Site Allocations Local Plan - Preferred Options (Regulation 18 Stage)

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.

Preferred sites for allocation in the primary villages

10.Beck Row

The local area

10.1 Beck Row has a population of approximately 3,897 including Holywell Row and Kenny Hill (2011 Census). It is located about two miles to the north-west of Mildenhall, with RAF Mildenhall immediately to the south of the village bordering the A1101. It is defined as a primary village in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, which provides basic local services and will accommodate small scale housing growth to meet local needs.

10.2 Constraints and opportunities for future development

  • there are aircraft noise constraints to the north and south of the settlement as a consequence of aircraft landing at and taking off from both RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall;
  • uncertainty over the consequences of the withdrawal of the USAFE from RAF Mildenhall post 2022 and the future use of the site;
  • to the west of the settlement there are areas of land within Flood Zones 2 and 3;
  • there is a local nature reserve, also identified as an area of archaeological importance, in the centre of the settlement;
  • the A1101 forms a physical boundary to the south and confines any further development in this direction;
  • there are traffic congestion issues associated with the airbase and highway improvements would be beneficial;
  • there may be objections on the grounds of health and safety for any proposed development within the airbase safeguard zones to the south and the west of Beck Row;
  • coalescence should be avoided with the settlement of Holywell Row which lies to the east of Beck Row;
  • there is a good level of existing services and facilities including a general store, post office, public houses and community centre;
  • open space and sports facilities include the nature reserve, sports pitch and play space;
  • future development in Beck Row may require upgrades to the existing sewerage network;
  • the existing primary school has reached capacity and discussions are ongoing with Suffolk County Council and other partners concerning options for school expansion and potentially the requirement for a new school;
  • an hourly bus service to Mildenhall exists.

10.3 Further information on constraints and opportunities in Beck Row is set out in the other evidence based documents available online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan

What you told us

10.4 From August to October 2015, we consulted on a Site Allocations Local Plan Issues and Options document, asking questions about sites that had been suggested to us as being suitable for development. All of the responses to this consultation and officers' responses to them are available to view online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan

10.5 Sixty five individual representations were received in relation to the Beck Row section of the issues and options document. It is important that these responses are read alongside those received in relation to the Core Strategy Single Issue Review consultation. A summary of key points raised in relation to Beck Row, in response to both 2015 consultation documents, is set out below:

  • Natural England identify that environmental constraints are 'less evident' in Beck Row than elsewhere in the District;
  • Historic England commented that reference should be made to the heritage assets found within and surrounding each settlement to inform site selection. More detailed comments were given to individual sites;
  • Lakenheath Parish Council suggest that Beck Row has a high number of USAFE residents and until it is known what is happening with the site once vacated by USAFE, no further growth should occur;
  • Orbit Homes consider that Beck Row is a sustainable and suitable location for additional growth;
  • Suffolk County Council believes that more evidence is required to support the district council's contention that there are existing congestion issues associated with Beck Row.

Development issues

10.6 It is important to recognise that development within the village will be influenced by the Core Strategy Single Issue Review which will determine housing distribution across the district.

10.7 Taking into account the comments received during the 2015 consultation, and additional evidence based work, a preferred distribution strategy has now been established of distributing 750 homes across all of the primary villages (see the Single Issue Review Preferred Options document at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan).

10.8 Determining an appropriate proportion of growth for each primary village settlement has been completed by looking at each settlements infrastructure and environmental capacity, as well as taking into consideration the number of homes which have received planning permission or have been completed since the plan period started in 2011.

10.9 Between 1 April 2011 and 1 April 2015, 186 homes have either been built or have gained planning permission in Beck Row. (See table in section 2).

10.10 For Beck Row, this means that a total of 372 dwellings are proposed for allocation up to 2031.

10.11 The environmental and infrastructure constraints around Beck Row place a limit on the extent of development that can take place in the village. Higher growth in the village can only be considered if these constraints can be overcome. Further, a relatively high level of growth has already taken place in recent years, putting pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities.

10.12 The council undertook further investigations into the available sites, consulted on in the Issues and Options document, in and around Beck Row to ascertain whether they could be delivered without any adverse impact on the constraints identified above, or where adverse impacts were identified, provide mitigation to overcome the impacts. It was identified that many of the sites consulted on in 2015 were unsuitable for development or sequentially less favourable. The results of this work and a reasoned justification for the discounting of sites are documented in Appendix B of this document.

10.13 In the context of the above, five residential sites have been identified as being suitable for allocation in Beck Row to meet the distribution needs set out in the Single Issue Review, as outlined in the draft text and policy below. All of these sites are subject to extant planning permissions or resolutions to approve.

