7.1.2 Hills Development History 10-12-24 FINAL.pdf

1
Hills Development, Land East of Constable Country Surgery, Heath Road
REVISED 12/11/24

B/16/01092, Outline Planning, indicative plan, approved 9/2/18:
Just outline approval, but approval at JR based on principles set here on balanced judgement
due to HLS deficit, as otherwise our JR would have been upheld (Justice Mitting 2016)

DC/20/04663 approved 8/12/21, various plans submitted, final approval
Final Officer decision:
“This decision refers to drawing no./entitled 170120/P75/01 received 19/10/2020 as the
defined red line plan with the site shown edged red. Any other drawing showing land edged
red whether as part of another document or as a separate plan/drawing has not been
accepted or treated as the defined application site for the purposes of this decision.
Ie: approved DC/20/04663 design & access statement, 19/10/2020, 1st copy of proposed
plan:

DC/22/03964, Plan Approved 21/11/22: Phase 1 approved modifies approved plan

DC/23/02024 approved 2/5/23 Removed the southern tree scree, added additional land
(about 30ft) to southern border to build a bund and trees.

DC/24/02093 validated 15/5/24, Proposed site plan – phase 2 – 170120/pa/500/v3
Deals only with Phase 2, phase 1 remains the same as DC/20/04664.
Proposal adds 33 more houses to the design of Phase 2 (removes swimming pool, reduces
playground area of nursery by 50%, removes most of the green space in this second half of
the development.

DC/24/02093, Validated 15/5/24, Proposed site plan – phase 2 – 170120/pa/500/v3
Deals only with Phase 2, phase 1 remains the same as DC/20/04664.

Pre-Application Advice

Summary to June 24

Key
applications

B/16/01092,
approved
9/2/18

Outline
Planning,
indicative plan
Outline approval. Approval at JR based on NPPF principles of tilted balance
due to HLS deficit, otherwise our JR would have been upheld (Justice Mitting
2016) and likely refused

DC/20/04663
approved
8/12/21

Full planning
application.
Various plans
for detailed
plan
submitted,
approval
granted on
first plan
submitted
19/10/2020

Final Officer decision:
“This decision refers to drawing no./entitled 170120/P75/01 received
19/10/2020 as the defined red line plan with the site shown edged red. Any
other drawing showing land edged red whether as part of another document
or as a separate plan/drawing has not been accepted or treated as the
defined application site for the purposes of this decision”

ie: approved DC/20/04663 design & access statement, 19/10/2020, 1st copy
of proposed plan:

Total site = 75 houses, including 26 affordable homes, plus 18 for over 55s

28 homes to east of site, 0 affordable homes

DC/22/03964,
approved
21/11/22
Modifications
to Phase 1
(east of site)

Reconfiguring building plots in phase 1

Changes =
• 32 houses + 8 flats in Phase 1 (blue line of latest map). Includes 12
affordable houses (pepperpotting). Leaves 35 houses for west of site
Phase 2, including 14 affordable
• Central road aspect reversed

5
• Trees removed from centre of planned open space

DC/23/01638
Refused 4/4/23
Amendment Removal of allocation of over-55s houses
DC/23/02024
Approved
27/10/23
Bund
application
• Removes approved screening to allow more room for building/gardens
• Adds a bund to the south of the building plot, moving boundary of site
south by width of 1 house on Richardson’s Road, approx 30ft?
• PC recommended refusal warning it was to fit in more houses

DC/23/04317
Approved
14/9/23
Variation over
55s housing
Variation requested to condition 30, ie 18 properties subject to over-55s
allocation amended to allow younger relatives to live in these houses.

DC/24/01350
Validated
19/3/24
T.B.C
Gifting
affordable
houses
Proposal to modify Sec 106 agreement on affordable homes to gift 5 homes
(4x 2 bed, 1x ?2 bed flat) to EBCLT and return other 21 affordable houses to
open market

DC/24/01818
Validated
17/4/24
T.B.C
Removal
BREEAM
condition
Claim no longer valid
DC/24/02093
Validated
15/5/24
T.B.C.
Revised plan
for Phase 2
(west of site)
DC/24/02093|Full Planning Application – Mixed use development of two
phases comprising of 40 dwellings in Phase 1, and 68 dwellings in Phase 2 (38
in total affordable). In addition, the proposals include a pre-school and a
neighbourhood hub, comprising office space and a local shop, public open
space and associated infrastructure and landscaping.
• Additional 33 dwellings on Phase 2 west of site (Phase 2 new total 35 +
33 = 68), an approx. 49% increase in density
• Removal of public benefit playing field area and reduction in half of
nursery playing area
• Removal of public benefit (swimming pool), replaced by 5 affordable
houses
• Reduction in car parking spaces near to shop and nursery
• More houses, meaning more cars, less space per house to park, impact
on road parking?
• Removal of approx. 12 trees planned to be planted in area surrounding
entrance to site
• Removal of hedging along B1070 to north west of site
• Unclear if thinner tree planting in wooded areas is a design feature or
just an symbol adjustment?
• 38 affordable houses, an additional 12 affordable houses
• Affordable mix:
Type Current approved New proposal
1 bed flat 8 6
2 bed flat 0 2
2 bed house 13 26
3 bed house 5 4
4 bed house 0 0
TOTAL 26 38
Thus:
2 less 1 bed flat
2 more 2 bed flats
13 more 2 bed houses
1 less 3 bed house

• Approved plan allocates = 17 rental, 6 shared ownership, 3 key worker

6
Parish Council Recommendation, June 2024

EAST BERGHOLT PARISH COUNCIL REPONSE TO CONSULTATION ON
HILLS APPLICATION DC/24/02093

A scheme for 108 homes in two phases, a pre school, commercial hub with office space
and shop, public open space, infrastructure and landscaping.

