential in use but there are several businesses including shops, a beauty salon, a funeral director, a veterinary surgery and two café/restaurants (both currently empty). Car parking is of concern, particularly in the narrow southernmost stretch, where most vehicles (on both sides) are habitually parked on the pavement to avoid damage from passing traffic. This in turn causes severe problems for pedestrians (particularly those on mobility vehicles or with pushchairs or wheeled shopping baskets) who cannot pass safely along the pavement and have to walk into the road on occasions.
9 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 12 incidents, including 1 serious incident, from 1999-2019 of which 5 incidents were from 2015-2019. 10 Crashmap.co.uk indicates 48 incidents, including 4 serious incidents and 1 fatal incident, from 1999-2019. Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 7 of 17
The reduced effective width of the carriageway does, however, act to reduce speeding11.
5.19 The road soon widens with areas for parallel and angled parking. There is a pedestrian refuge island for crossing the road near the Saddlery shop, with tactile paved areas on the pavement either side to indicate where to cross. However, vehicles often park on them (on both sides of the road) causing severe problems for those crossing. 5.20 There is also the problem of vehicles being parked with the bonnet encroaching over the pavement causing pedestrian problems. Longer vehicles also extend out into the road causing cyclists and traffic to pass nearer the middle of the road. There are several small lanes, including St Catherine's Road, joining the main road where drivers exiting have to edge out into the main road to see around parked vehicles. 5.21 Hall Street soon widens out with grass bank areas each side of the road at various points. Cars are parked behind some of these grass areas and some residents have installed 'resident only' parking posts which are not enforceable. There is another pedestrian refuge island by the Library (though this does not appear to suffer from the same parking problem). Another pedestrian island near the Fish & Chip shop does not have marked pavement access. Again, there is a mix of angled and parallel parking through the shopping centre of Hall Street. At peak shopping times, there appears to be pressure on parking spaces with drivers searching for a space. This causes the traffic to slow down but can also lead impatient drivers to carry out abrupt, wide overtaking manoeuvres. There are two marked disabled parking bays opposite the Co-op supermarket. A new housing estate, Orchard Brook, has been built behind the Cock & Bell Public House adding to traffic movements as the only road in/out is also the service road for the pub and their car park. Cars often parallel park on Hall Street either side of this entrance creating visibility issues with passing traffic. A further two marked disabled parking bays are situated outside the Post Office and the Pharmacy. 5.22 A number of small residential lanes lead off Hall Street which again suffer from visibility issues when exiting. A pelican pedestrian crossing is situated in front of List House and is the last safe crossing point along Hall Street. 5.23 Parking again causes problems with pedestrians by parking over pavements. A further two marked disabled parking bays are outside of Budgens food store. The Bull Hotel is situated next to the Bull Lane junction and often holds weddings leading to an increase in parking demand. There are no safe crossing points at this end of Hall Street.
11 A road traffic survey over 7 days in March 2017 showed on average 11% of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 5mph (compared to 50% northbound and 86% southbound at Rodbridge Hill). Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 8 of 17
5.24 Opposite the hotel is Chemist Lane leading to several houses, Scout hut and the Village Memorial Hal, where they have recently re-surfaced and white-lined the car park of 32 spaces and two disabled spaces. These are available for public use but closed off when there is an event at the hall. Chemist Lane is opposite but slightly offset from Bull Lane. Again, parking in Hall Street can obscure vision of approaching traffic when leaving Chemist Lane. Bull Lane narrows as it passes between the Bull Hotel and Church House, with single file traffic necessary for all but small passenger vehicles. Traffic entering Bull Lane from Hall Street is consequently often required to queue briefly to allow oncoming traffic to clear. A further complication at this junction is the Little Green access road.
Public Consultations and Surveys 5.25 From the May 2017 Public Consultation at the Village Hall, which was part of the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, concern was expressed by local residents at the impact of new development in the village and the resultant rise in population. There was also concern about increased vehicle numbers and higher vehicle speeds, especially along the full length of the B1064 through the centre of the village. Comments were also raised about the safety of the Bull Lane junction with the B1064. 5.26 The Residents Survey also showed a strong response favouring measures to improve road, pedestrian and cycle safety, especially within the village centre: 1,838 people, or 92% of respondents, felt that pedestrian safety in the village was either important or very important. 1,556 people, or 78% of respondents, agreed or strongly agreed that traffic calming was appropriate in the village. 1,277 people, or 64% of respondents, were in favour of a 20mph zone along Hall Street in the village centre. 1,277 people, or 64% of respondents, agreed or strongly agreed with the need for safe cycle routes or cycle lanes. 5.27 In relation to parking concerns, the Residents Survey is also relevant: 1,509 respondents (76%) favoured more parking posts in the village centre (to prevent vehicles from encroaching on pavements). 1,471 respondents (74%) wanted a new off-street car park which would be nearer the heart of the village. 1,356 respondents (68%) supported some kind of residents’ parking scheme. 1,305 respondents (65%) requested properly marked out parking bays. 1,060 respondents (53%) favoured timed parking limits (with resident schemes for houses/businesses).
