BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL ANNUAL COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, COUNCIL OFFICES, CORKS LANE, HADLEIGH ON TUESDAY 11 APRIL 2006

PRESENT: Mrs S M Wigglesworth – Chairman

The following Members were unable to be present:- Mr P K Beer, Mrs S Carpendale, Mr N H J Irwin, Mr C D Kerr, Mr J A B Long, Mr J M Owen and Mr C M Spence.

The proceedings were opened with Prayer.

Prior to the commencement of the meeting Mrs S M Wigglesworth, the retiring Chairman of the Council, thanked the Public, Members and Officers who had supported her during her Term of Office as Chairman of the Council.

1 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

It was proposed and seconded that Mr R W Thake be elected Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.

Resolved

That Mr R W Thake be elected Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.

Mrs S M Wigglesworth vacated the chair and Mr R W Thake thereupon made his Declaration of Acceptance of Office and presided over the meeting.

2 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

It was proposed and seconded that Ms J A Jenkins be elected Vice-Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.

RESOLVED

That Ms J A Jenkins be elected Vice-Chairman of the Council for the ensuing year.

Ms J A Jenkins thereupon made her declaration of acceptance of office.

3 MINUTES

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2006 be confirmed and signed as a correct record.

4 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

The following Members all declared personal interests in the Item referred to in Minute No. 12 below in the capacity indicated but advised that they would speak and vote on the matter.

Mr B L Lazenby also declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Board Member of the South Suffolk Leisure Trust.

Mr P J Holbrook and Mr J R A Sayers indicated that they had received advice from the Monitoring Officer that they had personal and prejudicial interests in respect of Minute No. 12 below and that they would withdraw from the meeting.

Mr A C Bavington declared a personal interest by virtue of being a Great Cornard Parish Councillor in respect of Minute No. 12 below. He also referred to the advice he had received from the Monitoring Officer that he should declare a personal and prejudicial interest as he had signed a petition by the Save Gainsborough Countryside Action Group. He indicated that he did not feel that this advice was correct and therefore intended to speak and vote on the matter concerned.

Mr N MacMaster declared a personal interest in his capacity as a Great Cornard Parish Councillor in respect of Minute No. 12 below.

Mrs K Saward, as Monitoring Officer, informed the meeting that it appeared from the declaration of interests that it may be necessary for the Council to consider an urgent item of business from the Monitoring Officer ahead of Agenda Item 8(c).

5 CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS

Beacon Awards

The Chairman informed the meeting that the District Council had recently received two Beacon Awards in respect of the BeActive Scheme and the Joint Waste Recycling Initiative. He congratulated members of staff in the Leisure Section and Waste Recycling Sections in achieving the awards.

6 TO RECEIVE NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE No. 13

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 13, it was noted that the following petitions had been received:-

Development of Land East of Carsons Drive, Great Cornard

Petition signed by approximately 1,830 residents of the district.

Change of use from A1 to A5 – 50 North Street, Sudbury

Petition signed by approximately 104 residents of the district.

7  QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

See Appendix attached.

8  QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS

None received.

9  RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

(a) CAST (Strategy Committee Minute 139(a))

RESOLVED

(1)That the Proposed Customer Access Priority Requirement and Delivery Arrangements detailed at Appendix 1 to Paper E286 be approved.

(2)That the positioning Option for delivering customer access at Appendix 2 to Paper E286 be approved.

(3)That arrangements be made to undertake a further Business Process Re-engineering review, from May 2006, to cover service requests in Environmental Services.

(4)The further BPR Reviews be not undertaken, from August 2006 prior to receiving a progress report on CAST on 28 September 2006.

(5)That the high level Programme Plan for 2006/07, including major deliverables and milestones, resource requirements, spending plans and risks, set out at Appendix 5 to Paper E286 be approved.

(6)That the Chief Executive, in consultation with the CAST Programme Board, be authorised to make ongoing operational and tactical decisions to progress CAST, in accordance with the objectives, action plans, budget and spending plans determined by the Council.

