Planning Applications – Suggested Informative Statements And

Planning Applications – Suggested Informative

Statements and Conditions Report

AW Reference: 00022377

Local Planning Authority: Babergh District

Site: Land at proposed Stowmarket Business & Enterprise Park, Mill Lane,, Creeting St. Mary

Proposal: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha

Planning Application: 1582/17

Prepared by: Pre-Development Team

Date: 14 July 2017

If you would like to discuss any of the points in this document please contact me on 0345 0265 458 or email [email protected]

ASSETS

Section 1 – Assets Affected

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

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

WASTEWATER SERVICES

Section 2 – Wastewater Treatment

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

Section 3 – Foul Sewerage Network

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

Section 4 – Surface Water Disposal

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

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

Section 5 – Trade Effluent

5.1 The planning application includes employment/commercial use. To discharge trade effluent from trade premises to a public sewer vested in Anglian Water requires our consent. It is an offence under section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to discharge trade effluent to sewer without consent. Anglian Water would ask that the following text be included within your Notice should permission be granted.

“An application to discharge trade effluent must be made to Anglian Water and must have been obtained before any discharge of trade effluent can be made to the public sewer.

Anglian Water recommends that petrol / oil interceptors be fitted in all car parking/washing/repair facilities. Failure to enforce the effective use of such facilities could result in pollution of the local watercourse and may constitute an offence.

Anglian Water also recommends the installation of a properly maintained fat traps on all catering establishments. Failure to do so may result in this and other properties suffering blocked drains, sewage flooding and consequential environmental and amenity impact and may also constitute an offence under section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991.”

From: David Pizzey Sent: 29 June 2017 15:26 To: James Platt Subject: 1582/17 - Land To The North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk

James

This is a preliminary constraints report only and therefore does not contain an assessment of the impact of this proposal or identify any appropriate mitigation measures. If, as seems to be, there is now a final layout design it will need to be updated accordingly. However, the existing land use and apparent lack of important trees on site would appear to mean losses are likely to be minimal. The exception being the proposed removal of hedgerow H1 which remains a concern. I also note the conflicting evaluation of its importance within the arboricultural report compared to the ecological appraisal.

Regards

David

David Pizzey Arboricultural Officer Hadleigh office: 01473 826662 Needham Market office: 01449 724555 [email protected] www.babergh.gov.uk and www.midsuffolk.gov.uk Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together

From:David Pizzey Sent:22 Jun 2017 14:09:45 +0100 To:James Platt Cc:BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Subject:1582/17 Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter

James

The layout design of this proposal is likely to result in a number direct and indirect effects on important trees and other vegetation on site. Until we have an assessment of this impact it will not be possible to make a fully informed appraisal of these implications. I note hedgerow H1, classified as important under The Hedgerow Regulations, is shown for removal on the indicative masterplan. This should be retained if at all possible due to its biodiversity value and legally protected status.

Please let me know if or when you require any further input.

Regards

David

David Pizzey Arboricultural Officer

Hadleigh office: 01473 826662

Needham Market office: 01449 724555 [email protected] www.babergh.gov.uk and www.midsuffolk.gov.uk

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 June 2017 15:26 To: David Pizzey Subject: Planning Consultation Request - 1582/17

Please find attached planning consultation request letter relating to planning application - 1582/17 - Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk

Kind Regards

Planning Support Team

Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in accordance with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any security risks. The information contained in this email or any of its attachments may be privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your email software. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by Babergh District Council and/or Mid Suffolk District Council. From: Nathan Pittam Sent: 18 September 2017 14:17 To: BMSDC Planning Mailbox Subject: 1582/17. EH - Land Contamination.

EP Reference : 198954 1582/17. EH - Land Contamination. Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, IPSWICH, Suffolk. Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor.

Many thanks for your request for comments in relation to the above application. I have reviewed the application and can confirm that given the low risk end use proposed on former agricultural land leads me to have no objection to the proposed development. I would only request that we be contacted in the event of unexpected ground conditions being encountered during construction and that the developer is made aware that the responsibility for the safe development of the site lies with them.

Kind regards

Nathan

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

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils – Working Together

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

Subject:FW: 1582/17. EH - Land Contamination.

From: Nathan Pittam Sent: 26 June 2017 08:21 To: X Delete Aug 17 - Planning Admin Subject: 1582/17. EH - Land Contamination.

M3 : 195147

1582/17. EH - Land Contamination.

SH, Street Record, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, IPSWICH, Suffolk.

*Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane* Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to ..

Regards

Nathan

Nathan Pittam BSc. (Hons.) PhD

Senior Environmental Management Officer

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils – Working Together

Email: [email protected]

Work: 01449 724715

Mobile:: 07769 566988 websites: www.babergh.gov.uk www.midsuffolk.gov.uk

From:David Harrold Sent:6 Sep 2017 12:07:47 +0100 To:BMSDC Planning Mailbox Cc:James Platt Subject:Plan ref 1582/17 Land North East of Mill Lane, Creeting St. Peter. EH - Other Issues

Thank you for re-consulting me on the above application and in particular The Phase 1 Environmental Impact Assessment report by Delta Simons.

I can confirm with respect to ‘other’ environmental health issues that I do not have any adverse or further comments to make.

David Harrold MCIEH

Senior Environmental Health Officer

Babergh and Mid Suffolk Council

BABERGH/MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

MEMORANDUM

TO: James Platt, Development Management

FROM: David Harrold, Environmental Protection Team DATE: 30/06/2017

YOUR REF: 1582/17

SUBJECT: Land North of Mill Lane, Creeting St. Peter, Stowmarket. EH – Other Issues

Thank you for consulting me on the above outline application for commercial use.

I note the technical noise report by Adrian James Acoustics ltd (AJA) dated 12 April 2017.

The report by AJA considers environmental noise from existing road traffic on Gun Cotton Way and A14 to determine appropriate boundary noise limits.

Noise monitoring of ambient and background noise levels were found to be very high on the western and northern boundaries due to the volume of road traffic during the day and night. Noise levels reduced as expected at further distances away from these roads and lowest on the southern boundary at Clamp Farm

The report recommends that noise rating levels at receptors on Buzzard Rise should be limited to no more than the measured background levels in order to avoid an unacceptable increase in what is already a noisy environment due to road traffic. At Clamp farm the noise rating level should be limited to the conditions already agreed for the adjacent Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park (Phase 1) development.

This approach is logical and subject to these conditions being attached to any approval, I do not have any objection to the proposed development.

For the western boundary of the site I would recommend the following condition:

The noise from any fixed plant and equipment on the development site shall not exceed a rating level of 63 dB LAeq1hour (07:00 to 19:00hours), 58 dB LAeq1hour (19:00 to 23:00hours) and 48 dB Laeq15minutes (23:00 to 07:00hours). The levels should be determined in accordance with BS 4142:2014 at the western boundary of the development site (facing Buzzards Rise).

The condition for the southern boundary with Clamp Farm will be as per phase 1

I trust this is of assistance.

David Harrold MCIEH Senior Environmental Health Officer.

Wk/1951905 From:Iain Farquharson Sent:4 Jul 2017 10:41:42 +0100 To:BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Subject:FW: M3 195148. 1582/17. EH - Sustainability Issues. *Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane*

From: Iain Farquharson Sent: 30 June 2017 17:07 To: James Platt Subject: M3 195148. 1582/17. EH - Sustainability Issues. *Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane*

James

I am not happy with the renewables report I believe they are using an incorrect baseline figure for the calculation of the 10%.

At this moment in time I request that permission is not granted.

I have spoken with Deborah Elliott of Creative Consulting today to explain my concerns and she is looking in to it. The consultation period ends on the 10th so she may request a bit more time to resolve this issue.

Regards

Iain

Iain Farquharson

Senior Environmental Management Officer Babergh Mid Suffolk Council

01449 724878 / 07860 827027

[email protected]

From: Iain Farquharson Sent: 11 July 2017 11:42 To: James Platt Subject: M3 195148: 1582/17 Land N/E of Mill Lane SL_CC_P15-854_04 Renewable Energy Statement

James

The revised energy statement dated July 2017 (attached) has addressed my concerns regarding incorrect baseline and I am now satisfied.

Please ensure that a condition is included that requires the developer to implement the items to the level shown in this document .

Regards

Iain Farquharson

Senior Environmental Management Officer Babergh Mid Suffolk Council

01449 724878 / 07860 827027 [email protected]

From: Deborah Elliott (Create Consulting Engineers Ltd (London)) Sent: 05 July 2017 15:10 To: Iain Farquharson Cc: Alicja Kreglewska (Create Consulting Engineers Ltd (Norwich)) Subject: SL_CC_P15-854_04 Renewable Energy Statement

Dear Iain

Further to our conversation last Friday, we have reviewed and amended the Energy Statement for Stowmarket Business and Enterprise Park. Please find attached the revised report for your review.