INTRODUCTION
This application seeks to amend the consented scheme (B/16/01092) at Heath Road East
Bergholt for 75 homes and associated amenities which is well underway having commenced
construction in 2022. In summary it would;
– ADD 33 extra homes (+44%) to deliver 108 in total (38 affordable)
– REMOVE the proposed swimming pool
– REDUCE the proposed pre school open space
– REMOVES 18 homes for the over 55s
– RETAIN the office hub and retail space as is.
– DELIVER the scheme in 2 phases (40 homes with 12 affordable in phase 1, and 68
market/ 26 affordable homes plus pre- school in phase 2
– INCREASE the density particularly in area earmarked for phase 2 and significantly
reduce the public open space.
– CHANGE the consented layout for homes, roads and footpaths
– DIMINISH the spacious organic layout with the proposal for a high density suburban
estate

POINTS OF CONTENTION
– East Bergholt has no need for ANY extra market homes
– The consented scheme was vigorously opposed and only approved after two JR’s on
the basis of the “ tilted balance”. It was contrary to BDC Core Strategy and the East
Bergholt NP. But in the absence of a 5 year land supply these policy documents were
rendered irrelevant by legislation at the time. Today they would absolutely make the
consented scheme impossible to approve
– The proposal to amend the consented scheme is allegedly to “make better use of the
site” because some of the uses are “no longer required”. This application makes for an
inferior use of the site and the loss of community facilities are not backed by
evidence. Density does not mean better but open space does. Community facilities are
better than more estate homes.
– The applicant has already demonstrated a worrying disregard for the pre –
commencement processes and planning conditions which apply to the current consent
and this application serves only to heighten concerns that this sensitive site is at risk
from further unnecessary harm should this latest application prove successful.
– The 18 single story homes for the over 55s are not mentioned in this application at all
and they seem to have been removed from the plan

7
PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The application runs contrary to NPPF guidance, the recently approved Babergh and Mid
Suffolk Joint Local Plan Part1, and East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan. Relevant policy
considerations are as follows.

Neighbourhood Plan Policies

EB1 Plan Numbers
With 250 new homes being built in East Bergholt supply has already significantly exceeded
local need of 86 homes (2015 – 2030).
EB2 Development Size and Location
The size and scale of this scheme outside the BUAB does not satisfy condition 4 and renders
it totally unacceptable and contrary to this policy.
EB9 Housing and Non Residential Design
This policy requires high quality and inclusive design to protect or enhance the positive
elements of an area. This application fails dismally.
EB 12 New Developments Parking
This policy requires provision for on site residential and commercial vehicle parking in line
with SCC Guidance. SCC Highways have highlighted absence of visitor parking 19-43 and
elsewhere in phase 2, garages with no dimensions and removal of a disabled lay-by next to
the pre school.
EB13 New Developments Walking and Cycling
This policy requires an adequate and safe footpath layout. SCC Highways have highlighted
dwellings without a footways frontage on this scheme.
EB 15 Development of new and expanded businesses.
These are required to make provision for adequate vehicle parking. SCC Highways highlight
that no allocation is made for non residential areas.

JLP Part 1 Policies

SP01 Housing Needs
The District has 7.13 years of housing land supply. There is no case to grant more housing at
this time, and especially in East Bergholt as local needs are abundantly well met already.
SP03 The sustainable location of new development
The application for development outside the settlement boundary and not in accord with the
Neighbourhood Plan, would be directly contrary to this policy if it were not for the extant
permission on this site, which as we know only gained approval through the “ tilted balance”
and was contrary to the development plan policies at the time.
LP24 Design and Residential Amenity
This policy requires the highest design standards. These are not evident in this application for
development including the proposed layout, higher density of development and poor
landscaping proposed in phase 2.
LP28 Services and Facilities within the Community
Part 2 of this policy seeks to protect the loss of community facilities. This application
proposes a clear loss of community assets ( swimming pool, reduced pre school, and reduced
public open space) compared to the consented scheme.
LP 31 Health and Education Provision
The diminution of the pre school facility in this application is not considered acceptable and
is contrary to the requirements of this policy.

8
The removal of 18 homes for the over 55 year olds from this plan is unacceptable. Planning
application by Hills, DC/23/01638, to remove this facility has already been refused by Babergh
planners on 4/4/23.

National Planning Policy Framework
Para 140 of the NPPF 2023 states that “an amended scheme that materially diminishes one
that has already been granted permission should be refused”. In this case the consented
scheme is also well advanced in its construction and is clearly superior to the amended
application proposed.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE
East Bergholt Parish Council endorses the pre-application advice presented in Appendix 1 of
the applicant’s Planning Statement for application DC/24/02093, none of which seems to
have been taken on board by the applicant. In particular East Bergholt Parish Council agree
that:

– The loss of the public assets of the swimming pool and half of the pre-school playground
in this new application are detrimental to the benefit that this planning application might
have made.
a. Residents of the village are very positive about a swimming pool facility for the
village. The pre-school facility is also considered important. The applicant Hills,
provides no actual evidence other than reported hearsay evidence that a swimming
pool would not be viable.
b. The applicant, Hills, provides no actual evidence other than reported hearsay
evidence that the approved outside space at the pre-school facility was too large.
To the contrary a local pre-school facility, looking to expand due to excess
demand, has tried to engage in serious negotiation with the developer, Hills, only
to be met with a proposal that would have cost the nursery £4m over 10 years,
well above the valuation of such facilities available elsewhere in south Suffolk
and north Essex. The local nursery provider also tells us they consider the original
size of the pre-nursery outdoor space to be important. They do not consider the
maintenance to be onerous as they aim for up to 4 out of every 5 hours of nursery
provision for children to be spent outside, making a nonsense of the claims made
by Hills in their proposal to reduce the nursery outside space by one half.
c. The removal of the playing fields open space in Phase 2 to be replaced by houses
is a loss of a public asset and is not explained in the aapplication.
The proposal suggests that the loss of the public asset of the swimming pool and half
the pre-school outdoor space, and the loss of the outdoor playground should be
compensated for by building houses. This is an error, in planning terms loss of a
public asset should only be compensated for by replacement with a different public
asset.

– There is no justification in either Baberg-wide or in local terms for the need for additional
houses on this site. Babergh has a 7.3 years Housing Land Supply and local need in the
East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan demonstrates a need for only 86 new houses and 229
new houses are in course of construction to meet this need. Of the 229 new houses, 76

9
houses are classed as affordable and are well in excess of the 25-30 affordable houses
required in the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan and in more recent Housing Needs
Assessments.

– The housing type and mix proposed by Hills in this application do not meet local
requirements. The Housing Register of the local East Bergholt Community Land Trust
demonstrates that over 80% of local affordable houses needed are for 3 bedroom houses,
not the 2 bedroom houses that dominate this application. Babergh’s planning offers
suggested that Hills should consult the local parish council on type and mix of houses
required. The developer failed to consult with East Bergholt Parish Council before
submitting this application.

– East Bergholt Parish Council agree with Babergh officers’ advice that this planning
application is not acceptable due to the contrasting urbanization of the west of the site
(Phase 2) compared to the spacious layout of the east of the site (Phase 1). The proposals
for Phase 2 would make this site an outlier in density of housing, narrow roads and lack
of green spaces in East Bergholt, it would be entirely out of character. The area to the east
of the site is spacious with approximately 8 homes per hectaire, and the homes are set in a
green environment. This application for the west of the site (Phase 2) removes that
spacious feel by removing the green spaces, doubling the density of housing to
approximately 15 homes per hectaire, creating an urbanized landscape in the middle of
the village houses where the character is much more rural. The applicant claims this
concentration of houses is similar to the adjacent Richardson’s Road. This is clearly an
error as Richardson’s Road houses are much larger, set further back from the wider roads
and with much larger gardens.

– East Bergholt Parish Council agree with Babergh Planning officers’ advice that
Landscaping is important on this site, immediately adjacent to the Dedham Vale National
Landscape (formerly called AONB). The loss of trees in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this
application and the loss of the playing fields are detrimental both to the future residents of
the estate and to the village as a whole.

CONCLUSION
Application DC/24/02093 is considered to be wholly unacceptable when viewed in relation to
planning policies and guidance at every level; national, district and parish. It is also highly
contentious given the previous planning and enforcement history on this site.

Public Meeting in East Bergholt
East Bergholt Parish Council held a public meeting at which more than 60 residents gave
their considered views on the application. East Bergholt Parish Council endorse these views.
1. There is no evidence of Housing need for this number of houses in East Bergholt, nor for
the additional houses for Babergh District as a whole.

10
2. Affordable houses not required. How will the developer be able to find a provider to
purchase the 38 affordable homes proposed when they say they are unable to find a
provider for the existing 26 affordable homes in the current approved plan?
3. Heritage loss does not just relate to listed buildings, heritage includes the landscape
heritage. East Bergholt is particularly rich in Landscape heritage due the fields, trees,
hedgerows and landscapes made famous in John Constable’s paintings, many of which
include these scenes. These landscapes attract the economic benefit of tourists which is
put at threat by the despoiling of the landscapes.
4. The density increase and loss of green space between buildings is unacceptable and
would be atypical of the village. Hills claim the new application density is similar to
Richardsons Road. Whereas if you took an average across the whole site (Phase 1 and
Phase 2 house) this might be nearer the truth, if you take just the Phase 2 application this
is clearly not accurate. The houses are much more closely bunched with small gardens
and no green spaces. This is unlike Richardson’s Road and indeed unlike any other estate
in the village.
5. The application reduces the biodiversity on the site. The application removes a
significant number of trees and bushes previously approved for landscaping the site,
reducing both the biodiversity and the spacious feel of the site.
6. Landscapes and trees reduced. The loss of green space will reduce the landscaping
impact of the current plan.
7. No account is taken of Infrastructure needs. The doctor’s surgery is already struggling
with the number of new homes in the area. A recent attempt to book a simple blood test
took 6 weeks waiting time.
8. Poor transport links. The road past the site is already busy and transport estimates
predict a 57% increase in traffic once all the new estates within a 4 mile distance to the
east of the village are complete. The 33 additional homes, with 2 cars a home, on top of
all the traffic of the rest of the site would increase the safety risks and is unacceptable.
9. The disingenuous response to the local nursery’s attempt to negotiate a reasonable
market rent or a reasonable market sale for the nursery site is an indication of
unacceptable developer practice.
10. Changes to the boundary along Richardson’s Road. There is already a dispute as to
the exact location of the boundary to the west of the development site. The records of
houses along Richardson’s Road immediately to the west of the Phase 2 site show the
boundary to be half way down the ditch outside their hedges, as is common practice.
Hills’s application is vague on this point and Hills do not seem to be sure where the
boundary lies although the plan seems to show it along the hedge line. Clarifying the
matter is important for this new design as the houses to the west of Phase 2 have been
moved very close to the boundary hedge and the design of houses has changed. The steep
roofs of the new houses settled in this plan along the western boundary will overshadow
and provide a severe impact on the light amenities of the existing houses in Richardson’s
Road
11. Spoils view from AONB. The new houses proposed adjacent to the bund along the
southern boundary of the site are taller in roof height and will be visible over the bund
from views from the Donkey track in the Dedham Vale National Landscape (AONB).