(7)That update reports be submitted to the Council through the Strategy Committee meetings during 2006/07 as follows:-

28 September 2006 Strategy, for 31 October 2006 Council

8 March 2007 Strategy, for 17 April 2007 Council

(b)IEG 6 Statement (Strategy Committee Minute No. 139(b))

RESOLVED

That the IEG 6 Statement attached as Appendix A to Paper E287 be submitted to the ODPM, subject to the Head of Organisational Development in consultation with the E-Government Steering Group being authorised to make any necessary changes as work is completed that affects the Statement to ensure that the IEG 6 Statement correctly reflects the situation at 31 March 2006.

The Chairman informed the meeting that prior to dealing with Item 8(c) on the Agenda (Babergh Local Plan) he referred to advice received from the Monitoring Officer. He advised that the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 provides that an item of business may not be considered by a Committee unless it is included on an Agenda. The Act does, however, make provision for an exception to this general rule to be made where by reason of special circumstances the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered as a matter of urgency.

The Chairman advised that a situation had arisen where it had become necessary for the Council to consider a confidential item (Monitoring Officer Report – The Local Plan) and that he was satisfied that there were good reasons for dealing with this matter at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

10 EXCLUSION OF PUBLIC

RESOLVED

That pursuant to Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the business specified below, on the grounds that if the public were present during this item, it is likely that there would be the disclosure to them of exempt information as indicated against the item.

The meeting was also satisfied that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

PART II

11 MONITORING OFFICER REPORT – THE LOCAL PLAN (Exempt information by virtue of Paragraph 5 of Part I)

Councillors Bavington, Holbrook, MacMaster and Sayers all declared personal interests in this item but indicated that they would speak and vote on the matter.

The Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services, in her role as Monitoring Officer, submitted a report (Paper F10) relating to advice provided by the Monitoring Officer.

RESOLVED

That the recommendation contained in Paragraph 2.1 of Paper F10 be noted.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.20pm and resumed at 2.00pm when the Press and Public were re-admitted to the meeting and the following Members were present:-

Mr R W Thake – Chairman

12 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES

Babergh Local Plan (Alteration No.2) Post Inquiry Modifications – (Strategy Committee Minute No. 155)

Due to Councillors Bavington and MacMaster not observing the advice of the Monitoring Officer, Kathryn Saward was not present during the discussion of this item.

Mr G S White was not present whilst this matter was considered.

During the course of discussion of this matter an amendment was proposed and seconded that the site at Carsons Drive, Great Cornard be deleted from the Local Plan and be replaced with an allocation of part of the Carsons Drive site and part of the Shawlands site with a proviso that an area of woodland adjacent to each site be secured, protected and transferred to the Parish Council for the purpose of a country park.

Upon being put to the vote this amendment was lost.

Mr N A Ridley, as Chairman of the Strategy Committee introduced this item and referred to the revised Appendix B to Paper E314 that had been circulated to all Members.

It was noted that the Government planning policy advice (in PPG3) would indicate that the density of development should be between 30 to 50 per hectare. Any planning application submitted which had figures very much higher than that would likely to be construed as “over development”, given the context of the Carsons Drive site.

At this point in the meeting Councillors Bavington and MacMaster withdrew and did not take any further part in the debate.

A further amendment was proposed and seconded that the site at Carsons Drive be deleted. Upon being put to the vote this amendment was lost.

RESOLVED

(1)That the responses to the recent public consultation exercise be noted.

(2)That the proposed detailed responses on each issue and to each representation, set out in Appendix C, and the proposed non-substantive changes at Appendix B (Revised), be agreed.

(3)That the Acting Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development be granted authority to make any necessary minor changes, revisions and edits to correct any remaining errors, effect any updates, ensure consistency and aid comprehension of the Plan.

(4)That a further Public Local Inquiry into the objections raised in response should not be held.

(5)That the adoption of the Local Plan be pursued as soon as possible following adherence to the requisite formal adoption procedures.

13 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY (STEWARDSHIP) COMMITTEE

Ms J A Jenkins, as Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee introduced that Committee’s Annual Report (Paper F2).

