Agenda Item 6 CABINET

Tuesday 5 February 2019

EXTENSIONS TO THE MELTON, EARL SOHAM, PEASENHALL AND SIBTON, WESTLETON, AND ORFORD CONSERVATION AREAS. IDENTIFICATION OF POSITIVE UNLISTED BUILDINGS IN MELTON, EARL SOHAM, PEASENHALL AND SIBTON, WESTLETON, ORFORD AND GRUNDISBURGH CONSERVATION AREAS (CAB 10/19)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Conservation Area Management Plans for the Conservation Area Appraisals written for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh in 2010/2011 states that ‘on completion in 2010/2011 of appraisals for all 34 of the District’s Conservation Areas a review will be commenced of their boundaries as a separate exercise’. This review has been completed and proposals for the extension of the boundaries of all of the above excluding Grundisburgh are proposed.

2. The current Conservation Area Appraisals for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh, do not identify positive unlisted buildings within the Conservation Area. All Conservation Area appraisals completed after 2011 include an inventory of these buildings and work has been undertaken to bring the older appraisals up to date. An Inventory of ‘Unlisted Structures which make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ has been written for each of these Conservation Areas. Positive unlisted buildings are buildings or structures that are not protected by statutory listing but are considered to make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Identifying these as positive unlisted buildings means that extra care will be taken when considering development proposals that would affect them. Demolition of a positive unlisted building would be viewed unfavourably.

3. Officers judge that a public consultation exercise has demonstrated that, amongst those who responded including those who would be directly affected; there is a clear majority in support of the proposals.

4. This report recommends the extension of the existing Conservation Areas in Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton and Orford; and the adoption of an Inventory of ‘Unlisted Structures Which Make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ as a Supplementary Planning Document for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh.

Is the report Open or Open Exempt?

Wards Affected: Melton, Framlingham, Peasenhall and Yoxford, Wenhaston and Westleton, Orford and Eyke, Grundisburgh

Cabinet Member: Councillor Tony Fryatt – Cabinet Member for Planning

Supporting Officer: Name: Eloise Limmer Job Title: Design and Conservation Officer Telephone Number: 01394 444296 Email address: [email protected]

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 directs that every local authority shall, from time to time, review their existing conservation areas and determine whether any parts or any further parts of their area should be designated as conservation areas; and, if they so determine, they shall designate those parts accordingly.

1.2 The conservation areas that have been reviewed at this time are: Melton (designated in 1990), Earl Soham (1972), Peasenhall and Sibton (1972), Westleton (1973), Orford (1970) and Grundisburgh (1971, extended 1985). The Conservation Area appraisals for these areas were adopted in 2010. When the appraisals were written positive unlisted buildings within the conservation area were not identified. It was decided to identify positive unlisted buildings in all other appraisals written after this date. The appraisals for these six conservation areas therefore need to be brought up to the same standard and consistency as the later appraisals.

1.3 This report proposes that it is timely and relevant under Section 69 of the 1990 Act to extend the conservation area boundaries in Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton and Orford. It is also proposed that the adoption of an Inventory of ‘Unlisted Structures Which Make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ as a Supplementary Planning Document for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh is timely and relevant to ensure that the same level of information is available for all of the District’s Conservation Areas.

1.4 This report will provide a summary of the identification of positive unlisted buildings, a summary of the proposed boundary changes, public consultation, consequences of proposals, national and local planning policies, and procedures to be taken for formal and informal notification.

2 IDENTIFICATION OF POSITIVE UNLISTED BUILDINGS

2.1 The buildings identified as positive unlisted buildings in Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh are illustrated by map at Appendix A. For the link to the website where the Inventories of ‘Unlisted Structures Which Make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ are available see Appendix E.

2.2 Positive unlisted buildings are buildings or structures that are not protected by statutory listing but are considered to make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. A street by street inventory has been written identifying all the positive unlisted buildings in each of the conservation areas. Identifying these buildings as positive unlisted buildings means that extra care will be taken when considering development proposals that would affect them. Demolition of a positive unlisted building would be viewed unfavourably. However,

the owners of properties identified as positive unlisted buildings would still have the same permitted development rights as any other buildings within the conservation area. Further information about the policy background can be found in Section 6.

