Statement of Case

On behalf of: Mr. Robert Williams (Haughley Park Ltd.)

Appeal reference: APP/W3520/W/20/3258516

In respect of: DC/19/02605

Appeal by Amber REI Holdings Ltd.Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except the access point for the demolition of existing industrial buildings and construction of 120 dwellings, employment provision (Use Class B1), community building, provision of public open space including playing fields, village greens, green corridors, community orchard, landscaping and surface water attenuation and associated works (amended scheme to refused application DC/18/03592)

Site Address: Former Poultry Processing Site, Haughley Park, Haughley, Stowmarket, IP14 3JY

Prepared by: James Bailey Planning Ltd.

Date: October 2020

J

1

CONTENTS

Section Page No

1.0 INTRODUCTON – 2

2.0 SITE AND CONTEXT – 4

3.0 PLANNING MATTERS – 5

4.0 THE CASE FOR HAUGHLEY PARK – 6

5.0 CONCULSION – 8

APPENDICES:

APPENDIX A – SITE LOCATION PLAN – 10

APPENDIX B – LAND TRANSFER DEED 2002 – 12

2

1.0 INTRODUCTON

1.1 This Statement of Case (‘Statement’) has been prepared in response to an appeal submitted by

Amber REI Holdings Ltd. (‘Appellant’) against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council (‘Council’) to

refuse an application for planning permission in respect of a proposed residential led development

for 120 dwellings at the Former Poultry Processing Site, Haughley Park, Haughley, Stowmarket, IP14

3JY (‘Appeal Site’).

1.2 James Bailey Planning Ltd. has been instructed by Mr. Robert Williams of Haughley Park Ltd., (‘HPL’)

to act on his behalf in respect of the appeal against the refusal of planning application DC/19/02605

by the Council.

1.3 Mr. Williams, through Haughley Park Ltd. and Haughley Park Trust, is the owner of Haughley Park

House and Barn, and the wider historic park and gardens. He is the only immediate and adjacent

neighbour to the appeal site. HPL were the previous owners of the Appeal Site, and in recent years

have been involved in negotiations to purchase the Appeal Site again. If the appeal is refused, HPL

will maintain an interest is purchasing back the Appeal Site in order to bring it back into the wider

ownership of the House and Gardens, to be used to assist the ongoing events business. Alternative

options to residential use for the factory site remain under consideration.

1.4 The purpose of this Statement is to set out HPL’s case against the Appellant’s application, and in

support of the Council's refusal of planning permission.

1.5 There were several reasons for the refusal of application reference DC/19/02605. The case on behalf

of HPL will centre around reason for refusal 5 regarding the “adverse impact on adjacent business

and amenity”, as well as highways related matters.

1.6 Haughley Park Barn, Haughley Park Farmhouse, and the wider parkland, are all integral parts of an

established wedding venue and events business that would be severely impacted by the creation of

an immediately adjoining and permanent residential estate. The income generated from this events

business contributes to the maintenance and upkeep of the listed House and Barn, the Gardens, and

the wider grounds.

1.7 Additionally, the easement for the private right of way that has been granted over the land at

Haughley Park, by which the proposed appeal scheme would be accessed, is limited in terms of both

physical extent and use. On this basis, the use of the right of way for the appeal scheme is

considered to be an ‘excessive’ use. In any event, without improvement it may not be appropriate

for the right of way to safely accommodate the traffic involved in the appeal scheme, in relation to

lack of footway, street lighting and ability to control vehicle speed and risk of conflicts that could be

caused. In considering these points reference will be made to the trips generated by the former use

of the site and comparison drawn with the proposed use. HPL will also consider the ability to

improve the right of way and access to the site.

1.8 The case for HPL will therefore focus on the impact of residential on the existing business and

highways related matter, although this will not preclude HPL from fully supporting all the points and

putting forward arguments in support of the other reasons for refusal.

1.9 This Statement will not seek to repeat information verbatim that has previously been submitted to

the Council in relation to the previous applications (DC/19/02605 & DC/18/03592), although it may

be necessary and efficient to reiterate certain relevant points.

3

1.10 This Statement of Case is submitted pursuant to Rule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act

(Enquiries) Procedure (England) Rules 2000, and in accordance with public inquiry procedure.

Accordingly, this Statement has been prepared pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Appeals

(Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, as amended.

1.11 Proofs of evidence will be submitted on behalf of HPL in connection with the main issues referred to

in this Statement, specifically on matters relating to: business and economy; and right of way and

access.

1.12 HPL will seek to agree a Statement of Common Ground with the Appellant, on matters where

agreement can reasonably be reached.