RESOLVED

(1) That the Committee’s Annual Report be noted.

(2) That the Committee’s Work Plan for 2006/07 as outlined in Appendix 2 to Paper F2 be noted.

14 EFFICIENCIES

The Head of Finance submitted a Report (Paper F1) advising that the Government expects Local Authorities to make £6.45bn in efficiency gains before the end of 2007/08. Attached to the report as an Appendix was the Annual Efficiency Statement which outlined details as to how the Council intends to deliver further efficiencies.

The Committee were also being requested to consider expanding the role of the current Procurement Member Champion (Mr H N Todd) to encompass the Efficiency Agenda.

RESOLVED

(1)That the 2006/07 Efficiency Statement set out in the Appendix to Paper F1 be approved, subject to the Head of Finance being authorised to make minor amendments if necessary before submitting it to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

(2)That the current Member Procurement Champion, Humphrey Todd, be re-designated as the Council’s Efficiencies and Procurement Champion.

15 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY (COMMUNITY SERVICES) COMMITTEE

Mr C J Hunt, as Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Community Services) Committee introduced that Committee’s Annual Report (Paper F3).

RESOLVED

(1)That the Committee’s Annual Report be noted.

(2)That the Committee’s Work Plan for 2006/07 as outlined in Appendix 2 to Paper F3 be approved.

16 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Mrs S P Clarke, as Chairman of the Standards Committee introduced that Committee’s Annual Report (Paper F4).

RESOLVED

That the Committee’s Annual Report be noted.

17 POLITICAL BALANCE AND COMPOSITION OF COMMITTEES

Members had before them a report (Paper F5) by the Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services relating to the Council’s duty to review the allocation of seats to political groups and to approve the composition of its Committees. Members were aware that the names of the Grouped Members listed in Appendix 2 were as notified by the Group Leaders.

At the meeting amendments to Paper F5 were submitted and these are incorporated in the resolutions below.

RESOLVED

(1) That the current sizes and numerical allocation of seats be approved as set out below:-

(2) That the ungrouped member, Mr C W Arthey, be appointed to serve on the Development Committee.

(3) That the composition of Committees as set out below be noted:-

STRATEGY COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY (STEWARDSHIP) COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY (COMMUNITY SERVICES) COMMITTEE

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

LICENSING AND APPEALS COMMITTEE

HADLEIGH AND DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL TRUST COMMITTEE

J C Brand
J J Chapman
D H Keane

STANDARDS COMMITTEE

S P Clarke             Co-opted Members         Parish Council Representatives
N H J Irwin
R E Kemp                 B Riley *                             J M Cole *
N A Ridley                J Newton *                          P F Cook *

* Appointed for 2 years with effect from 1 March 2006

18 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTES – COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE No. 5

Members had before them a Report (Paper F6) by the Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services setting out details of substitutes proposed to be appointed under Council Procedure Rule No. 5.

At the meeting an amendment to Paper F6 was submitted and this is incorporated in the resolution below.

RESOLVED

That substitutes be approved as set out below:-

STRATEGY COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY (STEWARDSHIP) COMMITTEE

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY (COMMUNITY SERVICES) COMMITTEE

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

HADLEIGH AND DISTRICT SWIMMING POOL TRUST COMMITTEE

19 ELECTION OF CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES

RESOLVED

(1)That Mr N A Ridley be elected Chairman of the Strategy Committee for the ensuing year.

(2)That Mr C J Hunt be elected Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Community Services) Committee for the ensuing year.

(3)That Ms J A Jenkins be elected Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee for the ensuing year.

(4)That Mr C W Arthey be elected Chairman of the Development Committee for the ensuing year.

(5) That Mr B L Lazenby be elected Chairman of the Licensing and Appeals Committee for the ensuing year.

(6) That Mr D H Keane be elected Chairman of the Hadleigh and District Swimming Pool Trust Committee for the ensuing year.

20 TASK GROUPS AND PANELS (a) APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS (b) ANNUAL REPORTS

Members had before them a Report (Paper F7) by the Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services requesting the Council to consider appointing Members to serve on Task Groups/Panels, to note the progress of the Work Plans for 2005/06 (Appendix 1) and to approve their Work Plans for 2006/07 (Appendix 2).