11
12. Loss of accommodation for over 55s. The houses for the over 55s seem to have
disappeared and are not mentioned in this application.

RECOMMEND REFUSAL
The recommendation of East Bergholt Parish Council, passed unanimously at its meeting on
13 July, is to REFUSE this planning application on the grounds laid out in full in the paper
above.

12
REVISED PROPOSAL 31/10/24

“This site already has the benefit of planning permission for a mixed-use development (under
B/16/01092) and development on the eastern side of this site is currently under construction. An
application (DC/24/02093) was submitted in May 2024 which sought to amend the consented layout
and increase the number of dwellings on the western side of the site. During the course of the
application, the applicant and local planning authority had detailed discussions regarding the
proposals, which have led to amendments to the scheme. This Planning Statement Update document
has been prepared in support of those updates and superseded the Planning Statement dated April
2024.
As a result of the proposed design changes, the description of development has been amended as
follows:
“Full Planning Application – Mixed use development of two phases comprising 40 dwellings in
Phase 1, 59 dwellings in Phase 2, (34 in total affordable). In addition, the proposals include a pre-
school and a neighbourhood hub, comprising a swimming pool, office space and a local shop,
public open space and associated infrastructure and landscaping.” ”

Revised Application, 31/10/24

Site Plan – Phase 2 (amended 31/10/24) Drawing amended

Shows all of Part 2 of site including:
– reintroduction of swimming pool; rearrangement of parking
– increase in homes moves from +33 to +24; reduces playground area of nursery by 50%,
removes most of the green space in this second half of the development.

13
DC/24/02093
The resubmission documents of 31/10/24, seek to amend the revised application

In summary it seems the intent of the documents are to:

– REDUCE the added 33 homes in the May application to an added 24 homes, to deliver 99
in total of which 34 are affordable. (Current planning permission is for 75 homes with 25
affordable homes)
– REINSTATE the proposed swimming pool and hub
– RETAIN the shop with 8 flats above
– REDUCE the proposed pre school open space by a half
– DELIVER Phase 2 with 59 houses, realigned with spacious houses/gardens to south of
the Phase 2 site and with the majority of the 24 new homes added to the north of the
Phase 2 site south of the pre-school facility
– DIMINISH the spacious organic layout of the approved plans with the proposal for a high
density or “urban” density (Planning Statement page 14) in the area earmarked for
northern part of phase 2 homes
– REDUCE significantly the public open space approved in the original design
– REMOVE 18 homes for the over 55s altogether, but build 9 market price bungalows
– DELIVER completion of Phase 1 homes as originally approved, including the shop
– CHANGE the consented layout for homes, roads and footpaths

Proposed build schedule shows:
– 10 shared ownership (10%)
– 24 affordable rent
– 65 privately owned
This to include:
– 8 flats
– 48 houses
– 9 bungalows

However, there are multiple contradictory statements in the documents registered since
31/10/24 which leave us confused about the exact changes that the developer seeks. In
consequence we seek clarification of the applicant’s intent through answers to the following
questions.

QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

1. FLOOD PLANNING How will the applicant respond to the question put about drainage,
ie the questions asked by SCC, GH1 Floods planning team relating to the proposed
surface water drainage solution design as they tell us that the proposal does not currently
meet LLFA design criteria (Suffolk SuDS appendix A, 2023)?:
– Side slopes no greater than 1:4 (max)
– Shall have 1.5m wet/dry bench every 0.6m depth of water
– Max depth water no greater than 1m
– 3m width maintenance strip inside of security fencing around the basin

2. DENSITY OF AFFORDABLE HOMES

14
In reference to the Design & Access Statement page 10, and the Planning Statement. The
original planning permission showed affordable homes spread across the site. Has the
application now moved all of these, with the exception of 4 in Phase 1 to a ghetto in the
northern part the Phase 2 homes builds area? If so, why, when good practice guidelines
and the clear preference displayed in the permitted plan is to integrate affordable homes
with the market price homes?

3. REMOVAL OF A COMMUNITY BENEFIT
What has happened to the over 55s dedicated dwellings?

4. BOUNDARY DISPUTED
Has the ownership of the western boundary of the Phase 2 site been determined? EBPC
has received conflicting advice as to the ownership of the ditch along this border. The
boundary seems to change with each new drawing submitted. If land areas along the
western boundary shown in the current plan belong to the owners of houses in
Richardsons Road, how does this affect the application drawings? NB: the gardens of
houses along this boundary could be reduced by 1-1.5 meters.

5. SWIMMING POOL
The new Design and Access statement submitted 31/10/24, Page 6, states “The proposals
now show the removal of the previously anticipated swimming pool due to a lack of
demand following well documented viability issues with such a use largely driven by the
substantial increase in energy costs.”
How does this reconcile with the Planning Statement that says that the swimming pool
and hub is reinstated?
If indeed the first statement is true, will the applicant guarantee the benefit of this asset by
– agreeing to a condition that requires the building of the swimming pool and hub first,
before the homes are built?
– agreeing to a high sustainability specification for this building which includes solar
panels on the roof and adequate insulation and heating design that is fuelled by
sustainable energy?

