BUXHALL PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Tina Newell 25 Shakespeare Road, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 1TU 8 [email protected] ( 01449 672825

BUXHALL PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Tina Newell 25 Shakespeare Road, Stowmarket, Suffolk IP14 1TU 8 Buxhallpc@Live.Co.Uk ( 01449 672825

Application Summary

Application Number: DC/19/05761 Planning Application - Erection of off-grid sustainable dwellinghouse with associated parking, landscaping, sewage treatment plant and improved access to highway. Detached garage and annexe Land South Of Mill Road Buxhall Suffolk Consultee Details Name: Tina Newell Address: 25 Shakespeare Road, Stowmarket, SuffolK IP14 1TU Email: [email protected] On behalf of: Buxhall Parish Council

Date: 13th January 2020

Comments: Cllrs considered the application at this evening meeting and resolved to offer a comment of OBJECTION.

The site is currently undeveloped and sits within a historic part of the village with many listed buildings, reinforcing the rural nature in which they stand. Such a modern dwelling would detract from these buildings causing significant harm to the area and to these historic buildings. The character of this part of the village would be lost forever. Ms Sian Bunbury Direct Dial: 01223 582718 Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils Endeavour House Our ref: W: P01142793 8 Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX 16 December 2019

Dear Ms Bunbury

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

LAND SOUTH OF MILL ROAD, BUXHALL, SUFFOLK, IP14 3DW Application No. DC/19/05761

Thank you for your letter of 12 December 2019 regarding the above application for planning permission. On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.

It is not necessary for us to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals. However, if you would like detailed advice from us, please contact us to explain your request.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Northfield Business Officer E-mail: [email protected]

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

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

From: SM-NE-Consultations (NE) Sent: 17 December 2019 09:35 To: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow Subject: DC/19/05761 Consultation Response

Dear Sir/Madam

Application ref: DC/19/05761 Our ref: 303556

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

Yours faithfully

Dominic Rogers Consultations Team Natural England Hornbeam House, Electra Way Crewe, Cheshire, CW1 6GJ

Enquiries line: 0300 060 3900 Email: [email protected] 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. Your Ref:DC/19/05761 Our Ref: SCC/CON/5231/19 Date: 17 December 2019

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

The Planning Department MidSuffolk District Council Planning Section 1st Floor, Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich Suffolk IP1 2BX

For the attention of: Sian Bunbury

Dear Sian,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 CONSULTATION RETURN: DC/19/05761

PROPOSAL: Erection of off-grid sustainable dwellinghouse with associated parking, landscaping, sewage treatment plant and improved access to highway. Detached garage and annexe. LOCATION: Land South Of Mill Road, Buxhall, Suffolk

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

Condition: The new vehicular access shall be laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with Drawing No. DM01 and with an entrance width of 3m and made available for use prior to occupation. 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 made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety.

Condition: Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. 13 Rev. K with an X dimension of 2.4m and a Y dimension of 59m and thereafter retained in the specified form.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction over 0.6 metres high shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow within the areas of the visibility splays.

Condition: Before the development is occupied details of the areas to be provided for storage and presentation of Refuse/Recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Endeavour House, 8 Russell Road, Ipswich, Suffolk. IP 1 2BX www,suffolk.gov.uk The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that refuse recycling bins are not stored on the highway causing obstruction and dangers for other users.

Yours sincerely,

Kyle Porter Development Management Technician Growth, Highways and Infrastructure OFFICIAL Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service

Fire Business Support Team

Floor 3, Block 2 Endeavour House 8 Russell Road Ipswich, Suffolk Mid Suffolk District Council IP1 2BX Planning Department Endeavour House Your Ref: Our Ref: FS/F221461 Russell Road Enquiries to: Water Officer Ipswich Direct Line: 01473 260588 IP1 2BX E-mail: [email protected] Web Address: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk

Date: 31/12/2019

Dear Sirs

Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall IP14 3DW Planning Application No: DC/19/05761

I refer to the above application.

The plans have been inspected by the Water Officer who has the following comments to make.

Access and Fire Fighting Facilities

Access to buildings for fire appliances and firefighters must meet with the requirements specified in Building Regulations Approved Document B, (Fire Safety), 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments Volume 1 - Part B5, Section 11 dwelling houses, and, similarly, Volume 2, Part B5, Sections 16 and 17 in the case of buildings other than dwelling houses. These requirements may be satisfied with other equivalent standards relating to access for fire fighting, in which case those standards should be quoted in correspondence.