2.3 The existing appraisals for these conservation areas do not identify the positive unlisted buildings within the conservation area. All Suffolk Coastal District Council’s conservation area appraisals completed after 2011 include an inventory of these buildings and it is essential that these older appraisals are updated. Fieldwork was undertaken by a consultant in 2016/2017 from public thoroughfares and this work was supplemented with information from published material and map regression studies. The inventories do not claim to be exhaustive as other structures of significance may exist that are not readily visible from public footpaths and roads.

3 PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES

3.1 The proposed boundary changes to the Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton and Orford conservation areas are illustrated by map at Appendix A. No changes are proposed for Grundisburgh conservation area.

3.2 The 2010 conservation area appraisals include a conservation management plan; this includes a section on the conservation area boundary. This states that ‘on completion in 2010/2011 of appraisals for all 34 of the District’s conservation areas a review will be commenced of their boundaries as a separate exercise. There is no timetable as yet proposed. Full public consultation will be undertaken on any suggested revisions to the position of the boundary that may be proposed as part of the future review.’

3.3 The boundaries of the six conservation areas were reviewed in accordance with the conservation management plan set out in the relevant appraisals and using the guidance provided by Historic England in their Advice Note 1 ‘Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management’ (2016). Proposals for extensions were identified for all the areas except Grundisburgh. The proposed extension areas vary in size: some cover a relatively large geographic area and some just incorporate one extra property.

3.4 Melton A proposed northern extension to the existing Melton conservation area was recommended in both the existing Melton conservation area appraisal, and in Section 13.3 of the Conservation Area Management Plan published in June 2010. This proposed extension along Yarmouth Road has not yet been acted upon. It is fortunate that the buildings in the proposed extension area have not been the subject of damaging alterations in the period since. Fieldwork in September 2018 confirmed that the area recommended in 2010 was still worthy of inclusion, and that an adjoining small area at the western termination of Lower Road should also be included. This contains one further substantial house, The Old Rectory, and an area

of wooded parkland. It should be noted that the view looking south down the section of Yarmouth Road included in the extension is marked as a key view in the existing 2010 Conservation Area appraisal.

It is judged that there is no conflict between the proposed extension of the Melton conservation area and the Melton Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030 (made January 2018).

3.5 Earl Soham One small boundary extension is suggested on the northern side of Low Road at the western edge of the existing conservation area. On the north side of Low Road to the west of the present conservation area boundary is a group of small former labourers’ cottages of mid-nineteenth century date, which were constructed within a series of small enclosures shown on the 1841 tithe map. The adjoining former Baptist Chapel (which is within the existing Conservation Area) was constructed on part of one of these plots in 1859. The bulk of the houses on The Street, the main thoroughfare through the village, stand on its north side and look out over open countryside to the south. This is also true of the mid nineteenth century development on Low Road. In order to include these structures a small number of broadly neutral buildings would also need to be brought into the Conservation Area including the mid-twentieth century single storey brick telephone exchange building, and three late twentieth century detached houses (including Little Beck, and Bramley House). Two detached early twenty first century houses stand immediately adjacent to the now converted former chapel, within the Conservation Area boundary.

3.6 Peasenhall and Sibton It is proposed that the planned cemetery, which includes memorials dating from the late C19, including a few to members of the local and prominent Smyth family, is included within a revised conservation area boundary. Such areas are valuable for their visual contribution, their socio-historic importance and often contain memorials of aesthetic importance. To the immediate south of the cemetery are Street Grove Farmhouse and farm buildings. Some of the buildings in this complex date from 17th/18th century. It was initially suggested that the extension incorporate these buildings but after further consideration and following public consultation it is judged that the farm is too far removed from the village core and therefore extending the conservation area would not be the best way to protect these buildings. The site has been a working farm for generations and there is currently no threat of development or change of use. It is highly likely that the farmhouse and some of the associated farm buildings could be identified as non-designated heritage assets and protected from demolition if necessary should a development proposal come forward for the site.

