COt-1~,1T~
REGISTRATION CONSTRAINTS MAP
Scale 1:1250
MAP = TM0848
MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL 131 HIGH STREET NEEDHAM MARKET IPSWICH IP68DL
Playing Field
THIS MAP IS REPRODUCED FROM ORDNANCE SURVEY MATERIAL WITH THE PERMISSION
OF ORDNANCE SURVEY ON BEHALF OF THE CONTROLLER OF HER MAJESTYS STATIONERY OFF I E.
CROWN COPYRIGHT UNAUTHORISED REPRODUCTION INFRINGES CROWN COPYRIGHT
. AND MAY LEAD TO PROSECUTION OR CIVIL PROCEEDINGS. MSDC LICENCE NUMBER 100017810
15110/10
rI
f,
OS SitemapCE
~'------'~-'-'
I'
I
C'l7=>lro
Ordnance
Surveyf
~.. n-----------~------------------------~~------------~
2487.....
__------------------------___ ~7tO'
, " .....-- ..... " ,
,t ,"-- ... ••
,
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
•
"
I
I
I
~
r
,,
,
'--'"
PlaYin$ Field
I I, ,"
::~-~G-T-'
" 1;-1==]=----+1
,11
II,
I
:::
:!
III
2485 10m
2485U)m
f
~/':D S~~~-~~~l
Produced 27 05,2010 110m the OrCInance 5UfVey Nabonal GeographIC OataDase and irlcorporallng surwyed reviSIon available al In,s dale C Clown Copyngnt 2010 Pl/",~\i\.!t',;(~, C~\~ ~,
Reproduclion in whOle Of part 1$ p<ohtbIted WlthOul tne
prior permiSSIOn of Ordnance Survey
The representatIOn of a road, track or path IS no
evictence 01 a right Of way
The representatIOn of fea1Ure5 as uoes .s no e1tidenoe
of a pr\lll«ty boundary
bod
20
40 I
I
Scale 11250 Supolted by Hussey and Greaves
Seflal number 001 J09O(l
Centre c;ootdmates' 608867 7S 248609,S
F Uflnel mformaltOn can be found on lhe
prOduCeCl ill one Of more of the foIIow>ng scaleS 1 1250. OS Sdemap Inlom.llOn IeatleS Of: Ille
Ordnimc:e Survey web SIte
12500.1 10000 -
Part Of all of hili OS Sotemap 1$ enlarged from mapping ~
Me\res
o
O/llllance Surwy. Ule os Symbol and os S.\emap ale
reglllered trilldetnarks of OrdnanCe Surwy. lhe nallOOai
mapping agency of Great Britain
0I'tInarIcesunt co ...
? {"UG 2010 DATE .... ,
Pf'\~~':'! ;';~:
f~(iL.
"­
' .'
\
\
\
\
I
,
,,
\
.
1
\
i
\
\
\
i
':
\
i
\
\
I
\
/
i
J
~_~
,
--t --..__..
_ _ _·r_J
--'~:--t--.---.
- .t--...­
,
,
:
,!
.....
"­
\
\
\
\
i
/
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
........7·_~--....
/-----....,
I
\
I
/III .
II
II
/f
I
I
/
II
II
I
II
I
1/
I
! I
I
I I
II
,
iI
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I !
1/
/
I
I
I.
I"
!::::- I !
I
I
I
I ~ ,I
I~/I
,f
~//
10
10 II
It
E
o
<.D
CO
-<:t
01
I
- -- ­
-~
......
­
-
-.-'
-­----­
- - ----­
- ..- ....... ~-::--------,.---r--
C-- -­ ~--
I
I
I
1/
,I
o
/
/
','
'"
i
I,
i
iI
I
1;
PARISH COUNCIL
Comments from: Somersham Parish Clerk
Planning Officer:
Ian Ward
Application Number: 0975 I 10
Proposal:
Erection of building for use as a community shop and laying out of
associated carparking
Location:
Proposed Community Shop and associated parking at Somersham
Playing Field, Main Road, Somersham
PLEASE SET OUT ANY COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF YOUR COUNCIL WITH
REGARD TO THE ABOVE, BEARING IN MIND THE POLICIES MENTIONED IN THE
ACCOMPANYING LETTER.