I am going to be on holiday from tomorrow until 17 July, but please feel free to contact my colleague, Alicja, should you have any further questions.

Kind regards

Deborah

Deborah Elliott Principal Consultant

Create Consulting Engineers Ltd 109-112 Temple Chambers, 0207 822 2300 3-7 Temple Avenue, London, EC4Y 0HPT M 07740 174940

E [email protected] W www.createconsultingengineers.co.uk

Create Consulting Engineers Ltd is a registered company in England and Wales No. 6830694 Registered Office: 25 Church Close, South Walsham, Norwich, NR13 6DW

From: Iain Farquharson Sent: 30 June 2017 17:07 To: James Platt Subject: M3 195148. 1582/17. EH - Sustainability Issues. *Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane*

James

I am not happy with the renewables report I believe they are using an incorrect baseline figure for the calculation of the 10%.

At this moment in time I request that permission is not granted.

Regards

Iain

Consultation Response Pro forma

1 Application Number 1582/17 Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk 2 Date of Response 29/06/2017

3 Responding Officer Name: Rebecca Styles Job Title: Heritage Officer Responding on behalf of... Heritage 4 Summary and 1. The Heritage Team considers that the proposal Recommendation would have an effect on the setting of heritage assets (please delete those N/A) located around the application site. With only an indicative site layout, it is difficult to quantify or assess Note: This section must be the level of harm the proposed development may completed before the cause. The proposal for the development of existing response is sent. The farmland will have an effect on the setting of heritage recommendation should be assets adjacent to the application site. based on the information 2. If the decision maker is minded to approve this submitted with the outline application, we recommend that a reserved application. matters application mitigates the harm as identified in the archaeological assessment submitted in support of this scheme.

5 Discussion This application seeks outline planning permission for the Please outline the development of up to 13ha of land for business and reasons/rationale behind industrial development to the east of Mill Lane, Creeting how you have formed the St Peter. recommendation. Please refer to any The application site is located south of the A14, and to the guidance, policy or material east of the A1120, opposite the Cedars Park considerations that have development. informed your recommendation. As all matters except access are reserved, there is very little information available with this application to assess the level of harm the proposed development would cause. Harm could arise from scale, massing, design and the palette of materials proposed within the setting of the listed buildings around the site.

Notwithstanding the above, from the proposed layout plans submitted with this application, the Heritage team can offer the following comments.

The Clamp and Clamp Farm Cottages are both GII listed assets forming a historic farmstead to the south of the application site. Whilst some 300m away, as identified in the applicant’s archaeological assessment, the introduction of development so close to the north of the farmstead would have an effect on the isolated character of these historic assets. Whilst there has been some

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

erosion of the isolated setting of The Clamp and Clamp Farm Cottages through the construction of the A1120 and A14 adjacent to the site and maltings to the south, the Heritage team must consider the cumulative effect of large scale development within the setting of these listed buildings and the continued erosion of the isolated character of the farmstead.

With only an indicative masterplan to consider at this stage, it is difficult to assess the level of harm which the development might cause to the historic farmstead at The Clamp, but it is likely to be less than substantial.

The applicant’s archaeological assessment identifies other listed buildings within the 1km radius of the application site, and concludes that the proposed development would not harm the significance of these listed assets as the proposed development would not affect the contribution that setting makes to their significance. This is a reasonable conclusion, based on the limited amount of information available at this outline application stage.

If it is considered that the harm of this proposal on heritage assets would be outweighed by public benefit, a reserved matters application should seek to minimise the impact of the development on heritage assets.

This assessment has been made based on the information submitted with this application and indicative site plans. The assessment of possible level of harm is difficult to quantify, due to the limited information submitted. The proposal will affect the setting of heritage assets, and if approved, a reserved matters application should address the issues raised, in order to seek to reduce the impact of the proposal on the setting of heritage assets.

Decision-takers should be mindful of the specific legal duties of the local planning authority with respect to the special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, as set out in section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

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

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

7 Recommended conditions

rmSuffolk Your ref: 1582/17 � County Council Our ref: Creeting St Peter - land to the north east of Mill Lane Date: 20 June 2017 Enquiries to: Neil McManus Tel: 01473 264121 or 07973 640625 Email: [email protected]

Mr James Platt, Growth & Sustainable Planning, Mid Suffolk District Council, Council Offices, High Street, Needham Market, Ipswich, IP6 8DL

Dear James,

Creeting St Peter: land to the north east of Mill Lane - developer contributions

I refer to the outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & BS), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.

This application is covered by the 'Mill Lane, Stowmarket.(The Proposed Stowmarket Business & Enterprise Park) Development Brief' adopted as a supplementary planning document on 10 March 2014. The details and guidance set out within the Development Brief will be taken as material considerations when the Council determines any planning applications submitted in respect of the land allocated for employment purposes by the Stowmarket Area Action Plan. In addition, this application needs to be considered in conjunction with application 0371/15 which has a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the .prior completion of a planning obligation and the imposition of planning conditions.

I have copied to colleagues in highways, floods planning and archaeology as there will be matters they wish to comment on.

Yours sincerely,

I\Jell IVICManus BSc (Hons) MRICS Development Contributions Manager Resource Management - Strategic Development cc Chris Fish, Suffolk County Council Floods Planning, Suffolk County Council Archaeology Services, Suffolk County Council

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

1 Application Number 1584/17

2 Date of Response 10.07.17

3 Responding Officer Name: Hannah Bridges Job Title: Waste Management Officer Responding on behalf of... Waste Services 4 Recommendation No comment at this stage. (please delete those N/A)

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

5 Discussion Please outline the reasons/rationale behind how you have formed the recommendation. Please refer to any guidance, policy or material considerations that have informed your recommendation.

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

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

7 Recommended conditions

Comments for Planning Application 1582/17

Application Summary Application Number: 1582/17 Address: Land To The North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk Proposal: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha. Case Officer: James Platt

Customer Details Name: Mrs Jennie Blackburn Address: 1 All Saints Road, Creeting St Mary, Ipswich, Suffolk IP6 8NF

Comment Details Commenter Type: Parish Council Stance: Customer made comments in support of the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:Creeting St Peter Parish Council has no objection to this planning application.

1582/17 | Outline Planning Application- Land To The North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha. |

This development although situated outside of the East Suffolk Board Drainage District, results in the discharge of surface water run-off directly into our district via our main drain DRN186G0901 therefore the board’s bylaws apply. The location and extent of which can be viewed on our website at https://www.wlma.org.uk/uploads/ESIDB_186G_RGippingCentralN.pdf

Any proposed flows which will enter the Board’s district will need to be assessed by the Board’s Engineer. If the development will increase the rate and/or volume of water being discharged (compared to the status quo), an application will need to be made to the Board seeking consent under the terms of its Byelaw 3.

Following receipt of appropriate details regarding the development proposals – which will normally include a full design and calculations for the surface water systems, confirmation regarding their adoption and future maintenance, along with evidence of any third-party approvals that may be needed – the plans will be assessed by the Board’s Engineer.

If it is considered that a proposed increase in flows can be safely and adequately dealt with by the receiving waterbody and wider drainage network, then consent may be issued (although consent is not guaranteed to be given). Any permission granted by the Board would be subject to conditions, usually including entry into a legal agreement and the payment of a Surface Water Development Contribution to the Board.

Further details regarding the Board’s application procedure and associated payments which may become due are available on our website http://www.wlma.org.uk/east-suffolk-idb/development/ .

The Board also has a SuDS adoption policy available on our website https://www.wlma.org.uk/uploads/WMA_(Eastern)_SUDS_Adoption_Policy.pdf, which applies when requests are made for the Board to take on the future maintenance of sustainable drainage systems.

It is advised that the applicant and/or agent makes contact with the Board at their earliest convenience, in order to discuss how surface water run-off from the proposed development will be managed.

Sir Edward Greenwell (Chairman) Mr R J Pipe (Vice-Chairman)

Mr P J Camamile (Chief Executive)

Cert No. GB11990 Mr G Bloomfield (Catchment Engineer) Ms K Thomas (Project Cert No. GB11991 Manager) Mr P Roberts (Operations Engineer)

DEFENDERS OF THE LOWLAND ENVIRONMENT

From: planningconsultations [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 June 2017 12:01 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Subject: Planning Consultation Response - 1582/17

Our Ref: PC/17/274

Your Ref: 1582/17

F.A.O – Case Office – James Platt

Proposed: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.