6. DENSITY
Please could the applicant provide the total number of homes planned for Phase 2? There
are inconsistencies across the documents registered as part of the revised application after
31/10/24, perhaps because some documents have not been updated.
The applicant gives no densities for Phase 2 homes. Please can the applicant supply:
o Total density of the Phase 2 homes development (within the blue line of the
application plan)?
o Separately tells us the density of the 18 homes numbered 8, 9 and 44 to 50?
o Separately tell us the density of the remaining 41 homes in the Phase 2
development and compare this figure to the density in the Richardsons Road
housing?

15
o Gov UK; The Rural-Urban classification for output areas states “urban areas are
the connected built up areas identified by Ordinance Survey mapping that have
resident population above 10,000 people”, “rural areas comprise open country and
settlements with fewer than 2000 housing units and 5000 residents. Urban areas
comprise densely developed areas with 2000 or more housing units or 5000 or
more residents.”
o Office of National Statistics; “ urban populations are over 5000”
Does the applicant understand that for East Bergholt with a population of 2750 and
housing units of well under 2000 even when the 2 big new estates are completed, we
cannot be described as an urban environment, nor should we expect to build to urban
density standards?
It might be useful to remind the applicant that the landscape subject of this application
and directly bordering the Dedham Vale National Landscape, is depicted on page 112 of
the applicants’ Design and Access Statement in the picture below. It cannot be described
as “urban”.

8. CHANGE IN LAND USE
In the Planning Statement the applicant says in para 1.5, “ the Applicant has now found
that some of the land within the red line area is no longer required for the uses that were
originally intended…”
Please can the applicant tell us which areas this refers to?
Please can the applicant tell us what evidence they use to reach this conclusion?

9. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
Please can the applicant tell us how much open space has been deleted from the original
planning permission granted and what % of the open space in the approved plan this
represents?
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for the whole site?
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for Phase 2 of the site?
Please do not include the SUDs area as open space, as this will be off-limits for people.

10. BUND
What are the future arrangements for managing the bund?
How will these arrangements ensure the planting on the bund’s sustainability over time?

11. LOCAL NEED
The assessment of housing need for East Bergholt is derived from “local need”. Lord
Justice Mitting in his judgement on our JR gave guidance that Local need relates to the
need established for our village, not for the whole District. Can the applicant describe
how the local need for East Bergholt is met by the provision proposed in their latest
application when the local need identified in East Bergholt’s Local Plan is fully met by
the current development approved?
For the avoidance of doubt the housing need for East Bergholt and its hinterland villages
is outlined in full in the Neighbourhood Plan and Appendix D

12. PRE-SCHOOL ADDITIONAL SPACE
Planning Statement, para 4.10 and 6.11. Please can the applicant identify the “additional
land shown for pre-school outdoor play area if required” is on the plan?

13. PRE-SCHOOL NEED FOR OUTDOOR SPACE
Planning Statement, para 4.10 and 6.11. The applicant says that they have evidence that
“operators would not want or need additional outdoor space for the pre-school”. EBPC
has direct evidence to the contrary from pre-school providers, so please can the applicant
show us their evidence?

14. EAST BERGHOLT NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN POLICIES
Planning Statement, para 5.22 5.31, 6.30. Does the applicant acknowledge that policies
within the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan, specifically EB1, EB2, EB4, are not out of
date having been adopted by Babergh in Autumn 2017?

15. TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS
Planning Statement, para 6.21. The applicant recognises the additional need for parking to
satisfy the needs of the additional 24 homes proposed by providing a minimum of another
48 parking spaces. How does the applicant calculate that all this extra parking will
provide only 16 additional vehicle movements during AM and PM peak times?

16. BIODIVERSITY NET GAIN
Large trees along the B1070 border of the site have been felled, along with hedging. A
row of trees along the whole of the north south boundary to the east of the site have been
felled.
Please can the applicant show us how these losses have been calculated in the biodiversity
net gain assessment for the site?

17. Would the applicant like to comment why the proposed replacement of a modest number
of bungalows along the western border with Richardsons Road that appeared in the
approved planning permission has been replaced by a larger number of taller two-story
buildings?

18. How does the developer propose to find a Registered Provider for the affordable houses?
JM/18/11/24

18
QUESTIONS RESPONSE FROM HILLs 27/11/24

1 Flood
Planning Now overcome – see LLFA response dated 15th November 2024.

From: GHI Floods Planning
Sent: 15 November 2024 08:53
Suffolk County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), have reviewed application
ref DC/24/02093.
The following submitted documents have/has been reviewed and the LLFA recommends
approval subject to conditions this time:
• Location Plan Ref 170120/Ld/09/A
• Sie Plan Phase 2 17010/PA/500/V9
• Flood Risk Assessment Ref 24-002 Rev E
• Drainage Statement and Maintenance Plan Ref 24-002 Rev A
• Soft Landscape Proposals Phase 1 & 2 Overall Sheet 1 of 12 Ref 22.5307.11 Rev A
• Swale and Attenuation Pond Detail Ref 22-030/404 G
• Attenuation Basin Designers Risk Assessment Ref 24-002 Rev 1
Proposed Conditions
1. The strategy for the disposal of surface water (ref: Flood Risk Assessment Ref 24-002 Rev
E & Drainage Statement and Maintenance Plan Ref 24-002 Rev A) shall be implemented as
approved in writing by the local planning authority (LPA). The strategy shall thereafter be
managed and maintained in accordance with the approved strategy.
Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this
proposal, to ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained
2. Within 28 days of practical completion of the last dwelling or unit, surface water drainage
verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, detailing and verifying
that the surface water drainage system has been inspected and has been built and functions in
accordance with the approved designs and drawings. The report shall include details of all
SuDS components and piped networks in an agreed form, for inclusion on the Lead Local
Flood Authority’s Flood Risk Asset Register.
Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage system has been built in accordance with
the approved drawings and is fit to be put into operation and to ensure that the Sustainable
Drainage System has been implemented as permitted and that all flood risk assets and their
owners are recorded onto the LLFA’s statutory flood risk asset register as required under
s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in order to enable the proper management
of flood risk with the county of Suffolk
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-
register/
3. No development shall commence until details of a Construction Surface Water
Management Plan (CSWMP) detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed

19
on the site during construction (including demolition and site clearance operations) is
submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA. The CSWMP shall be implemented and
thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of
construction. The approved CSWMP shall include:
Method statements, scaled and dimensioned plans and drawings detailing surface water
management proposals to include:-
i. Temporary drainage systems
ii. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and
watercourses
iii. Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction

2. DENSITY OF AFFORDABLE HOMES
In reference to the Design & Access Statement page 10, and the Planning Statement. The
original planning permission showed affordable homes spread across the site. Has the
application now moved all of these, with the exception of 4 in Phase 1 to a ghetto in the
northern part the Phase 2 homes builds area? If so, why, when good practice guidelines
and the clear preference displayed in the permitted plan is to integrate affordable homes
with the market price homes?

2 Density of
Affordable Homes
The affordable homes are accessed off 4 separate roads and
follow policy of avoiding clusters of more than 10 plots.

3. REMOVAL OF A COMMUNITY BENEFIT
What has happened to the over 55s dedicated dwellings?

3 Removal of a
Community Benefit This will form part of the s106 discussions.

4 Boundary Dispute The red line we have submitted follows the boundaries as shown
on the land registry.

20
If indeed the first statement is true, will the applicant guarantee the benefit of this asset by
– agreeing to a condition that requires the building of the swimming pool and hub first,
before the homes are built?
– agreeing to a high sustainability specification for this building which includes solar
panels on the roof and adequate insulation and heating design that is fuelled by
sustainable energy?

5 Swimming Pool We have been actively seeking a provider of the swimming pool
for a number of years. Unfortunately this market has been
severely hit by the energy cost increases as well as insufficient
demographics to increase revenue to accomodate the shortfall
and so there are very few active providers. However we have
reinstated the pool into the plans following feedback on our
previous submission and will continue to market for a further
period. It is not viable to build the pool without an end user in
place paying a market rent.

6 Density The site plan adequately shows the density of the proposals.
This site as a whole provides a density of 11 dwellings per
hectare which is exceptionally low. It is also worth noting that
garden sizes are predominantly significantly above policy
requirements.

7. URBAN DESIGN IN A VILLAGE
Design & Access Statement page 14 states “the application site is within an established
urban area…”
Official definitions of urban:
o Oxford dictionary; “relating to or characteristic of a town or city”
o Collins dictionary; “belonging to or relating to a city or town”
o Gov UK; The Rural-Urban classification for output areas states “urban areas are
the connected built up areas identified by Ordinance Survey mapping that have
resident population above 10,000 people”, “rural areas comprise open country and
settlements with fewer than 2000 housing units and 5000 residents. Urban areas
comprise densely developed areas with 2000 or more housing units or 5000 or
more residents.”
o Office of National Statistics; “ urban populations are over 5000”

21
Does the applicant understand that for East Bergholt with a population of 2750 and
housing units of well under 2000 even when the 2 big new estates are completed, we
cannot be described as an urban environment, nor should we expect to build to urban
density standards?
It might be useful to remind the applicant that the landscape subject of this application
and directly bordering the Dedham Vale National Landscape, is depicted on page 112 of
the applicants’ Design and Access Statement in the picture below. It cannot be described
as “urban”.

7 Urban Design in a
Village
Noted. The reference to “urban area” was intended to denote the
“built-up area” of East Bergholt and not to imply that it has that
characteristics of a town or city.

8 Change in Land
Use
The previously very large area for outdoor play assoicated with
the pre-school is covered within paragraph 6.11 of the Planning
Statement.

22
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for the whole site?
Please can the applicant tell us the % of open space for Phase 2 of the site?
Please do not include the SUDs area as open space, as this will be off-limits for people.

9 Public Open Space Public open space is calculated across the whole site and is
accessible for all. The proposals provide 23.4% which is more
than double the policy requirement of 10%.

10. BUND
What are the future arrangements for managing the bund?
How will these arrangements ensure the planting on the bund’s sustainability over time?

10 Bund The management of the bund will be undertaken by the
appointed management company for the scheme as a whole.

11 Local Need Need is covered within our planning statement and has been
shaped through discussions with the Local Planning Authority.

12. PRE-SCHOOL ADDITIONAL SPACE
Planning Statement, para 4.10 and 6.11. Please can the applicant identify the “additional
land shown for pre-school outdoor play area if required” is on the plan?

12 Pre-School
Additional Space
There is no error here. Please refer to the approved plan which
shows the additional play area land that was previously
proposed and now not provided as operators are not keen on it.

13 Pre-School Need
for Outdoor Space
All providers that we have spoken to have stated that the
previously shown additional area was far too large and
expensive to maintain. Most have said they also prefer to keep
their children within a closer environment as it encourages

23
better play and social skills. Please also note this is a pre-school
rather than an infant or primary school and so the need for larger
areas of play is not a requirement at the younger ages.

