1

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL

MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY PARISH COUNCIL MEETING

Thursday 6 February 2025 at The Lambe School, Gaston Street, East Bergholt

Present – Parish Councillors
Councillor J Miller (Chairman of the Council)
Councillor N Roberts (Vice-Chairman of the Council)
Councillor R Allen
Councillor M Burns
Councillor S Davies
Councillor P Dent
Councillor R Elmer
Councillor M Hockley
Councillor M Hurley
Councillor L Matthews

In Attendance
G White, Parish Clerk
Four members of the public

The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting and thanked those who ha d
assisted in the drafting of the document now under consideration. Usually members of the public
may only speak during the public open session but on this occasion the Chairman will allow
questions from the experts members of the public present.

Open Public Session

John Lyall said that he had been on the group which had prepared the first neighbourhood plan and
the work undertaken on this review had been far more rigorous and determined and there had been
excellent assistance from the consultants. The plan had been extended and as an architect he was
particularly pleased to see the design guide included. He supported all the draft policies and was
working towards extending the conservation area for which he congratulated the Parish Council on
its appointment of consultants.

Chris Tuppen also supported the draft plan which he thought fitted well with the current mood of
sustainability and improved standards of design.

131.24.25 Apologies for absence

Apologies for absence received from Councillors Price and Woodcock, were NOTED.

132.24.25 Declaration of Interests/Dispensations

None.

2

133.24.25 East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan Review

The Chairman of the Council asked Councillor Davies, Chairman of the Neighbourhood Plan
Committee to lead the discussion upon the draft plan for 2018-2037. Councillor Davies stated that it
was essential to have an up-to-date neighbourhood plan which had taken into account the planning
and political decisions since the last approved plan. The new plan contained some policies which
were unchanged from the previous plan, others which were amended or new and some which were
excluded as they were no longer relevant. Further amendment may be necessary now the
Government’s housing allocations have been finalised. The local community had been consulted
during the review process and the views expressed had informed the new plan. Councillor Davies
thanked the residents who had volunteered to sit on the Neighbourhood Plan Group for their many
hours of voluntary work and their contributions towards the draft plan.

Councillor Davies said that it was important that the policies in the plan had the approval of the
Council and would therefore seek the Council’s views on each policy in turn.

POLICY EB1: New housing up to 2037

Councillor Davies stressed that it was important for the Council to allocate sites for housing rather
than have them imposed upon us. There were already 277 new homes identified for 2015-2037
though it would be necessary to take account of the numbers imposed on Babergh DC by central
government; Councillor Roberts asked for the detailed numbers provided in the text and the policy
to be reviewed because even though they seem to be of the right order of magnitude, getting the
detail correct is important.

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB1 be approved with the numbers stated being subject to
checking and such amendment as was necessary and with ‘new dwellings’ replacing ‘new homes’.

POLICY EB1(a) Site EBNP 1: Land adjacent to the Congregational Church

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB1(a) be approved with the numbers stated being subject
to checking and the text in the policy to be clarified to show the dwellings are for ‘very sheltered
units for older people’

POLICY EB1(b) Site EBNP2: Land at White Horse Farm

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB1(b) be approved subject to the addition that the
affordable older people element should provide community led dwellings to be held in perpetuity for
rent to local people and a footnote be added to explain the definition of ‘local’ as per the definition
used by EBCLT.

POLICY EB1(c) Site EBNP3: Land at Straight Road East End

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB1(c) be approved with the numbers stated being subject
to checking, such textual amendments as necessary and the definition of ‘local’ described in the
footnote.

3

POLICY EB2: Development size and location

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB2 be approved subject to the rewording of the phrase
’new housing that is not already accounted for in EB1’ which is insufficiently clear.

Chapter 5: New and amended policies

Footnote: In the table on pages 31 and 32 review policies 7, 8 and 9 are incorrectly numbered and
require amendment.

Chapter 6: Housing Policies

It was AGREED that the objectives be amended to emphasise community led housing to support
local people in perpetuity

Housing Needs Assessment

Councillor Hockley considered that housing allocation for the young was an enormous problem and
much greater than for the old. It was proposed by Councillor Hockley, seconded by Councillor
Roberts and RESOLVED (unanimously) that the plan supports community led developments for
young people and this be added to the housing policies together with an appropriate objective.

POLICY EB3: Housing type, tenure and sizes

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB3 be approved with additional clarification that the
policy relates to developments beyond existing allocations.

POLICY EB4: Housing for older people

The title of this policy (page 50) is incorrect and requires amendment to ‘Increasing the types of
housing for older people’.

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB4 be approved with deletion of the first sentence of the
policy.

Chapter 7: Natural environment, Landscape and open space policies

The policy objectives were noted.

POLICY EB5: Landscape and views

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB5 be approved with any necessary textual
amendments.

The Council considered the Areas identified in Chapter 7.

Area 1: The Donkey Track

4

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Area 1 be approved.