Somersham Parish Council held an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting to discuss this application.
Due to the short timescale, councillor apologies and councillor Declarations of Interest under the
Code of Conduct 2007, the parish council is unable to comment on this application as it was not
quorate.
The Extraordinary Meeting was attended by several residents of Princes Gardens who strongly
expressed the following concerns in the public session of the meeting:­
•
Legality of proposal with Deed of Trust
•
Nearby properties will be devalued
•
Lack of car parking when football/cycle speedway matches taking place
•
Could increase problem with rats
•
Could attract anti-social behaviour
•
Shop opening times (planning application states B.30am - S.OOpm six days a week)
It is understood that these residents have individually responded direct to this proposal.
Support
D
Object
D
No Comments ~
r::>,) ;'1 f}~ 1'\ A{1 t~Tp
. h councI'1 .......r'~.::;Cio'J~~...j.'.....,....."..........on beh aIf 0 f ... " .....................................
'vwn; ans
-:;.!. .~ ...J.I,~: ............. SIGNED
DATED ....... \:..
Page] of]
Electronic Message Received
Message
DCConsComment
Type:
CaseFullRef: 097511 0
Proposed Community Shop and associated parking at Somersham Playing Field,
Location:
Main Road, Somersham
An electronic message was submitted to ACOLAID on 10/08/2010 and was processed on
11/0812010
Contact Response
('.\:\,\01 J)ETEIOIJ,L WHit If (0'\( ACT 1'0 l PJ)·\TE: A ,\1<\\ CO\L\{ I \\ ILL IH.
.\OIlEH I'\STE.\I)
Mr Harrold
MSDC
Coucil Offices
131 High Street
Needham Market
Email Address: [email protected]
Reply Type: SUP
I do not have any objections to the proposed development.
~----- - - , I
j
I!JL;[I~/
file:IIC:\Documents and Settings\emmach\Local Seuings\Temp\AcoITmp.htm
11/08/2010
MID SUi"'FULK. UI:S I KIL I LUUI'lLIL
IO,!;'" )
VI ...
Samantha Summers
From:
David Mitchell
Sent:
10 August 201014:21
To:
Ian Ward; Planning Admin
Subject:
975;10 somersham.doc
Attachments: imageOO1.wmz; oledata.mso
MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DCEM
SUBJECT:
MAIN RD, SOMERSHAM.
MY REF:
EXT.NO:
DCEM/975/10
extension
TO:
IW
YOUR REF:
IW/975/10
If.
DATE: August 10th 2010.
The proposed development site lies adjacent to the Somersham playing field, an area intensively
used for a variety of recreational activities. The proposed car-parking area makes use of an existing
hardstanding space while the new community shop will lie on playing field land immediately to the
west.
The site is particularly well screened from the highway to the south by bankside trees and shrubs.
These perform an important landscape function for the playing field and I am anxious to ensure their
continuing presence.
The north boundary to the playing field is populated with maturing trees, lying on considerably
higher ground. This feature, combined with the sloping nature of the surrounding land, means views
into the site from the north will be largely unavailable. Although this area lies within an SLA I note
there are no footpaths or bridleways in the vicinity.
From the west, most views into the site are only freely available from the football field and
surrounds. Users of the shop approaching from the east and local residents immediately north may
experience some additional visual impact from these proposals but this does not seem to me
'unexpected' in this suburban context. This means that to all intents and purposes this proposed
shop lies within a secluded, visually screened area and presents little risk of arboricultural or
landscape impact (subject to three provisos below).
•
•
The shop is located 9.0m from the important south boundary vegetation, which should be
sufficient separation to prevent immediate harm to roots. However, I note a soakaway is
proposed beneath the canopy of one bankside tree. This seems unnecessary given the
space available and I suggest this be moved north (clear of canopy) or east (between trees)
to avoid damage.