Beck Row planning constraints map

Beck Row planning constraints map

View Comments (1) (1) Beck Row settlement map

Beck Row settlement map

View Comments (3) (3) Site BR1(a) - Lamble Close
(formerly BR/01)

10.14 This is a predominantly green-field site within the Beck Row settlement boundary. The site comprises a mixture of grazing land and unmanaged grassland, with some agricultural buildings to the south-east. The site is surrounded by residential development and was the subject of a planning permission for 60 units in October 2015 (DC/15/0922/OUT).

BR1(a) site plan

BR1(a) site plan

View Comments (3) (3) Site BR1(b) - Land adjacent to Smoke House Inn, Skeltons Drove
(formerly BR/03)

10.15 This site comprises an extensive area of open grassland currently used for animal grazing, located in the centre of the settlement and bound by existing residential development to the east and north-west. The site lies adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. In November 2015, the site received planning permission for 166 units (DC/14/1206/FUL).

BR1(b) site plan

BR1(b) site plan

View Comments (3) (3) Site BR1(c) - Land adjacent to and south of the caravan park, Aspal Lane
(formerly BR/10)

10.16 This is a green-field site to the east of Beck Row which lies adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. The site is classified as Grade 4 agricultural land and it is bound by existing residential development to the north and west. Planning permission for 117 units (DC/13/0123/OUT) was obtained in June 2015.

BR1(c) site plan

BR1(c) site plan

View Comments (3) (3) Site BR1(d) - Land East of Aspal Lane
(formerly BR/26)

10.17 This site is located to the east of Beck Row and lies adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. The site comprises grassland with some mature trees along the eastern boundary. To the east of the site there is a tree nursery. The site is subject to a planning permission for 5 units obtained in June 2015 (DC/15/0321/OUT).

BR1(d) site plan

BR1(d) site plan

View Comments (3) (3) Site BR1(e) - Land adjacent to Beck Lodge Farm
(formerly BR/27)

10.18 This site lies adjacent to the existing settlement boundary, to the south of Beck Row. The site is bound by agricultural buildings to the south and St Johns Street to the north. Beck Lodge Farm lies to the east and residential development lies to the west. The site, which currently comprises open land which has been used for animal grazing, is subject to a resolution to approve planning permission for the erection of up to 24 dwellings, including 12 affordable units (DC/14/1745/OUT) in July 2015.

BR1(e) site plan

BR1(e) site plan

Policy BR1: Housing in Beck Row

Residential development is proposed in Beck Row on the following sites:

New reference
(former reference)

Location

Area
(hectares)

Indicative capacity

BR1(a)
(formerly BR/01)

Lamble Close

2.3

60*

BR1(b)
(formerly BR/03)

Land adjacent to Smoke House Inn, Skeltons Drove

5.9

166*

BR1(c)
(formerly BR/10)

Land adjacent to and south of the caravan park, Aspal Lane

4.1

117*

BR1(d)
(formerly BR/26)

Land East of Aspal Lane

0.5

5*

BR1(e)
(formerly BR/27)

Land adjacent to Beck Lodge Farm

0.6

24*

These sites are identified on the Policies Map.

Strategic landscaping and open space must be provided on all sites to address the individual site requirements and locations.

Proposals must incorporate measures to ensure the continued management of those parts of the site which contain notable plant species to maintain existing wildlife and biodiversity on the site.

Archaeological evaluation should be carried out at an early appropriate stage in the development management process to allow preservation in situ, where appropriate, of any unknown sites of importance and appropriate strategies to be designed.

Site (a) must provide good connectivity between the development site and Aspal Close local nature reserve (preferably via Lamble Close through existing open space).

*Allocations are based on the planning situation as at 1 April 2015. Sites where planning applications were approved after the April 2015 base dates are included as potential allocations, as to omit them would not show the complete planning picture. Planning permission has been granted for sites (a), (b), (c), and (d). Site (e) has a resolution to approve.

Question 15:

Do you agree with the draft policy above? Are there any other issues which you feel should be taken into account in the policy?

Alternative options

Site reference BR/06 - Land South of Rookery Drove was identified as an alternative site potentially suitable for housing in Beck Row.

This is a relatively unconstrained site in a reasonably sustainable location close to the centre of the settlement and in relatively close proximity to most of the village's facilities and services. However, given the relatively large number of recent planning permissions (as identified in the policy above) it was not considered that further allocations would be a sustainable option within this plan period.

Site reference BR/17 - Land East of Skeltons Drove was identified as an alternative site potentially suitable for housing in Beck Row.

This is a relatively unconstrained site in a reasonably sustainable location close to the centre of the settlement and in relatively close proximity to most of the village's facilities and services. Given the relatively large number of recent planning permissions, it was not considered that additional allocations would be a sustainable option in this plan period.

Existing commitments in Beck Row

10.19 Planning permission for the change of use of land from a scrap yard to mobile home park for permanent residential occupation by people over 50 years old on land at Skeltons Drove (DC/13/0144/FUL) was granted in June 2015. This site does not abut or relate well to the settlement boundary therefore it is not considered appropriate to allocate under policy BR1. However once implemented the site will make a contribution towards the overall housing provision for Beck Row, so has been counted as an additional provision of 32 dwellings.