It was noted that the Political Leaders Group at a recent meeting had considered the CAST Programme Board and E-Government Steering Groups and recommend that they continue with five Members serving on each Group.

RESOLVED

(1)That the progress of the Task Groups/Panels during 2005/06 as outlined in Appendix 1 to Paper F7 be noted.

(2)That the following Task Groups/Panels continue for 2006/07 and that Members be appointed to serve on them as set out below:-

(a)HR Panel

    B L Lazenby         R W Thake
    J J Quinlan           H N Todd
    D C Rose

(b)Substitutes for Staff Joint Consultative Committee

    C W Arthey         N MacMaster

(c)Pin Mill Task Group

    B D Hurren         D C Rose 
    P Jones                L H Young 
    J A B Long

(d)Village of the Year Awards Panel

    E F Bates            J R A Sayers
    J A B Long         L H Young

(e)Housing Panel

    S P Clarke          W J Sadler
    J A Jenkins         S M Wigglesworth
    N MacMaster

(f)Procurement Task Group

    D G Grutchfield     M R Miller
    C J Hunt                 H N Todd
    J A Jenkins

(3)That the Cast Programme and E-Government Steering Group continue for 2006/07 with five Members each serving on them and that Members be appointed to serve on them as set out below:-

Cast Programme Board

    J C Brand             D J Read
    M R Miller          H N Todd
    J J Quinlan

E-Government Steering Group

    J C Brand             M R Miller
    A J Hinton            D J Read
    N MacMaster

(4) The proposed Work Plans of the Task Groups/Panels for 2006/07 are set out in Appendix 2 to Paper F7 be approved.

21 REPRESENTATIVES ON OUTSIDE BODIES

The Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services submitted a Report (Paper F8) which included Appendix 1 – details of current representation together with details of reports received from representatives during the year. The Annual Report of the Community Energy Project – Sudbury Communities Area Forum was attached as Appendix 2.

Since the report had been prepared amendments to the recommendations contained in Paper F8 together with an update on information contained in Appendix 1 was reported to the meeting.

RESOLVED

(1) That the information contained in Appendix 1 (as updated) of Paper F8 be noted.

(2) That Mrs S M Wigglesworth be appointed to represent the Council in the County-wide Member Forum of the Hanover at Home HIA Advisory Group.

(3) That:-

(a) Mr P Jones be appointed as the Council’s representative to serve on the Greenways Countryside Project.

(b) Mr R E Kemp be appointed as the Council’s representative to serve on the Suffolk County Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

(c) the vacancy on RELATE be not filled at the present time.

(4) That the Annual Report of the CEP – Sudbury Communities Area Forum (Appendix 2) of Paper F8 be noted and that the CEP be congratulated on its continuing success.

(5) That the Council’s representatives on the Babergh East and Western Suffolk LSP Boards be selected from Members representing wards in the catchment area of the relevant LSP and that the requirement for such representatives to be members of the Strategy Committee be removed.

22 APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER CHAMPION – EQUALITIES

The Acting Head of Legal and Administrative Services to report that at its meeting on 23 February 2006, Members accepted the following recommendation of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee regarding Member Champions:-

(5) That a Member Champion be elected by Council for each of the Council Priorities if Council considers such to be beneficial in the particular case and where Council feels this to be necessary.

Members were aware in making this decision that the intention of the Overview and Scrutiny (Stewardship) Committee was that a report be submitted to Council setting out proposals for the appointment of Member Champions linked to the Council’s priorities, and it is anticipated that this report will be on the agenda for the June Council meeting. However, Members considered that Clive Arthey, the Council’s appointee on the Countywide Waste Management Group, should represent the Council as a Member Champion and agreed to appoint him in that capacity ahead of consideration of the report referred to above.

The Council were requested to consider making a further appointment, of an Equalities Member Champion ahead of consideration of the report in June.

RESOLVED

That Mr D L Wood be appointed as the Council’s Equalities Member Champion for the rest of his term of office.