3.7 Westleton A small extension would re-draw the boundary around a property known as Phoenix Cottage, which is located to the west side of Darsham Road. It dates to the early 19th century, with a mid to late 20th century rear range at right angles. The original part of the property has its gable end abutting the road, and is shown on the 1904 OS map

as being a pair of cottages. The existing conservation area boundary currently runs to the immediate south of this property. Two other extensions were initially proposed in Westleton both of which, on consideration and following public consultation, have not been pursued. 3.8 The first was the garden of The Barn, The Hill which is situated to the north of the house either side of the public footpath. The owner of this property was concerned about the impact of having to give notice regarding works to trees; the garden is an evolving space which requires constant maintenance and he considered that the tree notification requirements would be too onerous. The garden is carefully curated and maintained by the owners and there is no imminent threat from development. There is some existing protection from development for this site as it falls outside of the physical limits of the village and it also falls within the setting of Vine Cottage (a listed building) and the setting of the conservation area. 3.9 A further extension was proposed to the south east of the existing conservation area. This would have taken in the green space to the south of the three positive unlisted buildings; Bankside, Holly Tree Cottage, and West End Cottage which form part of their setting. It would also have incorporated the green space in which a late 19th century railway carriage sits. This carriage is used as a store and workshop. The owner of the railway carriage and the land on which it sits objected to this proposed extension as did the Parish Council. Following these objections it was considered that the green space is afforded some level of protection as part of the setting of the conservation area as well as its proximity to the common. The railway carriage, although of heritage interest, is not a fixed structure and could be removed from the site without permission. Overall, therefore it was considered that there was not sufficient merit in this proposed extension to take it forward. 3.10 Orford Two areas are proposed for extension. Firstly, a very small extension to the north side of Rectory Road to incorporate Glebe Cottage and its garden setting. Glebe Cottage is shown on the 1838 tithe map and likely dates from the late 18th or early 19th century. The other, larger, proposed extension is to the east of the southern boundary of the conservation area. This would incorporate the quayside fishing and boat huts, the sailing club, the public car park, the drainage pond, and the mooring area of the sailing and dinghy club on the quayside. All of these spaces and buildings are important to the character of the Quayside part of the town. It is considered that bringing these spaces into the conservation area would make it a more coherent area; currently part of the Quayside is included and part excluded even though the whole area is very important to the character of the village and the conservation area. The Quayside car park which is an important public space and its open character represents a transition from the more densely built up core of the town into the wide open space of the Quayside. The drainage pond and mooring area of the sailing and dinghy club continue this open character to the water line; this openness is only partially broken by the simple, small scale fishing and boating huts. The black boarded traditional fishing and boat huts, although basic and functional in

design, make a positive contribution to the character of the Quayside and maintain a physical connection with the town’s fishing and sailing history.

4 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

4.1 There is no statutory requirement to undertake consultation on proposals to extend an existing conservation area. However, Historic England’s Advice Note on conservation area designation (op.cit.) states under a heading ‘Community and Owner Consultation and Involvement that “involving the community at an early stage is advisable” (para.16).

4.2 Accordingly, the following public consultation was undertaken by SCDC between 15th November and 14th December 2018 (four weeks):

 Owners and occupiers of each property within the proposed conservation area extension were contacted by letter: to inform them of the proposal to extend the conservation area; to provide a summary of the consequences of designation; to inform them of the identification of positive unlisted buildings within the conservation area and to seek their views on the proposal.  Owners and occupiers of properties in the existing conservation area were contacted by letter: to inform them of the proposal to extend the conservation area; to inform them of the identification of positive unlisted buildings within the conservation area and to seek their views on the proposal  Also invited to comment were: the relevant Parish Councils and Ward Members  Additionally, the Inventory of positive unlisted buildings and the map identifying the proposed extension areas and the positive unlisted buildings for each conservation area were placed on the Council’s website for viewing and downloading. 4.3 A total of 38 responses were received by email; phone call and letter. This total includes responses by the Ward Members and the parish councils. Of these, 32 were in support; 5 opposed; and 1 with mixed views. A summary of public responses, including a breakdown by Conservation Area, is attached at Appendix C. 4.4 Of the 7 who responded who would be resident within the proposed conservation area extensions, 4 expressed support for the proposal. 4.5 For information the parish council and all residents of the proposed extension areas (regardless of whether they had responded) were sent an update letter on 8th January 2019 that included a summary of the consultation feedback and a statement of SCDC’s intention to seek authority from the Council’s Cabinet on February 5th 2019 to designate the extensions to the Conservation Areas. The relevant page on the Council’s website has also been continuously updated: http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/planning/design-and-conservation/conservation- areas/suffolk-coastal-conservation-areas/conservation-area-reviews/