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service also requires a minimum carrying capacity for hard standing for pumping/high reach appliances of 15/26 tonnes, not 12.5 tonnes as detailed in the Building Regulations 2000 Approved Document B, 2006 Edition, incorporating 2010 and 2013 amendments.

Water Supplies

No additional water supply for fire fighting purposes is required in respect of this planning application.

/continued

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service recommends that proper consideration be given to the potential life safety, economic, environmental and social benefits derived from the provision of an automatic fire sprinkler system. (Please see sprinkler information enclosed with this letter).

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

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service currently has a fire hydrant located in this area. Please ensure that this is identified and protected while work is being carried out and is easily accessible for inspection and work after the build is complete. Failure to protect the fire hydrant could incur repair or replacement costs.

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

Yours faithfully

Water Officer

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service

Copy: [email protected] Enc: Sprinkler information

We are working towards making Suffolk the Greenest County. This paper is 100% recycled and made using a chlorine free process. OFFICIAL

Created: September 2015

Enquiries to: Fire Business Support Team Tel: 01473 260588 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service – Automatic Fire Sprinklers in your Building Development

We understand from local Council planning you are considering undertaking building work.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage you to consider the benefits of installing automatic fire sprinklers in your house or commercial premises.

In the event of a fire in your premises an automatic fire sprinkler system is proven to save lives, help you to recover from the effects of a fire sooner and help get businesses back on their feet faster.

Many different features can be included within building design to enhance safety and security and promote business continuity. Too often consideration to incorporate such features is too late to for them to be easily incorporated into building work.

Dispelling the Myths of Automatic Fire Sprinklers  Automatic fire sprinklers are relatively inexpensive to install, accounting for approximately 1-3% of the cost of a new build.  Fire sprinkler heads will only operate in the vicinity of a fire, they do not all operate at once.  An automatic fire sprinkler head discharges between 40-60 litres of water per minute and will cause considerably less water damage than would be necessary for Firefighters tackling a fully developed fire.  Statistics show that the likelihood of automatic fire sprinklers activating accidentally is negligible – they operate differently to smoke alarms.

Promoting the Benefits of Automatic Fire Sprinklers  They detect a fire in its incipient stage – this will potentially save lives in your premises.  Sprinklers will control if not extinguish a fire reducing building damage.  Automatic sprinklers protect the environment; reducing water damage and airborne pollution from smoke and toxic fumes.  They potentially allow design freedoms in building plans, such as increased compartment size and travel distances.  They may reduce insurance premiums.  Automatic fire sprinklers enhance Firefighter safety.

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

 Domestic sprinkler heads are recessed into ceilings and pipe work concealed so you won’t even know they’re there.  They support business continuity – insurers report 80% of businesses experiencing a fire will not recover.  Properly installed and maintained automatic fire sprinklers can provide the safest of environments for you, your family or your employees.  A desirable safety feature, they may enhance the value of your property and provide an additional sales feature.

The Next Step Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service is working to make Suffolk a safer place to live. Part of this ambition is as champion for the increased installation of automatic fire sprinklers in commercial and domestic premises.

Any information you require to assist you to decide can be found on the following web pages:

Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/emergency-and-rescue/

Residential Sprinkler Association http://www.firesprinklers.info/

British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association http://www.bafsa.org.uk/

Fire Protection Association http://www.thefpa.co.uk/

Business Sprinkler Alliance http://www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org/

I hope adopting automatic fire sprinklers in your build can help our aim of making ‘Suffolk a safer place to live’.

Yours faithfully

Mark Hardingham Chief Fire Officer Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service

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

DC/19/03352 – Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall

These comments are in response to the additional supporting statement by Heritage Matters, dated 30th August 2019 and the amended Heritage Statement, dated 29th August 2019.

It is acknowledged that some additional reasoning has been provided in the supporting documents, however, the Council’s Heritage Team view has not been altered by these conclusions. The extent of various assets’ settings in these documents are often referred to in terms of views, boundaries and the approach roads. The settings do not include the proposal site within the undeveloped field opposite, but claims are made that the assets are not ‘experienced’ in this part, although the field forms part of the rural environment in which they stand. The Heritage Team’s opinion regarding the effect of this proposal and the setting clearly differ from the agent’s.