Address: Land to the North East of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk

I acknowledge receipt of your email letter dated 19th June2017 regarding the above

Our records show that we do not have any apparatus located in the proposed development.

We have no objection to this development subject to compliance with our requirements, consent is given to the development on the condition that a water connection is made onto our Company network for the new dwelling for revenue purposes.

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully

Katie Pearce Planning Consultations

Telephone: 01268 664249 Email: [email protected]

Sandon Valley House, Canons Barns Road,, East Hanningfield, Essex, CM3 8BD Telephone: +44 (0) 345 782 0999 Ext. 32249 Fax: +44 (0) 1268 886 397 Website: www.eswater.co.uk

Developments Affecting Trunk Roads and Special Roads

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) Formal Recommendation to an Application for Planning Permission

From: Martin Fellows Operations (East) [email protected]

To: Mid Suffolk District Council

CC: [email protected] [email protected]

Council's Reference: 1582/17

Referring to the planning application referenced above, dated 20 June 2017, application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development, up to 540m2 floor area of use class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure and works, total proposed area 14.97ha, Land to the north east of Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk, notice is hereby given that Highways England’s formal recommendation is that we:

a) offer no objection;

b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A – Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

c) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A – further assessment required);

d) recommend that the application be refused (see Annex A – Reasons for recommending Refusal).

Highways Act Section 175B is / is not relevant to this application.1

1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.

Should you disagree with this recommendation you should consult the Secretary of State for Transport, as per the Town and Country Planning (Development Affecting Trunk Roads) Direction 2015, via [email protected].

Signature: Date: 14 August 2017

Name: David Abbott Position: Asset Manager

Highways England: Woodlands, Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW

[email protected]

Annex A Highways England recommended further assessment required

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND (“we”) has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to 1582/17 and has been prepared by David Abbott.

The proposed development comprises a range of industrial business and commercial development on an approximately 15Ha site close to junction 50 of the A14 at Stowmarket, Suffolk. The developer sought our pre-application advice during the spring of 2017 and following a series telephone conferences and emails that some re-profiling of the embankment adjacent to the J50 gyratory would be required for the purposes of creating adequate visibility approaching the proposed site access off the local road. Advice was also offered relating to assessing local trips that would

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016 need to perform u-turn manoeuvres around the J50 gyratory to access the proposed development.

Following a review of the developer’s transport assessment (TA) our advice regarding the visibility splay appears to have in part been incorporated onto the mitigation scheme plan. However, there appear to be no details of the works required to achieve this. In particular, the embankment affected by the visibility improvement is quite steep and to cut it back will either encroach onto that corner of the site or alternatively require the construction of a substantial retaining wall.

Also, it has not been possible to confirm from the TA that the local u-turners have been incorporated into the assessment as recommended within the pre-application advice.

We previously recommended that this application be not determined before 18 August 2017. However, the above matters have not yet been resolved. We therefore recommend that this application be not determined before 29 September 2017. This should hopefully provide sufficient time for the applicant’s transport advisers to provide this additional information and for us to review it.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

Developments Affecting Trunk Roads and Special Roads

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) Formal Recommendation to an Application for Planning Permission

From: Martin Fellows Operations (East) [email protected]

To: Mid Suffolk District Council

CC: [email protected] [email protected]

Council's Reference: 1582/17

Referring to the planning application referenced above, dated 20 June 2017, application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development, up to 540m2 floor area of use class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha, Land to the North East of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk, notice is hereby given that Highways England’s formal recommendation is that we:

a) offer no objection;

b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A – Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

c) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A – further assessment required);

d) recommend that the application be refused (see Annex A – Reasons for recommending Refusal).

Highways Act Section 175B is / is not relevant to this application.1

1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.

Signature: Date: 16 October 2017

Name: David Abbott Position: Asset Manager

Highways England: Woodlands, Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW

[email protected]

Annex A Highways England recommended Planning Conditions

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long- term operation and integrity.

This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to 1582/17 and has been prepared by David Abbott.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016 need to perform u-turn manoeuvres around the J50 gyratory to access the proposed development.

Following a review of the developer’s transport assessment (TA) our advice regarding the visibility splay now appears to have been incorporated onto the mitigation scheme plan. Appropriate consideration has also been given to the additional U-turners expected as a result of the proposed development. We are now confident therefore that, subject to the mitigation measures now proposed as part of the application it is unlikely to result in a severe impact on the SRN.

We therefore recommend that a condition be attached to any planning as per the following:

 No part of the proposed development shall come into beneficial use until the works indicated on the applicant’s drawing reference E14/1180/03/001 Rev. E (or subsequent version approved in writing by the local planning authority) are complete.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

Developments Affecting Trunk Roads and Special Roads

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) Formal Recommendation to an Application for Planning Permission

From: Martin Fellows Operations (East) [email protected]

To: Mid Suffolk District Council

CC: [email protected] [email protected]

Council's Reference: 1582/17

Referring to the planning application referenced above, dated 19 June 2017, application for the construction of 13 Ha of business and industrial development (use class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 of Class A4, up to 425m2 of Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure on land to the north east of Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk, notice is hereby given that Highways England’s formal recommendation is that we:

a) offer no objection;

b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A – Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

c) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A – further assessment required);

d) recommend that the application be refused (see Annex A – Reasons for recommending Refusal).

Highways Act Section 175B is / is not relevant to this application.1

1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.

Signature: Date: 28 September 2017

Name: David Abbott Position: Asset Manager

Highways England: Woodlands, Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW

[email protected]

Annex A Highways England recommended further assessment required

This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to 1582/17 and has been prepared by David Abbott.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016 need to perform u-turn manoeuvres around the J50 gyratory to access the proposed development.

Following a review of the developer’s transport assessment (TA) our advice regarding the visibility splay appears to have been incorporated onto the mitigation scheme plan. However, there were some anomalies in the junction modelling that the developer’s team have had to address. Their updated information has only just been submitted to us and therefore we need a little extra time to review it.

We therefore recommend that this application be not determined before 20 October 2017. This should provide sufficient time for us to undertake the said review. We may be in a position to reach our conclusions sooner than this and therefore may be able to withdraw this recommendation and submit our final recommendation at that time.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

Developments Affecting Trunk Roads and Special Roads

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) Formal Recommendation to an Application for Planning Permission

From: Martin Fellows Operations (East) [email protected]

To: Mid Suffolk District Council

CC: [email protected] [email protected]

Council's Reference: 1582/17

a) offer no objection;

b) recommend that conditions should be attached to any planning permission that may be granted (see Annex A – Highways England recommended Planning Conditions);

c) recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (see Annex A – further assessment required);

d) recommend that the application be refused (see Annex A – Reasons for recommending Refusal).

Highways Act Section 175B is / is not relevant to this application.1

1 Where relevant, further information will be provided within Annex A.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

This represents Highways England formal recommendation and is copied to the Department for Transport as per the terms of our Licence.

Signature: Date: 11 July 2017

Name: David Abbott Position: Asset Manager

Highways England: Woodlands, Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW

[email protected]

Annex A Highways England recommended further assessment required

This response represents our formal recommendations with regards to 1582/17 and has been prepared by David Abbott.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016 need to perform u-turn manoeuvres around the J50 gyratory to access the proposed development.

Following a review of the developer’s transport assessment (TA) our advice regarding the visibility splay appears to have been incorporated onto the mitigation scheme plan. However, there appear to be no details of the works required to achieve this. In particular, the embankment affected by the visibility improvement is quite steep and to cut it back will either encroach onto that corner of the site or alternatively require the construction of a substantial retaining wall.

Also, we have not been able to confirm from the TA that the local u-turners have been incorporated into the assessment.

We therefore recommend that this application be not determined before 18 August 2017. This should provide sufficient time for the applicant’s transport advisers to provide this additional information and for us to review it.

Highways England Planning Response (HEPR 16-01) January 2016

From:Haynes, Jack (NE) Sent:10 Jul 2017 13:28:30 +0100 To:BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Subject:FAO James Platt

Dear Mr Platt,

Application ref: 1582/17 Our ref: 218827

Natural England has no comments to make on this application.

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

Jack

Jack Haynes Lead Adviser Norfolk & Suffolk Area Team Natural England Dragonfly House, 2 Gilders Way Norwich, NR3 1UB

Tel: 0208 02 64857 Mob: 07825 856174 www.gov.uk/natural-england

We are here to secure a healthy natural environment for people to enjoy, where wildlife is protected and England's traditional landscapes are safeguarded for future generations.