4.6 The following changes were made to the proposals as a result of the public consultation:  The proposed extension to the Peasenhall and Sibton conservation area was reduced to only include the cemetery, not Street Grove Farm  The proposed northern extension to the Westleton conservation area that would have incorporated the garden of The Barn, The Hill has been removed  The proposed south eastern extension to the Westleton conservation area has been removed.

5 CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSALS

5.1 The principal consequences of conservation area designation are as follows:

 The Council is under a duty to prepare proposals to ensure the preservation or enhancement of the area;  Consent must be obtained from the Council for the demolition of any unlisted building or structure in the area larger than 115 cubic metres; and the local authority or the Secretary of State may take enforcement action or institute a criminal prosecution if consent is not obtained;  It is an offence under section 196D of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to undertake ‘relevant demolition’ of an unlisted building in a Conservation Area without the necessary planning permission. .  Special publicity must be given to planning applications for development in the area;  In carrying out any functions under the planning Acts and, in particular, in determining applications for planning permission and listed building consent, the Council and the Secretary of State are required to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area;  The details as to the limits of what works may be carried out without planning permission are different and are summarised at Appendix D; and  Six weeks’ notice must be given to the Council before works are carried out to any tree in the area that is more than 75mm in diameter measured at 1.5 metres above ground level. The penalties for undertaking works to trees within a Conservation Area within the six-week period are similar to those for undertaking unauthorised works to a tree covered by a tree preservation order (s.211 Town & Country Planning Act 1990).

5.2 Other relevant consequences of designation include:

 The Secretary of State may direct that Section 54 (urgent works) of the 1990 Act shall apply to preserve unoccupied buildings that appear to him or her to be important for maintaining the character or appearance of the area;  Grants and loans may be made by Historic England for the preservation or enhancement of conservation areas;  The display of advertisements may be more restricted than elsewhere; and  Historic England must be notified of development affecting the character or appearance of a conservation area where the area of the application site is more than 1,000 square metres; or where the construction of any building will be more than 20 metres in height.

5.3 There are no proposals to introduce additional planning controls within the proposed conservation area such as an Article 4 Direction removing certain permitted development rights.

6 NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES

6.1 A conservation area is a designated heritage asset as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Section 16: ‘Conserving and enhancing the

historic environment’ of the NPPF and its relevant paragraphs will, therefore, apply to planning applications for development within the conservation area.

6.2 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF states that when considering the designation (including extensions) of Conservation Areas Local Planning Authorities should ensure that an area “justifies such status because of its special architectural or historic interest, and that the concept of conservation is not devalued through the designation of areas that lack special interest”. It is judged by officers that the review of the conservation area boundaries and identification of areas for proposed extensions has been undertaken using guidelines provided by Historic England demonstrates that there is sufficient special interest in this proposal to justify conservation area status. Without the protection afforded to the distinctive character of the village by conservation area status it is judged that its quality and that of its setting may erode over time to the detriment overall of the historic environment of the District.

6.3 The 1990 Act (op.cit.) at section 72 confirms that, in exercise of its planning functions, the planning authority shall pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

6.4 The relevant policies of the 2013 Suffolk Coastal District Local Plan are Strategic Policy SP15 and Development Management Policy DM21 – Landscape, Townscape and Design: Aesthetics with supporting text on the historic environment.

6.5 Supporting national and local planning policies will be the adopted supplementary planning guidance in the form of the ‘Inventory of Unlisted Structures which make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’. At then end of each Inventory is a section on the ‘Proposed Extensions to the Conservation Area’ which provides a clear definition of those elements which contribute to the special architectural or historic interest of the conservation area extension against which planning applications can be considered. A link to webpage where the Inventory and Map for each conservation area can be viewed is included at Appendix E.