Employment sites

10.20 Two existing employment sites near the village have been allocated in Policy EM2 and are shown on the Policies Map. More information about employment uses across the district can be found in section 6 of this document.

Settlement boundary changes

10.21 Settlement boundaries in this local plan, as shown on the Policies Map, encompass the developed area of settlements and all peripheral sites allocated, committed or accepted for built development. The sites proposed for allocation in Beck Row, as identified within the policy above, are all proposed for inclusion within the settlement boundary. These changes are shown on the Policies Map which accompanies this document, as well as the map below, with a red dashed line indicating the line of the proposed change.

Proposed change to settlement boundary Justification

Include nos. 28 - 34 St John's Street and land adjacent to Beck Lodge farm within the settlement.

To include development between allocation BR1(e)/planning permission DC/14/1745/OUT within the existing settlement boundary.

Land adjacent to Smoke House Inn, Skeltons Drove

To include proposed allocation BR1(b)

Land adjacent to and south of the caravan park, and East of Aspal Lane

To include proposed allocation BR1(c), BR1(d) and the land between

Question 16:

Do you agree with the proposed changes to the settlement boundary? Are there any other changes to the Beck Row boundary which you feel should be made?

11. Exning

The local area

11.1 Exning has a population of approximately 1,960 (2011 Census) and lies to the north-west of Newmarket, with the A14 trunk road separating the two settlement boundaries. It is defined as a primary village in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, which provide basic local services and will accommodate small scale housing growth to meet local needs.

11.2 Constraints and opportunities for future development

  • Exning has land within Flood Zones 2 and 3 running north/south through the middle of the settlement and also to the east of the settlement boundary. Appropriate Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs) will be sought where necessary;
  • existing capacity issues at Junction 37 of the A14 trunk road north-east of Newmarket may be exacerbated by further growth;
  • Exning has a number of known archaeological sites, some 20 listed buildings and a large conservation area which contains the historic core of the settlement and grounds of Exning House;
  • pressure exists on local primary school provision.

11.3 Further information on constraints and opportunities in Exning is set out in the other evidence based documents which are available online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan

What you told us

11.4 From August to October 2015, we consulted on a Site Allocations Local Plan Issues and Options document, asking questions about sites that had been suggested to us as being suitable for development. All of the responses to the consultation, and officers' responses to them, are available to view online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan

11.5 128 individual representations were received in relation to the Exning section of the issues and options document. It is important that these responses are read alongside those received in relation to the Core Strategy Single Issue Review consultation. A summary of key points raised in relation to Exning, in response to both 2015 consultation documents, is set out below:

  • several respondents were concerned about worsening levels of congestion along the village's narrow roads and lanes as a consequence of further development;
  • a number of respondents were concerned about the potential coalescence of Exning with Newmarket and the consequential loss of the village's identity as a separate entity were made;
  • some respondents felt Exning could take extra growth if the necessary infrastructure improvements;
  • Exning Parish Council (and others) when commenting on the potential development of specific sites in the village expressed concerns about a lack of infrastructure and in particular increased pressure on the local primary school and that there is only a private dentist in the village and no GP;
  • the primary school has potential to expand on its existing site;
  • Historic England commented that reference should be made to the heritage assets found within and surrounding each settlement to inform site selection. More detailed comments were given to individual sites.

Development issues

11.6 It is important to recognise that development in this village will be influenced by the Core Strategy Single Issue Review which will determine housing distribution across the district.

11.7 Taking into account the comments received during the 2015 consultation and additional evidence based work, a preferred distribution strategy has now been established (see the Single Issue Review Preferred Options document at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan). For Exning, this means a total of 140 dwellings up to 2031.

11.8 The environmental and infrastructure constraints around Exning place a limit on the extent of development that can take place in the village. Higher growth in the village could only be considered if these constraints can be overcome. Further, a relatively high level of growth has already taken place or been approved in recent years (in particular the approval of 120 dwellings on land off Burwell Road) and this will inevitably put pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities.

11.9 Between 1 April 2011 and 1 April 2015, 155 homes have either been built or have gained planning permission in Exning. (See table in section 2).

11.10 The council undertook further investigations into the available sites, consulted on in the Issues and Options document, in and around Exning to ascertain whether they could be delivered without any adverse impact on the constraints identified above, or where adverse impacts were identified, provide mitigation to overcome the impacts. It was identified that some of the sites consulted on in 2015 were unsuitable for development. The results of this work and a reasoned justification for the discounting of sites are documented in Appendix B of this document.

11.11 In the context of the above, one new residential site has been identified as being suitable for allocation in Exning to meet the distribution needs set out in the Single Issue Review, as outlined in the draft text and policy below.

