Item No: 6 Reference: B/11/00444/DPA

Parish: GREAT CORNARD

Location: Land North of Dove House Farm

Proposal: Application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Regulations) 1992 – Change of Use of land to amenity land and construction of foot/cycle path and erection of bridge over existing ditch.

Applicant: Babergh District Council

Case Officer: Christine Thurlow Date for Determination: 27 May 2011

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission

This application was the subject of a site inspection at the request of Councillor MacMaster. A Panel of Members inspected the site on 1 June 2011.

This application is referred to Development Committee as the applicant is Babergh District Council. The application has been reviewed by the Council’s Monitoring Officer who is satisfied the application has been processed properly and normally.

THE SITE

1. Dove House Meadow is located on the western side of Bures Road (B1508) which links Great Cornard with Sudbury. The site was formerly covered with industrial buildings and was occupied by a local company. It was known as Bakers Mill. Dove House Meadow has a frontage onto the River Stour and lies within close proximity to the Great Cornard lock and visitor building.

2. The land is currently owned by the Sudbury and District Anglers Society and only that part of the site which is necessary to facilitate these works would be purchased by Babergh District Council so as to construct a footway and bridge and thereby provide the missing section of footway between the Riverside Walk and Dove House Meadow.

3. At present a three metre footway and cycleway link is provided on the Dove House Meadow development which leads to the northern boundary of the site. A two metre high close boarded fence defines the northern boundary of the development and prevents any pedestrian cycleway access further to the north.

4. The site is well treed and undeveloped. An existing culvert abuts the close boarded fence and connects to the River Stour.

5. The following planning constraints affect the site:

• the application site area is just clipped by a designated archaeological site and lies adjacent to part of it.

• the application site lies within a County Wildlife Site.

• The Built-up Area Boundary for Sudbury, Chilton and Great Cornard lies 60 metres to the west.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 37 • the southern part of the application site where it abuts the boundary with Dove House Meadow lies on contaminated land.

• all of the application site is contained within an area identified as Flood Zone 2 and 3.

• the application site area is located 112 metres to the west of St Andrews Church and between it and the application site area lies Bures Road with further residential development fronting onto it.

• the site lies immediately adjacent to an area where bat surveys have been carried out.

• the whole of the site is contained within the Special Landscape Area, and

• the district boundary with Braintree is located some 10 metres to the west.

THE PROPOSAL

6. The application seeks planning permission for the provision of a section of footpath which was regarded as a missing link at the time the Dove House Meadow development was granted permission. At that time a Section 106 Agreement was completed and planning conditions were imposed upon the grant of planning permission to secure this footway/cycleway link in order to allow residents of the development and the wider community to access the Great Cornard Riverside Walk.

7. The works associated with the provision of this foot/cycleway provision require planning permission in their own right and involve the following:

• A slight regrading of the land and the laying of a footpath surface.

• A change of use of this section of land to amenity land to allow for its public usage.

• The erection of a bridge on the northern boundary of Dove House Meadow to allow an existing ditch to be crossed. The bridge would measure 6 metres by 1.8 metres and would be constructed of timber. The rails on either side of the bridge would measure 1.4 metres in height.

8. A Planning Statement has been submitted to accompany the planning application which makes the following points:

• Babergh District Council has agreed terms, subject to planning permission, for the acquisition of a strip of land from the Sudbury and District Angling Society.

• This piece of land will enable completion of the Cornard Riverside Walk which commences at Friars Meadow Sudbury and currently stops 100 yards short of the Dove House Meadow walk/cycle way. The existing walks are all part of the proposed circular Sudbury/Great Cornard/Chilton biodiversity trail.

• The cost of the project is being funded from a “Section 106” Agreement entered into by Babergh with Barrett Homes Ltd. This makes provision for a Riverside Walkway at Great Cornard and for no other purpose. The funds will cover land acquisition and the construction works including a bridge.

• The Sudbury and District Angling Society is agreeable to the entering into of a “Section 106” Agreement with the local planning authority to ensure the land remains as a foot and cycle path in perpetuity.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 38 • The foot and cycle path will not be for use by motor vehicles except for maintenance purposes. In keeping with the rest of the path, it will however be useable by cyclists who will cross the proposed bridge at a very low speed as it will be necessary to turn a right angle prior to going over the bridge.