5.28 A separate Parking Survey was carried out in May 2018. This showed a number of issues relevant to the public realm study:
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 9 of 17
Some 50% of village centre parking spaces are taken by residents and businesses for long periods of time and are thus unavailable for short term visits. In particular, spaces tend to be fully taken up in areas of the village adjacent to the more popular shops. Conversely more spaces are available in the southern part of the village centre, but that is further away from the majority of shops. Despite more availability of spaces in the southern part of the village centre, the road narrows there with the highest incidence of parking problems (e.g. parking partly on pavements, double parking or obstructing access to premises). The main car park designated for village centre use, next to the Old School Community Centre, is approx. 200 metres from Hall Street and in desperate need of repair and as such is very under-utilised. The Village Hall car park in Chemist Lane has been re-surfaced and bays marked to provide an additional 32 plus 2 disabled public parking spaces when there are no activities at the hall. Funding came from the CIL payments and the PiiP (Parish Infrastructure Investment Plan). 5.29 A recent visual traffic count was taken at the Black Lion junction, which showed that 80% of the traffic driving along Westgate turned down towards the village rather than up to the bypass. Further counts were recorded at the Bull Lane junction and at Rodbridge Hill at various times of the day. Although not official counts, they gave a good indication that much of the traffic was simply passing through. The traffic count data is at the end of this Appendix. Assessment of potential traffic calming options 5.30 It is clear from the above that speeding is a significant issue affecting all of the approach routes. Likewise, in the village centre, a Suffolk Highways Speed Data report from March 2017 showed that over 50% of the 11,000 daily traffic movements along the 30mph limit Little St Mary’s section of the B1064 were travelling at between 30mph and 40mph. Whilst this historical evidence is compelling, it does not reflect the more recent developments in and around the village which are likely to have exacerbated these issues. An up-to-date survey of traffic volumes and speeds will assist in building a case for introducing traffic calming measures. Recommendation 1 proposes that LMPC commission traffic surveys by Suffolk Highways to establish current volumes and speeds of traffic. 5.31 A wide variety of traffic calming features is currently being used around the UK. The following measures have been considered and assessed. 1. Vertical traffic calming features such as road humps, speed tables and speed cushions were rejected as they have the potential to increase pollution with traffic slowing and then accelerating, also increased noise of vehicles driving over features. 2. Surface treatments such as rumble strips and false cattlegrids could be deployed on the approach roads. However, these create noise and have only marginal effects, with vehicles quickly speeding up once they have passed. We did not consider this option further. 3. Average Speed Cameras could be deployed at the main entrance and exit routes from the village, to discourage cars from speeding through the village. However, these devices do not Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 10 of 17
detect vehicles exceeding the limit over short stretches. Given the costs of installation and monitoring such devices, we judged them to be unsuitable for Long Melford. 4. Speed limit reduction. The village currently has a 30mph limit. Recommendation 2 is to introduce a 20mph zone. The zone should include Hall Street and Little St Mary's, though the precise boundaries will need to be determined. In addition to the well-documented safety advantages for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians alike, a 20mph zone in the centre would encourage through-traffic to use the bypass and other alternative routes. It would also reinforce the sense of entering a small village community and would be more conducive to street-culture. At the time of writing, an initiative to adopt 20mph limits across the county has been turned down by Suffolk County Council. Nevertheless, there is strong justification for such a limit in Long Melford, which the Neighbourhood Plan Survey shows to be well supported by a majority of residents. We are also aware of specific requests to LMPC from residents in light of their own experiences walking, cycling and driving in the village centre. 5. Vehicle-activated signs (VASs). Vehicle-activated signs are electronic safety signs that warn drivers that they are exceeding the speed limit on a particular stretch of road. There are two main types of VASs that display slightly different warning messages: Speed Limit Reminder (SLR) signs which usually display a message such as ‘Slow Down’ in combination with the current speed limit. Speed Indicator Devices (SIDs) that display the current vehicle speed in green (within the speed limit) or red (exceeding the speed limit) colours. Alternatively, a smiley or sad face can be displayed to indicate compliance with the speed limit. Long Melford PC currently has two SID units which are deployed on a rotating basis at various points on the approach roads. Suffolk Highways support their use and believe they are effective12. Recommendation 3 proposes that a further unit is purchased and deployed in unison with the existing signs to ensure that speeds are further reduced along the full length of the village’s main roads, including enforcement of a 20mph speed limit zone if that is achieved. 6. Horizontal traffic calming features such as build-outs, chicanes, traffic islands or pinch points. The reduction of road width to one lane, combined with priority working/give-way arrangements would have a significant impact on traffic speeds but can result in traffic queues, additional noise created by braking and accelerating, and even an increase in speed caused by vehicles racing to get through the road-narrowing ahead of oncoming vehicles. Such schemes can also cause difficulties for agricultural vehicles and motorhomes/caravans. We consequently assessed most types of horizontal traffic calming features to be unsuitable for installation in Long Melford. However, Recommendation 4 is that consideration be given to building out some of the existing grass banks in Hall Street (with appropriate care taken to accommodate wider vehicles). In addition to encouraging slower speeds, this could provide for more social areas with chairs or benches and flower beds, as an extension to Melford in Bloom (though bollards and planters would need to be within semi-permanent areas surrounded by proper kerbs).