In an effort to reduce Natural England's carbon footprint, I will, wherever possible, avoid travelling to meetings and attend via audio, video or web conferencing.

Natural England offers two chargeable services - the Discretionary Advice Service (DAS), which provides pre-application and post-consent advice on planning/licensing proposals to developers and consultants, and the Pre-submission Screening Service (PSS) for European Protected Species mitigation licence applications. These services help applicants take appropriate account of environmental considerations at an early stage of project development, reduce uncertainty, the risk of delay and added cost at a later stage, whilst securing good results for the natural environment.

This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the sender. Whilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes. Network Rail Consultation -

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for consulting Network Rail with regards to the Reference 1582/17.

After reviewing the information provided in relation to the above planning application, Network Rail has no objection or further observations to make.

Thank you.

Kind Regards,

Wasil Khan Town Planning Technician, Property

Network Rail 5th Floor 1 Eversholt Street London NW1 2DN Tel: 07734 648485 E:[email protected]

11 October 2017

James Platt Mid Suffolk District Council Council Offices 131 High Street Needham Market Ipswich IP6 8DL

By email only

Dear James

Application: 1582/17 Location: Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk Proposal: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.

Reason(s) for re-consultation: See EN019-08 Mill Lane, Stowmarket, Suffolk – Breeding Bird Survey for Skylark received 11.9.17

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

No objection subject to conditions to secure ecological mitigation and enhancements.

There is now sufficient ecological information available to understand the impacts of development on Priority Habitats eg hedgerows and Protected and Priority species, particularly farmland birds. With implementation of the ecological mitigation measures, and the biodiversity enhancements secured, I am satisfied that this development will be acceptable.

It is necessary to secure off-site compensation for loss of nesting habitat for farmland birds and the applicant has confirmed that land within their control is available for delivery of this provision (see Appendix D, Breeding Bird Survey report – enims, Sept 2017).

Recommendations The mitigation measures identified in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment report (enims, June 2016), Bat Roost Survey Report (enims, Oct 2016) and Breeding Bird Survey survey report (enims, Sept 2017) should be secured and implemented in full. This is necessary to conserve and enhance Protected species, particularly bats, and Priority Species eg. skylarks.

Impacts will be minimised such that the proposal is acceptable subject to the conditions below based on BS42020:2013. In terms of biodiversity net gain, the enhancements proposed will contribute to this aim.

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

I. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: COMPLIANCE WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF ALL ECOLOGICAL REPORTS “All ecological mitigation and reasonable enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment report (enims, June 2016), Bat Roost Survey Report (enims, Oct 2016) and Breeding Bird Survey report (enims, Sept 2017) as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.”

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

II. CONCURRENT WITH RESERVED MATTERS: LIGHTING DESIGN SCHEME “Prior to occupation, a lighting design scheme for biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall identify those features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance along important routes used for foraging; and show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory.

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

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

Please contact me with any queries.

Best wishes

Sue Hooton CEnv MCIEEM BSc (Hons) Principal Ecological Consultant Place Services at Essex County Council [email protected] Place Services provide ecological advice on behalf of Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils Please note: This letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to this particular matter. Place Services Essex County Council County Hall, Chelmsford Essex, CM1 1QH

T: 0333 013 6840 www.placeservices.co.uk @PlaceServices

Planning Services Mid Suffolk District Council, 131 High Street, Needham Market, Suffolk IP6 8DL

04/10/2017

For the attention of: James Platt

Ref: 1582/17; Land to the North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk

Thank you for consulting us on the Outline Planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.This letter sets out our consultation response on the Landscape Strategy and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Annex submitted on the 25/09/17

Review on the submitted information Relevant to this landscape review, the submitted information now includes a Landscape Strategy and Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Annex. Both documents provide sufficient details about how the proposal links in with the surrounding context of the site and how the site will still have suitable levels of landscaping.

Recommendations It is still recommended the following recommendations are required by the applicant:

1) If approved, a detailed landscape planting plan, landscape maintenance plan and specification, (which clearly sets out the existing and proposed planting), will need to be submitted as part of a planning condition. We recommend a landscape maintenance plan for the minimum of 3 years, (ideally 5 years) to support plant establishment. 2) If the application is approved, a detailed boundary treatment plan and specification will need to be submitted as part of a planning condition.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan Mills BSc (Hons) Landscape Consultant Telephone: 03330320591 Email: [email protected]

N.B. This letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to the particular matter.

Place Services is a traded service of Essex County Council

Place Services Essex County Council County Hall, Chelmsford Essex, CM1 1QH

T: 0333 013 6840 www.placeservices.co.uk @PlaceServices

Planning Services Mid Suffolk District Council, 131 High Street, Needham Market, Suffolk IP6 8DL

10/07/2017

For the attention of: James Platt

Ref: 1582/17; Land to the North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter, Suffolk

Thank you for consulting us on the Outline Planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.This letter sets out our consultation response on the landscape and landscape impact of the outline planning application and how the proposal relates and responds to the landscape setting and context of the site.

Recommendations In terms of the likely visual effect on the surrounding landscape, the proposal will inevitably have an impact on the existing character of Creeting St Peter.

The following points highlight our key recommendations on required information by the applicant:

1) A landscape strategy needs to be produced which demonstrates how the proposal links in with the surrounding context of the site and how the site will still have suitable levels of landscaping. The submitted Design and Access statement (Ref: 1582_17-DESIGN_ACCESS_STATEMENT- 1735847) fails to demonstrate this to an adequate level of detail. The submitted landscape strategy should include the following sections:

a. Context and character b. Landscape Design strategy c. Landscape masterplan (Inc. visuals/perspectives) d. SUDs strategy e. Boundary treatments (Inc. sections) f. Hard landscaping Strategy g. Tree Strategy h. Planting Strategy

2) A detailed landscape planting plan, landscape maintenance plan and specification, (which clearly sets out the existing and proposed planting), will need to be submitted as part of a planning condition, if the application is approved. We recommend a landscape maintenance plan for the minimum of 3 years, (ideally 5 years) to support plant establishment. The landscape treatment around the site entrances and boundaries will need to be designed carefully to fit in with surrounding vegetation and character. 3) A detailed boundary treatment plan and specification will need to be submitted as part of a planning condition, if the application is approved.

Place Services is a traded service of Essex County Council

The proposal The submitted information seeks for consultation on an Outline Planning application with all matters reserved except access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha.

The Site is set within a largely rural area on the edge of Stowmarket. It comprises of approximately 21.4 hectares of land situated between the A14 to the north and the site of phase 1 of the Stowmarket Business & Enterprise Park to the south. A parcel of woodland is located to the east of the application site and scrub habitat is present on the embankments of the adjacent A14 and A1120.

Review on the submitted information Relevant to this landscape review, the submitted information includes a Design and Access Statement, Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, and Landscape Masterplan.

The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment has been produced to the appropriate guidance with suitable viewpoints shown. The report suggests that ‘Extensive new tree and woodland planting along the boundaries of the Site will reinforce the wooded skylines that are characteristics of this area, screening the new development in close and long views’. Because of this, it would be expected that an appropriate boundary treatment plan is provided as well as an extensive planting plan and schedule.

The Design and Access statement provides clear computer generated visuals of the site, as well as descriptive information about the sites design. However it would be suggested that a Landscape Strategy is provided to better describe the landscape elements on site, and how the sites character and context is going to influence the material choices and overall landscape design.

Furthermore, the Landscape Masterplan clearly shows the sites landscape features at an illustrative level including attenuation ponds, planting and pedestrian links. If the application is approved, it would be expected that a further detailed landscape plan is provided with material specifications and planting schedules.

Proposed mitigation The illustrative proposal shows areas of water attenuation on the south west and north east edge of the proposed development. As part of this feature, there are opportunities to include areas of habitat creation with the introduction of an appropriate planting.

As stated previously, an appropriately detailed landscape and boundary plan will be required to support the application to both address the constraints and planning requirements and provide a comprehensive landscape proposal, suitable to limit any negative visual effect the proposal may have on the surrounding landscape.

Hopefully you find these recommendations insightful and if you have any queries please contact us.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan Mills BSc (Hons) Landscape Consultant Telephone: 03330320591 Email: [email protected]

N.B. This letter is advisory and should only be considered as the opinion formed by specialist staff in relation to the particular matter.