• The path will be constructed of hardcore. There will be no changes to existing levels.

• The area is not within a Conservation Area. Existing trees will remain in place except for the removal of one small sycamore tree. It will also be necessary to remove one dead elder bush and three hawthorn bushes, all in poor condition. There will be no lighting.

9. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, the main points of which are summarised below:

• The purpose of the scheme is to provide a continuous link along the Cornard Riverside Walk.

• The paths form part of the proposed circular Sudbury/Great Cornard/Chilton biodiversity trail. As such it is intended to retain this element of the footpath in perpetuity.

• The proposed path consists of a geo-textile membrane to the base over which will be laid MOT Type 1 or similar approved at a depth of approximately 150mm. The resultant finish is intended to be soft yet definitive giving the path a clear definition without causing an intrusive feature in the landscape.

• It is proposed to take a winding route through the existing trees so as to, where possible, reduce the need to remove any of these trees, thereby ensuring that the existing landscape and the biodiversity benefit that these offer is retained. The only tree requiring removal is a small Suppressed Sycamore.

• The curving of the path is intended to reduce the speed of cyclists at the point where they reach the connection with the Dove House Meadow walk/cycleway through the introduction of a 90º turn. The connection therefore takes into account the potential conflict of cyclists and walkers at this point, as well as providing a surface finish across the full length of the path which should ensure that cyclists’ speeds are not excessive.

• The bridge would have simple post and rail upstands over a boarded walkway.

• The bridge has been designed to be open but safe providing a width of 1.8 metres in which people and cycles can pass. The upstands would have a height of 1.4 metres from the level of the walkway and would extend overall a distance of 6 metres in length.

• The area in which the path and bridge are to be constructed consists of an area of sporadic tree cover close to the river bank. The length of the path will be broken up visually by the intermittent tree cover. As such the path will not intrude into its landscaped setting.

• The bridge would be seen in the context of views up and down the river, as well as by users of the path. However, its simple open form would ensure that the bridge does not intrude unnaturally into its surroundings. Further, by virtue of the horizontal emphasis to the side rails, views would exist through the bridge ensuring that the structure does not provide a solid break across the river.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 39 • The access benefits brought about by the proposal are clear. General vehicular access would not be permitted.

10. Since the registration of the application, additional information has been submitted to accompany the proposal. In particular:

• An ecological assessment, and

• Photographs of the existing close boarded fence with the panels removed to show how access would be gained from Dove House Meadow onto the application site.

In addition to the above, and in connection with suggestions made by local residents that the bridge should be gated and locked from late at night to early morning in order to safeguard residential amenities, legal advice has been sought. It is proposed that the locking and unlocking of the gate would be undertaken by a local resident.

In response, the Council’s legal team has advised that the land to be acquired for the footway/cycle path and bridge will be vested in the Council. In the circumstances,

• The walk will be available for the public in perpetuity and the current owner, Sudbury and District Angling Society, have agreed to enter into a Section 106 Agreement with the Local Planning Authority to ensure this.

• It is unacceptable for the bridge to be gated and controlled by a third party if it is to be a public path. In any event it is impracticable for it to be locked and unlocked by a third party, e.g. what if the party forgets to unlock it; if they decide they do not wish to do it any longer and nobody can be found to undertake the job what then happens?

• It is understood that a planning condition to this effect would be unenforceable.

• The Council does not have the resources to undertake locking and unlocking of the gate.

• Given that Sudbury and District Angling Society still own the land in question, a revised Certificate serving notice on Barratt Homes has been submitted in order to ensure that the application is accompanied by an accurate and valid Land Ownership Certificate.

11. Additional consultation has been undertaken in relation to the further information that has been submitted and any responses will be reported to the Development Committee.

12. During the site inspection on 1 June 2011 Members asked if additional information and/or answers to the following questions could be provided:

• What is a “geo-textile” membrane?

• What works will be required to the bank in order to allow for the construction of the bridge and what implications this will have for wildlife, (e.g. water voles)?

• Are there any other public rights of way in the near vicinity of the application site and what status do they have?