Note: The meeting adjourned between 11.05 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. and 4.05 p.m. and 4.15 p.m.

The business of the meeting was concluded at 5.15 p.m.

Chairman

APPENDIX

Questions to Mr N A Ridley, Chairman of Strategy Committee, regarding Paper E314 and its Appendices:-

Question from Janet Smith, 20 de Greys Close, Great Cornard

The report refers to the use of the C732 as a through route should be curtailed.

Is it the Council’s aim to eliminate this rat run traffic or merely reduce it?

ANSWER

This matter is covered in paragraphs 4.20 – 4.22 of the report. The Council will continue to work with the Transport Authority and the developer to promote a solution that has the maximum effect in either eliminating or reducing the use of the C732 as a through route for vehicles.

Question from Cornard Tye Residents’ Association, c/o Tye Cottage, Cornard Tye

The Secretary of State advises Planning Authorities to hold a further Public Inquiry or Examination in Public where modifications raises issues that were not examined at the earlier stage, but need further consideration. This may arise if it is proposed to substitute an entirely different proposal for one which was in the plan as considered earlier.

This is exactly the situation envisaged with the switch of Shawlands to Carsons Drive developments. What are the planning reasons as opposed to timetable reasons for not following Government guidance?

ANSWER

Annex B of PPG12: states “The decision as to whether new issues are raised by objections to modifications that justify a further public inquiry is for a local authority to decide in the light of the objections made. However, in view of the revised procedures prior to the inquiry [introduced by the T & C P (Development Plan)(England) Regulations 1999], it is less likely that there will be new issues raised by objections to modifications that were not covered at the first public inquiry, thereby reducing the likelihood of a need for a modifications inquiry.”

The proposed modification to delete the residential allocation at Shawlands Avenue and substitute the allocation at Carsons Drive does not raise new material planning considerations or issues that were not covered at the first public inquiry. The two sites are in close proximity, and the issues covered at the Inquiry are material planning considerations including matters such as amount of development, vehicular access and levels of traffic, landscape, drainage infrastructure and archaeology. Strategy Committee was satisfied that there are no new issues raised by inclusion of the Carsons Drive site that require further scrutiny through the Inquiry process.

Question from Joan Herbert, 48 Nursery Road, Great Cornard

Can you explain why the report states that building on the Carsons Drive site is designed to be contained within the 45 metre land contour, whereas the plans clearly show building above this level?

ANSWER

The 45m contour runs broadly north to south. Residential development would take place almost entirely west of (below) this contour/ridge line. Evidence presented to the Inquiry (Millard Consulting Engineers) states that “the highest point within the proposed residential area is approximately 48m AOD”. Also the Landscape Partnership’s Drawing 02407/06 attached to that document clearly indicates an area of proposed 2 storey housing at 7m high along the 45m ridgeline, with a narrow sliver beyond it. The report uses the term “contained” to indicate that the 45m ridgeline forms a boundary or edge to the development.

Question from Colin Steed, Tye Farm, Cornard Tye

Why is the Shawlands Avenue development not a sustainable site?

ANSWER

Paragraph 3.85.1 of the Inspector’s Report summarises why the Inspector concluded that this is not a sustainable site. He refers to the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (May 2003), which shows that the site generated 7 Adverse scores (including for Biodiversity, Landscape, and Townscape) and 3 Beneficial scores.

Question from Betty Bone, Angle House, 12a Nonsuch Meadow, Sudbury

Appendix ‘A’ of the report refers to English Heritage not having undertaken a thorough investigation of evidence, leading to a flawed objection.

Please explain in detail why this important objection is flawed?

ANSWER

This matter is dealt with in detail in paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 of the main report.

Question from Michael Evans, Tye Cottage, Cornard Tye

This report is on objections to the modifications with comments and recommendations. It is stressed that decisions must be made purely on planning grounds.

Out of the 15 pages of this report 2½ pages are devoted to describing the long process involved, the need for a plan and the risk of losing the plan if changes are made. These are not planning considerations, they are timetable constraints.