6.6 Paragraph 201 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the ‘loss of a building… which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the conservation area… should be treated either as substantial harm or less than substantial harm’. Therefore the buildings that have now been identified as positive unlisted buildings are already protected by national planning policy. Identification of them is aimed at ensuring that planners, owners and developers are aware of the building’s positive contribution and that permission for demolition is unlikely to be granted. The loss of a positive unlisted building within a conservation area would normally represent less than substantial harm to the conservation area which is a designated heritage asset. According to paragraph 196 of the NPPF ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. This would be the test that either the Planning Officer or Planning Committee would have to apply when deciding whether to approve the demolition of a positive unlisted building.

7 PROCEDURES TO BE TAKEN FOR FORMAL AND INFORMAL NOTIFICATION

7.1 Should the Cabinet resolve to designate the proposed extensions to the Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton and Orford conservation areas the designation date will be at the end of the call-in period for Cabinet decisions, which will be 5pm on 14th February 2019.

7.2 Following the designation of the extensions to the conservation areas the following statutory notifications will take place:

 The new designations will be advertised in the London Gazette;  The new designations will be advertised in at least one local newspaper;  The Secretary of State will be notified;  Historic England will be notified; and  The inclusion of a building in a Conservation Area is a ‘Planning Charge’ and all properties within the new Conservation Area will be included in Part 3 of the Local Land Charges Register. 7.3 The following non-statutory notifications will take place:

 All property owners/occupiers and land owners affected directly by falling within the extensions to the Conservation Areas will receive a letter advising of the designation; the date of designation; and including a guidance leaflet on Conservation Areas;  The parish council and ward member will be informed;  Public utilities, local estate agents, surveyors, architects, builders and tree surgeons will be informed as far as reasonable; and  Other relevant departments within the Council will be informed.

8 HOW DOES THIS RELATE TO EAST SUFFOLK BUSINESS PLAN

8.1 The proposal relates to the East Suffolk Business Plan in the following ways:

 Vision: “Our objective is to achieve the right balance for our area…..protecting and enhancing all that is best and unique about our natural and built environment, whether it is our coastline, our countryside or our traditional villages and market towns”. It is judged that this proposal will protect and enhance the historic built environment of six of our attractive, traditional villages.

 Critical success factors: “Planning: well managed development of sustainable, thriving communities, with the quality facilities and service needed for a growing economy, whilst preserving the historic and natural environment”. It

is judged that this proposal will assist in the protection of the historic environment of the District.

9 FINANCIAL AND GOVERNANCE IMPLICATIONS

9.1 Extending the conservation areas will require additional advertising of applications for development within the additional areas. 9.2 Given the modest area of the proposed extensions to the conservation areas it is anticipated that there will be only a small impact on the workload of planning staff in terms of their development management, landscape, tree, enforcement and conservation roles.

10 OTHER KEY ISSUES

10.1 There are no other key issues arising from this report

11 OTHER OPTIONS CONSIDERED

11.1 There were no other options considered in bringing forward the recommendation of this report.

12 REASON FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

12.1 The boundaries of Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh conservation areas were reviewed as set out in the conservation area management plans for the conservation area appraisals in 2010/2011. This states that ‘on completion in 2010/2011 of appraisal for all 34 of the District’s conservation areas a review will be commenced of their boundaries as a separate exercise’. This review has been completed and proposals for the extension of the boundaries of the above areas, excluding Grundisburgh, are proposed. The assessment of the proposed areas has identified that they are of sufficient quality and defines their special interest.

12.2 The current conservation area appraisals for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh, do not identify the positive unlisted buildings within the conservation area. All conservation area appraisals completed after 2011 include an inventory of these buildings and work has been undertaken to bring the older appraisals up to date. An Inventory of ‘Unlisted Structures which make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ has been written for each of these conservation areas. Positive unlisted buildings are buildings or structures that are not protected by statutory listing but are considered to make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Identifying these as positive unlisted buildings means that extra care will be taken when considering development proposals that would affect them. Demolition of a positive unlisted building would be viewed unfavourably.