• Are the plans accurate (for example, the path does not appear to be three metres wide as shown on the submitted drawings where it adjoins the close boarded fence)?

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 40 • Is it possible to have a pedestrian/cycle safety barrier installed where the paths turns through 90º in order to overcome the risk of cyclists falling into the culvert?

• What is the current status of the Suffolk County Council adoption of the roads and footpaths on Dove House Meadow?

• Are any traffic management measures likely to be introduced in Dove House Meadow in order to prevent cars being parked at the entrance point through to the private drive in the near vicinity of this planning application?

13. Further investigation is currently taking place in relation to these matters and the Development Committee will be updated at the meeting.

14. The application documents including the drawings can be viewed online via the planning pages on the District Council’s website.

RELEVANT HISTORY

15. There is no site history in relation to the application site area. The Dove House Meadow development however received the benefit of outline planning permission in 2003 for residential development. A Section 106 Agreement was completed at the time which included a clause requiring a contribution of £15,000 for the footpath/cycleway works. The provision of the footpath/cycleway was also the subject of conditions attached to the grant of planning permission.

NATIONAL GUIDANCE

16. PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

17. PPS3 - Housing

18. PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment

19. PPS9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

20. PPG13 - Transport

21. PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

22. PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control

23. PPS25 - Development and Flood Risk

PLANNING POLICIES

24. The Development Plan comprises the East of Plan, adopted 2008, saved policies in the Suffolk Structure Plan, adopted 2001, and saved policies in the Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) adopted 2006. The Government has indicated its intention to abolish the Plan and this statement of intent should be regarded as a material consideration in planning decisions. The following policies are applicable to the proposal:

East of England Plan 2008

25. ENV - Green Infrastructure

26. ENV3 - Biodiversity

27. ENV7 - Quality in the Built Environment

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 41 Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) 2006

28. EN02 - County Wildlife Sites

29. EN04 - Semi Natural Habitats

30. CR01 - Landscape Quality and Outdoor Recreation

31. CR04 - Special Landscape Areas

32. CN01 - Design Standards

33. CN04 - Design and Crime Prevention

34. CN06 - Setting of Listed Buildings

35. RE06 - Recreation Facilities

36. TP01 - Pedestrians

37. TP02 - Extension of Pedestrian Rights of Way

38. TP03 - Provision of Cycle Routes

The relevant policies can be viewed online. Please see the notes attached to the Schedule.

CONSULTATIONS

39. Great Cornard Parish Council – whilst the Parish Council has supported the proposal for the completion of the Riverside Walk for many years it has concerns over early morning/late night evening parking by fishermen and late night revellers using the path. These concerns have been raised by the local residents. It recommends that these issues are addressed before planning permission is granted.

40. Sudbury Town Council – Approve.

41. Council – No objection.

42. Adjoining Parish Councils (Braintree) – The parishes are Great Henny, Little Henny, Middleton and – comments awaited.

43. LHA – Does not wish to restrict the grant of permission.

44. Suffolk County Council – Rights of Way – No comments or observations to make in respect of this application affecting any public rights of way. 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 landowner whether under the Highways Act 1980 or by common law. SCC is not aware of any such claims.

45. Environment Agency – No objection in principle. Please note, however, the proposed works will require a flood defence consent as such consent is required for any works that are in, under, over or within nine metres of a main river.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 42 46. Archaeology – There would be no significant impact on known archaeological sites or areas with archaeological potential. Has no objection to the development and does not believe any archaeological mitigation is required.

47. Natural England – From the information provided with this application it does not appear to fall within the scope of consultations that Natural England would comment on. However, Natural England would expect the Local Planning Authority to assess and consider the possible impacts resulting from this proposal on protected species, local wildlife sites, and consider the possibility of biodiversity enhancement.

48. Suffolk Wildlife Trust – The site lies partially within Friars/Pecks Meadows County Wildlife site. The Trust, therefore, requests that care is taken during the construction so as to limit building work within the boundaries of the site, this applies to movement of vehicles and the county wildlife site should not be used for parking or turning of construction vehicles nor the temporary storage of building materials. The Trust’s records indicate that otter, water vole, common lizard and slow worm have all been recorded on or adjacent to the site. It therefore considers it necessary that a biodiversity assessment of the site is carried out prior to the application being determined. The site may also support nesting birds and the Trust recommends that should permission be granted, any vegetation clearance takes place outside the bird breeding season. The Trust understands that the necessary survey work will be carried out by the Sudbury Common Lands Ranger. Providing that any necessary mitigation measures are appropriately secured, the Trust has no objection to this application.

