Up to 2011 there were four applications for building a supermarket on the edge of the town. Tesco’s last application was rejected by Babergh District Council in July 2011 and in January 2012 they decided not to contest that decision.
In 1965 the Council for British Archaeology published a list of 324 historic towns of which 51 were considered to be of special importance – “so splendid and so precious that ultimate responsibility for them should be a national concern”.
This led the County Planning Authority to propose a conservation area.
The Hadleigh Society monitors all planning applications that might affect the town. It often makes observations but from time to time a major proposal gives rise to a major and comprehensive activity.
Babergh updated the Local Plan in 2004 and published the Babergh Local Plan Alteration No 2 Issues Report for consultation. The Hadleigh Society Executive Committee responded with a series of comments the content of which can be found here.
Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan Public Consultation, Nov 2017. The Hadleigh Society has submitted comments. Go to the Joint Local Plan Consultation Document (Interactive) where against each item you can click the magnifying glass symbol to see everybody’s comments.
We originally commented to the Council on the redeployment of this asset as follows.
The offices present a major opportunity to provide employment in a range of activities from offices, craft studios, restaurant/cafes, hotel, holiday accommodation, leisure/gym uses. To allow its conversion to housing would be to squander this asset for short term gain. Also residential uses will not be a good neighbour to surrounding leisure uses particularly the cricket club with its practice nets adjacent to the building. The Council ought not therefore be allowed to decide residential use for its own short term financial gain, instead it ought to ensure the facility continues to serve the communities economic health and welfare requirements by allowing and promoting employment and leisure uses in the complex.
Following the exhibition in 2018 we submitted more extensive comments.
Traffic in Benton Street has been a problem for many years, with no obvious solution. In 2017 Suffolk County Council presented a set of options. The Hadleigh Society has reviewed these, presented in a document you can find here.
The Hadleigh Society has responded.
The Society’s First Response
The Society’s Second Response
The Society’s Third Response
Boundary walls
Amendments
Report & Letter Re 7 Bridge Street, 10 Jan 2017
Report & Letter Re Amend 1-7 Bridge Street 6 Feb 2017
Report & Letter Re Amend 1-7 Bridge Street 13 Apr2017
East House, George Street DC/17/03770: we supported with comments, granted approval 3 Oct 2017
The Wheatsheaf, 4 High Street DC/17/04235- Full Planning, Application. Change of Use from residential to Office Use. We supported with comments, granted approval 6 Oct 2017
120 Benton Street DC/17/03523 Non Material amendments to B/06/00330/RES/CLD – housing development. we recommended new application should be made granted approval 3 Nov 2017
Rear of 4-14 Benton Street DC/17/02677 – Erection of 2 detached dwellings. We commented on scale and access. Refused 23 November 2017
Hadleigh Hall DC/17/04239 –Erection of detached dwelling. We said it should remain a green area. We objected, and again to the amended application. Planning permission was refused on 27 July 2018.
2018
40 George Street, DC/18/00647 – We raised concerns regarding design, access and issues concerning the Leisure Centre. Planning was refused on 11 April 2018, citing these reasons amongst others.
Rear of 4-14 Benton Street, DC/18/01543 – we commented on safeguarding the wall in Tinkers Lane and trees, and on detail of materials. Planning permission was refused on 23 July 2018.
1 Bridge Street – DC/18/01675 – we objected because of the adverse impact the building and fence would have upon the area; no approval could be granted in any event based upon the submitted drawings, and to do so would be considered maladministration. The amendments did not change our view.
Stone Street DC/18/02327 Change of use of land to form a Business Park
Any development of this nature should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, encourage the effective use of land, be focused in locations which are or can offer genuine modes of sustainable transport, be visually attractive and add to the local character as a result of good architecture, layout and effective landscaping. These are all important requirements set out in the Revised NPPF which, amongst other updates, has increased emphasis on sustainability of locations and good design. This scheme fails to meet many of these aspirations and particularly the economic, social and environmental objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the Revised NPPF. Refusal requested
Hadleigh Hall, Pound Lane – DC/18/02839- Full Planning Application & DC/18/02842 Application for Listed Building Consent – Erection of garage/storage building (following demolition of existing).
Supported with conditions
121 Benton Street – DC/18/02955 – The change of use of existing outbuilding to form separate residential dwelling,
We recommended refusal because of poor access.
DC/18/03086 Non Material Amendment to Application B/16/00760/FUL (McCarthy and Stone) – Minor amendments to approved drawings
The Society notes with disappointment, but with no great surprise at McCarthy and Stone’s dumbing down of the designs of all the dwelling units on this development, of which, over half lie within the Conservation Area.
All architectural features, such as plinths, jetting, moulded bay windows, gable features, sash windows, symmetrical window placements that gave the dwellings an air of distinctive character and contended in the original Design, Access and Sustainability statement as reflecting the special architectural character of the Conservation Area are removed from all 29 dwellings.
This current set of alterations and modifications to the units obviously have nothing with maintaining a higher level of good quality design in a Conservation Area which is totally contrary to the thrust of recent national design policy given in the Revised NPPF, Section 12: Achieving Well Designed Places. In particular it is hoped that the Council will note the advice given in paragraph 130 which states:-
“Local planning authorities should also seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used).”
The Society requests that the Council reject these requested amendments
DC/18/03314 Hadleigh Leisure Centre – demolition of old pool and development of new pool.
The Society welcomes the proposed replacement swimming pool as the current pool building is now appearing a little worn and tired. The new pool building appears to be both in scale and in keeping with the style of the Leisure Centre building. It is critical however that the exterior wall and roofing materials do match those used on the Leisure Centre building. It is also an opportunity to enhance the Complex’s setting within the park with new landscaping of shrubs and medium sized trees on its south western and south eastern elevations.