4

2.0 SITE AND CONTEXT

2.1 The Appeal Site is shown in the Appellant’s Site Location Plan (DRWG: P18-0128_01_01 REV:B) in

Appendix One, and is made up of two distinct areas: the existing factory site; and the access road. As

mentioned above, HPL were the previous owners of the Appeal Site, and in recent years have been

involved in negotiations to purchase the Appeal Site again. If the appeal is refused, HPL will maintain

an interest is purchasing back the Appeal Site in order to bring it back into the wider ownership of the

House and Gardens, to be used to assist the ongoing events business.

2.2 The factory site, and its series of associated buildings, are all owned by the Appellant.

2.3 The access road is solely within the ownership of HPL.

2.4 It is acknowledged that the Appellant does have rights of access over the access road, as is set out in

the Transfer of Land agreement of 28th June 2002, (see Appendix Two). However, it will be

demonstrated that these rights were agreed against the provision of a specific factory-based use on

the appeal site, and not the permanent residential estate that is now being proposed.

2.5 The are no public footpaths, cycleways, bridleways, or other forms of public access points across either

Haughley Park or the appeal site. Indeed, there is only one point of access into or out of the site, which

is owned by HPL.

2.6 It can therefore be agreed that: a) the access road is the only point of access to the appeal site; b) the

access road is not owned or under the control of the Appellant; and c) the Appellant is unable to either

alter, extend, or amend the existing access road for any form of physical improvements without the

explicit consent of the landowner, HPL.

5

3.0 PLANNING MATTERS

3.1 It is anticipated that Mid Suffolk District Council will be leading the case in terms planning arguments

at the appeal. However, there are a few points that HPL wanted to raise.

3.2 Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), deals with ‘Making efficient use of land’.

3.3 Whilst it is acknowledged that the appeal site is a brownfield site, it is considered that this should not

be the sole reason for allowing a permanent residential scheme in an unsustainable location.

3.4 Para 118 c) of the NPPF states that

“Planning policies and decisions should:

c) give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes

and other identified needs, and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled,

degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land;” (emphasis added).

3.5 It is acknowledged that the factory site has been promoted by the Appellant through the various stages

of Babergh and Mid Suffolk’s emerging Joint Local Plan for residential use in 2017 and 2019. However,

it also needs to be acknowledged that the site has not been taken forward by the Council as one of

their preferred locations for residential use.

3.6 It must also be acknowledged that the Appellant, HPL, and another party all put in joint representations

to the previous Issues & Options (Regulation 18 Stage) to the emerging Joint Local Plan in 2017. This

showed an alternative way of dealing with the heritage; employment; and residential issues, which

was submitted jointly under the name of “Haughley Park Consortium”. Unfortunately, this seems to

be omitted from the Appellant’s Statement of Case.

3.7 It is also a fact that the appeal site is not an allocated site with the adopted Haughley Neighbourhood

Plan.

6

4.0 THE CASE FOR HAUGHLEY PARK LTD.

4.1 The Council’s reason for refusal (5) includes the resultant impacts the proposed residential

development would have on the existing neighbouring business.

4.2 It is believed that a permanent residential estate next to an adjoining existing wedding business and

events venue will have a direct impact on the economy of these businesses, which in turn will have a

knock-on effect for the leisure and tourism industry in the District and the wider region of Suffolk and

East Anglia.

4.3 HPL’s case is therefore outlined as follows.

Economic

4.4 Haughley Park Barn and Park is an existing wedding and events venue. The business has been

established for a number of years, and was a growing venue in terms of the number of weddings

booked and the number and type of events being held.

4.5 The types of events held at Haughley Park Barn include: weddings; meetings; memorials; lectures;

showcases; and fundraising events. Established annual events in the Park include: ‘BlueBell Sundays’

(which is a charity event); Weird & Wonderful Wood; and Alive and V’Dubbin. Spectacle of Light is due

to become the next annual event. Other events in the Park include: Scout camps (with a permanent

Stowmarket and District Base Cabin being on-site); Suffolk Clubs Cross-country Challenge; ‘Mud Sweat

and Gears’ Cyclo-cross rally; Orienteering; and Suffolk Search-and-Rescue training.

4.6 It will be demonstrated that the above events, and indeed many others, are particularly well suited to

the use of Haughley Park, either for its views; setting; isolation; privacy; safety and security.

4.7 All of these events would be impacted by a permanent residential estate being generated on the

existing factory site, whether this be from noise; nuisance; trespass; traffic or other factors. HPL may

seek to provide further information on these aspects during the course of the Inquiry.