11.12 It should be noted that one further site is shown on the Policies Map as a commitment that already has planning approvals on 1 April 2015.

Exning planning constraints map

Exning planning constraints map

View Comments (1) (1) Exning settlement map

Exning settlement map

View Comments (2) (2) Site E1(a) - Land south of Burwell Road

11.13 This site was submitted as part of the Site Allocations Issues and Options consultation (2015) call for sites. The site is being promoted by the developer of an adjoining site that is the subject of an extant planning permission for 120 dwellings - see E1(b) below. This site comprises agricultural land (lying outside of the existing settlement boundary). The Highway Authority has advised that an access off the Burwell Road, additional to that serving the adjacent site that has permission will probably be required.

E1(a) site plan

E1(a) site plan

Policy E1: Housing in Exning

Residential development is proposed in Exning on the following site:

New reference

Location

Area
(hectares)

Indicative capacity

E1(a)

Land south of Burwell Road and west of Queens View

7.7

140

This site is identified on the Policies Map.

Strategic landscaping and open space must be provided to address the individual site requirements and location.

Adequate access should be provided to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority. Sustainable travel provision including facilities for pedestrians and cyclists should be made with links to existing networks.

View Comments (4) (4) Question 17:

Do you agree with the draft policy above? Are there any other issues which you feel should be taken into account in the policy?

Alternative option

One alternative site was identified as being potentially suitable for allocation in Exning: E/03 - Land to rear of Laceys Lane.

Although this is a relatively unconstrained site (in environmental terms) it has been omitted on the basis that there is considered to be a more suitable and sustainable option (without an existing permission) given this particular site's proximity to the A/14 (noise & air quality issues), the loss of existing allotments (community use), congested roads in the locality and potential issues in terms of securing an appropriate access.

Existing commitments in Exning

11.14 The above allocation is based on the planning situation as at 1 April 2015. Sites where planning applications were approved before the April 2015 base date, but where development has not commenced are included as commitments, as to omit them would not show the complete planning picture.

View Comments (3) (3) Site E1(b) - Land off the Drift/Burwell Road
(formerly E/02)

11.15 This 6.1 hectare site is the subject of an extant planning permission for 120 dwellings (references DC/14/0942/RM and F/2012/0552/OUT). The site is located off (and accessed via) the Burwell Road and it lies to the west of the settlement (outside of the existing settlement boundary). Planning permission was granted in April 2014.

E1(b) site plan

E1(b) site plan

Settlement boundary changes

11.16 Settlement boundaries in this local plan, as shown on the Policies Map, encompass the developed area of settlements and all peripheral sites allocated, committed or accepted for built development. The site proposed for allocation in Exning (policy E1a) in addition to the site with planning permission (120 dwellings) are both proposed for inclusion within the settlement boundary. Changes are also being proposed to the boundary along the eastern fringe of the village, both north and south of Windmill Hill, as outlined within the table below.

11.17 These changes are shown on the Policies Map which accompanies this document, with the red dashed line indicating the line of the proposed change.

Proposed change to settlement boundary Justification

Slightly extend the eastern edge of the settlement boundary further eastwards (north of Windmill Hill).

The revision will include all of the dwelling (Rhone House) within the settlement boundary. The existing settlement boundary line dissects Rhone House.

Extend the settlement boundary eastwards south of Windmill Hill.

To include completed residential development relating to applications DC/14/2136/FUL (13 Units) within the settlement boundary.

Remove land to the south of nos. 4 - 6 The Highlands.

To provide a landscape/countryside buffer to the A14.

Extend the settlement boundary south of Burwell Road and west of Queensway.

To include site allocation E1(b) and planning permission ref. F/2012/0552/OUT

Include land off The Drift/Burwell Road

To include site allocation E1(a)

View Comments (1) (1) Question 18:

Aside from the potential allocations, are there any other changes to the Exning boundary which you feel should be made?

12. Kentford

View Comments (1) (1) The local area

12.1 Kentford has a population of approximately 420 (2011Census). It is located on the Bury Road (B1506) about four miles to the east of Newmarket. It is constrained by the A14 which runs to the north. It is defined as a primary village in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, which provide basic local services and will accommodate small scale housing growth to meet local needs.

12.2 Constraints and opportunities to future development

  • the A14 runs to the north of the village forming a physical boundary to further development;
  • an extensive area of Flood Zones 2 and 3 run north/south through the settlement along the River Kennett;
  • a 1500m Special Protection Area (SPA) Buffer Zone covers the eastern part of the village (Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy). Any development within the 1500m buffer zone will require a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) which must be able to demonstrate that the development will not have adverse effects upon the stone curlew;
  • the village and its immediate hinterland contain several known archaeological sites and listed buildings;
  • the village has limited services and facilities with a general store/post office and two public houses. There is an absence of sports pitches and non-pitch sports areas and playgrounds;
  • growth in Kentford will impact upon the nearest primary school which is located in Moulton;
  • there are no health facilities in the village;
  • the waste water treatment works does have capacity for further development;
  • the nearest electricity substation is nearing capacity;
  • there is a good bus service to Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket;
  • there are some local employment opportunities within the village;
  • an important open strategic landscape gap which should be maintained separates the two parts to Kentford's settlement boundary.