49. Suffolk County Council – Ecologist – comments awaited.

50. Environmental Health – Contamination – Given the low sensitivity of the proposed end use, there is no reason to request any additional information from the applicant.

51. Suffolk Constabulary – Liaison Officer – Views awaited.

REPRESENTATIONS

52. Councillor Bennett – Supports the planning application and comments that he is delighted it is coming forward. The bridge seems to have safety in mind and the path would not disturb the existing trees or levels. It has no detrimental impact and he looks forward to the opening. A further email from Councillor Bennett confirms that he has no further issues to raise in relation to the additional information and remains fully supportive of the scheme.

53. Comments have been submitted by three local residents who all support the scheme. They make the following comments:

• The footpath/cycleway was promised by Barratts when I bought my flat over two years ago and I have been waiting for work to start ever since. It is of great public benefit allowing walking and cycle access along the river, fantastic to walk to and from Sudbury town centre via the river, I will certainly use my car less.

• We await the building and completion of the bridge with great anticipation, it will greatly enhance the pleasure of living at Bakers Mill and give us continuous opportunity to walk directly onto the Riverside Walk to visit friends and relatives in Sudbury and beyond and for the occasional shopping trips without using the car (sometimes returning by boat or bus)

• We have been looking forward to this happening since June 2009 when we signed up to buy with Barratts.

• The opening of the bridge should be a cause of great celebration. The sooner the better.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 43

• Fully support this planning application and the creation of the link between Bakers Mill and the Riverside Path.

• Please can you register our absolute disagreement to any consideration of the installation of a lockable gate and in particular to the control of this being invested in by any resident of Bakers Mill?

54. A further four residents at Bakers Mill make the following points:

• Added noise and disturbance from late night drinkers using the walkway as a short cut from pubs and nightclubs in Sudbury to Cornard.

• Added anti-social behaviour, litter and vandalism to our quiet private development

• Added parking problems by people avoiding car park charges at Sudbury Railway Station by parking at Dove House Meadow and taking a 5 minute walk to the station.

• Disturbance to area and bio-environment; this proposed walkway will put in jeopardy our breeding water vole population and the diverse wildlife we have at Bakers Mill.

• Early morning disturbance by fishermen parking vehicles and taking vast amounts of fishing tackle and equipment past our doorways then leaving cars inconsiderately parked; parking is already a problem here.

• The increased price we pay in management fees for the upkeep of our landscaped area, the mill pond, bins and the pathway we will have an increase in our public liability insurance and the maintenance and upkeep of the children’s play area, all added expense to an already expensive management fee.

• Those dwellings that are located on the no-through road private development adjacent to the public footpath/cycleway leading to the close boarded fence will experience adverse impact on residential amenity.

• With the bridge in place the whole development will no longer be private resulting in a deterioration of the site with the increased use which will result in litter and probably dog mess which will then increase our maintenance payments to the firm for upkeep.

• Everybody walks past my house at the moment as I am at the end of the no- through road in Dove House Meadow. The bridge will practically be outside my house and all walkers, cyclists, fishermen and drunks using the bridge as a short cut at all hours of the day and night will pass right in front of my house, thus making my house very unprivate and dramatically increasing the noise level we hear from increased traffic.

• Easy access to the river either side of the bridge and the safety concerns that this brings.

• Safety to my personal property: I only have a car port not a garage which has easy access to the rear of my property.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 44 • The proposal affects safety as there are no chains between current bollards which divide the private cul-de-sac from the public right of way. Parking on this estate is very limited and generally means that one car is provided on site and one car is located on the narrow road. If this application is to be approved it will cause further parking and traffic management problems in the estate.

• Due to the nature of the properties and the Stour Trust Visitor Centre, it is inappropriate and probably impossible to section off the land to avoid difficulties.