14 EBNP Policies The proposals have due regard to the 2016 Neighbourhood Plan
as is commented upon throughout our documentation.

15 Traffic Movements Please review the transport statement.

16 BNG BNG is calculated from a base line assessment of what the site
previously provided versus what it will provide. Trees in the
copse areas have been removed in accordance with our
woodland management plan requirements as set out in our
previously approved ecology reports. This is to ensure the vitality
of the copse areas where previously they were struggling. The
net increase in trees of +107 along with the large areas of
wildflower and grassland have ensured we achieve a biodiversity
net gain increase of more than 10%.

17 Richardsons Road
Border
The amendments as a whole represent market feedback and
need.

18. How does the developer propose to find a Registered Provider for the affordable houses?

18 Sourcing an RP Whilst this is still a challenging market we propose to undertake
a full tender upon receipt of our planning permission. To assist
with this we have proposed an amendment to the tenure of the
flats above the new co-op store from affordable to private.

25
SUMMARY OF THE NEW POSITION FOR EBPC CONSIDERATIONS 12/12/24

This application seeks to amend the consented scheme (B/16/01092) at Heath Road East
Bergholt for 75 homes and associated amenities which is well underway having commenced
construction in 2022. In summary it seems the intent of the amendments in Hill’s revised
documents of 31/10/24 are to:

– ADDs 24 extra homes to the existing approval for 75 homes to deliver 99 in total
including 34 affordable homes. The increase in homes represents a 68% increase in the
number and density of homes in the Phase 2 half of the site.

– REINSTATEs the proposed swimming pool and hub, but with little confidence that this
this is a serious application and that this community asset will be built when Hills state in
27/11/24 response to EBPC’s questions that “We have been actively seeking a provider of the
swimming pool for a number of years. Unfortunately this market has been severely hit by the energy
cost increases as well as insufficient demographics to increase revenue to accomodate the shortfall
and so there are very few active providers. However we have reinstated the pool into the plans
following feedback on our previous submission and will continue to market for a further period. It is
not viable to build the pool without an end user in place paying a market rent..”

– RETAINs the retail unit with 8 flats above

– REDUCEs the pre-school open space by 50% with no replacement offered for loss of this
community asset. EBPC received evidence from local pre school facilities that the
originally proposed area for outdoor play in the approved application was essential for
good pre-school care. Hills assert that the original space approved was not required and
said they were told by pre school providers that it was unnecessary and was costly to
maintain. Hills failed to provide any evidence in support of this assertion.

– INCREASES DENSITY to one small part of the site. Phase 2 with 59 houses has a much
increased density for the affordable homes, creating what Hills describe in their
application as an “urban density” (Design & Access Statement Planning Statement page
14). “Urban density” is formally defined:
o Gov UK; The Rural-Urban classification for output areas states “urban areas
are the connected built up areas identified by Ordinance Survey mapping that
have resident population above 10,000 people”, “rural areas comprise open
country and settlements with fewer than 2000 housing units and 5000
residents. Urban areas comprise densely developed areas with 2000 or more
housing units or 5000 or more residents.”
o Office of National Statistics; “ urban populations are over 5000”
East Bergholt with a population of 2750 and housing units of well under 2000 cannot be
described as an urban environment, nor should we expect to build to urban density
standards. The landscape subject of this application and directly bordering the Dedham
Vale National Landscape, is depicted on page 112 of the applicant’s Design and Access
Statement in the picture below. It cannot be described as “urban”.

Nor can the densities in the adjacent Chaplins Road/Richardsons Road, which the
applicant refers to in their application, be described as “urban” with their large gardens
and spacious roads. The original approved scheme spreads the affordable housing
throughout the whole site allowing for a more mixed development, avoiding ghettoisation
of the affordable homes.

– REDUCEs significantly the public open space approved in the original design, reducing
the community benefit on the site with no alternative community gain.

– REMOVEs 18 homes for the over 55s altogether, but build 9 market price bungalows.
Hill’s response to EBPC’s question 27/11/24 on why they are removed simply says “This
will form part of the s106 discussions.” introducing doubt as to Hill’s intent.

– CHANGEs the consented layout for homes, roads and footpaths creating traffic
bottlenecks

– DISPUTED BOUNDARY. EBPC asked Hills if the boundary line of their application was agreed with
neighbours along eh western site of the plot as neighbours have stated that this boundary has been
disputed. Hill’s response was “The red line we have submitted follows the boundaries as shown on
the land registry.” This does not answer the question put as it is title deed, not Land Registry
markings, that determine the boundary of a property.

– FAILS TO ADDRESS LOCAL NEED, which is already satisfied. EBPC asked Hills “The assessment of
housing need for East Bergholt is derived from “local need”. Lord Justice Mitting in his
judgement on our JR gave guidance that Local need relates to the need established for our
village, not for the whole District. Can the applicant describe how the local need for East
Bergholt is met by the provision proposed in their latest application when the local need
identified in East Bergholt’s Local Plan is fully met by the current development
approved? For the avoidance of doubt the housing need for East Bergholt and its
hinterland villages is outlined in full in the Neighbourhood Plan and Appendix D.” In
their response 27/11/24 Hills state “Need is covered within our planning statement and has been
shaped through discussions with the Local Planning Authority.” This ignores the definition of local
need defined in the High Court by Lord Justice Mitting.

There are multiple contradictory statements in the documents registered since 31/10/24 which
leave us confused about the exact changes that the developer seeks. Responses to the
clarification questions put by the Parish Council were non-specific and did not answer the
questions raised, nor did they provide any evidence for the assertions made in the application,
a number of which contradict other evidence provided to EBPC by local pre-school
providers.