Is this not an attempt to influence Members to accept all the modifications regardless of planning deficiencies?

ANSWER

No. The report is the conclusion of a process that started some eight years ago with publication of an Issues Report. The need for an up-to-date adopted Local Plan is essential for proper planning, as PPG12 sets out:

‘The plan-led system can only be successful and command public confidence if plans are in place and kept up-to-date’ and ‘Plans should be as up-to-date as possible, particularly in view of their status in the determination of planning applications and as a means of encouraging development in appropriate locations.’

Members have to make decisions within the context of legislation and regulations. The decision-making process is open, transparent and accountable, and it is important to members and the public that important decisions are properly set in the regulatory and planning policy context.

Question from Great Cornard Parish Council, The Stevenson Centre, Stevenson Approach, Great Cornard

The figures for ‘levels of residential development since 1996’ included in paragraph 4.22 appear to be rather low, and show Great Cornard as having had only 141 dwellings built since then. They make no reference to the new houses already being planned.

The Second Deposit Draft May 2003 of the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No. 2 provides for 400 new dwellings on three sites; or 496, if the Inspector’s Post Inquiry Modification recommendations are adopted.

Planning permission had already been given for 366 dwellings on two of the sites (which were included in the plan for 280 dwellings) and for 214 dwellings not included in the plan (windfall sites).

This totals 580 dwellings, far in excess of the number of dwellings in the Local Plan.

Therefore if more dwellings are already planned than the Local Plan required, without including either the site on Shawlands Avenue (HS09) or the omission site at Carsons Drive, why is the District Council considering scheduling either site for building?

ANSWER

Whilst it is possible that some Local Plan sites may deliver more housing than was set out in the Plan, albeit eventually, the overall situation is one where these sites are taking far longer to gain detailed planning permissions than was ever envisaged. This applies to the larger sites of the Rugby Ground, Bakers Mill, and the site west of St Bartholomews (Sudbury). For example, the former site still has no actual planning permission and the latter is still to be built after inclusion on the Local Plan from 1995. Most sites involve complex development issues that are difficult to resolve. Further, the Chilton proposals can also be expected to take years to deliver. As recommended by the Inspector, the requirement for the Carsons Drive site therefore remains in place.

Question from Mr R Harding, Harvest House, Milden

Assuming the Local Plan process to be robust, democratic and impartial, then if an omission site (Carsons Drive) is recommended to members for inclusion in the Local Plan, it must be accepted that a site that has performed better in the Councils own sustainability appraisal (Shawlands Avenue) must be FUNDAMENTALLY MORE ACCEPTABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, so, bearing in mind the Council’s stated positions above, on what planning grounds are the officers recommending to members the deletion of the Shawlands Avenue site?

ANSWER

The Council has stressed all through the process that the sustainability appraisal was only one element in the site selection process. However, although the Carsons Drive omission site scored one more Adverse score than Shawlands Avenue, it scored two more Beneficial scores.

The planning grounds for deletion of the Shawlands Avenue site are broadly as set out in the Inspector’s Report, i.e. that the development would intrude into an elevated area and attractive landscape and have a detrimental visual impact, it would encroach on the upper slopes of the Stour Valley well beyond the existing settlement, it has a poor relationship to the existing urban edge of the settlement, unsatisfactory access, destruction of protected trees, expensive highway improvement measures which would result in an unacceptable degree of further urbanisation, and the unacceptable impact on biodiversity.

Question from Mr A Harding, Harvest House, Milden

The proposals in my objection address the Shawlands Avenue issues and the above proposals would go a long way to resolve PIM3/50 and PIM 3/59. I ask that my proposals be considered at the Full Council Meeting and ask why they have thus far been ignored?

ANSWER

The changes to Mr Harding’s proposals have already been considered as part of the Post Inquiry Modifications consultation process, along with all other representations. These proposals were also discussed at Strategy Committee (at the request of a local Member). However, in the view of officers, they do not render this development acceptable.

Question from Mr J Harding, Harvest House, Milden

Why has the Shawlands Avenue allocation not been and is not being robustly defended as promised at the Full Council Meeting when members unanimously supported the allocation in February 2003?