Place Services is a traded service of Essex County Council

The Archaeological Service ______

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

Philip Isbell Corporate Manager - Development Manager Planning Services Mid Suffolk District Council 131 High Street Needham Market Ipswich IP6 8DL

Enquiries to: Hannah Cutler Direct Line: 01284 741232 Email: [email protected] Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Our Ref: 2017_1582 Date: 03 Jul. 17

For the Attention of James Platt

Dear Mr Isbell

Planning Application 1582/17 – Land to the North East of Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter

This site lies in an area of high archaeological potential as suggested by the County Historic Environment Record (HER). Previous field walking along the northern edge of the site found sherds of Iron Age Pottery (CRP 009) and to the South Archaeological evaluation trenching revealed prehistoric features, ranging in date from the Middle Neolithic to Medieval across the site. Iron Age features are likely to be related to the settlement at Cedars Park (SUP 020). Thus, there is high potential for the discovery of below-ground heritage assets of archaeological importance within this area, and groundworks associated with the development have the potential to damage or destroy any archaeological remains which exist.

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

In this case the following two conditions would be appropriate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further details on our advisory services and charges can be found on our website: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/archaeology/

Please do get in touch if there is anything that you would like to discuss or you require any further information.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Hannah Cutler

Archaeological Officer Conservation Team

From: RM Floods Planning Sent: 11 July 2017 07:28 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Cc: James Platt Subject: 2017-07-11 JS reply Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter Ref 1582/17

Dear James Platt,

Subject: Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter Ref 1582/17

Suffolk County Council, Flood and Water Management have reviewed application ref 1582/17

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

1. Site location Plan ref 4804-105 2. Flood Risk Assessment ref 161273 3. Indicative Masterplan ref 4804-103

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

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

The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Informatives

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

Kind Regards

Jason Skilton Flood & Water Engineer Suffolk County Council

Tel: 01473 260411 Fax: 01473 216864

Your Ref: MS/1582/17 Our Ref: 570\CON\3376\17 Date: 21st November 2017

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

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

For the Attention of: Gemma Walker

Dear Gemma

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 - CONSULTATION RETURN MS/1582/17

PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha. LOCATION: Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter ROAD CLASS:

Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highway Authority does not object to the proposal subject to a S278 Agreement to its satisfaction and inclusion of the conditions shown below on any permission granted.

1 AL 4 Condition: No other part of the development shall be commenced until the new vehicular access has been laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with Drawing No. E14-1180 03/001E, thereafter the access shall be retained in the specified form. Reason: To ensure that the access is designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and is brought into use before any other part of the development is commenced in the interests of highway safety.

2 DRAINAGE Condition: Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

3 ER 1 Condition: Before the development is commenced, details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including phasing, layout, levels, gradients, surfacing and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.

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

4 HGV1 Condition: Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a Construction Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include the following matters: a) parking and turning for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors b) loading and unloading of plant and materials c) piling techniques d) storage of plant and materials e) programme of works (including measures for traffic management and operating hours) f) provision of boundary hoarding and lighting g) details of proposed means of dust suppression h) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction I) haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network and j) monitoring and review mechanisms. K) Details of deliveries times to the site during construction phase

5 RSA Condition: The highway element of the development shall not commence until the Road Safety Audit Stage 2 process has been carried out in accordance with the Suffolk County Council Road Safety Audit Practice and Guidance and any necessary amendments or changes undertaken. The development shall not be [occupied / open for public access] until any requirements under stage 3 of the Road Safety Audit have been completed or a programme of remedial works has been agreed. Reason: To make provision for any road improvements which may become necessary in the future.

6 SECTION 278 Condition - The works within the public highway will be required to be designed and constructed in accordance with the County Council's specification. The applicant will also be required to enter into a legal agreement under the provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 relating to the construction and subsequent adoption of the highway improvements. The works include the vehicular access and cycle and pedestrian provision on Mill Road as Drawing No 854/03/010. The applicant is to pay £15,000 and enter into an agreement for SCC to make the Traffic Regulation Order for the proposed 50mph speed limit on the A1120 and diversion of public footpath FP01. Once an order has been made and implemented any unspent balance will be returned within 12 months. Any retaining features in the highway are to be agreed in principle with SCC structures section. Amongst other things the Agreement will cover the specification of the highway works, safety audit procedures, construction and supervision and inspection of the works, bonding arrangements, indemnity of the County Council regarding noise insulation and land compensation claims, commuted sums, and changes to the existing street lighting and signing.

7 PROW Condition - Public Footpath 1 is recorded through the proposed development area and will be affected by this proposal, refer to attached map. To enable the development to go ahead as the indicative layout shows, FP1 must be diverted to prevent an illegal obstruction therefore an order must be made, confirmed, and brought into effect by the local planning authority, using powers under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Please note, the public right of way cannot be lawfully driven along or diverted without due authority. This highway must remain unobstructed at all times. It is an offence to disturb the surface of the highway so as to render it inconvenient for public use. Therefore it is imperative that the surface is properly maintained for pedestrian use during the construction phase and beyond. The Highway Authority will seek to recover the cost of any such damage which it actions for repair.

8 P 2 Condition: Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the [LOADING, UNLOADING,] manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including electric vehicle charging points, powered two vehicle provision, secure cycle storage (for both employees and customers) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose.

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

Reason: To ensure the provision and long term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.

9 WTP Condition: To ensure there is sufficient resource for Suffolk County Council to engage with the Travel Plan and there are certainties that the Travel Plan will be implemented in full; therefore, Travel Plan Evaluation and Support Contribution is required at £1,000 per annum from occupation of the first commercial unit for a minimum of five years, or one year after occupation of the final commercial unit, whichever is the longest duration. This is to cover Suffolk County Council officer time working with the Transport Management Association and site-wide Travel Plan Coordinator and agreeing new targets and objectives throughout the full duration of the travel plan. If the contribution is not paid Suffolk County Council may not be able to provide sufficient resource to assisting the ongoing implementation and monitoring of the travel plan, which may result in the failure of the Travel Plan to mitigate the highway impact of this development.

10 PHASING Condition: Concurrent with the submission of any reserved matters applications for the access through the site to Mill Lane and to Phase 1 details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the proposed Phase 2 access arrangements linking with Phase 1. Details shall include the alterations for the proposed ‘T-junction’ access serving commercial premises on the west, and a timescale for implementation of the details, which shall be implemented in full in accordance with the agreed details prior to the linked access to Phase 1 first being made available. Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure the approved layout is properly constructed and laid out and to avoid multiple accesses which would be detrimental to highway safety.

Yours sincerely

Sam Harvey Senior Development Management Engineer Strategic Development

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

From: RM PROW Planning Sent: 25 July 2017 15:11 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Cc: Kevin Verlander; [email protected] Subject: RE: Planning Consultation Request - 1582/17

Our Ref: W209/001/ROW406/17

For The Attention of: James Platt

Public Rights of Way Response

Thank you for your consultation concerning the above application, apologies for the late response.

Government guidance considers that the effect of development on a public right of way is a material consideration in the determination of applications for planning permission and local planning authorities should ensure that the potential consequences are taken into account whenever such applications are considered (Rights of Way Circular 1/09 – Defra October 2009, para 7.2) and that public rights of way should be protected.

Public Footpath 1 is recorded through the proposed development area and will be affected by this proposal, refer to attached map. To enable the development to go ahead as the indicative layout shows, FP1 must be diverted to prevent an illegal obstruction of the route. Your attention is drawn to Note 1 below.

Informative Notes

The granting of planning permission is separate to any consents that may be required in relation to Public Rights of Way, including the authorisation of gates. These consents are to be obtained from the Public Rights of Way & Access Team at Suffolk County Council, as the Highway Authority.

To apply to carry out work on the Public Right of Way or seek a temporary closure, visit http://www.suffolkpublicrightsofway.org.uk/home/temporary-closure-of-a-public-right-of- way/ or telephone 0345 606 6071.

To apply for structures, such as gates, on a Public Rights of Way, visit http://www.suffolkpublicrightsofway.org.uk/home/land-manager-information/ or telephone 0345 606 6071.

1. Nothing should be done to stop up or divert the Public Right of Way without following the due legal process including confirmation of any orders and the provision of any new path. If you wish to build upon, block, divert or extinguish a public right of way within the red lined area marked in the application, an order must be made, confirmed, and brought into effect by the local planning authority, using powers under s257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In order to avoid delays with the application this should be considered at an early opportunity.

2. The alignment, width, and condition of Public Rights of Way providing for their safe and convenient use shall remain unaffected by the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Rights of Way & Access Team; any damage resulting from these works must be made good by the applicant.