12 On average, vehicle-activated signs have proven to have a beneficial effect on traffic speeds and can reduce traffic speeds on 30 mph roads by around 4% to 7%. Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 11 of 17
7. The village gateway helps to create 'a sense of place' when drivers enter the village, and the physical measures are designed such that drivers are encouraged to slow down before entry. Village gateways are sited at Rodbridge and Westgate with 30mph signs but are far from the village centre and could result in higher speeds in the village core. Drivers see the limit as unreasonable, and continue to ignore it. Recommendation 5 is that further gateway signs are located closer to the village centre. These could take the form of flower beds strategically and safely placed by the side of the road with speed limit roundels (indicating the 20mph zone, if introduced). Assessment of potential parking options: 5.32 During the first Covid-19 lockdown in April 2020, two separate parking counts were held as an indicator of the number of residents’ cars and vans. Each count showed a maximum of 160 vehicles parked at different times of day, out of approximately 400 roadside spaces. The assumption is that the remaining spaces are usually taken up by business workers, shoppers and tourists. Some of these park all day and others for shorter periods. 5.33 Instances of problem parking include: Wheels on Pavement – thereby reducing the width of the pavement and potentially inhibiting pedestrian movement) Overhanging the Pavement – likewise reducing the width of the pavement Double-parked – potentially blocking parked cars and/or obstructing the road Straddling two spaces – so reducing the number of parking spaces available Obstructing Road – causing vehicles to either stop or slow down to pass oncoming vehicles and/or to pass between the parked car and traffic islands Obstructing Access – potentially blocking a resident’s (or business’s) access to or from their property. 5.34 In aggregate, over 11% of parked vehicles have exhibited at least one of the parking problems above which suggests that additional measures are required to improve parking behaviours. 5.35 In addition to the on-street parking in Hall Street and Little St Mary’s, there is a public car park close to the Old School. This is partly paved but the unpaved area has poor drainage and after rainfall large parts of it are covered with muddy puddles. We understand that plans to resurface the car park are well progressed, but for completeness we include Recommendation 6 for the resurfacing to be completed. 5.36 The Long Melford Village Memorial Hall Committee have also consented to public use of the village hall car park (except when required for hirers of the hall). Given its proximity to the village centre, this is an attractive option for those unable to find parking spaces in Hall Street, but it is not immediately apparent from there. Recommendation 7 proposes that additional signage for the village hall car park is obtained and installed at the end of Chemist Lane.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 12 of 17
5.37 Any reduction in the overall number of parking spaces or green verges would not be acceptable, although some relocation/reassignment could be acceptable. Recommendation 8 is that a formal policy be adopted to ensure that any changes to the layout of the parking on Hall Street and Little St Mary’s do not result in a net loss of spaces. 1. Alignment of Parking Bays - Vehicles currently park parallel to, at right angles to, or angled to the highway depending on width of parking bays. Our visual survey of parking in 2019 noted that this freedom led to vehicles being parked at awkward angles, or at greater distances from one another, which reduced the effective available spaces. Recommendation 9 is that LMPC should investigate marking out spaces in order to show the orientation and size of spaces. This would potentially create more spaces in a formal layout. White-painted bays are not suitable for a conservation area, but markings in an alternative colour could be considered. 2. Pavement Protection - Vehicles park to protect themselves from passing traffic and in doing so, they can obstruct the pavement. Several wooden posts have been installed between pavement and parking areas although they are ineffective in keeping vehicles from blocking the pavements when parking at an angle. However, many posts are rotten or missing and it is understood that Suffolk Highways will not be replacing them as they fail. Posts are not fully effective to protect the pavement and can be an obstruction to partially sighted pedestrians. They can also be expensive to replace if damaged by vehicles. Recommendation 10 proposes options to stop cars overhanging the pavement are investigated. Possibilities include concrete blocks, raised kerbs, visual changes in the colour of pavement/parking, wooden posts, metal railings, tubs and planters, and benches or other seating. A combination of these solutions could be used depending on the location, taking into account costs, aesthetics and the needs of infirm or partially sighted pedestrians. Discussions with Suffolk Highways and Conservation will be necessary for their advice.