12.3 Further information on constraints and opportunities in Kentford is set out in the other evidence based documents which are available online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan.

What you told us

12.4 From August to October 2015, we consulted on a Site Allocations Local Plan Issues and Options document, asking questions about sites that had been suggested to us as being suitable for development. All of the responses to the consultation, and officers' responses to them, are available to view online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan.

12.5 Sixty one individual representations were received in relation to the Kentford section of the issues and options document. It is important that these responses are read alongside those received in relation to the Core Strategy Single Issue Review consultation. A summary of key points raised in relation to Kentford, in response to both 2015 consultation documents, is set out below:

  • the village needs to absorb the growth and planned developments already taken place, before further growth should be considered;
  • infrastructure improvements are required to address such issues as lack of provision of green space/play areas, local school places, traffic calming and footpaths;
  • Historic England commented that reference should be made to the heritage assets found within and surrounding each settlement to inform site selection. More detailed comments were given to individual sites;
  • higher growth in the village should be considered, with a view to elevating the village's status to a key service centre;
  • allocating sites in Kentford would provide opportunities for bringing forward additional infrastructure in the village;
  • the settlement boundary should be amended to take into account the Bloor Homes site at Lambert Grove;
  • Anglia Water state that there is capacity at the receiving Newmarket Recycling Centre to accommodate the level of growth indicated in Kentford.

Development issues

12.6 It is important to recognise that development in the village will be influenced by the Core Strategy Single Issue Review which will determine housing distribution across the district.

12.7 Taking into account the comments received during the 2015 consultation, and additional evidence based work, a preferred distribution strategy has now been established of distributing 750 homes across all of the primary villages (see the Single Issue Review Preferred Options document at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan).

12.8 Determining an appropriate proportion of growth for each primary village settlement has been completed by looking at each settlements infrastructure and environmental capacity, as well as taking into consideration the number of homes which have received planning permission or have been completed since the plan period started in 2011.

12.9 Between 1 April 2011 and 1 April 2015, 119 homes have either been built or have gained planning permission in Kentford. From April 2015, an additional 60 homes have gained planning permission and there is a resolution to approve a further 34 homes, totalling 213 dwellings overall.

12.10 The environmental and infrastructure constraints around Kentford place a limit on the extent of development that can take place in the village. The high level of growth that has already taken place in recent years is putting pressure on existing infrastructure and facilities.

12.11 The council undertook further investigations into the available sites, consulted on in the Issues and Options document, in and around Kentford to ascertain whether they could be delivered without any adverse impact on the constraints identified, or where adverse impacts were identified, provide mitigation to overcome the impacts. It was identified that many of the sites consulted on in 2015 were unsuitable for development. The results of this work and a reasoned justification for the discounting of sites are in Appendix B to this document.

12.12 In the context of the above, the only two residential sites identified as being suitable for allocation in Kentford, to meet the distribution needs set out in the Single Issue Review, have had planning approvals since April 2015. These sites are set out below and on the Policies Map.

Kentford planning constraints map

Kentford planning constraints map

View Comments (2) (2) Kentford settlement map

Kentford settlement map

View Comments (2) (2) Site K1(a) - Land west of Herringswell Road
(formerly K/10)

12.13 This greenfield site abuts the northern and western settlement boundaries of Kentford and contains areas of mature planting. The land falls within the grounds of Kentford Lodge. Application F/2013/0061/HYB was approved in 2015 for 60 dwellings and 579 square metres of B1 office use, the built up area of this application is proposed for inclusion as an allocation.

12.14 An area of land between Herringswell Road, around Kentford Lodge and extending to open countryside to the west is excluded from the settlement boundary to ensure the continued protection of the setting of Kentford Lodge and the character and setting of the landscape within which it lies.

12.15 There is a strategic gap in the built development of the village dictated by the course of the River Kennet. The river corridor and flood zone should be retained as open space and where possible this should be made accessible as a focus for recreational activity.

K1(a) site plan

K1(a) site plan

View Comments (3) (3) Site K1(b) - Land to the rear of The Kentford
(formerly K/16)

12.16 The northern boundary of the site is adjacent to the settlement boundary. It is mixed brown and greenfield land and predominantly used as a meadow, but also includes three existing bungalows and part of the pub car park. A planning application DC/14/2203/OUT was submitted in 2014 for 34 dwellings and was approved in November 2015 (subject to a Section 106 agreement).