POINTS OF CONTENTION
– East Bergholt has no need for ANY extra market homes
– The consented scheme was vigorously opposed and only approved after two JR’s on
the basis of the “ tilted balance”. It was contrary to BDC Core Strategy and the East
Bergholt NP. But in the absence of a 5 year land supply these policy documents were
rendered irrelevant by legislation at the time. With a housing land supply today of
7.13 years the consented scheme would not be approved as it is contrary to many JLP
and NP policies itemised below.
– The proposal to amend the consented scheme is allegedly to “make better use of the
site” because some of the uses are “no longer required”. This application makes for an
inferior use of the site and the loss of community facilities are not backed by
evidence. Density does not mean better but open space does. Community facilities are
better than more estate homes that are not required to meet local need.
– The applicant has already demonstrated a worrying disregard for the pre –
commencement processes and planning conditions which apply to the current consent
and this application serves only to heighten concerns that this sensitive site is at risk
from further unnecessary harm should this latest application prove successful.
– The 18 single story homes for the over 55s are not mentioned in this application at all
and they seem to have been removed from the plan
– Traffic Volumes. The road past the site is already busy and transport estimates predict
a 57% increase in traffic once all the new estates within a 4 mile distance to the east
of the village are complete. The 24 additional homes, with 2 cars a home, on top of
all the traffic of the rest of the site would increase the safety risks and is unacceptable.

PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The application runs contrary to NPPF guidance, the recently approved Babergh and Mid
Suffolk Joint Local Plan Part1, and East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan. Relevant policy
considerations are as follows.

Adopted Neighbourhood Plan Policies

Hills stated on 27/11/24 that “The proposals have due regard to the 2016 Neighbourhood Plan as is
commented upon throughout our documentation.” and yet there is significant variance between the
proposals put forward by Hills and the policies of the adopted EB Neighbourhood Plan, outlined below:

28
EB1 Plan Numbers
With 250 new homes being built in East Bergholt supply has already significantly exceeded
local need of 86 homes (2015 – 2030).

EB2 Development Size and Location
The size and scale of this scheme outside the BUAB does not satisfy condition 4 and renders
it totally unacceptable and contrary to this policy.

EB9 Housing and Non Residential Design
This policy requires high quality and inclusive design to protect or enhance the positive
elements of an area. This application fails dismally.

?? EB 12 New Developments Parking
This policy requires provision for on site residential and commercial vehicle parking in line
with SCC Guidance. SCC Highways have highlighted absence of visitor parking 19-43 and
elsewhere in phase 2, garages with no dimensions and removal of a disabled lay-by next to
the pre school.

?? EB13 New Developments Walking and Cycling
This policy requires an adequate and safe footpath layout. SCC Highways have highlighted
dwellings without a footway frontage on this scheme.

?? EB 15 Development of new and expanded businesses.
These are required to make provision for adequate vehicle parking. SCC Highways highlight
that no allocation is made for non residential areas.

Joint Local Plan Part 1 Policies

SP03 The sustainable location of new development
The application for development outside the settlement boundary and not in accord with the
Neighbourhood Plan, would be directly contrary to this policy if it were not for the extant
permission on this site, which as we know only gained approval through the “ tilted balance”
and was contrary to the development plan policies at the time.

LP24 Design and Residential Amenity
This policy requires the highest design standards. These are not evident in this application for
development including the proposed layout, higher density of development and poor
landscaping proposed in phase 2.

LP28 Services and Facilities within the Community
Part 2 of this policy seeks to protect the loss of community facilities. This application
proposes a clear loss of community assets ( swimming pool, reduced pre school, and reduced
public open space) compared to the consented scheme.

LP 31 Health and Education Provision

29
The diminution of the pre school facility in this application is not considered acceptable and
is contrary to the requirements of this policy.

The removal of 18 homes for the over 55 year olds from this plan is unacceptable. Planning
application by Hills, DC/23/01638, to remove this facility has already been refused by Babergh
planners on 4/4/23.

PRE-APPLICATION ADVICE
East Bergholt Parish Council endorses the pre-application advice presented in Appendix 1 of
the applicant’s Planning Statement for application DC/24/02093, little of which seems to
have been taken on board by the applicant. In particular East Bergholt Parish Council agree
that:

– There is no justification in either Babergh-wide or in local terms for the need for
additional houses on this site. Babergh has a 7.13 years Housing Land Supply and local
need in the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan demonstrates a need for only 86 new
houses and 229 new houses are in course of construction to meet this need. Of the 229
new houses, 76 houses are classed as affordable and are well in excess of the 25-30
affordable houses required in the East Bergholt Neighbourhood Plan and in more recent
Housing Needs Assessments.

– The housing type and mix proposed by Hills in this application do not meet local
requirements. The Housing Register of the local East Bergholt Community Land Trust
demonstrates that over 80% of local affordable houses needed are for 3 bedroom houses,
not the 2 bedroom houses that dominate this application. Babergh’s planning offers
suggested that Hills should consult the local parish council on type and mix of houses
required. The developer has failed to consult with East Bergholt Parish Council before
submitting this application.

30
concentration of houses is similar to the adjacent Richardson’s Road. This is clearly an
error as Richardson’s Road houses are much larger, set further back from the wider roads
and with much larger gardens.

JM/10/12/24

East Bergholt Parish Council

East Bergholt Parish Council

7.1.2 Hills Development History 10-12-24 FINAL.pdf

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

East Bergholt
Parish Council