ANSWER

The Shawlands Avenue allocation was robustly defended at the Local Plan Inquiry. The Council’s proof has been used by others to support the retention of the Shawlands Avenue site. However, the process is an iterative one, culminating in independent examination, in public, of the Council’s preferred sites compared with the various alternatives. Having considered the evidence examined at the Inquiry, and the Inspector’s reasoning and conclusions, and having carried out further site visits, Strategy Committee accepted the Inspector’s views and recommendations.

Question to Mr N A Ridley, Chairman of Strategy Committee, regarding Paper E218:-

Question from Save Gainsborough Country Action Group, c/o Abbas Hall, Cornard Tye

This report (Paper E218 – 30^th November 2005) summarises the reasons for including the Carsons Drive site in just 8 lines of text and I believe Members of the Strategy Committee had not even been given a hard copy of the Inspector’s report before the meeting.

Had Members of this Committee been given sufficient information and time to make an informed and considered decision on this major change (substituting Carsons Drive development), before agreeing to include it in the plan?

ANSWER

The proposed modification to include the site at Carsons Drive has been dealt with in exactly the same way as all the other proposed modifications. Members of Strategy Committee had sufficient information (including prior access to the Inspector’s report) and time at that meeting to make a decision on including this and all the other changes as proposed modifications to be advertised as Post Inquiry Modifications for a six week period of consultation.

It is important to note that Strategy Committee made its recommendation that the modification should be included within the Plan on 30^th March following the six-week consultation period and a thorough and valuable site visit.

Supplementary Questions (if applicable)

CTRA (Cornard Tye Residents’ Association)

There are sound and compelling reasons to hold a further Inquiry, and if for reasons of time limits this is not possible, this site should be removed from the Plan and reconsidered at a later date. This is good planning. Why should the Council not follow it?

ANSWER

It has not been demonstrated that there are ‘sound and compelling’ reasons for a further Inquiry when an Inquiry has already considered through extensive and detailed evidence and debate, the specific issue with which CTRA is concerned. The purpose of Local Plan Inquiries is not to re-examine issues that have very recently been scrutinised by a previous Local Plan Inquiry.

JOAN HERBERT

There are some of the taller buildings shown on the plans, in the southern section of the site, which breach the 45 metre contour.

This was the section which was identified by English Heritage, as being particularly damaging. This fact was also noted by Mr Paddison, the Babergh officer, who on his site visit to Abbas Hall, said that houses there would be impossible to screen effectively. This was summarised in his report.

Apart from Mr Paddison, no officers have visited Abbas Hall to assess the views of the site.

Is this plan reading error, together with lack of an Abbas Hall site visit, the reason why officers have failed to identify this area of the site as visually obtrusive and not possible to screen effectively?

ANSWER

The plans quoted were prepared to illustrate the design considerations taken on board and are far more detailed than is characteristic of plans to accompany a land allocation proposed for a site’s inclusion in a Local Plan. However, they could be revised (if necessary) and there is no reason why the 7 metre height restriction on the south-eastern most part of the site (nearest the 45 metre contour line) could not be extended further south – if this were to prove necessary. That part of the site also lies 460 – 500 metres from Abbas Hall. In between there are trees within the grounds of Abbas Hall, then the mature trees of Abbas Hall Wood and then a further belt of trees standing in the valley roughly halfway between the Hall and the site. In addition to all these, there would be the new woodland planting belt carefully sited on top of the prominent landscape ridgeline, planted at a greater height than the new housing on that part of the site. Among other considerations, it is possible to screen the site through new planting, which will actually provide a far better outlook than exists today.

COLIN STEED

The Shawlands site performed better than Carsons Drive site in the Sustainability Appraisal process. The developer’s consultant realised this and made an attempt to rewrite the appraisal in their favour. The result was unsupportable and incredulous.

Is it not painfully obvious that if Shawlands Avenue is classed as non-sustainable then Carsons Drive must also be non-sustainable?