K1(b) site plan

K1(b) site plan

View Comments (1) (1) Policy K1: Housing and Mixed Use Development in Kentford

The following sites are allocated for residential and mixed use development in Kentford:

New reference
(former reference)

Location

Area
(hectares)

Indicative capacity

K1(a)
(formerly K/10)

Land west of Herringswell Road

3.7

Mixed use to include 60 dwellings and B1 office uses*

K1(b)
(formerly K/16)

Land to the rear of 'The Kentford'

2.3

34*

These sites are identified on the Policies Map.

Strategic landscaping and recreational open space must be provided to address the individual site requirements and location

Development on site (b) must have regard to the landscape amenity provided by the open space and treed backdrop to the rear ofthe Kentford public house through the retention of these features. Archaeological evaluation should be carried out at an early appropriate stage in the development management process to allow preservation in situ, where appropriate, of any unknown sites of importance and appropriate strategies to be designed

*Allocations are based on the planning situation as at 1 April 2015. Sites where planning applications were approved after the April 2015 base date are included as potential allocations, as to omit them would not show the complete planning picture. Planning permission was approved in June 2015 on site (a) land west of Herringswell Road for 60 dwellings on (F/2013/0061/HYB). Planning permission for 34 dwellings was approved in November 2015, subject to a section 106 agreement, on site (b) Land to the rear of 'The Kentford' (DC/14/2203/OUT).

View Comments (3) (3) Question 19:

Do you agree with the draft policy above? Are there any other issues which you feel should be taken into account in the policy?

Alternative options

Given the relatively large number of recent planning permissions in Kentford, and that all of the other sites proposed for development are subject to environmental and other constraints, it was not considered that further allocations would be a sustainable option within this plan period.

Employment sites

12.17 Three existing employment sites in the village have been allocated to confirm their existing uses and are shown on the Policies Map. You can respond to a question about employment uses across the district in section 16 this document.

Settlement boundary changes

12.18 Settlement boundaries in this local plan, as shown on the Policies Map, encompass the developed area of settlements and all peripheral sites allocated, committed or accepted for built development. The sites proposed for allocation in Kentford are all proposed for inclusion within the settlement boundary.

12.19 Changes are also being proposed to the boundary at the western edge of Kentford as outlined below. These changes are shown on the Policies Map which accompanies this document, with the dashed line indicating the line of the proposed change.

Proposed change to settlement boundary Justification

Amend the settlement boundary to take into account the Bloor Homes site at Lambert Grove which commenced in March 2015.

Development has commenced and should be included within the built up area of the village

Remove the B1506 north of Moulton Avenue.

To align the boundary with the OS. Map base and the settlement boundary to the west.

Include land to the west of Herringswell Road and south of the A14.

To reflect allocation K1(a) and permission F/2013/0061/HYB.

Include land to the rear of the Kentford PH and west of Gazeley Road.

To reflect allocation K1(b) and permission DC/14/2203/OUT.

View Comments (3) (3) Question 20:

Aside from the potential allocations, are there any other changes to the Kentford boundary which you feel should be made?

13. West Row

The local area

13.1 West Row is a primary village located approximately 1.5 miles to the west of Mildenhall. RAF Mildenhall (the USAFE airbase) is immediately north-east of the village and to the south the settlement extends to the River Lark. The village has a population of around 1,627 (2011 Parish Profile). It is defined as a primary village in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, which provide basic local services and will accommodate small scale housing growth to meet local needs

13.2 Constraints and opportunities to future development

  • aircraft noise constraints to the north, associated with RAF Mildenhall airbase flight paths;
  • land to the south of the settlement lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 of the River Lark (according to data provided by the Environment Agency);
  • potential for settlement coalescence with Thistley Green to the west and/or Mildenhall to the east to be avoided;
  • the village has a reasonable level of services and facilities commensurate with its size including a primary school, village hall, village store, post office, takeaway food outlets, hairdressers and a public house;
  • open space and sport provision includes sports pitches, public open space, allotments and play areas;
  • there are no health facilities in the village;
  • the existing rural road network is unlikely to be able to support high levels of growth
  • there is a limited bus service to Mildenhall, Thetford and Bury St Edmunds;
  • capacity at Mildenhall Water Recycling Centre to accommodate some growth;
  • uncertainty over the consequences of the withdrawal of the USAFE from RAF Mildenhall post 2020 and the future use of the site;
  • there are currently forecast to be surplus places available at the catchment secondary school, but West Row County Primary School is nearing capacity. Potential options for expansion are being investigated;
  • there are limited local employment opportunities within the village and its hinterland;
  • growth in West Row needs to be considered in conjunction with Mildenhall as their infrastructure is closely related.

13.3 Further information on constraints and opportunities in West Row are set out in the other evidence based documents which are available online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan.

