RE FORMER POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT, HAUGHLEY PARK,

HAUGHLEY, , INQUIRY

______

OPENING STATEMENT

on behalf of

Mid District Council

______

CONTEXT

1. The appeal site comprises an area of some 11.19 hectares1, of which just over half (5.91 hectares) is previously developed land (“PDL”) and the balance (5.28 hectares) is greenfield land. The bulk of the greenfield part of the site is a flat open grassland area known as Squire’s Piece. The whole site forms part of the setting of the heritage asset of Haughley Park, a Grade I listed building. That setting also has within it the Grade II former barn and stable now (and at the date of its listing) in use as a conference centre.

2. The appeal site is isolated, being remote from any settlement. The only connection between the site and the wider highway network is the access drive which has no footways, and there are no proposals (or ability) to provide any footways. The nearest village, , is some 1.5 km away by

1 Excluding the access drive which connects the main site to the public highway at Haughley New Road. This access road lies within the red line boundary of the appeal site but no operational development is proposed upon it.

1

available routes, and has minimal facilities. The larger village of , which does have facilities for day-to-day services, a rail station and a primary school, is 3.5 km away and beyond a reasonable walking distance. The larger centre of Stowmarket, which has secondary schools, is 7.0 km away, although the schools themselves are further away (8.1 km and 10.6 km).

3. The industrial buildings on the site were purpose built to accommodate particular uses, initially an egg-packing station and then a poultry processing plant. Some are in poor condition. The poultry processing plant use ceased in 2012. Some use was then made of one of the more recent buildings on the site by a related food processing operation between 2014 and 2015, but this use too ceased, and since 2015 the site has been vacant and the buildings unoccupied.

4. The appeal proposal seeks to redevelop the site on a comprehensive basis in order to establish a new residential estate of some 120 dwellings together with a modest amount of employment floor space and some community uses. Whilst most of the built development is to be accommodated on the PDL part of the site, it is also proposed that the greenfield Squire’s Piece should accommodate a community building, as well as formal and informal open space and an associated vehicular access drive.

5. There is no dispute that the Council has an adequate supply of housing land to meet its five year requirement and that it has passed the housing delivery test.

6. The Council refused planning permission for seven reasons, although only five now remain in contention. The Inspector identified the likely main issues after the Case Management Conference, and the Council’s case in relation to those issues is set out below.

2

MAIN ISSUE 1: THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE LOCATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT

7. The site is clearly an inappropriate location for large scale residential development, in both national and local policy terms. The site is in the countryside, remote from any settlement, and poorly connected to any existing settlements that could provide services and facilities to meet the day to day needs of future residents. It is no answer to say that there are existing settlements elsewhere in a largely rural district that are also poorly connected and poorly served. A sustainable pattern of development does not involve perpetuating current shortcomings. Moreover, it is a false equivalence to seek to compare the merits of a new location for residential development in the countryside with established rural settlements, most likely originating before the modern system of planning control.

8. Nor is it any answer to say that the site could be re-occupied for its lawful use and that might entail more travel. Whilst the Council accepts that there is a legal right to resume the lawful use of the site as a poultry processing plant, or commence any other Class B2 (or a Class B1) use that was able to utilise the existing site without any need for planning permission, the Council does not accept that either scenario is at all likely. They are no more than theoretical possibilities. The existing buildings do not lend themselves to viable re-use for industrial purposes, as the Appellant had been at pains to point out when it feared a loss of employment land objection might be levelled against its development proposals. The Appellant’s recent change of heart lacks credibility and is not supported by the available evidence. Moreover, a reuse option, reliant only on what could be done without the need for planning permission, even if thought likely to come about (which is not the Council’s view), would also be unlikely to endure for an equivalent lifetime as the appeal proposals. Any impacts it might have would be commensurately not as long lasting or as permanent as the appeal proposals.

3

9. In any event, a reuse option would not entail more travel to and from the site than the proposed redevelopment that is before the Inquiry. A reuse option would entail less daily trips and a lower amount of overall travel distance by its users. Even if the two scenarios were thought to be broadly similar in terms of travel demand (which is not the Council’s view), a reuse option would be far less permanent than the appeal proposal.

10. The Appellant’s heavy reliance on its claimed fall-back position only serves to underscore that, assessed on its own merits the appeal proposal is not in an appropriate location for the development. It is contrary to national and local policies in relation to the sustainable location of residential development. The harm that flows from this is in no way offset by the ‘castle in the air’ of a theoretical reuse of the site within the scope of its lawful use.

MAIN ISSUE 2: PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

11. This issue has fallen away on the basis that a condition can be imposed to ensure that the scale of development does not exceed the allowance for vacant building credit which would provide a justification for the non-provision of affordable housing.