• The river and adjacent woodland provides a unique habitat for a variety of wildlife. The habitat benefits from a peaceful location devoid of much foot traffic, hardly any cyclists and on currently talking to residents we are in a very lucky position to have otters, herons, kingfishers and many other creatures and worry about how increased access to the public may affect these creatures. Many such as otter and bats are either protected or rare in this area, and we feel it is important that consideration should be given to this matter. We currently feel very safe in our home, it is in a secluded location, effectively at the end of the road which has a single entry/exit and our security is likely to be compromised. Once this path is open there is an easy route for burglars, muggers, sexual predators and vandals to make good their escape from Bakers Mill over the new bridge and disappear into town. What steps are Babergh taking to ensure the safety of the residents of Dove House Meadow?

• I walked this section of footpath and walked past two 20 year olds doing drugs and a group of eight under age kids drinking which is one of my fears.

• Recently a group of walkers walked through the estate thinking the bridge was completed and walked up to my private drive. They had a large dog off the lead that ran at my child who is petrified and allergic to dogs and scared her terribly. This dog then went on my property. Please do not let this bridge go ahead it will reduce the value of my house, put the rates up from the maintenance company.

• There is already a path leading to the river.

55. Two letters have been received from the Bakers Mill Community Association which make the following comments:-

• Really support the project.

• In our view and from the opinions expressed at previous meetings of residents, it appears that a majority of residents are in favour of the link and many viewed its existence as a contributory factor in their decision to purchase their property. Having said this, we recognise there are also a number of residents who are against it on the basis that it may cause nuisance and security issues.

• We have since earlier in 2010 encouraged all residents to write to the Council and make their views clearly known.

• We are understanding that you have reached an agreement with Sudbury and District Angling Association to purchase the right of way over their land at a cost that will allow you to complete the required work within budget (£15,000 provided by Barratt Homes) in accordance with the terms of the planning permission granted for the development.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 45 • As we take the appropriate stance on behalf of the residents who do wish to see the link completed with all the benefit it offers to the area and its connectivity, please register our formal support for this application, and further our request that the Council does everything possible to fulfil the planning permission already in place and create this link within the shortest time frame.

• We perhaps represent those residents and Council Taxpayers most affected and interested in this project.

• It would be helpful to have a detailed planned timetable relating to implementation of the scheme and details of the sum of money lodged with the Council by Barratts, the expiry date of these funds and what this actually means, the conditions relating to the use of the funds for the project and any other information that helps in reducing our concerns regarding the problematic timescale and the availability of funds. We would also like to know, on the assumption that planning permission is granted, the date that you consider the work might be completed and the link opened.

56. River Stour Trust – We support this scheme and will do all it can to assist in implementation.

57. A letter of representation has been received relating to refuse collection and safety issues on the estate asking questions about how to address traffic management issues. This matter is being dealt with separately from the consideration of this planning application.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

58. Planning permission was granted for the Dove House Meadow development in 2003. Conditions attached to the relevant permission required the provision of the footway link and a financial contribution of £15,000 was made via a Section 106 Agreement to facilitate its construction. This contribution has accrued interest and the sum now stands at £16,168. Under the terms of the S106 Agreement, however, the footpath contribution must be spent by 17 August 2011. In the event that expenditure does not occur by this date the Council is obliged to repay the monies to the developer in full together with any interest accrued. The Section 106 Agreement stated that the footway contribution should be used for the provision of the footway and for no other purpose whatsoever.

63. The contribution was sought to provide residents of the development (and the wider community) with an opportunity to connect to the remainder of the Riverside Walk which links this part of Great Cornard with Sudbury (and the wider area). The missing section of footpath was also seen as an opportunity at the time of granting permission to provide better access to the countryside, not only for the residents of the development but also for the wider community.

64. Although the section of the footpath should have been provided prior to the completion of the Dove House Meadow development and its absence could therefore be regarded as a breach of planning control, the land on which this section of the footpath is to be provided was in a different ownership to the developer at the time of construction. Indeed it is not currently within the control of the Council or the owners of the dwellings, being owned by the Sudbury and District Anglers Society. As such, it is not expedient to enforce the planning condition as:

• Any such action would not involve the developer but current land or property owners on the development who do not control the land affected.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 46 • This planning application seeks planning permission for the works, the subject of the planning condition and the relevant clause in the Section 106 Agreement. Should planning permission be granted, and all other necessary consents be secured and the project implemented, the matter would be resolved positively, including the breach of planning control.