3. Pavement Parking Solutions - This is a serious problem at Little St Mary's where the road narrows and cars park both sides. To avoid damage, cars park on the pavement forcing pedestrians to walk into the road to pass. The government are currently looking into the problem of pavement parking and could ban the practice. Nevertheless, a solution needs to be found to ensure the pavement remains clear for pedestrians whilst continuing to provide sufficient parking for the residents and businesses. Recommendation 11 is that LMPC begin a targeted consultation with the residents and businesses in this area to seek views on possible solutions, which could include prohibiting parking on one side of the street, whilst providing designated on-street parking on the other side and/or providing additional parking spaces further along, by the green in front of the Roman Way houses. 4. Additional Parking Areas - There is an established hedge in front of Southgate Gardens with cars parking on the grass verge. Recommendation 12 proposes an investigation into turning that area into an official parking area with marked out spaces. This could alleviate pavement parking in Southgate Street. If successful, Recommendation 13 is that the scheme is repeated to the north of Roman Way to alleviate the parking in Little St Mary's. Assessment of Pedestrian safety options 5.38 Pavements are narrow compared to the road width. Vehicles occasionally park across pavements where there are no posts obstructing the way for pedestrians.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 13 of 17
1. Traffic Islands. We understand that a new pedestrian refuge island is to be installed near to Budgens, though the precise location has not yet been decided. Although this initiative is already well under way, we have for completeness included it as Recommendation 14. The traffic island near the Co-op does not have safe pedestrian access on the western side where there is a grass bank with vehicles parking either side. Recommendation 15 is that the grass bank is lowered to allow for pedestrian access. We understand that Suffolk Highways would not object, but the permission of the landowner would be required. 2. Pavement safety - The parking bays between the Bull Hotel and Chestnut Terrace are quite deep with vehicles parking against the pavement. Recommendation 16 is for a trial where planters, or similar, are sited along this stretch of road adding at least one metre to the pavement width. Adding tall plants or trees to the planters would assist drivers when parking. Wider pavements would significantly improve pedestrian safety and improve the street scene allowing for more social interaction and possibly seating. It could also have a positive impact on traffic speed with vehicles parking closer to the highway giving an impression of a narrower road. Care would have to be taken that longer vehicles do not extend onto the highway. 3. Horizontal traffic calming features. As mentioned in the traffic calming options, build-outs to existing grass banks in Hall Street should be considered if care is taken to accommodate wider vehicles. This could provide for more social areas creating a cafe culture with chairs or benches and flower beds as an extension to Melford in Bloom. Build-outs would also narrow the road and be beneficial to pedestrians crossing the road. Assessment of Cycle safety options 5.39 A report by Tim Regester, a local cycling campaigner, highlights the current lack of a continuous, safe cycling route from Sudbury through Long Melford to Lavenham and beyond. Although the Valley Walk provides a route from Sudbury to Borley Road, it is difficult to identify a safe route from there to the village centre. The National Cycle Network Route 13, which follows the Valley Walk, terminates at Borley Road. The proposed route continues on the road to Liston and then continues into the village centre via St Catherine’s Road and Hall Street, thereby avoiding the busy junction of Borley Road with Rodbridge Hill. An alternative route was previously identified, following the footpath to Roper’s Lane, through Blunden Close, Theobald’s Close and Stephen Close to Withindale Lane. However, the rights of way on this route are incomplete and the land ownership is uncertain. 5.40 There are a number of particular safety issues for cyclists in the village centre: There is significant variation in the available width of the carriageway in Little St Mary’s and Hall Street. For much of this road, there is ample room for vehicles to pass cyclists without difficulty or risk. However, at the pedestrian refuge islands and in those areas with parked cars projecting out into the carriageway, vehicles either pass very close to cyclists, or proceed close behind them before accelerating to overtake once the road widens. Vehicles parked perpendicular to the carriageway must reverse out into the road. This requires careful assessment of the traffic in both directions. Cyclists are less visible both because of their lower profile and because they are closer to the kerb.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 14 of 17
There are no dedicated cycle lanes. Although Suffolk County Council has received funding for 148 cycle lanes across the county, we understand from Suffolk Highways that the narrowest sections of Little St Mary’s and Hall Street cannot accommodate a dedicated on- road cycle lane. The pavements are likewise too narrow to support a shared use cycle/pedestrian path. This adds weight to the need for a 20mph speed limit within this area of the village, as Recommendation 2 above.
Assessment of Electric Vehicle Charge Points 5.41 The growth in electric vehicle ownership will provide both challenges and opportunities for Long Melford. We must embrace this new technology and use it to the benefit of residents and visitors alike and it must be an important part of our Neighbourhood Plan.
5.42 For Long Melford residents there are a number of practical issues which need to be addressed with a variation of terraced and detached housing to consider. There is a need to increase the availability of on-street charging points in residential streets where off-street parking is not available, thereby ensuring that off-street parking is not a pre-requisite for realising the benefits of owning a plug-in electric vehicle. This is a village wide problem and not just for the village centre.
5.43 We understand that the Parish Council are pursuing the installation of 2 EV charging points in the Old School Car Park (with provision for 2 further points in the future), as part of the resurfacing of that facility. We also understand that the Village Hall Committee are considering the installation of 2 charging points in the hall car park. Recommendation 17 is that these two initiatives are completed. Whilst they are a welcome first step in the provision of EV charging for the village centre, they will not provide sufficient capacity in the long term. Recommendation 18 proposes that potential locations in Hall Street and Little St. Mary’s for on-street charging points, should be investigated, taking care to minimise the impact on pedestrians and mobility scooters from charge points mounted on the pavement rather than the road. There are a range of different charge point options (e.g. integrated into existing lamp posts. pop-up versions which rise and fall as needed, as well as the more familiar pedestal type). Conclusion 5.44 Traffic, technologies and our shopping habits will certainly change over the next 17 years. Our brief was to investigate and formulate proposals to address two of the Neighbourhood Plan Community Objectives for the period up to year 2037. It is vital that local residents and traders engage creatively with the council and other partners to ensure the village centre is designed for the residents of the future. One of the first things that should be carried out when looking at traffic problems is proper surveys to establish both the volume and speed of traffic. Often what people believe to be the case turns out to be incorrect. If traffic is heavy during rush hour, but light for the rest of the day, the measures to be taken would be different than if traffic was steady throughout the day. Likewise, if most traffic substantially exceeds the speed limit, it indicates a different problem than if only a small minority does so.