MAIN ISSUE 3: IMPACTS ON HERITAGE ASSETS

12. When thorough and proper regard is had to the evolution of the existing site, which was developed under planning permissions granted in the context that Haughley Park was already a Grade I listed building (first listed in 1955), and to the substantial screening of much of the site from the heritage assets, it is clear that the site in its current condition has limited impact on the heritage assets of Haughley Park and the listed barn and stable. In the Council’s detailed assessment, as provided by Mr Lewis, most of the site makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the heritage assets, but some minor negative impact is recognised as a result of there being some limited views of

4

the heritage assets in conjunction with some unsightly elements within the appeal site (primarily the stacked portacabins close to the entrance point).

13. The appeal proposals entail the removal of the unsightly elements, which in itself would be beneficial, but they also involve the introduction of an out of character residential estate, the permanent fragmentation of the site into a multiplicity of residential curtilages, development on Squire’s Piece, and the introduction of regular and intrusive domestic residential traffic to the parkland and immediate environs of Haughley Park, which in numerical terms and the pattern of comings and goings would exceed that of the former factory use. Furthermore, that latter traffic had a rationale in this location because it derived from a commercial use associated with the restoration/preservation of the heritage assets, which is not something that can be said for the appeal proposals. The appeal proposals also involve the loss of the associative links between the industrial buildings and the post-war history and restoration of Haughley Park, including the architecturally interesting hyperbolic paraboloid roofed building at the centre of the site. Taking the harmful elements together, this is a case of less than substantial harm to the heritage assets.

14. At the time that planning permission was refused, the Council was also concerned that there could be further heritage harm over the longer term from the risk that the successful weddings and parkland events business, which provides a major funding source for the ongoing upkeep of Haughley Park and the listed barn and stables, could be adversely impacted in its commercial activities. This is chiefly because most of those activities are fundamentally noisy (in particular the regular and frequent wedding events), and the proximity of a new residential estate of sensitive receptors could create an incompatible relationship with these activities. However, further detailed work by the Council’s noise consultant has shown that, subject to the imposition of appropriate noise conditions, the particular risk to the weddings business (operated from the listed barn and stables) can be managed. Resolution of this issue, however, does not remove the wider planning concerns about the effects of introducing a residential enclave on attractiveness of the estate at Haughley Park to host parkland events, and so a potential indirect effect on

5

the economics of the business that sustains and supports the heritage assets. In any event, irrespective of the harm that would arise to the parkland events side of the business, there would be less than substantial harm to the heritage assets for the reasons already described.

15. There is something of a debate between the heritage and planning witnesses about the appropriate way (or most appropriate way) in which to bring into account any public planning benefits that are achieved by the development. It is unnecessary to explore this issue in any detail in these opening remarks (it is a matter that will be addressed in Closing Submissions) but the Council considers it is best addressed as part of the overall planning balance under Main Issue 8.

MAIN ISSUE 4: ACCESS TO SERVICES AND FACILITIES

16. Main Issue 4 is linked to Main Issue 1 but is more than just a consequence of the location being inappropriate because it is isolated and remote. When consideration is given to the particular circumstances of the site and its lack of connectivity to services and facilities, it is abundantly clear that the appeal proposals will function as a heavily car-dependent development, with limited scope to offer its residents a genuine choice of modes of travel. The lack of segregation along the length of the access drive has already been mentioned. Moreover, there is virtually nothing to walk to in Wetherden. The proposed relocation of bus stops to Park Road still would leave them beyond a reasonable walking distance for regular bus use, and there is no assurance that the bus would continue to serve those stops once the short term bus subsidy has ended. The provision of a single morning and afternoon bus into the site itself for a short term period is incapable of being self-sustaining on any sensible view of modal shares and so will simply not endure. Nor could a single bus carry the numbers of passengers needed to provide a viable service. School children may have the option of ‘free’ school travel by bus because of the education authority’s statutory obligations but the fact that the

6

authority is subject to those duties simply reflects the remoteness of the site from educational facilities.

17. Only the most confident of cyclists would contemplate the use of the 60 mph Haughley New Road as a route for cycling to Elmswell or Stowmarket. There is no evidence to show that the suggested car club facility (a single vehicle) would endure beyond the short term funding period. It is unlikely to persuade residents not to have their own cars, especially as any journey away from the site would be to destinations some distance away, leaving the facility unavailable to other residents for lengthy (and unpredictable) periods of the day. Whilst rail services are available in the wider area (at Elmswell and Stowmarket), they are likely to be accessed by car for the most part.

18. The Appellant urges the need to take a ‘pragmatic’ approach, recognising that the site lies in a rural area, and this will limit the opportunities to make use of sustainable travel modes. However, the scale of development proposed is substantial, and whilst some degree of car use may be said to be inevitable for any development in a rural area, it is striking that in this case all of the other modes are compromised by the significant separation of the site from accessible services and facilities.

19. No doubt in recognition of the inherently poor sustainability credentials of the site as a location for residential development, the Appellant’s transport assessment seeks to rely on the alleged fall-back position to argue that the overall travel demand from the appeal proposals is less than would arise from a reoccupation of the industrial buildings. This has been discussed under Main Issue 1 and the same conclusion applies. The suggested comparison is no more than a ‘castle in the air’ and, in any event, there would be less travel demand from a reoccupation.