3. Under Section 167 of the Highways Act 1980 any structural retaining wall within 3.66 metres of the Public Right of Way with a retained height in excess of 1.37 metres must not be constructed without the prior approval of drawings & specifications by Suffolk County Council. The process to be followed to gain approval will depend on the nature and complexity of the proposals. Applicants are strongly encouraged to discuss preliminary proposals at an early stage, such that the likely acceptability of any proposals can be determined, and the process to be followed can be clarified.

Construction of any retaining wall or structure that supports the Public Right of Way or is likely to affect the stability of the right of way may also need prior approval at the discretion of Suffolk County Council.

4. If the Public Right of Way is temporarily affected by works which will require it to be closed, a Traffic Regulation Order will need to be sought from Suffolk County Council.

5. The applicant must have private rights to take motorised vehicles over the Public Right of Way. Without lawful authority it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take a motorised vehicle over a Public Right of Way other than a byway. We do not keep records of private rights and suggest a solicitor is contacted.

. Public footpath – only to be used by people on foot, or using a mobility vehicle. . Public bridleway – in addition to people on foot, bridleways may also be used by someone on a horse or someone riding a bicycle. . Restricted byway – has similar status to a bridleway, but can also be used by a ‘non- motorised vehicle’, for example a horse and carriage. . Byway open to all traffic (BOAT) – can be used by all vehicles, including motorised vehicles as well as people on foot, on horse or on a bicycle. In some cases, there may be a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting forms of use.

6. Public Rights of Way & Access is not responsible for maintenance and repair of the route beyond the wear and tear of normal use for its status and it will seek to recover the costs of any such damage it is required to remedy.

7. There may be other public rights of way that exist over this land that have not been registered on the Definitive Map. These paths are either historical paths that were never claimed under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, or paths that have been created by public use giving the presumption of dedication by the land owner whether under the Highways Act 1980 or by Common Law. This office is not aware of any such claims.

More information about Public Rights of Way can be found at www.suffolkpublicrightsofway.org.uk

Regards

Jackie Gillis Green Access Officer Access Development Team Rights of Way and Access Resource Management, Suffolk County Council Endeavour House (Floor 5, Block 1), 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, IP1 2BX   http://www.suffolkpublicrightsofway.org.uk/ | Report A Public Right of Way Problem Here

Your Ref: MS/1582/17 Our Ref: 570\CON\2174\17 Date: 2nd August 2017 Highways Enquiries to: [email protected]

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

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

For the Attention of: James

Dear James

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 CONSULTATION RETURN MS/1582/17

PROPOSAL: Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works, total proposed area 14.97ha LOCATION: Land To The North East Of, Mill Lane, Creeting St Peter ROAD CLASS: Further to our letter regarding this application, please find below comments from the Travel Plan officer:

The Framework Travel Plan (dated April 2107) that was submitted to support the Transport Assessment (also dated April 2017) does have some issues and does not overarch with the Transport Assessment in-line with the 2014 Planning Practice Guidance. The following comments below need to be taken into account by the applicant and addressed in a revised Travel Plan that will need to be submitted prior to the determination of the application:

• The proposed pedestrian and cycle links to the site would have some benefits to the encouraging potential employees that live in the Cedars Park area to travel by active means to the site. However it will provide very few benefits for encouraging bus travel to the site, as the nearest bus stop is over 750 metres from the proposed access point to the development, in addition to the services not being suitable for commuting purposes, due to their limited frequency. The Travel Plan did identify that there will be discussions with a public transport operator when the site is occupied. However this will be too late, therefore these discussions should take place sooner to establish if the bus can be a viable method of transport to the site, as they may wish to comment on the final layout of the site to see if they can allow a bus to go through the site, or provide services that suit the working patterns of employees on the site.

• A shuttle bus measure should be investigated to provide a frequent link to the trains that serve Stowmarket rail station, as the existing bus services do not provide suitable connections with the trains. Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

• The 2011 Census data for the site (Table 3.2) is irrelevant as it is ‘travel to work’ data for the residents that live in the Cedars Park area, not the employees. The Nomis “Method of travel to work by age” for the most relevant middle layer must be used instead.

• There is no reference to how the trip generation (Tables 4.1 and 4.2) has been worked out for the B1, B2 and B8 uses in either the Travel Plan or Transport Assessment. Also the AM peak trips for a drive-thru restaurant seems very low, as the AM peak is likely to have a lot of breakfast trade. This must be included in a revised Travel Plan and Transport Assessment, as the Travel Plan targets must be linked to them.

• The committed development included in the highway modelling does not take into account the commercial sites at Gun Cotton Way.

• The proposed employee newsletters should be distributed more frequently than every six months. The newsletter commitment does not mention if both electronic and paper copies will be distributed to employees, as it is likely that not all of the employees will have access to a computer.

• The Travel Plan monitoring period must be based around the phasing of the development, as the site may not be fully built out within five years. The Transport Assessment is based around the full build-out of the site, so the Travel Plan’s monitoring which provides direct comparisons with the highway impact and modelling. If the highway impact is greater than predicted the Travel Plan provides the mitigation through increased measures to encourage employees to travel sustainably to bring the trips in line with what was predicted in the Transport Assessment. Therefore a minimum monitoring and implementation requirement from first occupation until five years after occupation of the final commercial unit is needed. The developer will be fully responsible for resourcing the Travel Plan for this period.

• There is no reference to promoting the use of Suffolk Car Share as a measure to encourage car sharing among staff

• The 15% reduction in single occupancy vehicle travel target is not very specific, as it does not take into account the trip rate in the Transport Assessment. Also the 15% reduction target will be very difficult to measure and compare against the proposed trip rate using just the employee surveys. The traffic count monitoring will require further work, as it should be undertaken over a two week period avoiding school and public holidays, to obtain a suitable average trip rate. Further work will be needed to develop a suitable Travel Plan target that links in to the overarching principles of Travel Plans and Transport Assessments that is included in the 2014 Planning Practice Guidance. The Travel Plan also mentions that 50% of occupation will trigger the initial Travel Plan monitoring. This is not acceptable as quite a considerable part of the development will be built-out before any revised measures can be agreed. The monitoring trigger point must be revised to six months after occupation of the first commercial unit, which will also link in with producing a Full Travel Plan for the whole development.

• The Travel Plan Costs (Table 10.1) seem very low for a development that is going to employ a considerable number of employees over a long period of time, in addition to providing further measures as the Travel Plan evolves.

A revised Travel Plan that takes into account the comments raised above, should ideally be submitted for approval prior to the determination on the application.

These revisions need to comply with National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 32, which sets out that plans and decisions should take account of whether: • the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. • improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk IP1 2BX www.suffolk.gov.uk

Other relevant paragraphs include 34, 35 and 36 as well as the “Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-taking” section of the 2014 Planning Practice Guidance.

In addition, a travel plan of sufficient quality will also support Core Strategy Objectives SO3 and SO6 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2008) and Core Strategy Focused Review (2012).

Yours faithfully

Samantha Harvey Senior Highway Development Control Engineer Strategic Development – Resource Management

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

Growth and Sustainable Planning Mid Suffolk District Council 131 High Street Needham Market Ipswich IP6 8DL

10 July 2017

Dear Sirs

1582/17 | Outline Planning Application with all matters reserved except Access for up to 13ha of business and industrial development (use Class B1a, B1b, B1c, B2 & B8), up to 540m2 floor area of use Class A4, up to 425m2 floor area of use Class A3/A5 and associated infrastructure & works | Land To The North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk

We wish to lodge our objections to this planning application:-

The application covers part of a strategic commercial expansion area for Stowmarket covered by a development brief. One main issue is whether this Phase 2 should be allowed to proceed in advance of Phase 1. The whole lot will get developed eventually, but access requirements in particular probably mean that it is undesirable for Phase 2 to go ahead now as it will compromise the access arrangements set out in the development brief. The independent left-in-left-out access proposal off the A1120 is undesirable and much inferior to original proposal that all access should be taken off the existing roundabout.

If this arrangement IS acceptable then there should surely be some requirement for an ultimate integration of the layout with Phase 1, so that in future vehicles can move around this combined area without to-ing and fro-ing on to the A road. This will probably necessitate building a link road right up to Mill Lane, though keeping the junction closed to lorries, until the final connection can be made to Phase 1. Any closure of Mill Lane to traffic must surely await the provision of the alternative route through Phase 1.

There is no justification for the Pub/Hotel or drive-through food outlets, and these uses were not included in the development brief. They are unrelated to any residential area, poorly related to the town as a whole and no pressing need for these services in relation to the A14 is made. The site on Cedars park opposite Tesco is much to be preferred. Mid Suffolk District Council 10 July 2017 Page 2 of 2

The poor drawings do not convey any impression of high quality architecture – this is of course a “detailed” matter, but it does not bode well for that stage.