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 15 of 17
Bull Lane Junction
Counts Date 05/08/20 06/08/20 07/08/20 Grand 20 20 20 Time 8:45 - Midday 17:15 - Total 8:15 - 12:15 - 17:15 - Total 9:00 - 13:30 - 17:45 - Total total 9:15 17:45 8:45 12:45 17:45 9:30 14:00 18:15 Northbound 100 139 239 80 111 148 339 118 137 118 373 951 continuing north Northbound 29 55 84 23 35 55 113 35 43 54 132 329 turning into Bull Lane Total 129 194 323 103 146 203 452 153 180 172 505 1280 northbound
Southbound 120 131 251 135 126 142 403 145 138 129 412 1066 continuing south Southbound 21 31 52 24 35 35 94 31 28 22 81 227 turning into Bull Lane Total 141 162 303 159 161 177 497 176 166 151 493 1293 southbound
Westbound 24 35 59 31 26 42 99 31 20 25 76 234 turning north
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 16 of 17
Westbound 35 40 75 37 34 42 113 36 41 45 122 310 turning south Total 59 75 134 68 60 84 212 67 61 70 198 544 westbound Total vehicle 329 431 760 330 367 464 1161 396 407 393 1196 3117 movements
Photos: p7 top Google Maps, bottom Graham Eade; p8 Steve ‘Spud’ Dudden
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037 Page 17 of 17 Appendix 6
Schools Project
6.1 During the earlier public consultation events set out in the Statement of Consultation (see Supporting Documents), the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (NPSG) became aware that there was little representation at those meetings from certain demographics within the community, especially younger people.
6.2 As the Residents Survey was for completion by those aged 15+, the decision was taken to actively seek out the opinions of young people aged 11+ who attended nearby secondary schools but who lived in the village. The three local secondary schools were contacted and two agreed that their Long Melford resident students could take part in a consultation exercise on the village and its Neighbourhood Plan.
6.3. Volunteers from the village who had expressed an interest in helping with the Plan project were contacted and from that group two volunteers offered to help with the schools’ visits.
6.4 Contact was made with Stour Valley Community School, Ormiston Sudbury Academy and Thomas Gainsborough Academy to explain the Plan and to ask if the schools would allow its representatives to visit and consult their pupils who lived in Long Melford. A positive response was received from all three schools but subsequently no date was provided by Thomas Gainsborough Academy, so reluctantly that visit was not progressed.
6.5 The contact at Ormiston Sudbury Academy advised that the school had previously been involved in the ‘Vision for Sudbury’ project which had some similarities regarding the information the NPSG was looking to obtain, so the team were given details of the Economic Development Officer at Babergh District Council (BDC), who had run that project.
6.6 A meeting was arranged with BDC at the Long Melford Parish Council office on 28/03/18 and whilst they were unable to attend the visits to the schools, due to existing appointments, BDC confirmed they would be happy to share their lesson plans for the NPSG to use as a framework for the visits. Following that meeting Julie Thomson, representing the NPSG and Plan volunteer Pam Tonks agreed to oversee both visits.
6.7 The lesson plans, amended to suit the half days the NPSG representative and volunteer had been allocated by the two schools, were augmented by some specially tailored exercises and the outline for each visit was sent to the schools in advance. Arrangements were made for the schools to provide the necessary equipment, with the NPSG purchasing additional items as required. The NPSG also provided the requisite identification and CRB/DBS certificates for approval. Permission was sought to record the students’ voices throughout the sessions, including discussion groups and presentations. Only one student refused this request. Consents were also obtained from all parents at Ormiston Academy for their children to be involved. This was not considered necessary at Stour Valley Community School.
6.8 The first visit took place on 24/04/18 at Ormiston Sudbury Academy and the NPSG representative and volunteer were advised that Long Melford parents were supportive of their children being involved in the project. There were 12 pupils in attendance aged between 11 and 16.
The session began with a PowerPoint presentation
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 1 2018-2037 (http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Schools-Project-Powerpoint.pptx)
to introduce the Plan representatives and to explain the purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan. The first exercise required the students to locate a number of well-known places on the Parish map as a way of familiarising them with the extent of the Plan area and to show the location of existing developments and amenities. The students then separated into small groups and they were asked to describe Long Melford as if it were a character, the purpose being to understand how they viewed the village in terms of its perceived character or personality. This also required them to think about how they could shape the village into a better character or personality in the future. The next task required the students to complete a ‘SWOT’ exercise to review the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats on various themes that had previously been identified during the village consultation events and a discussion then ensued on how to improve the village in those areas. This then led to the groups each preparing a five-minute presentation to deliver to the class using the ‘SWOT‘analyses, to demonstrate their vision for Long Melford over the next twenty years. Each presentation was recorded on a digital voice recorder.