12.3 Officers judge that a public consultation exercise has demonstrated that, amongst those who responded including those who would be directly affected there is a clear majority in support of the proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That Cabinet agrees the extension of the Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall and Sibton, Westleton and Orford Conservation Areas as shown on the maps attached at Appendix A by areas bounded by the red dashed line and including those properties and land included in the schedule attached at Appendix B. 2. That Cabinet agrees the adoption of the Inventories of ‘Unlisted Structures Which Make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ for Melton, Earl Soham, Peasenhall

and Sibton, Westleton, Orford and Grundisburgh as Supplementary Planning Documents.

APPENDICES

Appendix A Maps of proposed extensions to Conservation Areas

Schedule of properties and land proposed for inclusion in the extensions Appendix B to the Conservation Areas

Appendix C Summary of public consultation responses

Appendix D Summary of permitted development rights in a Conservation Area

Conservation Area appraisals and Proposed Supplementary Planning Appendix E Guidance

BACKGROUND PAPERS Please note that copies of background papers have not been published on the Council’s website but copies of the background papers listed below are available for public inspection free of charge by contacting the relevant Council Department.

Date Type Available From

2015-2018 2018 Appraisal Reviews file E. Limmer

Appendix A Maps of proposed extensions to Conservation Areas

A.1 MELTON

The red dashed line represents the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area extension

A.2 EARL SOHAM - The red dashed line represents the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area extension

A.3 PEASENHALL AND SIBTON

The red dashed line represents the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area extension

A.4 WESTLETON - The red dashed line represents the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area extension

A.5 ORFORD - The red dashed line represents the boundary of the proposed Conservation Area extension

Schedule of properties and land proposed for inclusion in the Appendix B extensions to the Conservation Areas

B.1 MELTON

Property name Address Street Town Postal Town Postcode The Old Rectory Old Church Road Melton Woodbridge IP13 6DH Tollgate Cottage Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 1 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 2 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 3 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 4 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 5 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF 6 Tollgate Cottages Yarmouth Road Melton Woodbridge IP12 1QF Wooded land to east of Yarmouth Road. Area = 25779 square metres. Bounded by Lower Road to north, The Old Rectory to west, and Greylands Cottage to south.

B.2 EARL SOHAM

Property name Address Street Town Postal Town Postcode Telephone Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Exchange Foremans Cottage Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Bramley House Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN 1 Browns Hill Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN 2 Browns Hill Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Albert Cottage Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Little Beck Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Larks Field House Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Mereside Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN Browns Hill Cottage Low Road Earl Soham Woodbridge IP13 7RN

B.3 PEASENHALL AND SIBTON

Property name Address Street Town Postal Town Postcode Peasenhall Badingham Road Peasenhall Saxmundham IP17 2HS Cemetery

B.4 WESTLETON

Property name Address Street Town Postal Town Postcode Phoenix Cottage Darsham Road Westleton Saxmundham IP17 3AH

B.5 ORFORD

Property name Address Street Town Postal Town Postcode Glebe Cottage Rectory Road Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NN Public Quay Street Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Convenience (within Car Park) Orford Sailing Club Daphne Road Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NY

Riverside Tearoom Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 2B Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 2C Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 2G Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 2H Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 2I Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street The Store, Plot 5 Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Brinkleys Shed Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 8a Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 8b Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 8c Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Plot 8b Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street RSPB Store Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Boat Store Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Storage Building Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Rear Of The Old Quay Street Warehouse Storage Shed Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU North Of Quay Quay Street Office Orford Trust Office Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Quay Office Orford Quay, Orford Woodbridge IP12 2NU Quay Street Orford Quay Public Car Park, east of Quay Street. Area = 9808 square metres. Bounded by Quay Meadow to north, drainage ditch to east and drainage pond to south. Drainage pond, south of Orford Quay Public Car Park. Area = 4834 square metres. Bounded by Ferry Cottage to west, drainage ditch to east, and Orford Boat Yard to south. Orford Boat Yard, south of Drainage Pond. Area = 3241 square metres. Bounded by Ferry Cottage to west, Orford Sailing Club to east and black fishing and sailing huts to south.