ANSWER

The Sustainability Appraisal showed 1 more adverse score for Carsons Drive than for Shawlands Avenue but also showed 2 more beneficial scores. In addition, 2 qualified adverse scores for the former site (Minerals and Archaeology) can be downgraded by more recent research and consultation responses. The unsustainable nature of the Shawlands Avenue site is further demonstrated by its need for loss of mature, native, broadleaved trees of great landscape value protected by TPOs – a feature not applicable to its site rival. There are also other reasons as listed by the Inspector for which the Shawlands site should be rejected, (such as its inexplicable proposal to relocate a children’s play area in a valuable natural feature, including many mature trees and a natural pond).

BETTY BONE

English Heritage are the acknowledged experts of landscape settings of Grade I listed properties, and are the Government’s Statutory Adviser on the Historic Environment.

Why should English Heritage’s view, that this site should be removed from the plan, be ignored?

ANSWER

Dealt with in detail at paragraphs 4.17 and 4.18 of the Committee report. English Hertiage’s views were considered and analysed but disagreed.

MICHAEL EVANS

I have heard from several members about the timetable problems for adoption of the Local Plan.

It is now impossible to divorce this from their minds when considering these modifications and this may have resulted in a flawed procedure.

‘I did vote in favour, as it is essential that the Council adopts the Local Plan’ was a Strategy Committee Member’s comment in an e-mail I have seen, which illustrates my point precisely.

Would it not be better to remove Carsons Drive from the Plan at this stage [there are ample planning grounds for doing this:- Highways, Visual Impact, English Heritage objections, Sustainability, etc.], and agree with both this developer and the developer of Shawlands Avenue to resubmit these sites to a post adoption Public Inquiry to finally settle the matter, rather than to bounce this site into the Plan without a full and proper examination of all the evidence?

ANSWER

Question dealt with above in response to CTRA. A full and proper examination of all the evidence has already happened.

MRS BAKER – GREAT CORNARD PARISH COUNCIL

The reply is muddled with Sudbury – as often happens. Can BDC explain how our village – the only village in Babergh District Council to receive 582 – 732 houses, without causing harm and detriment to our existing villagers?

ANSWER

The only site in Sudbury that was mentioned in the original response was St Bartholomews. This was because questions/assertions to Babergh Council, regarding perceived over-development in Great Cornard, usually encompass Sudbury and Chilton sites. Leaving that site aside, it is still evident that the Great Cornard sites have failed to come forward for housing delivery on the ground. This is shown by the rugby ground site still having no valid planning permission after inclusion in the Local Plan for over 10 years (legal agreement unresolved).

Bakers Mill was proposed in 1999 and still only has detailed permission for 40 dwellings, although an outline planning permission for 90 is in place. Meanwhile, Great Cornard received some 140 from 1996 – 2005, whilst Hadleigh, which is a smaller town, has gained almost 500. Against this, Great Cornard alone currently has an affordable housing waiting list of 430, which is clearly not being addressed in any real way.

RICHARD HARDING

As the Carsons Drive site performs less well than the Shawlands Avenue site in the sustainability appraisal, how can the officers support Carsons Drive and recommend it to members after describing a better performing site (Shawlands Avenue) as fundamentally unacceptable for development?

See answer to Colin Steed above.

ANDREW HARDING

Will my proposals to reduce the size of the Carsons Drive development and to retain the Shawlands Avenue site be considered by the Council today?

These proposals, although unknown to Officers before the actual meeting, and not proposed during the public consultation process, were formally considered by the Council at the meeting. They were also proposed as an amendment and put to a vote. These proposals were also unworkable because they only had the agreement of the party proposing this idea.

JAMES HARDING

I don’t know of ONE local person other than the owners and developers who support the Carsons Drive site – why are officers supporting it and recommending it to members?

This question and its answer are already dealt with comprehensively in the first few pages of the Committee report and through the further answers above. It is important to note that there are formal objections to the Shawlands Avenue site, and local awareness of this site proposal may be significantly less than that of its rival at Carsons Drive. Great Cornard Parish Council, in its agreed official position, also oppose the Shawlands Avenue site.