Yours faithfully

J Pattle Secretary

The Stowmarket Society, 19 Bond Street, Stowmarket, IP14 1HR A Founder Member of Civic Voice From: Michelle Marshall [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 July 2017 17:26 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Blue Subject: Planning applications

Please see below for comments from Stowmarket Town Council regarding recent planning applications:

1377/17

No objection be raised to the grant of planning consent. 1582/17 No objection be raised to the grant of planning consent.

1836/17 No objection be raised to the grant of planning consent.

DC/17/02115 No objection be raised to the grant of planning consent.

DC/17/02212 No objection be raised to the grant of planning consent.

DC/17/02418 & DC/17/02419 That no objection be raised to the grant of planning consent, subject to the satisfactory re- instatement of the frontage, including fascias, following the removal of signage, other branding and ATM.

DC/17/02755 The Town Council wishes to re-iterate its points raised in respect of planning application 3112/15. i) The proposed development would have a serious detrimental effect on local infrastructure services including:  Education;  Health provision;  Open space, sport and recreational provision;  Library services; and  Sewerage and drainage. ii) The proposed development would have a serious detrimental effect on the local road networks.

Kind regards, Michelle

Michelle Marshall Deputy Town Clerk

Stowmarket Town Council Milton House I Milton Road South I Stowmarket I Suffolk I IP14 1EZ

Phil Kemp Design Out Crime Officer Bury St Edmunds Police Station Suffolk Constabulary Raynegate Street, Bury St Edmunds Suffolk Tel: 01284 774141 www.suffolk.police.uk

Planning Application (1582/17 ) SITE: Land To The North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk for up to 13ha of business and industrial development Applicant: Carter Jonas Planning Officer: Ms Gemma Walker The crime prevention advice is given without the intention of creating a contract. Neither the Home Office nor Police Service accepts any legal responsibility for the advice given. Fire Prevention advice, Fire Safety certificate conditions, Health & Safety Regulations and safe working practices will always take precedence over any crime prevention issue. Recommendations included in this document have been provided specifically for this site and take account of the information available to the Police or supplied by you. Where recommendations have been made for additional security, it is assumed that products are compliant with the appropriate standard and competent installers will carry out the installation as per manufacturer guidelines. Suppliers of suitably accepted products can be obtained by visiting www.securedbydesign.com.

Dear Ms Walker

Thank you for allowing me to provide an input for the above Outline Planning Application for the proposed development up to 13ha of business and industrial development at Land to the North East Of Mill Lane Creeting St Peter Suffolk.

On behalf of Suffolk Constabulary, I have previously commented on planning application number 4556/16, with regard to planning application for 48 residential properties and 3 commercial units, namely a Costa Coffee, MacDonald’s and Marston’s Public House on Gun Cotton Way, Cedars Park, Stowmarket.

I stated there were no objections to that application, similarly there are none to this application.

However, as pointed out within that previous application, I wish to reiterate that this general area around the nearby large local supermarket car park and the convenient access to the near-by dual carriage way into Stowmarket and the A14, has historically and repeatedly suffered from Anti-Social Behaviour from Boy Racers/Car Cruising, which Suffolk Police on numerous occasions have been called out to deal with.

I realise this is an outline planning application, but I would like to see the road design layout for this development broken up into different shadings and textures, in order to hopefully make motorists slow down and drive responsibly within that area.

I understand that this area could be a twenty four hour access area, but I would like to see a security barrier placed by the proposed entrance and securely closed after trading hours.

I would also recommend a suitable Automated Number Plate Reader (ANPR) camera is installed at the entrance to monitor activity and act as a good reassurance measure to valid users of the site and act as an evidence gathering feature. NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED RESTRICTED /CONFIDENTIAL

One of the main aims stated in the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Core Strategy Development Plan Document of 2008 (updated in 2012) at Section 1, para 1.19 under Local Development Framework and Community Strategy states:

A safe community: Protect the environment from pollution, flooding and other natural and man- made disasters; reduce the level of crime; discourage re-offending; overcome the fear of crime; and provide a safe and secure environment.

Section 17 outlines the responsibilities placed on local authorities to prevent crime and dis-order.

The National Planning Policy Frame work on planning policies and decisions to create safe and accessible environments, laid out in paragraphs 58 and 69 of the framework, emphasises that developments should create safe and accessible environments where the fear of crime should not undermine local quality of life or community cohesion.

1.1 vehicular and pedestrian routes should be designed to ensure that they are visually open, direct, well used and should not undermine the defensible space of neighbourhoods. Design features can help to identify the acceptable routes through a development thereby encouraging their use and in doing so enhance the feeling of safety.

1.2 There are advantages in some road layout patterns over others, especially where the pattern frustrates the searching behaviour of the criminal and his need to escape. Whilst it is accepted that through routes will be included in developments such as this, the designers must ensure that the security of the development is not compromised by excessive permeability, for instance allowing an offender legitimate criminal access to the rear or side boundaries of a dwelling, as is the case in the design.

1.3 The parking areas seem to be well laid out, but I would like to see a lighting plan for that area . The lighting should be to Secure By Design (SBD) principles and meet BS 5489- 1:2013 standards.

1.4 It is important that the boundary between public and private areas is clearly indicated, with good natural surveillance between all units and vehicle parking as preferred by police SBD principles.

2.0 Recommendations in General

2.1 As I do not have the full details of the design for these units I am unable to comment further, however, I strongly recommend the units are designed along Secure By Design guide lines, through SBD commercial 2015 Version 2, as per this link. http://www.securedbydesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/SBD_Commercial_2015_V2.pdf

2.2 With regard to the perimeter I note that the north-east-and southern boundaries will comprise of a continuous banked mound, with trees planted at the base of these mounds. Accompanied by further tree planting and vegetation all around the development. 2.3 Boundaries fall into three main categories:

a) Psychological: intended to psychologically define ownership of space and distinguish between private and public land using features such as rumble strips, change of road surface (by colour or texture), road markings, and landscaping.

b) Controlled: Normally a low fence, wall, hedge or other boundary treatment intended to be physically restricting casual intrusion onto a site, channelling visitors to a formal entrance point in the perimeter.

c) Secured: A fence, wall, hedge or other boundary treatment intended to physically prevent climbing and or penetration into restricted parts of the site.

2.4 It is critical to select the right species of plant, so as not to impede natural surveillance and avoid unnecessarily high maintenance requirement. Trees on appropriate root stocks can provide a more reliable means of reducing impeding natural surveillance. The potential cost savings of a reduced maintenance can be substantial. 2.5 Landscaping, tree planting and lighting schemes should not conflict with each other. Lighting column positions should take priority over tree positions. Trees should not impede the spread of light from the street lighting at any time.

2.6 As it takes time for trees and other similar shrubbery to establish in order to maintain a secure perimeter it would be advisable to secure the area with weld mesh fencing. Jacksons

3.0 EXTERNAL AND SHELL ASPECTS OF BUSINESS BUILDINGS

3.1 Wall construction Due to the remoteness of some industrial and warehouse units and or reduced activity at night and over the weekends on industrial sites some buildings become prone to criminal attack through the wall, bypassing security doors and shutters. The walls should be designed to withstand such attacks and materials resistant to manual attack or damage should be used to ensure the initial provision of security.

3.2 Where lightweight construction is being considered, for example the use of insulated sheet cladding, a reinforced lining such as welded steel mesh can enhance the security of the building fabric. On certain industrial sites some buildings become prone to criminal attack through the wall, bypassing security doors and shutters.

3.3 Door-Set Apertures It is important that the door-set aperture is protected. The door security should meet the following minimum standards: • PAS 24:2012 • LPS 1175: Issue 7, SR2 • STS 201 or STS 202: Issue 3, BR2

3.4 Recessed doorways should, where possible, be avoided as they provide opportunities for crime and anti-social behaviour i.e. graffiti, arson and burglary. In the event that the building design or location requires such recesses efforts should be made minimize such negative consequences. This may include a requirement for higher security rated door-sets, door-sets and surrounding building material to be fire retardant and anti-graffiti surface treatments to be applied to both. (Further details can be obtained in SBD Commercial 2015 V2 at page 43 Sec 56 Para 56.1 – 56.11).

