Transcript of the two and a quarter hour Meeting of the Planning Committee on the 14th July 2021
The two options on which too decide:-
(a) Agree to Stemers Planning Application to lower the roof height on Plots 5 and 6.
(b) To abide by the Government Inspector`s decision to demolish Plots 5 and 6.
(a) Reduce roof heights of Plot
5 by 1.18m and Plot 6 by 1.09m, to include Tiles, Trusses and Chimney
Remove all rear first floor windows at the rear overlooking the cottages.
Only front or side facing bedroom windows acceptable
Rear landing windows to be frosted glass
(b) With the soil build up in the
rear gardens, you can stand and look directly over the White Horse 6ft brick/block
wall boundary Fence
So you only see approx 2 ft of the Wall above the imported soil, a temporary measure has been to put a Fence Panel on top of the Wall - this is an unacceptable solution
(c) To remove 1.1 metres of top
soil from the rear gardens to get back to the original ground level with the
White Horse/Cottages and expose the 6ft Block Wall
(d) Soil stacked against the White
Horse brick wall has caused it to crack and bow.
Wall to be replaced and re-built with new foundations after the top soil removed
All damage to the White Horse and Cottages property and gardens to me made good
(e) Plot 5 and 6 Garage pitched
roof heights are excessive, to be lowered
(f) No run of surface water to be
allowed down to the road past Pilgrims Garage
Break Tank to be installed to the left of the entrance into the Development
Rain water from the properties to be gravity fed into this tank
The tank will then allow a regulated water ( 5 litres/sec) flow down a pipe to the road into the Suffolk Highways drainage system
(g) A gulley to be erected across
the entrance to the Development to catch any surface water heading out of the
estate down past Pilgrims Garage
The gulley output will feed into the Break Tank
(h) Access road to be made good
to the required SCC specification.
(i) Pilgrims Garage Vehicle Pit
fills with water seepage due to possibly a change in water table level.
But this is not really a Babergh Issue, but they will to advise Jeremy on waterproofing/sealing the brickwork
(j) A Caveat will be placed on both
properties to ban Sheds, Steps, Patios, Decking, anything that raises the height
of the gardens
(k) From the date of the Planning
Approval ( 14th July), Stemer has 30 weeks to complete the Development
If not a daily penalty charge may will be levied.
(l) A bond of £250k has been
agreed with Stemer, to be held by Babergh in case of a likely default
If the remedial work costs in excess of £250k, Babergh will seek compensation through the Legal System
or they can put a charge on the Land Registry to recover the money when the property is sold - so who would buy a property with this caveat attached ?
Other Options - Public Appeal:-
(m) If Stemer is forced to demolish the properties he has every right to lower the ground level by 1.1/1.2 metres and rebuild the properties to the original spec as the plans have already been approved
This will lower the roof height by 1.1 metres ( as in (a) above) but it will retain all the upstairs windows looking into the White Horse and cottages
This is considered a worse option than what was on the table.
(n) Could we instruct Stemer to
replace Plots 5/6 with bungalows.
Answer- NO, he has already had the plans passed in 2017 for the two houses. He won`t accept a change in his Planning application.
A Legal challenge to build Bungalows by Babergh, would 100% fail according to the Babergh lawyer
The restriction of 30 weeks would not apply, Stemer has until August 26th to demolish the properties
(HM Inspector Report) but he could take up to 5 years to re-build
Jill Jackson made an excellent 3
minute presentation, highlighting the parishioners anguish over the ongoing
saga of this Development since 2017.
Application passed by Secret Vote
9 for this option
Clare Frewin Comments: It is inconceivable Stemer could just rebuild to the original permission when the site is now split in two by height - access & drainage would all need to be reconfigured and therefore surely a new permission would need to be sought