Area 2: Quinton’s Triangle

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Davies and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Area 2 be approved.

Area 3: Hadleigh Road, west side

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Area 3 be approved.

Area 4: Gaston Street West

It was proposed by Councillor Hurley, seconded by Councillor Davies and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Area 4 be approved.

Area 5: Flatford Mill

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Burns and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Area 5 be approved.

POLICY EB6: Special Character Areas (Proposed Conservation Area extension)

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB6 be approved subject to amendment demonstrating
how the proposal enhances the character and the strengthening of the final paragraph.

POLICY EB7: Local Green Space

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Matthews and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB7 be approved subject to the addition of the Pumpkin
Field as local green space.

POLICY EB8: Biodiversity

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB8 be approved.

POLICY EB9: Dark Skies

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Miller and RESOLVED (six voted for,
four voted against) that Policy EB9 be approved.

Chapter 8: Design, character and heritage policies

The policy objectives were noted.

5

POLICY EB10: Housing and non-residential design

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Dent and RESOLVED (unanimously)
that Policy EB10 be approved.

POLICY EB11: Protection of Non-designated Heritage Assets

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB11 be approved.

Chapter 9: Transport Policies

The policy objectives were noted.

POLICY EB12: Village Car and Coach Park

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Allen and RESOLVED (unanimously)
that Policy EB12 be approved.

POLICY EB13: Walking, cycling and Public Rights of Way

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB13 be approved subject to direct reference to the
Flatford – Manningtree path and the addition of a paragraph explaining the Enable and Star projects
approved by the Parish Council.

Chapter 10: Rural economy and tourism policies

It was AGREED that the policy objectives be amended to refer to East Bergholt as a sustainable
tourist destination and the text be amended to include ‘Babergh’s cultural heritage paper and
strategy 2020-2023 identified Flatford as a centre of tourism and heritage.

POLICY EB14: The development of new and expanded businesses

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB14 be approved.

POLICY EB15: Safeguarding employment land and premises and community facilities

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB15 be approved but reworded to clarify the meaning.

POLICY EB16: Agricultural land

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hockley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB16 be approved.

POLICY EB17: Conversion of agricultural buildings

6

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB17 be approved with amendment to the wording to set out in what
circumstances demolition as well as conversion/change of use would be considered appropriate.

POLICY EB18: Tourist facilities and services

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB18 be approved.

POLICY EB19: Vitality of the Village Heart

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Allen and RESOLVED (unanimously)
that Policy EB19 be approved.

Chapter 11: Community facilities and physical infrastructure

The policy objectives were noted.

POLICY EB20: New and improved community facilities

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Matthews and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB20 be approved.

POLICY EB21: New and improved sports and recreation provision

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Matthews and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that the principle of Policy EB21 be approved with any necessary textual
amendments.

POLICY EB22: Sustainable Drainage Systems

It was proposed by Councillor Miller, seconded by Councillor Davies and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB22 be approved.

Chapter 12: Sustainability Policies

The policy objectives were noted.

POLICY EB23: sustainability and achieving net zero in East Bergholt

It was proposed by Councillor Davies, seconded by Councillor Hurley and RESOLVED
(unanimously) that Policy EB23 be approved.

The Chairman referred to Councillor Price who had been unable to attend the meeting but had sent
her his comments on the plan. The Chairman read them out to the Council and discussion took
place on his numbered points. The Chairman will respond to Councillor Price’s email informing him
of the Council’s views upon his remarks. Councillor Price’s comments and the Chairman’s reply
(highlighted) is appended to these minutes.

7

Councillor Roberts noted that the draft plan commentary distinguishes East end as a hamlet from
East Bergholt the village, in its reference to Babergh’s previous settlement hierarchy. The distinction
had not been made in any of the policies and it was AGREED that the distinction should be resisted
to retain the integrity of the Parish in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Hockley offered his congratulations to all those who had been involved in the production
of the draft plan. He considered the plan to be so important to all who live in the village.

The Chairman said that the plan will now be returned to the drafters who will produce the final
version having regard to the Council’s views expressed at this meeting. The final version will be
submitted to the Council for approval to go out to consultation.

134.24.25 Urgent Communications

None.

The meeting closed at 9.34pm.

Chairman …………………………………………………. Date………………………………………

8

APPENDIX

Email dated 4 February 2025 from Councillor Price to the Chairman of the Council with the
Chairman’s reply in highlighted text.

Dear Joan

Thank you for your email.

Please accept my apologies for my absence at the meeting on Thursday. I do need to attend to my
wife at times who as you know now uses a wheelchair.

Noted, and of course your apologies accepted, your wife needed you.

My concern and the reason I asked for a delay, is that the NHP is not ready to be reviewed. It was
only issued for on Saturday 31st January, less than a week before the meeting this coming
Thursday and it has lots missing from the content.

You’ll have received an email from Graham. The paper was sent to you (and all other councillors)
the Thursday before the meeting, ie 30 Jan, giving a week’s notice. This is normal practice for PC
papers and well within the statutory limit.