B.6 GRUNDISBURGH

No extension proposed.

Appendix C Summary of public consultation responses

C.1.1 MELTON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 7

Views expressed: In support - 7 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

Anything that preserves Melton is alright by me

A very interesting and important document which we read with great interest. The document was fascinating to read and an important document to help maintain the character of old Melton whether the properties are listed or not

I fully support the proposed extension of the Conservation Area

I approve of the changes that have been proposed. Melton is changing very rapidly, not always for the better.

C.1.2 MELTON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 2

Views expressed: 2 In support - 2 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

I have no objection to the proposed extension of the Conservation Area

C.1.3 Melton Parish Council

The Parish Council are fully supportive of both the work in respect of the positive unlisted buildings in the Melton Conservation Area and also support the proposed boundary extension.

C.2.1 EARL SOHAM CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 5

Views expressed: In support - 4 Opposed - 1 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

The document is very interesting and informative, we fully support the changes

It is a very good idea to extend the Conservation Area

Earl Soham is a beautiful village with lots of very old buildings. I do approve of the proposed changes to the Earl Soham Conservation Area

I am all in favour of anything we can do to preserve the character and feel of this lovely village of ours and an extension to the boundary as proposed would be a very good move in my opinion. Plus some further protection to the structures listed would also be a very positive move in helping to achieve this. Please therefore take this email as agreement by myself and my husband for the important proposal.

The proposed extension is a waste of time and includes a number of modern properties. Low Road would only be improved by pavements and 20mph limit

C.2.2 EARL SOHAM CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents:1

Views expressed: In support - 1 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

I would like to offer my support to the extension of the conservation area at its northern end in Earl Soham. We believe the extension to the conservation area as proposed is an excellent plan

C.2.3 Cllr Hudson

No adverse comments to note

C.3.1 PEASENHALL AND SIBTON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 0

Views expressed: In support - 0 Opposed - 0

Mixed – 0

C.3.2 PEASENHALL AND SIBTON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 1

Views expressed: In support - 0 Opposed - 1 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

We object to including Street Grove Farm House and buildings in the Conservation Area. This is a working farm as can be seen from the machinery in the yard. Our concerns are the vague details of works listed in your letter that would need planning permission or limit work carried out if Street Grove Farm House and buildings were to be included in the Conservation Area, this would in turn, be detrimental to the day to day running of the farm. We have been tenants here, now in the fourth generation and respect the area in which we live and work. Any changes over the years have always been put to the landlord and subsequently through the appropriate channels.

C.4.1 WESTLETON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 6

Views expressed: In support - 4 Opposed - 2 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

We believe that the proposals would be a significant improvement and sensible inclusion. Please take this email as our approval.

I write in support of the changes. However, being in a Conservation Area has little to no effect on planning decisions… the quaint appearance of the lane has been destroyed

The extensive listing of so many buildings would have a negative effect of fossilising the village in the past. The village should be allowed to develop with the times with a mix of the old and the new. Preserving so many historic buildings will make the village less energy efficient.

C.4.2 WESTLETON CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 3

Views expressed: In support - 1 Opposed - 1 Mixed – 1

A sample of comments:

We are happy to support the inclusion of the Phoenix Cottage in the Conservation Area

We firmly object to any view that the Conservation Area should be extended to the south or that our properties be listed in any way

I appreciate your interest in our garden but including the garden in the Conservation Area will have no additional effect in preserving the garden as I have no intention to do otherwise. I do appreciate the interest and the proposed accolade but actually do not welcome the conditions which would result. Please also note that the garden is outside of the planning envelope of the village so property development is not possible – there is no possible threat to it remaining a garden. Thank you for your recognition of the interest value of the garden but please do not extend the Conservation Area as you propose.

C.4.3 WARD MEMBER – CLLR GOWER

I think you have produced a very comprehensive document that covers a great many of the buildings that make a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area. Well done.

The Westleton conservation area has been put under a lot of pressure in recent years from inappropriate developments notably near the pond and at the northern end of the green. I hope the report will provide future help to protect this special place. Westleton has also shown that the very highest quality of contemporary design can work in a village setting.