4.8 The income generated from the existing events business would be detrimentally affected by the

generation of a permanent residential estate. This would in turn have a knock-on-effect on the upkeep

of the listed House and Barn, the Gardens, and the wider grounds, which are heavily reliant on funding

from HPL. The heritage assets at Haughley Park are therefore largely dependent on the continued

success of the events business.

4.9 The proposed development would have a negative economic impact on the operations at Haughley

Park, and also on a range of other local businesses. The events and activities, as described above,

supports a number and range of local employment opportunities, directly on-site as well as off-site in

the local and wider areas. The events currently also attract a significant number of visitors to the local

area which brings increased local expenditure in the local economy. A reduction in the number and

scale of events will negatively affect the local economy.

7

4.10 There are relevant sections from the NPPF that will be used and referred to support this case, including

the section on “supporting a prosperous rural economy”. These will include paragraphs: 8 a); 78; 80;

83; 84; 92; and 95.

4.11 HPL will provide evidence to clearly illustrate the permanence of a 120 dwelling residential estate in

an isolated location will have a significant adverse impact on the existing neighbouring business.

Access and Highways

4.12 It has already been agreed with the Appellant that the site is accessed by a tarmacked road from the

public highway at Haughley New Street. It is also acknowledged that the access road has served the

existing factory site.

4.13 It is also agreed that the access road is generally around 5.5m wide, and that it reaches 6.1m close to

the junction with the public highway.

4.14 It needs to be identified that the road does narrow to around 3m for a length of around 80mm in front

of the listed house and wall, and prior to the entrance into the existing factory site. This width is

insufficient for 2x vehicles to successfully pass each other.

4.15 It will also be demonstrated that the access road was not designed with a permanent residential

housing estate in mind nor is it conducive to encouraging travel by sustainable means.

4.16 Paragraphs 109 and 110 (c) of the NPPF are important to bear in mind

4.17 From the case and evidence to be provided by HPL, the Inspector will accordingly be invited to dismiss

the appeal.

8

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 HPL will be able to demonstrate that a permanent residential estate, in an isolated location, will have

severe detrimental impacts on the adjoining wedding and events business.

5.2 The nature of the events that are currently permitted and regularly take place at Haughley Park will

simply not make for ‘good neighbours’ with a residential estate.

5.3 Equally, the change from the private access road into a permanent public road, will change the nature

and timing, particularly at weekends, of the vehicle traffic on the road, which will adversely affect the

setting of the heritage assets and the suitability and attraction of the parkland as an events venue.

5.4 It is therefore contested that development of an isolated, unsustainable brownfield site, for a

permanent residential estate, which is adjacent to a Grade I listed building, and surrounded by other

heritage assets, should not have the ability to prejudice an existing and successful economic rural

enterprise.

5.5 It is on this basis that the Inspector will be invited to dismiss the appeal. The harm caused by the

proposed development justifies refusal. The appeal proposal plainly does not accord with the

development plan and material considerations do not indicate that permission should be granted.

9

APPENDIX ONE – SITE LOCATION PLAN

Co

pyrig

ht P

eg

asu

s P

la

nn

in

g G

ro

up

L

td

. ©

C

ro

wn

co

pyrig

ht. A

ll rig

hts re

se

rve

d. O

rd

na

nce

S

urve

y C

op

yrig

ht L

ice

nce

n

um

be

r 1

00

04

20

93

. P

ro

ma

p L

ice

nce

n

um

be

r 1

00

02

04

49

. E

ma

psite

L

ice

nce

n

um

be

r. 0

10

00

31

67

3. S

ta

nd

ard

O

S lice

nce

rig

hts co

nd

itio

ns a

pp

ly.

Pe

ga

su

s a

cce

pts n

o lia

bility fo

r a

ny u

se

o

f th

is d

ocu

me

nt o

th

er th

an

fo

r its o

rig

in

al p

urp

ose

, o

r b

y th

e o

rig

in

al clie

nt, o

r fo

llo

win

g P

eg

asu

s' e

xp

re

ss a

gre

em

en

t to

su

ch

u

se

. T

0

12

1 3

08

9

57

0 w

ww

.p

eg

asu

sp

g.co

.u

k

SITE LOCATION PLAN

HAUGHLEY PARK, STOWMARKET

| PLANNING | DESIGN | ENVIRONMENT | ECONOMICS | www.pegasuspg.co.uk | TEAM/ DRAWN BY: IW | APPROVED BY: RWB | Date: 23/05/2018 | SCALE: 1:2500@ A3 | DRWG: P18-0128_01_01 | REV: B I CLIENT : AMBER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LTD I

Rev Description Date Drawn Chk'dA Red line amendment 23.05.18 IW RWBB Red line amendment 28.06.18 IW RWB

11

APPENDIX TWO – LAND TRANSFER DEED 2002