In two recent appeals which were dismissed in the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Districts, the Inspector considered how setting is not limited to inter-visibility or the curtilage but can extend to the surrounding countryside. The second appeal was for a site just over the road to the north west of this proposal site in Buxhall. Below are quotes from the two recent examples, pertinent to this scheme: (Appeal references APP/W3520/W/19/3226049 and APP/W3520/W/19/3226943)

Great Blakenham ‘…advice given by Historic England states that while many day-to-day cases will be concerned with proposals in the vicinity of an asset, development further afield may also affect significance, particularly where it is large-scale, prominent or intrusive… and such limited inter-visibility does not justify the harm that would be caused.’

‘…whilst I recognise that the surroundings of a heritage asset will change over time, I am not of the view that previous negative changes to the setting of the listed building should not be used to justify further harm to its significance…’

‘I acknowledge that views of the proposed dwellings would be restricted from outside and within the site by existing mature trees, hedges and shrubs, and that these would be reinforced by additional planting. However, I do not consider the screening of a development by landscaping to be a sound basis upon which to justify an otherwise harmful scheme as this could be repeated too easily…’

Buxhall ‘…the very function and rationale of the heritage asset is inherently linked to proximate countryside. From the various historical plans… it is clear that there has been open countryside immediately to the west of the farmstead at Cottage Farm as part of a long standing situation of a very scattered pattern of development on this part of Mill Road. Part of the heritage significance… is a countryside context.’

‘…the tall boundary wall… the access road and hedgerows abutting the… appeal site. Whilst I accept that in some immediate views, these features limit inter-visibility between the listed building and the appeal proposal, setting is not entirely a visual matter and certainly not confined to what may or may not be the original curtilage of the building.’

‘The NPPF defines setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experience. The extent of setting is not fixed such that it can include wider concepts of openness and landscape character... the rural, verdant nature of the appeal site, in such close proximity, makes a positive contribution to the setting of the heritage asset in terms of appreciating and understanding its significance… in the countryside.’

‘…the rich rural milieu would be tangibly eroded…’

‘…a nearby proposal for an energy efficient dwelling… The energy performance of housing stock needs to improve more generally as part of transitioning to a net zero carbon future such that I ascribe little weight to this benefit which to some extent would be offset by the degree of car dependency at the appeal location… the level of benefit identified would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to heritage assets, which the NPPF identifies are an irreplaceable resource.’

Furthermore, comments made on the previous scheme (DC/18/05321) – which is very similar to the current scheme – need not be replicated here. They can however, be referenced for this application as they are still pertinent and do explain why the Heritage Team considers that the proposal site in its current undeveloped form does stand within the setting of various listed buildings and makes a positive contribution to their significance. Please refer to these comments dated 22nd February 2019, for clarity.

The additional supporting statement confirms our previous assumption that the illustrated ‘area of setting’ for Lawn Cottage and Old Lawn Cottage is arbitrary and demonstrates why the mapping of settings is both unhelpful and contentious in some cases. Whilst the Team acknowledges that mapping settings is possible for an individual application, as per Historic England’s guidance, a recent settings course at Oxford University’s Department for Continuing Education suggested it was not best practice to do so, for these very reasons. If these settings maps are arbitrary, what is to suggest the other areas defined in the Heritage Statement are not also arbitrary? In this instance, there is a fundamental disagreement about both the extent of setting and the contribution the proposal site makes to the significance of the assets.

The amended Heritage Statement also now states that the modern buildings associated with Tomlinson Groundcare to the south of the proposal site are ‘a harmful element within the setting’ of the Old Rectory. In addition, the former poultry sheds which are now part of the horticultural and garden machinery dealership are also considered to ‘form a harmful element within the setting of the church’ p. 30. As such, the proposed development of a currently undeveloped area of land which the Heritage Team considers to positively contribute to the rural setting of various assets, has the potential to repeat this harmful effect of the modern buildings to the south, and cumulatively diminish the assets’ significance. Note the Inspector’s opinion in regard to not repeating the effect of harmful schemes.

The Heritage Team therefore maintains its view that the proposal would cause a medium level of less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets. The application does not therefore meet the requirements of s.66 of the P(LBCA)A 1990, nor the principles of the NPPF, or the policies within the Local Plan. It is for these reasons that the Heritage Team objects to the proposal.