65. Since the payment of the Section 106 monies, the Council has been involved in negotiations to secure an agreement from the owners of the land to provide the footpath. However these negotiations are separate from and entirely without prejudice to the consideration of this planning application which must be judged on its own merits and in accordance with any prevailing development plan policies and national guidance.

66. In this connection, the key material planning considerations are:

• the impact on highway safety, visual and residential amenities,

• the impact on flood risk, recreational interests, and ground conditions,

• the impact on heritage assets,

• the impact on nature conservation, and

• crime and disorder and public safety.

National Guidance and Planning Policies

67. National Guidance and existing Development Plan Policies provide a very robust framework against which this planning application must be assessed. National Guidance promotes sustainable forms of travel and promotes outdoor recreation in the countryside. Other more specialist guidance seeks to ensure that housing layout and green infrastructure is complementary and satisfactorily integrated, and wildlife interests and ecology and protected species are safeguarded. These provisions are echoed in the East of England Plan. Policies EN02 and EN04 of the Babergh Local Plan also aim to protect wildlife interests and natural habitats. Policy CN01 seeks to ensure satisfactory design standards for development, while Policy CN04 seeks to ensure that design and layout or buildings, highways and spaces around them provide public safety and deter vandalism and crime. Policy CN06 states that designated heritage assets such as listed buildings must be safeguarded. Policy CR04 requires the safeguarding of Special Landscape Areas. Policies TP01, TP02 and TP03 all positively encourage pedestrian routes and their extension to existing rights of way, together with provision of facilities for cyclists in order to promote sustainable forms of travel. Finally, Policy CR01 is relevant and relates to development in the countryside.

Impact on Visual Amenity, Highway Safety, Visual and Residential Amenities

68. The physical works associated with this proposal are:-

• The laying of a surface for the footpath (geo-textile membrane) and the battering down of its edges with additional soil to ensure the stability of the surface treatment.

• The change of use of the land affected from private to public amenity land.

• The construction of a timber post and rail bridge measuring 6 metres maximum by 1.8 metres maximum.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 47 • The removal of a section of close boarded fence facing onto the Dover House Meadow development, in order to facilitate access from that estate to the proposed footpath/cycleway.

71. In highway terms the Local Highway Authority has raised no objections. The proposed footpath would connect to an existing footpath/cycleway which leads northwards through the estate and was provided in this location to facilitate this footpath connection. With regard to the traffic management problems raised on the development, your Officers are dealing with this matter separately with the Local Highway Authority.

72. In visual amenity terms, the works associated with this proposal are minimal in terms of their visual impact. The remainder of the land is landscaped which would soften its impact. The bridge is the largest physical feature. However, it is of a simple lightweight design and of timber construction and is modest in size measuring 6 metres by 1.8 metres. On this basis and given its unobtrusive location, its impact in visual terms is considered acceptable. As such the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the character of the Special Landscape Area and is consistent with the requirements of Local Plan Policy CR04.

73. With regard to residential amenity considerations, representations have been received both in support of and objecting to the proposal. Those in support of the proposal state that the provision of the footpath is long overdue and some refer to the fact that the link was a determining factor in making a decision to purchase a house on the development. Objectors refer to the possibility of:

• An increase in crime and disorder as a result of anti-social behaviour by users, together with its use at anti-social hours disrupting what is currently a quiet cul-de- sac with a consequent detrimental impact on residential amenity.

• Additional loss of security to nearby dwellings and property. One nearby resident has an open car port directly abutting the adjoining vehicular access; this in his view results in the security to his property being adversely affected.

• Anglers and members of the wider community bringing cars into the development in order to access the footpath. This would lead to an increase in on-street parking to the detriment of residents of the development and the interests of highway safety. This has led to some representations being received calling for the bridge or access to the footpath from Dove House Meadow to be gated.