What you told us

13.4 From August to October 2015, we consulted on a Site Allocations Local Plan Issues and Options document, asking questions about sites that had been put forward to us as being suitable for development. All of the responses to the consultation, and officers' responses to them, are available to view online at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan

13.5 Over 40 individual representations were received in relation to the West Row section of the issues and options document. It is important that these responses are read alongside those received in relation to the Core Strategy Single Issue Review consultation. A summary of key points raised in relation to West Row, in response to both 2015 consultation documents, is set out below:

  • Suffolk County Council had a number of comments to make in relation to issues in and around West Row the implications for drainage and school place provision was explored for each site;
  • Highways stated there is a need for sites to provide sustainable travel provision to access village amenities;
  • archaeology stated that there are multi-period archaeological remains in the environs of West Row, particularly relating to where the River Lark meets the fen edge;
  • in relation to Public Rights of Way, the County Council stated connections and improvements could be sought to the Lark Valley Path;
  • Historic England stated that there are several Grade II listed buildings in West Row and that a number of the proposed sites have the potential to affect their significance through development within their setting. Further assessment of potential impacts is necessary and any allocation will need to be justified in terms of heritage impacts;
  • the Mildenhall Internal Drainage Board state that the board's surface water receiving system has no residual capacity to accept increased rates of surface water run off from new impermeable areas created by development that drain into the districts area. Proposed sites should include schemes to accommodate surface water, provided at the developers' expense;
  • West Row Action Group supports the retention of the existing settlement boundary and small scale growth within the boundary to meet local needs. Any small scale growth will require infrastructure improvements and prime agricultural land should be protected;
  • Evolution Town Planning state West Row should be allocated additional housing growth as a sustainable location for development;
  • there were concerns about a lack of infrastructure and additional traffic problems if West Row takes a high level of growth.

Development issues

13.6 It is important to recognise that development in the village will be influenced by the Core Strategy Single Issue Review which will determine housing distribution across the district.

13.7 Taking into account the comments received during the 2015 consultation, and additional evidence based work, a preferred distribution strategy has now been established (see the Single Issue Review Preferred Options document at http://westsuffolk.jdi-consult.net/localplan). For the primary villages this means a proposed allocation of 750 dwelling up to 2031, of which some 140 new dwellings are proposed for West Row. The reasons for this are summarised below:

13.8 West Rows function as a primary village and the environmental and infrastructure constraints around the settlement place a limit on the amount of development that can take place. Higher levels of growth in the village can only be considered if these constraints can be overcome.

13.9 The council undertook further investigations into the available sites, consulted on in the Issues and Options document, in and around West Row to ascertain whether they could be delivered without any adverse impact on the constraints identified above, or where adverse impacts were identified, provide mitigation to overcome the impacts. It was identified that some of the sites consulted on in 2015 were unsuitable for development and/or less favourably located in terms of the villages amenities compared to other available sites. The results of this work and a reasoned justification for the discounting of sites are set out in Appendix B of this document.

13.10 Between 1 April 2011 and 1 April 2015, 74 homes have either been built or have gained planning permission in West Row. (See table in section 2).

13.11 In the context of the above, one residential site has been identified as being suitable for allocation in West Row to meet the distribution needs set out in the Single Issue Review, as outlined in the draft text and policy below.

13.12 It should be noted that two further sites are shown on the Policies Map as commitments that already have planning approvals on 1 April 2015.

View Comments (1) (1) West Row planning constraints map

West Row planning constraints map

View Comments (1) (1) West Row settlement map

West Row settlement map

Focus of growth: North West Row

13.13 It is proposed that the northern half of West Row should provide the main focus for new development in the plan period. This part of the village has no major environmental constraints and is well related to existing services and facilities. It is anticipated that this part of the village could deliver approximately 140 dwellings which would contribute to expanding the primary school, provide areas of public open space and the enhancement and promotion of walking routes. Concentrating the bulk of growth on one site will allow the benefits secured from development to be maximised. More detail on the site proposed for allocation is set out below:

View Comments (3) (3) Site WR1(a) - Land east of Beeches Road
(formerly part of WR/07)

13.14 This is a large, relatively unconstrained greenfield site on the east side of the village situated adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. The site is bounded by residential development to the north, west and south and is currently in agricultural use. It relates well to the existing built form of the village and is close to the existing services and facilities.

13.15 Strategic landscaping to screen and soften any development from the surrounding countryside will be required. Whilst the village has a good range of recreational open space and facilities it lacks an area of accessible natural greenspace although there are footpath links to the river. A benefit of this large site is that it provides an opportunity to provide suitable alternative natural greenspace that would form part of a mitigation strategy to avoid a damaging increase in visitors to the Breckland SPA. The provision should be well connected and linked semi natural greenspace and the enhancement and promotion of dog friendly access routes (approximately 2.5km) in the immediate vicinity of the development which could be achieved by linking to the existing public footpath to the east.