Tegan Chenery Heritage and Design Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together

Hello Sian

DC/18/05321 – Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall

The proposal is for the erection of a dwelling and annexe/cartlodge – the issues of heritage concern relate to the potential impact of the proposal on the significance of nearby listed buildings, including; Grade I listed Church of St Mary and the Grade II listed The Old Rectory to the south east; a cluster of Grade II listed buildings to the east and north east including the ‘Stable range 60 metres north east of The Old Rectory’, Rectory Cottages, Post Office Cottage, Rose Cottage, Cleves Cottages, Lawn Cottage and Old Lawn Cottage; a Grade II* listed building Maypole Farmhouse to the east; and the group of Grade II listed buildings to the north including Bennets Ye Olde Guildhall, Sawyers and Cottage Farmhouse – as per the National Heritage List for England (NHLE). As such, the site in incredibly sensitive with a plethora of designated heritage assets in close proximity to the proposal site, with overlapping and potentially far reaching settings.

The proposal site itself in its current form is undeveloped land, indicative of the agricultural location. This aspect of the setting of the listed buildings in the vicinity positively contributes to their significance, because it reinforces the rural context in which they stand. The listed Church and The Old Rectory stand in a prominent position within the landscape. The proposal site also reflects this character and the relative isolation of the various clusters of historic buildings with little intrusion from modern development. The Church and Old Rectory have a close associative relationship due to their functions and overlapping settings with little modern intervention. However, to the south west of the Church and south of the site is a group of mid-late 20th century agricultural/industrial buildings and two dwellings, as well as probably late-20th century metal clad barns, which largely replace a collection of historic buildings evident on the 1904 OS map flanking the road. To the north of the site is another cluster of listed buildings and farmhouses and some later agricultural barns; all however, are sited to the north of the road.

The undeveloped nature of the site positively contributes to the setting of the nearby listed buildings and in particular, maintains the distinctive and quite special setting of the listed Church, The Old Rectory and stable range. The proposal to develop the site would extend the modern development to the south, into undeveloped land and impinge upon this land which is currently flanked by historic and listed buildings. Views through and across the land, also reached via footpaths, would be commuted, reducing the experience and appreciation of both the Church and the intervisibility of many of the listed buildings flanking the site. Its character as an undeveloped field is fundamental to its contribution to the setting of many of the listed buildings, and as such the principle of the proposal is not supported. In terms of the NPPF, the scheme is considered to cause a medium level of less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets. This is a high bar. In regard to the P(LBCA)A1990, the scheme would not preserve the settings of either listed building. There is a statutory duty at s16 to have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting’. The courts have recently interpreted this as making preservation of listed buildings ‘presumptively desirable’ and requiring preservation to be afforded ‘great or considerable weight’ as a ‘high priority’. Any harm to any listed building is to be treated in this way. In the Barnwell Manor High Court case, The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang stated that ‘in my opinion the addition of the word ‘desirability’ in Section 66(1) [of the P(LBCA)A1990] signals that ‘preservation’ of setting is to be treated as a desired or sought after objective…’

NB. The Heritage Team considers that the requirement of para.189 of the NPPF have not been fully met with only a minimal assessment of the designated heritage assets, their setting and potential impacts of the proposal given.

Tegan Chenery Heritage and Design Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together

Hello Sian

DC/18/05321 – Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall

Tegan Chenery Heritage and Design Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together

BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow

From: Tegan Chenery Sent: 06 January 2020 15:17 To: Sian Bunbury Cc: BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow Subject: DC/19/05761 - Heritage response Attachments: DC/19/03352 - Heritage response; DC/19/03352 - Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall; DC/18/05321 - Heritage response

Categories: Katherine

Hello Sian,

DC/19/05761 – Land south of Mill Road, Buxhall

The Heritage Team have no additional comments to add to this scheme. The current application appears to reflect the most recent application (DC/19/03352). It is not apparent that there have been any alterations to consider. Therefore, please refer to my earlier comments dated 22/08/2019 and 20/09/2019 which are attached for ease of reference.

It should also be noted that there was a previous scheme (DC/18/05321) which is similar in scope to the current. I attach my comments for this earlier application. The Heritage Team has been consistent throughout and concluded that the proposal would cause a medium level of less than substantial harm.

Tegan Chenery BA(Hons) MSt Heritage and Design Officer Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils - Working Together tel: 01449 724677 | 07860 827107 email: [email protected] email: [email protected] web: www.babergh.gov.uk www.midsuffolk.gov.uk

Please be advised that any comments expressed in this email are offered as an informal professional opinion unless otherwise stated and are given without prejudice to any decision or action the Council may take in the future. Please check with the email’s author if you are in any doubt about the status of the content of this email. Any personal information contained in correspondence shall be dealt with in accordance with Mid Suffolk and Babergh District Council’s Data Protection policy and the provisions of the Data Protection Act as found on both Council’s websites.