3.4 Roller shutters and grilles Grilles and shutters can provide additional protection to both internal and external doors and windows. The minimum standard for such products, when required, is certification to • LPS 1175: Issue 7 Security Rating 1 or • STS 202: Issue 3, Burglary Rating 1

3.5 For roller shutters, the above minimum security ratings are generally sufficient where:

• a shutter is required to prevent minor criminal damage and glass breakage or • the shutter is alarmed and the building is located within a secure development with access control and security patrols or • the shutter or grille is intended to prevent access into a recess or • the door or window to be protected is of a high security standard in its own right.

3.6 Roller shutter doors providing vehicular access Roller shutter doors providing access for deliveries and other apertures where no other door is present must be certificated to a minimum of: • LPS 1175 Issue 7, Security Rating 2 or • STS 202 Burglary Resistance 2 • Sold Secure Gold

3.7 Roof construction Roofs are vulnerable to criminal intrusion and damage through vandalism, therefore careful consideration must be given to their construction.

3.8 Lightweight roofing systems must be certified to a minimum of: • LPS 1175: Issue 5 or above, SR 1 • STS 202: Issue 1 or above, BR1

3.9 The standards above tests the product and its fixings, therefore lightweight roofing systems must be installed utilising the manufacturer’s approved fixing system.

4.0 Security glazing All ground floor and easily accessible glazing must incorporate one pane of laminated glass to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm or glass successfully tested to BS EN 356:2000 Glass in building. Securityglazing - resistance to manual attack to category P1A unless it is protected by a roller shutter or grille. With effect from 1st January 2014 the Secured by Design requirement for all laminated glass in commercial premises will be certification to BS EN 356 2000 rating P1A unless it is protected by a roller shutter or grille.

4.1 Glazing within door-sets and secure vision panels All glazing in and adjacent to doors must include one pane of attack resistant glass that is securely fixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

4.2 If glazed panels are installed adjacent to the door-set and are an integral part of the doorframe then they should be tested as part of the manufacturer’s certificated range of door assemblies. Alternatively, where they are manufactured separately from the doorframe, they shall be certificated to either: • PAS24: 2012 or STS 204 • LPS 1175: Issue 7 , at a Security Rating to match the door-set or • STS 202: Issue 3 , at a Burglary Rating to match the door-set.

4.3 Security glazing All ground floor and easily accessible glazing must incorporate one pane of laminated glass to a minimum thickness of 6.4mm or glass successfully tested to BS EN 356:2000 Glass in building. Securityglazing - resistance to manual attack to category P1A unless it is protected by a roller shutter or grille. With effect from 1st January 2014 the Secured by Design requirement for all laminated glass in commercial premises will be certification to BS EN 356 2000 rating P1A unless it is protected by a roller shutter or grille.

5.0 Safes and Strong-rooms SBD recommends commercial safes and strong Rooms are certified to • LPS 1183: Issue 4.2 or • BS EN 1143-1:2012

5.1 The required resistance for a safe is determined by the value of contents within the safe.

6.0 Signage and unit identification reception entrances to commercial buildings and car parks should be clearly signposted from the entrances onto the site. People found wandering around the forecourts of industrial buildings will often use the excuse that they could not find their way to the reception and the presence of clear signs will go some way to dismiss this excuse and help security staff and the police establish the legitimacy of the claim. Likewise, signs that identify areas that are not open to public access can act as a reminder that unauthorised persons should be challenged.

7.0 All litter bins should be of a fire retardant material.

8.1 CCTV A suitably designed, fit for purpose, monitored CCTV system and monitored intruder alarm system should be installed at each unit. For police response, the system must comply 4

with the requirements of the Security Systems policy, which can be found at www.securedbydesign.com (Further details can be obtained in SBD Commercial 2015 V2 at page 49 Sec 64 Para 64.1 – 64.2).

8.2 I strongly recommend CCTV coverage for within the main car park areas and within the main entrance to the establishments, to assist in the prevention of crime and reassure visitors that management take their safety and security seriously. The cameras should be of a design that they are able to capture good quality facial images of anyone entering the area.

8.3 Any CCTV system should be registered with the Information Commission Office (ICO) at https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/

8.4 CCTV systems must be installed to BSEN 50132-7:2012+A1:2013 . Further information on CCTV can be obtained in SBD Commercial 2015 V2 at page 38 Sec 49 Para 49.1 – 49.10.

9.0 Intruder alarms systems A suitably designed, fit for purpose, monitored intruder alarm should be installed. For police response, the system must comply with the requirements of the Security Systems policy, which can be found at www.securedbydesign.com

9.1 System designers may wish to specify component products certificated to the following standards: • LPS 1602 Issue 1.0: 2005 Requirements for LPCB Approval and Listing of Intruder Alarm Movement Detectors • LPS 1603 Issue 1.0: 2005 Requirements for LPCB Approval and Listing of Alarm Control Indicating Equipment.

9.2 Security fogging devices can be incorporated within the intruder alarm system to disorientate the intruder when the alarm system is activated. They must conform to BS EN 50131-8:2009 Security device fog systems.

10.0 Vehicle Parking for Staff

10.1 In line with Suffolk Guidance for Parking and Secure by Design principles secure motorcycle, moped and scooter parking should be available for staff. Such parking provision should benefit from surveillance from within the complex and through formal CCTV coverage.

10.2 It is desired that the design criteria for the proposed car parks should follow the principles laid down in the police owned ‘ParkMark’ initiative. http://www.parkmark.co.uk/ (Further details can be obtained in SBD Commercial 2015 V2 at page 18 Sec 20 Para 20.6 – 20.7).

10.3 Secure bicycle parking should be provided in view of the main complexes with stands to which the bicycles can be secured. In order to encourage cycling to work and therefore reduce car journeys, it is recommended that the cycle parking provision is contained within a securable, roofed building. The building should be lit and secured during operating hours. The securing of cycles left unattended must be considered within the design of any new commercial premises. The cycle stand must facilitate the locking of both wheels and the crossbar.

10.4 Minimum requirements for such equipment are: • Galvanised steel bar construction (minimum thickness 3mm) filled with concrete • Minimum foundation depth of 300mm with welded ‘anchor bar’.

10.5 External and preferably roofed bicycle stores with individual stands for securing bicycles are best located close to supervised areas of main buildings. The ‘walls’ of such buildings should be open to surveillance and therefore constructed of materials such as welded mesh, grilles or bars, polycarbonate or other secure glazing such as glass composites. When in use the store must be lit after dark using vandal resistant, dedicated energy efficient light fittings and energy efficient lamps.

11.0 OTHER POINTS 11.1 I have not identified a waste compound area listed on the plans. 12.2 Waste containers, particularly those with wheels, can be used for climbing and the contents used to start fires. Consideration should be given to using waste containers with lockable lids. They should be kept inside a secure, externally accessed store in the main buildings or preferably in secure, roofed compounds located well away from the main buildings. Combustible materials should not be stored within 10 metres of the outside of a building. (Further details can be obtained in SBD Commercial 2015 V2 at page 22 Sec 27 Para 27.0 – 27.3). 11.3 With regard to the commercial units designers should take care not to inadvertently create climbing aids and flat roofs. While there will be other staff entrance/exits, public/visitor entrances should be limited to one main area only. This allocated public entrance/exit area should also have electronic access control, supplemented by audio and/or visual equipment. 11.4 I strongly advice the development planners adopt the ADQ guide lines and Secure by Design (SBD) principles for a secure development along http://www.securedbydesign.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/05/SBD_Commercial_2015_V2.pdf guide lines. 11.5 It is now widely accepted a key strand in the design of a ‘sustainable’ development is its resistance to crime and anti-social behaviour by introducing appropriate design features that enable natural surveillance and create a sense of ownership and responsibility for every part of that development.

12.0 Conclusion

In conclusion as stated I have no objections to the plan in its current format, but as stated I do have concerns that this location could bring about Anti-Social Behaviour from Boy Racers/Car Cruising, for which previous experience has shown Suffolk Police have been called out to deal with on numerous occasions at the nearby supermarket, that resulted in security measures being added by closing the whole of the car park area shortly after closing time. I would therefore strongly recommend a barrier is placed at the entrance by the proposed entrance and secured after trading hours and an ANPR camera is strategically placed at the main entrance for these units to record all vehicles entering the area.

I would also recommend that in order to reduce any anti-social driving within this area, the design layout broken up into different shadings and textures, in order to hopefully make motorists slow down and drive responsibly within that area.

If you wish to discuss anything further or need assistance with the SBD application, please contact me on 01284 774141.

Yours sincerely

Phil Kemp Designing Out Crime Officer Western and Southern Areas Suffolk Constabulary Raynegate Street Bury St Edmunds Suffolk, IP33 2AP