6.9 The second visit took place on 26/04/18 at Stour Valley Community School, with assistance from the school librarian. There were 22 pupils in attendance aged between 12 and 15, one of whom did not live in Long Melford but was the Head of House and her inclusion had been a condition of the visit. The programme broadly reflected that set out above for Ormiston Academy. Five groups delivered presentations with their voices (one student excepted) recorded on a digital voice recorder.
6.10 See below for links to the presentation transcriptions from both schools.
6.11 At the end of both sessions the students were advised of what would happen next and asked for their help in making sure that when delivered, the Residents Survey should be completed by those eligible in their household and to encourage them to vote when the referendum took place. The NPSG representatives also gave both schools details of how to make contact if they had any more thoughts or suggestions.
6.12 The evidence then needed to be assessed.
6.13 The general class discussions which accompanied the exercises and the presentations were recorded and these were analysed by a Plan volunteer who captured the students’ comments which were then transcribed. A selection of quotes from the transcriptions are shown below:
“In our opinion we want to keep Melford more old- fashioned and not too modern.”
“We like how new houses are being built but we don’t want too many cos it would ruin the quiet character of Long Melford.”
“We love that Melford is popular and that everybody knows everybody and everyone is friendly, whether they are talking to a child or an adult.”
“(To) attract younger adults into the village, flats should be built with communal gardens and accessible parking places. They should be built gradually over time so the village doesn’t get overwhelmed with too many people at one time.”
“Although we are having more built in our village, we want to restrict that so people who walk their dogs and stuff like that still have the enjoyment of enjoying the environment around them.”
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2 2018-2037 “The park needs improving as it’s been there for years.”
“We would still like an area that separates Long Melford and Sudbury.”
“In Melford we have a huge area of fields without anything to fill them, for these locations we believe they should have some more buildings so that Melford fits the name Long Melford because at the moment the area we use is quite short.”
“We do not want to change Melford totally, but we do want to give it many more aspects, so it will be recognized as a nice and unique place.”
“Long Melford is not as appealing to young people as the older generation.”
“We should extend or make a separate car park in the village cos it gets very busy. Especially with people moving in there is going to be more cars. You need more zebra crossings. Re (the) speed limit it’s 30 but you often see them going a lot faster.”
“(We) need some children signs. We thought we should have some zebra crossings, speed bumps, speed limits enforced more forcefully. We also thought we should have speed cameras and narrow the roads, so cars don’t go down there quickly.”
“The country park is mainly for dog walking. They could adapt this and put more play equipment there. We thought the Old School, which isn’t used very often, to perhaps modernise it to have some sections for games, arcades, pool, which would appeal to teens and young people while still retaining the character of the village.”
6.14 The testimonies above typified the feedback received in the wider transcriptions and this evidence from both school visits helped the NPSG in formulating the various Policies and Community Objectives of the Plan.
6.15 To view the presentation testimonies in more detail please use the following links (where OSA stands for Ormiston Sudbury Academy and SVA stands for Stour Valley Community School): http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/OSA-Vision-for-LM-1.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/OSA-Vision-for-LM-2.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/OSA-Vision-LM-3.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SVA-Vision-LM-1.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SVA-Vision-LM-2.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SVA-Vision-LM-3.pdf http://www.longmelfordnp.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/SVA-Vision-LM-4.pdf
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 3 2018-2037
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 4 2018-2037 Appendix 7
Business Forum Meeting Notes Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan Housing and Commerce Group
First Business Forum Notes Page 1 Business Policy Options for Discussion at Second Business Forum Page 3 Second Business Forum Notes Page 6 Map 7A Business Locations Page 9
First Business Forum Notes, The Bull Hotel (13th March 2018)
Present: Graham Eade, Jonathan Ewbank, Ian McDonald, John Nunn, Dave Watts (LMNP) Jan Rockett & Ian Rockett (Landers Bookshop), Georgia Derrick (Evans), Jean Muir & Jessica Brown (Jessica Muir Gallery), Fiona Smith & Cheryl Morgan (Melford Court Nursing Home), Paul Wybrew (Angela’s Fashions), Joe Cerri (Gigi’s Trattoria), Owen Collis (LM Co-Op), Rob Crawford (Nethergate Brewery), Rebecca Molphy and Laura? (Edward Charles Interiors), Sara Tatum (Rug & Carpet Studio), Jane Ebejer (Melford Inn B&B), Clare Steadman and colleague Amanda? (Sheridans Estate Agents), Sandy Cooke (independent businessman) Presentations re NP by GE, JE and IM
Comments from the floor: SC - Why not compulsorily purchase Hyde-Parker land adjacent to the Old School for car park? (Advised that this should not be necessary). GD: Lives over shop and observes parking patterns: there should be marked parking bays in order to make better use of spaces but not in favour of timed parking slots; JN: heritage concerns have militated against lines in the past; corners might be OK. GD: parking as part of residential development proposals – too remote from village centre. Residents fill the spaces, which are nearly full in the evenings. Chemist has useful evidence. GE: Approx. 400 spaces on-street between Bull Lane and Chapel Green. SC: Builders use LM as Park & Ride base; chemist has 9 staff cars. JN: 2019 BDC takes over responsibility for parking enforcement; the cash income will be welcome to BDC, who may be more interested in extending enforcement. JR: Car park needs to be maintained: surfaced and lit. Better signs needed towards Hall St businesses JR & IR: Lavenham car park much further from centre but more successful. JN: Make LM car park the car park for long term car parking. Signage is sensitive on heritage grounds. GE: Car park lease due for renewal this year. SC: Coaches annoyingly leave engines running. ST: Can we arrange secure off-street parking that would be convenient for residents’ parking; small accessible pockets of parking? FS: Agreed with ST. Also, people often occupy space at Melford Court without permission; difficult for staff. JR: In Sudbury and other towns, business people have to accept they cannot always park adjacent to their businesses.
