Representation 11513 on BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) by Great Cornard Parish Council (Nadine Tamlyn )
|Support / Object:||OBJECT|
|Document Link:||BMSDC Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) - Great Cornard|
|Representation:||It is difficult to consider whether the new settlement boundaries are appropriate for Great Cornard, as the decision to include part of Great Cornard and Chilton with Sudbury has made it difficult to make that assessment. As previously stated, Great Cornard is the second largest population centre in the Babergh district and should be recognised throughout the plan as a settlement in its own right.|
Response from Great Cornard Parish Council (GCPC) to the Babergh and Mid Suffolk: Joint Local Plan Consultation Document
Review of the Settlement Hierarchy
Q.11/12 Great Cornard Parish Council objects to its inclusion as part of Sudbury. Great Cornard is the second largest population centre in the Babergh District, marginally larger than Hadleigh, and should be recognised as a settlement in its own right with its own settlement plan. Many much smaller villages than Great Cornard are accorded their own plan, while Great Cornard is chopped into pieces.
Q. 13 GCPC preference is Babergh Option BHD1 - County town focussed.
New developments should be in areas of notable growth, such as the Ipswich Fringe with better rail links and roads.
GCPC believes that Babergh BHD4 - New settlement focussed is not a viable option.
Housing Types & Affordable Housing
Q.16 Yes, as well as meeting the nationally described space standards, all homes should be of the highest quality design standards and build standards.
Q.22 No - A percentage of 35% should be maintained in order to ensure both that the viability of the development and that the design and build standards of affordable housing are not compromised.
Rural growth and development
Q.26 GCPC does not support option HG2 and is in favour of HG1.
Q.33 GCPC believes there should be a fundamental and urgent review of the employment requirements in the area. GCPC's view is that development should go hand in hand with employment. As in previous plan iterations there is land allocated for employment use in the area which has not been developed, there is no demonstrated need for the provision of land for employment use in Great Cornard.
Town Centres and Retail
Q.42-44 No sites for retail or commercial leisure should be allocated in Great Cornard.
Q.45 Yes, GCPC is in broad agreement with the proposed Town Centre boundaries.
Q.51 GCPC preference is for Option BIO 2. It is essential to highlight the need to protect and enhance designations, habitats and species.
Q.54 All homes should be built to the Passivhaus construction standard: energy neutral or near-neutral, high design and build standards, occupier comfort a high priority, homes age friendly. Affordable and ecological housing at one and the same time
Landscape, Heritage and Design
Q55-59 GCPC preference is Option L1 to maintain local landscape designations.
Q.60 Across all housing, whatever the type or size, the priority should be to ensure that the highest possible design and build standards are adopted at all times.
Q. 68 Yes. GCPC would support a more integrated policy.
Q.72 Yes - In the past, not enough powers have been put in place to protect the 'Green Belt'.
Q. 75 It is difficult to consider whether the new settlement boundaries are appropriate for Great Cornard, as the decision to include part of Great Cornard and Chilton with Sudbury has made it difficult to make that assessment. As previously stated, Great Cornard is the second largest population centre in the Babergh district and should be recognised throughout the plan as a settlement in its own right.
SS0433 - Land West of Bures Road
GCPC considers this site appropriate for allocation and inclusion within the new settlement boundary; however, the estimated number of dwellings at 46 is too high for the size of the plot. The site would be suitable for a low-density and low-rise development only.
SS0220 - Land south of Davidson Close
GCPC strongly disagrees that this site is suitable for development for technical, landscape and community reasons.
The site is outside the proposed new settlement boundary and as stated in the JLP, land outside settlement boundaries is defined as 'the countryside'. The land falls within the evaluation area for the proposed extension to the nationally designated Dedham Vale AONB boundary and is adjacent to the Great Cornard Country Park, an important community asset which adds to the area's rural character and environmental importance.
The purpose of the new settlement boundaries is to provide the community with confidence about the location of development. The JLP states that, 'settlement boundaries can help prioritise investment within towns and villages whilst restricting the endless sprawl of settlements into the open countryside'. Accordingly, the site should be ruled out to prevent urban sprawl up Prospect Hill and towards Little Cornard.
Accessing the site via Prospect Hill, Blackhouse Lane or Wells Hall Road would all put enormous pressure on the local infrastructure which is already struggling to sustain the level of traffic in the area. There is very limited opportunity to mitigate the risk to residents, road users and pedestrians; for this reason, the site is unsuitable.
Flooding is also a major issue as the area is very close to the bottom of the Stour Valley catchment area with the Black Brook forming one of the tributaries/head waters of the Suffolk Stour and having experienced two major and several minor flooding incidents in the past 20 years.
