100 signatures reached
To: Babergh District Council
No confidence in Planning or Enforcement at Babergh District Council
We, the undersigned, have lost confidence in the ability of the Planning Enforcement Team and Planning Department of Babergh District Council to deal fairly, correctly, and in timely fashion with Planning Application Numbered B/14/01103, and all subsequent applications by Stemar Group (or any other title since adopted) that relate to the Slaughter House Site, Cuckoo Hill, Bures St. Mary. We require any decision regarding any of the outstanding applications to be made, or approved, by the full planning committee of Babergh District Council only. We further request that all decisions are deferred until the whole matter can be considered by a higher authority.
Why is this important?
Letter to Babergh DC, remains unanswered, concerning:-
Babergh District Council – Planning Applications numbered –
B/14/01103
DC/17/04287, DC/18/06036, DC/18/00929, DC/18/04204, DC/18/04205, DC/18/04206, DC/18/04208, DC/18/04231, DC/19/01422, DC/19/01427, DC/19/01428
and Enforcement Case 17/00439/NFP - Opened Oct. 2017 -
all relating to the Old Slaughter House Site, Cuckoo Hill, Bures St. Mary, Suffolk. CO8 5JH.
I write this open letter as a resident of Bures St. Mary, who like so many others in the village, have lost all confidence in the Planning Enforcement team and Planning team at Babergh District Council.
It seems to me, and over 70 other residents who have, so far, expressed support for me in writing to you, that Babergh have suffered severe systematic failure in dealing with issues arising from this development and are now in a position where they are unable to determine this application on planning grounds, your own position having been compromised by your own negligence. Some of the failings are listed below, but this is not an exhaustive list, and should not be treated as such.
Babergh District Council have:
Failed to respond to residents comments regarding the accuracy of the drawings submitted by the applicant before deciding the application.
Failed to ensure that the drawings taken to Committee for Planning approval were the same as those published on the Planning Portal, and on which comments were submitted by the Public.
Failed to ensure that the recommendations of the Geosphere Environmental report on the site were fully and correctly implemented.
Failed to ensure that the conditions required by the Environment Agency to be attached to any permission granted were actioned.
Failed to take due care when approving the construction of a dwelling that would have a “back to back” separation of less than eleven metres from a Grade Two listed building, and to protect said building from damage by allowing the rear wall to be used as a site boundary.
Failed to publish on the Planning Portal a letter expressing thirteen concerns regarding the proposed development submitted by Bures St. Mary Parish Council, thus preventing District Councillors from being fully informed of local concerns before deciding the matter.
Failed to take timely and adequate action on being contacted by Parishioners regarding the incorrect placement of all buildings at the “pegging out” stage of the project.
Failed to take adequate care to ensure Suffolk County Council Highways were presented with sufficient information for them to make an informed decision regarding the access arrangements for the site. See BDC analysis of access arrangements in their planning appeal defence for application B/11/01553/FUL, sections 4.1 to 4.7.
Failed to respond to complaints by residents of loss of established access to their own properties.
Failed to respond adequately to complaints by residents of damage to their property (both direct and indirect).
Failed to respond to complaints by residents of working continuing outside permitted hours, on a site with no toilet facilities, by workers not wearing appropriate safety clothing/equipment.
Failed to issue any kind of decision or notice regarding the position and completed height of the new dwellings although they are clearly misplaced by several metres and have a profile that nowhere nearly matches the indicative profile submitted by the developer.
Failed to produce an Enforcement Policy that is clear and has “end to end” integrity. – If policy suggests that enforcement be held in abeyance whilst an appeal is underway, then surely it makes sense to cease to consider amendments to a scheme, as approval of any amendment implies approval of the whole?
Failed to take and publish minutes of all meetings between the developer/his legal adviser, and Officers and/or Councillors.
Failed to ensure that variations between the built project and the approved plans are properly agreed by Officers and recorded on the Planning Portal. (Removal of Social Housing element).
Whilst I accept that you are not responsible for what the developer says or does, the whole issue has not been helped by the description afforded Bures residents (“Scum”) and the people who might occupy the Social Housing Units by the developer, or his widely-made assertion that he has paid a large sum of money to have the building requirements eased.