1 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
GD: Beware the sheer numbers of cars; demand for CP may be insatiable. JN: Henry Ruse offered land for parking. Need many pockets to be effective. We can bid for CIL and s.106, and supplement that with borrowing. RC: Need car parking at southern end of village. ST: At her position in Hall Street there are cars parked partly on the pavement on both sides of the road and often no room for buggies or wheelchairs to pass along the pavement. Wing mirrors regularly damaged. GE: But parked cars have the incidental effect of slowing the traffic. JB: Can something be done re change of use policy from business use to residential. Too easy for shops to switch use to residential, then lost to village as businesses. Possible change of use restriction in NP? This suggestion supported by GD who gave example of Chantry Gallery change of use to residential, despite credible offer to buy as an ongoing business. SC: LM is a lively village but under threat, e.g. from internet trading. How to maintain its character and attractions? Need to log the loss of retail over recent years. Many antiques shops gone. Village needs to be unique. All: LM has definitely lost businesses over last 10 years. Rough estimate c150 down to c80/90 around Hall St. 23 antique shops now down to 3. GD will provide a list of lost businesses. (Also, Roger Kistruck has a map of Hall St businesses from c2006). ST: Something should be done to encourage smaller shop units, e.g. craft units in a designated area. SC: Large Budgens lorry regularly crosses Chad Brook bridge into Hall St. RM: Passing trade is important particularly pedestrians. Also, weekend visitors important. They stay in village and use shops. Timed parking would not work for them. IM: Towns and villages surviving best or prospering are those with independent shops and village character. LM well served with those, making it a social experience to visit village. PW: More should be done with village website. JB: LM Business Association website is being revamped with funds raised by traders. Will be more orientated to encourage visitors to use local businesses. GE: Wool Towns initiative is helping raise village profile and can fit well with revamped website Jane E: Shortage of beds for overnight stays, especially on Saturday nights. GE responded that LM now has more rooms than Lavenham but Jane E pointed out there are fewer B&B rooms. JN: Will contact Suffolk CC now re better village signage, especially in village centre. All: Need entry signs to village extolling the facilities and virtues of the village. Also emphasising Wool Town status. GE: Wool Town signs are coming.
2 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Business Policy Options for discussion at Second Business Forum (15th May 2018)
Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan, Business, Policy Options for Business Forum, 15th May 2018
Topic/theme & issues
Lively retail centre Loss of shops Need visitor trade for health of shops Components of healthy village centre: o LM to be distinctive: a destination o Independent shops are key o Shopping as a social activity o Cafes and pubs o LM Church and two country houses are key attractions LM specialisms o Fashion, men and women o Convenience stores o Antiques o Fabrics and furnishings o Hair and beauty o Cafes o Pubs & restaurants o Galleries
Policy options
1. Pop-up shops in Ex-Servicemen’s Club if available; central and visible Village Hall 2. Spring and autumn fashion shows incl non-LM shops? (or similar for other types of shops e.g. fabrics etc in Village Hall Marquee on Little Green 3. Café or pub events, concerted e.g. special offers on meals throughout village 4. Introduce policy in LMNP to limit the change of use of shops to non-retail uses 5. Signage to guide people round car parks, shops and attractions.
Evaluation/Comments
3 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Need a record of the change in the number and mix of businesses in the village centre
Check BDC policy on this issue; need to minimise risks and downsides.
Topic/theme & issues
Managing car parking Demand from residents, staff, visitors, P & R very high Additional car parking in accessible locations unlikely to be enough
Regime now very free and open to abuse and misuse
Policy options
Manage different types of parking demand: Hall Street residents: Negotiate parking in nearby private spaces Develop a standard licence to cover the arrangement.
Long term parking i.e. coaches and park and ride: Direct them with signage and notices to CP adjacent to Old School.
Staff of shops and businesses: Businesses to encourage or incentivise staff to park off-street e.g. parking adj to Village Hall
Management designed to maximise parking opportunities for short term users esp. shoppers and visitors.
Achieve better use of on-street spaces by marking spaces and/or posts (wooden or metal).
An additional car park to expand off-street parking capacity
Potential addition of volunteer uniformed street guides whose primary task would be to guide visitors and generally make their experience in LM good; they could also reinforce the management of parking in the village. Evaluation/Comments
Need a count of ‘willing’ private CP spaces
4 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Topic/theme & issues
Follow-up of the above ideas Policy options
Three initiatives that might help in taking the above ideas forward are: An Urban Design or Public Realm study to include buildings and their treatment, the roadway and parking, and signage. Town centre management, which has been practised for many years in the UK and which focuses on management issues e.g. parking, promotion, guiding (visitors) rather than development and land use. A Business Improvement District, which is a statutory way of raising additional funds for town centre management.