13.16 The proposed allocation forms part of a larger, in terms of land take, hybrid planning application currently under consideration on a 15.1 ha site (ref. DC/14/2047/HYB). This comprises a full application for 131 dwellings (including 42 affordable dwellings), creation of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian accesses onto Mildenhall Road, and Beeches Road, and two new vehicular accesses onto Chapel Road, public amenity space, allotments, a community car park, and associated infrastructure.; and an outline application for the erection of 7 self-build homes and 0.3 hectares of land for future community uses

WR1(a) site plan

WR1(a) site plan

View Comments (1) (1) Policy WR1: Focus of growth: West Row

Residential development is proposed in West Row on the following site;

New reference
(former reference)

Location

Area
(hectares)

Indicative capacity

WR1(a)
(formerly part of WR/07)

Land east of Beeches Road

7.35ha

140

This site is identified on the Policies Map.

Strategic landscaping and open space must be provided to address the individual site requirements and location

The development must provide measures for influencing recreation in the surrounding area, to avoid a damaging increase in visitors to the Breckland SPA through provision of suitable alternative natural greenspace and the enhancement and promotion of a dog friendly access route in the immediate vicinity of the development.

Sustainable travel provision including facilities for pedestrians and cyclists should be made to access village amenities.

A programme of archaeological work will be required. Fieldwork for archaeological evaluation has identified Roman remains on the site and there will be a need for archaeological excavation prior to development.

1ha of land to the south of The Green as identified on the Policies Map is proposed for expansion of the existing primary school.

View Comments (1) (1) Question 21:

Do you agree with the draft policy above? Are there any other issues which you feel should be taken into account in the policy?

Alternative options

Two alternative sites were identified as being potentially suitable for housing in West Row:

WR/01 - Land south of Chapel Road
WR/25 - Land off Pott Hall Road

Although these are both relatively unconstrained sites in environmental terms neither site is large enough to deliver all the growth required and therefore reduce the likelihood of securing comprehensive community benefits. They have been omitted on the basis that other sites are considered to be more suitable and sustainable options.

The capacity of WR/01 is likely to be further reduced by the need to respect the setting of the listed buildings to the north-west and east of the site.
Although within the existing settlement boundary WR/25 contributes to the character of the village and is further from the main services and facilities than the preferred site. The site also has a known pluvial flooding issue.

Existing commitments in West Row

13.17 The above allocations are based on the planning situation as at 1 April 2015. Sites where planning applications were approved before the April 2015 base date, but where development has not commenced are included as commitments, as to omit them would not show the complete planning picture.

View Comments (3) (3) Site WR1(b) - Land north of Mildenhall Road
(formerly WR/06)

13.18 This 0.7 hectare site lies in the north of the village and adjacent to the settlement boundary to its west. It is bounded by existing residential uses to the west and east and has a long frontage onto Mildenhall Road. The site currently has outline planning permission for up to 26 dwellings (ref. DC/14/0632/OUT) granted on 22 December 2014.

WR1(b) site plan

WR1(b) site plan

View Comments (2) (2) Site WR1(c) - Land adjacent to Park Garden, Friday Street
(formerly WR/12)

13.19 This 0.56 hectare site lies to the west of the village adjacent to the settlement boundary. The site currently has planning permission for 7 dwellings (ref. DC/14/2407/OUT) granted on 13th February 2015.

WR1(c) site plan

WR1(c) site plan

View Comments (1) (1) Settlement boundary changes

13.20 Settlement boundaries in this local plan, as shown on the Policies Map, encompass the developed area of settlements and all peripheral sites allocated, committed or accepted for built development. All the sites proposed for allocation in West Row fall predominantly outside the existing settlement boundary and it is proposed the boundary is amended to include these sites. The settlement boundaries have also been reviewed and rationalised in order to become more logical and defensible in line with policy CS10 of the Core Strategy. These changes are shown on the Policies Map which accompanies this document, with the red dashed line indicating the line of the proposed change.

Proposed changes to settlement boundary Justification

Amend the settlement boundary around West Row to include sites a, b, and c above

Potential site allocations and existing commitments.

Realign to the south of Greenacre and Homefield, Manor Farm Road.

To reflect existing buildings and curtilages.

Remove the north of 4 Parkers Drove

To reflect existing building footprint and rural character.

Realign to the west of Chantry Cottage

To reflect existing buildings and curtilages. To put planted area into countryside.

Include 144b Ferry Lane.

To reflect existing buildings and curtilages.

Include 116 Eldo Road

To include a new building in residential frontage.

Include 12A - 14D Eldo Gardens

To include a new development

Realign to the rear of 101 - 115A Friday Street.

To reflect existing buildings and curtilages.

View Comments (2) (2) Question 22:

Do you agree with the proposed changes to the settlement boundary? Are there any other changes to the West Row boundary which you feel shouldbe made?

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.
back to top