74. In response to these concerns, this report has already set out why a lockable gate is unacceptable in principle. Indeed its provision could result in the community becoming divided as some representations are clearly not in support of any measure which would fetter the ability for the footpath to be open at all times and used by all. In any event the locking and unlocking of any gate could not be controlled by planning condition. Any such condition would fail the tests in Circular 11/95 as it would be unenforceable.

Impact on Flood Risk, Ground Conditions and Recreational Interests

75. Flood Risk - there is no additional risk of flooding as a result of the proposals. Regrading works to the land are minimal and do not require any compensatory flood storage to be provided. The bridge would be an open sided structure and its design and the slight modification to ground levels on either side will not impede flood water or present an obstacle. A separate consent under different legislation administered by the Environment Agency will, however, be required.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 48 76. Recreational Interests - the path would provide connectivity between an existing residential development and the wider countryside where recreation occurs. This proposal is entirely consistent with the promotion of recreational interests within the district as provided for by the Local Plan Policies referred to above. In addition, it would facilitate the completion of an existing footpath/cycleway network. As such the proposal is wholly consistent with the provisions of Local Plan Policy TP01 and the objectives of Local Plan Policy TP03.

77. Ground Conditions - The Environmental Protection Team has confirmed that the proposal would not have any impact upon ground conditions and no mitigation is required.

Impact on Heritage Assets

78. National Policy on conservation and the historic environment is contained within PPS5. Local Plan Policy CN06 specifically seeks to protect buildings of Special Architectural and Historic Interest.

79. St Andrews Church is the nearest designated heritage asset, however, this is located some distance away from the site. Given the small scale nature of the proposed development and the distance from this listed building there will be no adverse impact on its setting.

80. In relation to archaeological interests, the County Archaeologist has indicated that there is no need for archaeological mitigation in this case and no adverse impact.

81. The proposals would not, therefore, have an impact upon designated heritage assets within the vicinity of the site.

Nature Conservation

82. PPS9 and the accompanying Circular 05/2006 set out the national policy requirements in relation to nature conservation. Policy ENV3 of the East of England Plan and Local Plan Policy EN04 seek to safeguard nature conservation interests by ensuring that development proposals have regard to habitats and species.

83. An ecological report has been submitted in support of the application. This report has been the subject of reconsultation with Natural England and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust; the latter of which is understood to have no objections to the proposal. Although confirmation is awaited it is not considered that the proposals will adversely affect protected species.

84. In assessing this application, due regard has been given to the provisions of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 insofar as it is applicable to the proposal and the provisions of Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. The footpath/cycleway would not be illuminated thereby minimising the impact on the area which is designated as a county wildlife site. Furthermore the small-scale nature of the proposal would not have an adverse impact on biodiversity or ecology.

Crime and Disorder and Public Safety

85. Crime and Disorder - Consideration has been given to the provisions of Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, together with Local Plan Policy CN04. Notwithstanding the objections to this proposal from nearby residents, and the request for a gated entrance to the proposed footway/cycleway, it is considered that the application is acceptable and any risks are not so great as to warrant the refusal of planning permission. Views of the Police have been sought, but none received to date.

86. Public Safety - Discussions have taken place concerning safety of people using the footpath where it turns at 90º near the culvert. The construction of a barrier is currently being investigated and Members will be updated at the meeting.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 49 REASONS FOR APPROVAL

87. The development is acceptable in principle within the context of Policies CR01 and RE06 being related to appropriate outdoor recreation. Given the design, scale and layout of the proposal, the development will integrate into the countryside subject to appropriate conditions. Furthermore, and subject to appropriate conditions, there would be no adverse impact on visual amenity, neighbour amenity or highway safety, flood risk, ground conditions or crime and disorder interests. Neither would there be any adverse impact upon archaeology, listed buildings, ecology, biodiversity or protected species. The proposal would comply with sustainable forms of travel and extend an existing footpath/cycleway route. The proposal therefore adheres to the Development Plan, notably Policies CR01, EN02, EN04, CN01, CN04, CN06, TP01, TP02, TP05, RE06 and CR04 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 (2006).

RECOMMENDATION

That subject to the resolution of the outstanding matters the Chief Planning Control Officer be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions including:-

• Standard time limit.

• Methodology for construction of the bridge.

• Surface finish to the path.

• Provision of a pedestrian barrier.

Development Committee Date 15 June 2011 50