It is known locally that the Great Cornard balancing pond, built to prevent surface water from the surrounding estates from entering the Black Brook does not work properly and that the culverts along the Black Brook and under Blackhouse Lane are poorly maintained and inadequate for peak volume flows.
GCPC does not consider this site appropriate for allocation or inclusion within the settlement boundary and asks that the district council considers GCPC's long-term vision to extend the Great Cornard Country Park and create a 'green belt' around the village which extends from Bures Road to the Newton Road, forming a green edge to Great Cornard and a green barrier to urban sprawl into Cornard Tye, Little Cornard and Newton Green. GCPC formally requests that the JLP designates this land as local green space.
SS0242 - Land at Tye Farm, Great Cornard
Great Cornard Parish Council did not support at consultation Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy which provided for a strategic broad location of growth to the east of Sudbury/Great Cornard. GCPC does, however, acknowledge the adoption of the Babergh Core Strategy and Policy CS5 which made provision for approximately 500 new houses and employment use, and understands the need for the district council to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.
Since the Core Strategies adoption, GCPC has been encouraged by the district council to enter into informal discussions with the landowners of Land East of Great Cornard in order to address the parish council's major concerns about the development of the site and to give GCPC the opportunity to give its own long-term vision of creating a green belt around the village from the Newton Road to the Bures Road to stop urban sprawl along this Southern arc and protect Cornard Tye, Newton Green and Little Cornard from the impact of any further development of urban Great Cornard.
The SS0242 site location is entirely unsuitable for large scale allocation of commercial or industrial employment and the allocation for employment use should be withdrawn.
To ensure that any new development in the area enhances local services and facilities, GCPC has stipulated a number of criteria to be met when considering the type and location of development on land east of Great Cornard, as follows:
* The 70m contour line is not breached as it is the top of the Stour Valley on the Suffolk side of the river. If this landscape barrier is breached in any way, there will be no natural barrier to the Sudbury and Great Cornard urban areas sprawling up the A134 to Cornard Tye and Newton Green.
* No part of any development should be visible from Cornard Tye and sufficient land should be allocated within the site boundary to ensure the development is well screened from all areas.
* In order to meet the council's long-term objective of creating a green belt around the village, that the remaining agricultural land between Shawlands Avenue, Newton Road and Sheepshead Hill be allocated as Country Park.
* Any S106 Agreement should be drawn up to ensure land designated as public open space or Country park is dedicated for recreation and country park to Great Cornard Parish Council.
* Serious consideration should be given to how light spillage can be minimized, both for the sake of the wildlife and the shielding of the development from the surrounding area.
* The protection of Shawlands Woods Local Nature Reserve. GCPC is extremely concerned as to the impact any development would have on the local nature reserve. The area has important species on site and is known as the most significant and densely populated site in the area for viviparous lizards. A plan to mitigate the impact of domestic animals on the wildlife in the woods must also be considered.
* Flood Risk: the rainwater drainage in Great Cornard continues to be an issue and would need to be addressed.
* If the housing allocation on the proposed site necessitates the building of a primary school, 'safe routes' from the development to the main village must be a prime consideration, as well as good access routes to the school to ensure potential traffic issues are 'designed out'.
* In consultation with SCC Highways, to ensure a safe access point is designed to enter and exit the site from the A134.
* To address the need for additional cemetery space and the possibility of allocating land for a Woodland Burial site.
* To address the need for increased provision of doctor services in Great Cornard.
GCPC does not consider the whole site of approximately 60 hectares as appropriate for allocation or inclusion within new settlement boundary. The area of land is far too large and GCPC recommends the size of the site be reduced to go no further than the track from the Pot Kilns and stop at the junction to the water tower and Tye Farm. (See Appendix A)
In support of the recommendation to reduce the size of land allocated under SS0242, GCPC refers to the draft SHELAA (August 2017), which states the site has "planning history - none". This is incorrect as HS09J Shawlands Avenue included in the draft of the current Local Plan was on Tye Farm Land and was removed from the Local Plan Alteration 2 following the inspector's recommendations that this was not a sustainable site.
The HS09J Shawlands Avenue site allocation was located within the area of land which GCPC is seeking to remove from the SS0242 identified site and in relation to this recommendation only, GCPC supports the Cornard Tye Residents Association response to the JLP consultation and specifically the statutory provisions which NPPF requires the local planning authority to 'reflect' and 'promote' are, amongst others: Section 66(1) of the Listed Buildings Act and paragraph 132 & 134 of the NPPF. (See Appendix B)