A new application to create seven new homes at Erwarton Hall Farm Yard has been lodged with Babergh planners.

The proposal by farm owners JRH Veenbaas is to convert existing farm buildings to form five new dwellings, erection of garages, the demolition of buildings, including the existing Dutch Barn and metal clad barn, the erection of two new dwellings, and the provision of new vehicular access to the main road.

A similar application, with two fewer homes made last year was refused permission in June 2020, but the agents behind the new scheme believe they have overcome the objections from Suffolk Highways, Suffolk Preservation Society and Historic England, that all objected.

The applicants have provided a planning, a transport and a design and access statement, along with a heritage impact assessment, but none of the statutory consulates have responded as yet.

Although there is a new mix of housing with two, three four and five bedroom homes being offered, there is no provision for affordable hosing as required due to the size of the site.

The site is not part of the 16th century Grade II* listed Erwarton Hall and gatehouse, but some of the farmstead buildings, which are adjacent to the Tudor house, are also listed.

This application is open for consultation with people able to post their comments, for or against, on the Babergh planning website, using reference DC/20/03083, until September 9.

Reasons for refusal by Babergh planning officer last year included:

1. The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the heritage assets because the conversion of the existing barns and construction of two new builds would detract from the setting of the Grade II* Listed Erwarton Hall and Gatehouse. This would harm their significance because the scheme is poorly laid out, insensitively detailed and is domestic in character which give rise to a suburbanising effect which is out of keeping in this rural location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore the application does not meet the requirements of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The proposal conflicts with policies CN01, CN06, CR02, CR19 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and policies CS01, CS15 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014). These policies are consistent with paragraphs 8, 127, 130, 172, 192, 194 and 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

1. Policy CS2 of the Babergh Core Strategy (2014) states that planning permission will be permitted in the Countryside only in exceptional circumstances subject to proven justifiable need. CS15 requires new development to demonstrate how the proposal addresses the key issues and objectives identified in the Core Strategy. No supporting evidence has been provided that justifies the need for the proposal, and that the site is a sustainable location. As a result the proposal does not accord with policies CS2 and CS15.

Whilst paragraph 11 of the NPPF provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is necessary to consider whether any adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted. The assessment of the application has identified that the proposal does not comply with the development plan and, notwithstanding that the Council does not have a five year housing land supply, it is considered that the unsustainable location, in relation to its connectivity to services and facilities, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development when considered against the Framework as a whole.

1. Proposals with site areas greater than 0.5 hecactres are subject to a 35% affordable housing contribution. The application site is 0.81 hecactres and is therefore liable for affordable housing. No such contribution has been offered or secured, and so the requirements of policy CS19 of the Babergh Core Strategy have not been met nor the aims of the Planning Policy Framework (2019), in particular paragraphs 77 and 79.

1. Safe and suitable access cannot be evidenced, the existing access cannot adequately facilitate the intensification of use that would be created by the proposal.

Speed survey results denote 85th%ile speeds of 27.5mph and 28mph meaning splays of x=2.4m by y=59m in each direction, to the nearside edge of the metalled carriageway with no obstruction over the height of 0.6m and and must encroach 3rd party land.

Splays of x=2.4m by y=19m (to the West) and y=25m (to the East) have been measured, which fall 34m and 40m short. Therefore the proposal conflicts with policies TP15 and CR19 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) and with the aims of paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. We are not satisfied that sufficient ecological information is currently available for determination of this application. This is because the Ecological Survey Report has recommended that bat emergence and re-entry surveys are required to assess the extent of which bat species will be affected by the proposed development.

These surveys are required prior to determination because paragraph 99 of the ODPM Circular 2005 highlights that: "It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision."

Consequently, these further surveys are required to provide the LPA with certainty of impacts on legally protected and Priority species and enable it to demonstrate compliance with its statutory duties, including its biodiversity duty under s40 NERC Act 2006.

Therefore this proposal is considered to conflict with policy CR19 of the Babergh Local Plan (2006) which is consistent with the aims of National Planning Polcy Framework paragraph 175.