It is a draft paper. The whole point was to get parish councillor input on the key paragraphs of
objectives and policies before it is sent around for consultation. Even when issued it remains a draft
paper as it goes through public consultation.

I do appreciate it is not a Parish Council document, since it is produced by the Neighbourhood Plan
Group on behalf of the village.

It is a PC document, produced by the working group for the PC to consider. It is a draft document for
councillors to read and listen to, ask questions and determine if the direction of travel is good. They
decided it was, although of course details will be amended.

Thank you for promising to raise some issues that I think are important. I would be grateful if you
draw attention to the following and I do so because the future of our village is important;
1, The concepts of projects “Enable” and “Star” are not enshrined in the plan but have been a policy
of the Parish Council for several years. I do not have to repeat to you the benefits of enabling
disabled people from being able to access the village facilities, we have agreed that this is the
outcome we want and that if disabled people can get to all the village facilities, then this means that
everyone can. We as a parish Council should want this to be enshrined in the village
Neighbourhood Plan.

The NP is a formal planning document, it is primarily about the policies. Enable and Star are indeed
projects the PC supports and in turn these are supported by the relevant policies. It makes sense to

9

refer to these projects in the text of the relevant policy and in response to your point a paragraph will
be added to the text to do that.

2, The transport consultant’s review concentrated on road safety, but missed the most dangerous
junction (Gandish Road/Straight Road/Mill Road) and needs of disabled to access the village
facilities. It did not contain measures to properly manage the problem parking on Hadleigh Road,
nor the parking for sports activities but does seek to reduce on street parking in the centre of the
village.

If you recall the response from the traffic consultants, they could not design in a solution to make the
Gandish Rd/Mill Rd junction safer.

The document does address the needs of disabled people, it includes policies and proposals to
enable widening footpaths and also addresses parking issues.

The policy on road and footpath safety is not restricted to the High School area. The PC did
however many months ago determine the priority areas to start work on, and that was along the
B1070. Hadleigh Road is not forgotten. Nor is the sports parking.

The public meeting held at the Congregational Church to review the consultants’ report did not
support the consultants and the people there actually rejected the proposal to reduce the numbers
of on street parking at the Post Office, but the draft Neighbourhood Plan implies the opposite
Perhaps it’s worthwhile re-reading the summary of attendees’ responses from the consultation
exercise again, it does not support your assertion here.

3, The call for sites for development is open for owners of land to offer their property at any time.

There is a distinction between a planning application which can happen at any time and a “call for
sites” process. The formal call for sites process is an exercise the District Council undertakes every
5 years approx for the whole District to ensure sufficient housing land supply. The results of the
sites submitted as part of the process are evaluated against LP policies and the results published in
SHEELA. Unsuitable sites that don’t meet policies are ruled out in this process. The NP process
undertook a parish-based call for sites. We asked the independent and official organisation Aecom
to do the evaluation against policies for sites submitted to them

There are no deadlines for such offers. To the best of my knowledge the Congregational Church
Trustees have not offered their site for ten housing units.

The church deacons have given their support for 8 (not 10) very sheltered units for older people (not
houses) to be built on the Congregational church garden. These have always been part of the
discussion with the church members, were agreed in principle at a PC meeting, and are recorded in
the agreement in principle for the transfer of the charity. So are signed off as approved in principle
by both the deacons and councillors.

4, The NHP states that a site at the end of Straight Road has been offered for 8 housing units.
United Charities is the owner of this site, but the Trustees have not offered this site. Maybe they will
offer the site, but it is only the Trustees of that charity that can make that offer and it has not been
done.

The Sand & Gravel Pitts charity field was a charitable trust run by the Parish Council. It was held in
trust for the benefit of residents of the village who had needs. The PC’s opinion before the transfer

10

was that this land was a good opportunity for affordable homes for young local people of the village.
The charity was transferred from the PC to United Charities in Spring/summer 2014. I have not yet
found the transfer agreement documentation, but I would seriously question why United Charities,
whose objectives are the same as those transferred to them, that is the purpose of looking after the
less well off people of the village, would seek to divert from the principle that the PC had set for the
Sand & Gravel Pitts trust lands.? That would not seem to honour the purpose of the trust nor the
intent of the trustees who transferred the charity to UC.

The future of our village is important, very important. The documents that affect this need to be
completely accurate. We need to take care to make sure they are. We need to take our
responsibilities seriously and not just tick boxes that others ask us to do.

You are correct, this document is important. But before we worry about spellings and typos we must
primarily be sure that we have the policies going in the right direction. This was the purpose of this
extraordinary PC meeting. I’m pleased to be able to tell you that councillors gave very helpful
feedback and direction for the NP working group, the detailed content of which will be in the minutes
that Graham will publish. The working group will then redraft this paper to make sure the policies
are what the PC agreed and at the same time will correct grammar and typos and any other matters
before the final draft is published for consultation.

Best wishes
John