On the boundary I agree with removing the proposed southern section extension. As part of the common it already has some protection

C.4.4 PARISH COUNCIL

Westleton Parish Council have no objections to the entries in the main body of the document and are pleased to note the highlighting of unlisted buildings with a positive contribution to the conservation area. In regards to the extensions of the conservation area we have no objections to that at Phoenix Cottage or that of The Barn garden. We also have no objection to that of the railway

39 carriage site. You are no doubt aware that approved planning application DC/17/2251/FUL permits development of this site and of the fact that in the last village boundary review the boundary was extended to include this site. We do however object to the proposed extension of the conservation area beyond the village boundary to encompass part of the Common Land owned and managed by the Parish Council under a Natural England Higher Level Stewardship scheme. We do not accept that the proposed extension would provide a more obvious commencement to the Conservation Area at its southern boundary. We contend that the more obvious conservation boundary will encompass the carriage site and across Mill Street to the existing conservation and village boundary along the track, immediately behind the houses, leading to Bakers Lane.

C.5.1 ORFORD CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents:

Views expressed: 5 In support - 5 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

I fully support the proposed changes. The inventory includes a number of noteworthy buildings and monuments which merit being identified as valuable and important in the contribution they make to the built and historic features that help to make Orford a special and humane environment with a many examples of kindly and well-designed vernacular architecture. Positive unlisted buildings seem to me to be a useful way of delineating these important elements.

Very interesting and detailed document.

The map used is out of date however I am pleased to see my property identified as positive

C.5.2 ORFORD CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 0

Views expressed: 0 In support - 0 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

C.6.1 GRUNDISBURGH CONSERVATION AREA FEEDBACK: RESIDENTS WITHIN THE EXISTING CONSERVATION AREA

Number of respondents: 4

Views expressed: In support - 4 Opposed - 0 Mixed – 0

A sample of comments:

I am pleased to see my property included as a positive unlisted building. I feel that it is very important that the character of the village is preserved, so view the Conservation Area as a very positive thing.

I was very interested to see that there was information about how old the cottage is. I am supportive of the identification of positive unlisted buildings

The identification of positive unlisted buildings is a good idea. The Council should provide information and guidance about looking after historic buildings and how to alter them in a sympathetic way to ensure that the character of conservation areas is protected.

Appendix D Summary of permitted development rights in a Conservation Area

Type of Work Planning application?

1 Demolition of building whose total volume is less than Not needed 115 cubic metres as ascertained by external measurement) 2 Demolition of any gate, fence, wall or other means of Not needed enclosure less than 1 metre high where fronting a highway (including a public footpath or bridleway), waterway or open space; or less than 2 metres high in any other case. 3 Demolition of any building erected since 1 January 1914 Not needed and in use, or last used, for the purposes of agriculture or forestry 4 Demolition works required or permitted under certain Not needed legislation 5 Demolition of entire building of more than 115 cubic Always needed metres in volume 6 Demolition of entire building except façade prior to Probably needed redevelopment 7 Other partial demolition Needed if the works amount to a building operation 8 External alteration or extension of building (not Always needed “permitted development” ) 9 External alteration or extension building (permitted Not needed except where development) required by an Article 4 direction or a condition on a previous permission 10 Non-material minor external alteration to building (not Not needed “development”) 11 Alteration to interior of building Not needed 12 Erection of new building Almost always needed

Conservation Area appraisals and Proposed Supplementary Planning Appendix E Guidance

E.1 Please use this web-link to access the existing Conservation Area appraisals:

http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/planning/design-and-conservation/conservation- areas/suffolk-coastal-conservation-areas/conservation-area-appraisals/

E.2 Please use this web-link to access the maps and Inventories of ‘Unlisted Structures Which Make a Positive Contribution to the Conservation Area’ which are proposed to be adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance:

http://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/planning/design-and-conservation/conservation- areas/suffolk-coastal-conservation-areas/conservation-area-reviews/

Printed copies can be provided on request to Eloise Limmer (contact details as above)