7

MAIN ISSUE 5: THE EFFECTS ON THE EXISTING BUSINESSES AND LIVING CONDITIONS

20. The ‘agent of change’ principle espoused in national policy makes it clear that it is for a developer introducing a noise sensitive use in proximity to an existing business to provide suitable mitigation so as to ensure that any significant adverse effects that business might impose on the new development do not result in unreasonable restrictions being place on the business.

21. The Appellant has not, in the view of the Council’s noise expert, provided the evidence required to show that suitable mitigation could be put in place to avoid the risk that the existing wedding business, operated predominantly from the listed barn and stables, would not be subject to noise nuisance complaints from new residents, so putting the business at risk of restrictions being imposed on it via a noise abatement notice that could jeopardise its commercial future. However, following on from the exchange of the main proofs of evidence, the Council’s noise consultant (Mr Bentley) has undertaken a detailed assessment to test whether suitable mitigation could be provided. He has reached the conclusion that, in principle, this should be possible with the imposition of appropriate conditions, as set out in his rebuttal evidence and associated report.

22. However, until recently it appeared that the Council and the Appellant remained in dispute about the nature and terms of the conditions that would be appropriate, so making it necessary to explore the technical matters in some detail. Fortunately, it now appears as if the latest discussions between the experts have reached a resolution that has allowed suitable noise conditions to be identified that both sets of experts can accept would allow appropriate mitigation to be achieved. On this basis, it should be possible to resolve the noise issues arising under Main Issue 5 without a need to spend significant Inquiry time on matters of technical disagreement that have, effectively, become academic.

8

23. There is still a potential for economic impacts on the parkland events part of the business by reason of the presence of the residential development making the parkland a less attractive host venue. Whilst noise issues can be addressed following the guidance in the Pop Concert Code, the management and security issues identified by the Rule 6 party’s evidence remain, and the Council’s planning and heritage witnesses consider there continue to be grounds for concern in relation to these risks to the economic success of the parkland events business.

24. Thus, whilst a major part of Main Issue 5 (in relation to noise) is capable of resolution, the Council continues to have objections by reason of these other aspects.

MAIN ISSUE 6: DRAINAGE

25. As foreshadowed at the CMC, the lead local flood authority has now been able to satisfy itself that Main Issue 6 can be resolved by a suitable condition.

MAIN ISSUE 7: HIGHWAY SAFETY

26. The issue of highway safety arose because the initial access arrangements put forward by the Appellant had addressed the visibility requirements at the site access junction with Haughley New Road by (overtly) considering only the horizontal plane and not (overtly) addressing the vertical plane. When the latter was addressed, it was apparent that the gradient of the existing section of Haughley New Road to the left (i.e. towards ) meant that the required visibility could not be achieved. However, it has now been agreed that a condition can be imposed to ensure that the visibility will be provided, which will entail civil engineering works within the existing highway to re- profile the road and associated highway verge.

9

MAIN ISSUE 8: THE OVERALL PLANNING BALANCE

27. When the development plan position is properly analysed, including the terms of the Haughley Neighbourhood Plan (“HNP”), it is clear that this is not a case where the presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. The ‘basket’ of policies which are most important for determining the appeal are not out-of-date in so far as they give guidance that is applicable to the appeal proposals. The guidance they give in that regard is compatible with and consistent with national policy and there are no other reasons for considering that guidance to be out-of-date. Thus, an ‘untilted’ or ‘straight’ planning balance can and should be applied. In applying that balance considerable importance and weight should be given to the heritage harm arising under Main Issue 3.

28. Weighing that heritage harm against the limited public benefits of the proposal in utilising/regenerating an area of PDL, removing some unsightly buildings and other modest heritage benefits, delivering additional housing above the 5 year requirement, some modest employment and economic benefits (albeit there are also potential economic disbenefits too to the existing events business), minor open space/ecological gains and some minor highway works enhancements, does not suggest that the heritage harm is outweighed. Furthermore that heritage harm is compounded by the planning harm caused by the inappropriate and unsustainable location of the development, the harm caused to the objectives of limiting the need to travel and generation of emissions, and the harm that is thereby caused to the spatial strategy of the development plan. A decision to dismiss the appeal will be in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate otherwise.

29. Even if it was thought that this was a case where the ‘tilted’ balance of the presumption should be applied, it is clear that all of the requirements of para 14 of the NPPF are met, and the conflicts with the spatial strategy of the HNP are such that they significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits that would be delivered by the appeal proposals. The other harms outlined above

10

reinforce and consolidate that conclusion. Thus, whatever view is taken about the operation of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, the Council suggests that the appropriate striking of the planning balance will lead to the conclusion that this appeal should be dismissed.

26 January 2021 MICHAEL BEDFORD QC

CHRISTINA LIENEN

Cornerstone Barristers

2-3 Gray’s Inn Square

London WC1R 5JH

11