Local authorities are tending to give up responsibility for certain parts of the urban infrastructure e.g. SCC and wooden parking posts. The parish council, for the sake of the quality of our environment, should consider taking responsibility for assets that matter to the LM quality of life; the transfer should generate a payment from e.g. SCC as they are reducing their outgoings. The country park was the subject of just such a transfer.
5 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Second Business Forum Notes (15th May 2018)
Second Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan Business Forum held at The Bull on Tuesday 15 May 2018 Present: 22 representatives of Long Melford businesses plus Jonathan Ewbank, Graham Eade, Ian McDonald, Dave Watts, John Nunn, Ian Bartlett and Chris Watts from the NHP Steering Group
JE summarised where various aspects of evidence gathering for the NHP had got to.
Importance of a Vibrant Village
IM emphasized the importance of Long Melford remaining a lively retail centre for the benefit of residents and visitors as well as businesses. Important aspects of the village for attracting visitors included the church, Melford and Kentwell Halls, independent shops, specialist shops, cafés/restaurants/pubs. He suggested several things that could make the village more vibrant:
pop up shops fashion shows food and drink events Appropriate controls for change of use from shops to residential better signage uniformed guides to assist visitors and carry out other tasks (e.g. controlling parking) making Melford a ‘business improvement district’ commissioning a ‘public realm/urban design study’
Richard Kemp: Speaking as a landlord not a councillor. 25 years ago, the demand was to turn residential properties into shops, not vice versa as now. Clare and Hadleigh had recently tried to revive/enliven their street markets. Maybe Melford should do the same here – e.g. on the Little Green. Ann (Looking Good, Feeling Better): Good idea. Anything that brings more people into the village is a good thing. Georgia (Evans): Rather than pop-up shops, we need to concentrate on finding ways of drawing in more people to the village
6 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
Sean (Hall Street): Rather than individual events, we need to draw more people in by giving the village a clear identity. LM’s identity used to be as an antiques centre and it was famous for featuring in the Lovejoy TV series. What is its identity now?
General discussion:
There was agreement that attracting more visitors was very important. Not coach parties who just visited the Church and the Halls and then moved on to other villages. We need visitors from both the local area and further away who patronise local shops and other businesses. Issues raised included:
LM is a bit unkempt. It needs smartening up and kept smart. Litter, grass cutting, potholes, signage LM is one long village with little signage. That needs improving (eg signs outside Melford and Kentwell Halls saying ‘Village Centre this way’, signs outside the village more like Lavenham’s brown signs saying ‘Historic Village’ underneath the place name, better signing for the car parks). It was thought that the Parish Council should fund new signage Website and social media were both vital in attracting visitors. These we being revamped and relaunched in June. It was suggested that professional help was sought to keep the social media output and website constantly vibrant Using the Wool Towns initiative to promote the village (there were mixed reactions to this) Businesses should get together more and launch joint initiatives There was some interest in IM’s suggestion for a Village Centre Management arrangement and potentially, an Urban Design Study
Parking
As at the first Business Forum, lack of parking near the shops and businesses of Hall Street was regarded as a major issue. GE summarized the findings of the parking survey that had recently been conducted by the NHP Traffic and Parking sub-group. Main findings:
usually at least 10% of spaces free but it may still be difficult to find one as you drive past roughly 50% of spaces were taken by cars that stayed there all day parking problem exacerbated by people who don’t park properly (e.g. taking up two spaces another problem is cars parked over the pavement or sticking out into the road Old School car park very underused but needs resurfacing.
Other topics the sub-group is looking at include electric charging points and cycle routes. Issues to discuss:
7 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
mark parking bays so that it is clear where and how to park time limits for parking owners and staff of businesses parking in Old School or Village Hall car parks.
General discussion:
Broadly agreed that shops should have signs up saying something like ‘This is Long Melford. Please park considerately’. Sean (Hall Street) volunteered to get signs made if this idea was taken up Better signposting of the car parks was needed. Suggestions included increasing the size and number of signs to car parks (including one on Bull Lane), having A-boards directing people, putting signs on wooden posts, having the signage done by the Parish Council rather than BDC or Suffolk CC Owners and staff of businesses parking in Old School or Village Hall car parks met with mixed reactions. Nick (Crown Hotel) said he couldn’t expect staff to walk all that way when starting at 7am or ending at midnight. Suggestions included having part of Hall Street reserved for visitor parking only, finding a more central place for business cars to park (e.g. rear of Ruse’s, Village Hall), having a rule for staff that they should park elsewhere 9am to 5pm, running a park and ride at peak times from the Village Hall car park (like the Bury hospital does from Bury Rugby club), allocating spaces in the car park for businesses Need to clarify ownership of the village hall car park and agree with village hall committee that staff (and visitor?) car parking can be allowed except when a big event is booked (e.g. antique sale). Also, could approach British Legion to possibly arrange for individual businesses to park there (e.g. pharmacy).
8 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037
9 Long Melford Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2037