For the avoidance of doubt, please note I intend to raise this whole matter, as necessary, with the Planning Inspectorate, the Local Government Ombudsman, and with any other external body available.
I do accept that you may have perfectly good arguments against my concerns and will await an early response from you before taking the issue to a much wider audience.
Yours faithfully
Babergh District Council – Planning Applications numbered –
B/14/01103
DC/17/04287, DC/18/06036, DC/18/00929, DC/18/04204, DC/18/04205, DC/18/04206, DC/18/04208, DC/18/04231, DC/19/01422, DC/19/01427, DC/19/01428
and Enforcement Case 17/00439/NFP - Opened Oct. 2017 -
all relating to the Old Slaughter House Site, Cuckoo Hill, Bures St. Mary, Suffolk. CO8 5JH.
I write this open letter as a resident of Bures St. Mary, who like so many others in the village, have lost all confidence in the Planning Enforcement team and Planning team at Babergh District Council.
It seems to me, and over 70 other residents who have, so far, expressed support for me in writing to you, that Babergh have suffered severe systematic failure in dealing with issues arising from this development and are now in a position where they are unable to determine this application on planning grounds, your own position having been compromised by your own negligence. Some of the failings are listed below, but this is not an exhaustive list, and should not be treated as such.
Babergh District Council have:
Failed to respond to residents comments regarding the accuracy of the drawings submitted by the applicant before deciding the application.
Failed to ensure that the drawings taken to Committee for Planning approval were the same as those published on the Planning Portal, and on which comments were submitted by the Public.
Failed to ensure that the recommendations of the Geosphere Environmental report on the site were fully and correctly implemented.
Failed to ensure that the conditions required by the Environment Agency to be attached to any permission granted were actioned.
Failed to take due care when approving the construction of a dwelling that would have a “back to back” separation of less than eleven metres from a Grade Two listed building, and to protect said building from damage by allowing the rear wall to be used as a site boundary.
Failed to publish on the Planning Portal a letter expressing thirteen concerns regarding the proposed development submitted by Bures St. Mary Parish Council, thus preventing District Councillors from being fully informed of local concerns before deciding the matter.
Failed to take timely and adequate action on being contacted by Parishioners regarding the incorrect placement of all buildings at the “pegging out” stage of the project.
Failed to take adequate care to ensure Suffolk County Council Highways were presented with sufficient information for them to make an informed decision regarding the access arrangements for the site. See BDC analysis of access arrangements in their planning appeal defence for application B/11/01553/FUL, sections 4.1 to 4.7.
Failed to respond to complaints by residents of loss of established access to their own properties.
Failed to respond adequately to complaints by residents of damage to their property (both direct and indirect).
Failed to respond to complaints by residents of working continuing outside permitted hours, on a site with no toilet facilities, by workers not wearing appropriate safety clothing/equipment.
Failed to issue any kind of decision or notice regarding the position and completed height of the new dwellings although they are clearly misplaced by several metres and have a profile that nowhere nearly matches the indicative profile submitted by the developer.
Failed to produce an Enforcement Policy that is clear and has “end to end” integrity. – If policy suggests that enforcement be held in abeyance whilst an appeal is underway, then surely it makes sense to cease to consider amendments to a scheme, as approval of any amendment implies approval of the whole?
Failed to take and publish minutes of all meetings between the developer/his legal adviser, and Officers and/or Councillors.
Failed to ensure that variations between the built project and the approved plans are properly agreed by Officers and recorded on the Planning Portal. (Removal of Social Housing element).
Whilst I accept that you are not responsible for what the developer says or does, the whole issue has not been helped by the description afforded Bures residents (“Scum”) and the people who might occupy the Social Housing Units by the developer, or his widely-made assertion that he has paid a large sum of money to have the building requirements eased.
For the avoidance of doubt, please note I intend to raise this whole matter, as necessary, with the Planning Inspectorate, the Local Government Ombudsman, and with any other external body available.
I do accept that you may have perfectly good arguments against my concerns and will await an early response from you before taking the issue to a much wider audience.
Yours faithfully