1 From: Andy Rutson-Edwards Sent: 19 December 2019 14:45 To: Sian Bunbury ; BMSDC Planning Area Team Yellow ; BMSDC Planning Mailbox Subject: DC/19/05761

Environmental Health - Land Contamination APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION - DC/19/05761 Proposal: Planning Application - Erection of off-grid sustainable dwelling house with associated parking, landscaping, sewage treatment plant and improved access to highway. Detached garage and annexe. Location: Land South Of Mill Road, Buxhall, Suffolk.

Many thanks for your request for comments in relation to the above application. Having reviewed the application I can confirm that I have no objection to the proposed development from the perspective of land contamination. I would only request that the LPA are contacted in the event of unexpected ground conditions being encountered during construction and that the below minimum precautions are undertaken until such time as the LPA responds to the notification. I would also advise that the developer is made aware that the responsibility for the safe development of the site lies with them.

Minimum requirements for dealing with unexpected ground conditions being encountered during construction.

1. All site works at the position of the suspected contamination will stop and the Local Planning Authority and Environmental Health Department will be notified as a matter of urgency. 2. A suitably trained geo-environmental engineer should assess the visual and olfactory observations of the ground and the extent of contamination and the Client and the Local Authority should be informed of the discovery. 3. The suspected contaminated material will be investigated and tested appropriately in accordance with assessed risks. The investigation works will be carried out in the presence of a suitably qualified geo-environmental engineer. The investigation works will involve the collection of solid samples for testing and, using visual and olfactory observations of the ground, delineate the area over which contaminated materials are present. 4. The unexpected contaminated material will either be left in situ or be stockpiled (except if suspected to be asbestos) whilst testing is carried out and suitable assessments completed to determine whether the material can be re-used on site or requires disposal as appropriate. 5. The testing suite will be determined by the independent geo-environmental specialist based on visual and olfactory observations. 6. Test results will be compared against current assessment criteria suitable for the future use of the area of the site affected. 7. Where the material is left in situ awaiting results, it will either be reburied or covered with plastic sheeting. 8. Where the potentially contaminated material is to be temporarily stockpiled, it will be placed either on a prepared surface of clay, or on 2000-gauge Visqueen sheeting (or other impermeable surface) and covered to prevent dust and odour emissions. 9. Any areas where unexpected visual or olfactory ground contamination is identified will be surveyed and testing results incorporated into a Verification Report. 10. A photographic record will be made of relevant observations. 11. The results of the investigation and testing of any suspect unexpected contamination will be used to determine the relevant actions. After consultation with the Local Authority, materials should either be: • re-used in areas where test results indicate that it meets compliance targets so it can be re-used without treatment; or • treatment of material on site to meet compliance targets so it can be re-used; or • removal from site to a suitably licensed landfill or permitted treatment facility. 12. A Verification Report will be produced for the work.

Andy

Andy Rutson-Edwards, MCIEH AMIOA

Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Council - Working Together

MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

To: Sian Bunbury – Planning Officer

From: Louise Barker – Housing Enabling Officer – Strategic Housing

Date: 19th December 2019

Subject: Application for Planning Permission - DC/19/05761

Proposal: Erection of off-grid sustainable dwelling house with associated parking, landscaping, sewage treatment plant and improved access to highway. Detached garage and annexe.

Location: Land South of Mill Road, Buxhall, Suffolk

• This is an application for the erection of 1 dwelling and I understand the site area to be 0.91 hectares

• A site area of 0.5 hectares and over is considered a major development under the National Planning Policy Framework and triggers an affordable housing contribution.

• As this is for one dwelling the contribution required will be in the form of a commuted sum. We would seek a sum equal to 35% of one dwelling based on a 2 bed house for district wide need.

The commuted sum calculation is as follows:

NDSS compliant 2 bed 4-person house @ 79 sqm

At a design and build rate of £2,000/m2 for an affordable unit gives

Total design and build cost £158.00.00

Plot value based on the above property and taking the District Valuation Service Property market report at £600/sqm £47,400.00

Plus Housing Association on costs at 7% £11,060.00

Plus MSDC management fee of £500.00

Less Housing Association acquisition price £141,024.00

The figure for 1 whole dwelling is £75,936 therefore in this case the sum required would be 35% of this figure which equates to £26,577. 50