I am concerned to ensure the immediate west and north boundaries to site are given
10/08/2010 IVIIV ~Ut't'ULK. VI:S
IKIC I CUUNCIL Page 2 of2
sympathetic; tr~:t\tment...preferably NOT 1.8m cb fencing. My preference would be for post and
raiUencing a"nd hedge. Please condition.
• A small planting area is shown to the car park on the Scheme Drawing. This will require
further detailing and I would also like to see a little more in the way of planting to the site
frontage to help break up the effect of so much hard surfacing. Please condition
DeE Mitchell
Landscape Officer
1010812010 Page I of I
Electronic Message Received
Message Type: DCConsComment
CaseFullRef : 222311 0
Church Knoll, Upper Street, Baylham,
Location:
An electronic message was submitted to ACOLAID on 10/0812010 and was processed on
12/0812010
Contact Response
(\\\OIIHHlnll\1 \\HHII(O'\IH 1101 PJ)\lL \'\1·\\(0\1·\( 1\\111 IH
\ J) I) I Il I" S I I, \ n
MrBoardman
Stowmarket RA. group
8 Gardeners Walk
Elmswell
Bury St. Edmuns
Email Address:[email protected]
Reply Type: COM
I have inspected the plans as submitted and have the following comment. Baylham footpath 30 runs along
the eastern edge of this site and it is strongly hoped that this development does not spoil the enjoyment of
walking this rural track.
fiJe:IIC:\Documents and Settings\emmach\Local Settings\Temp\AcoITmp.htm
12/0812010
Patrons
Lady Eusnm
Helen Smith
Dr Ke\'in Curtis Hnn DeL
Rachel Sloane
Sir Trevur Nunn
Our ref IRITH
16th August, 2010
Ian Reekie
Senior Administration Officer
Mid Suffolk District Council
131 High Street
Needham Market
Suffolk
IP68DL
Dear Ian
Re: Planning Applications - 0975/10
Please find enclosed comments received from Audrey Smither with regard to the above planning application. Kind regards. Yours sincerely. Trish Hayward Office Manager Enc.
Be your best Oprua House, Hill View P)\lsiness Park,
Sutfe,lk, JP60A]
WW\\ .oprua.org,uk
in England and vVdlr,,, d': UpfUd
(Ect~t
Ch"rily t<umbEI IDb 1:'·11 Office: {)pIU;1 H(Hr
Hill VI(~W
BUStnt-'>7~
C
'(',
Ant;lidJ Comp,ln~' f~'!1Hnh('r 3.12()4~t2
Park, CI;p.}(li,ri Suffolk, 1P6 0/\.'
01473 836777
FacsimiJ<:: 01473 836778
Textplwn-:: 0'1473 836779
Td~)lr,(,ne:
Email: [email protected] r-\ INVESTORS
~~__.IIN PEOPLE
Mid Suffolk District Coundl
Ref Nol
Date
Received
Applicant Details
Location
Proposed Development
I Comments
Date
Sent to
Member
I
&
Shop
0975/10
clo Hawthorns
Mill Lane
Somersham
Nr Ipswich
Suffolk
IPS 4PA
Proposed Community
Shop and associated
parking at Somersham
Playing field. Main
Road. Somersham.
Erection of building for use as a
community shop and laying out of
associated car parking.
r
The plan shows one
parking space for
disabled people. The
surface of this & the
route to the ramp up
to the shop door
should be firm. not
gravel. Signage
should be clear, to
assist those with
problems.
The plan of the toilet
suggests that is
designed for possible
use by disabled
people. The fittings,
as well as the layout
should be
appropriate.
~.~
Received
Comments and lour
Forwarded to
Ref
MSDC
I
11.S.10
I 16.S.10
ICR
Audrey
Smither
t Ian Reekie
I
CR
I
~
Emma Bendall
From:
David Sparkes
Sent:
24 August 2010 10:52
To:
Planning Admin
Cc:
James Bailey
Subject:
FW: Consultation on Planning Application 0975110
Attachments: DocCons01 email.pdf
Comments from Planning Policy:
0975/10 Proposed Community Shop. Somersham, (case officer Ian Ward)
The proposed site is partly outside the settlement boundary and part in designated Visually
Important Open Space.
However I think this is a suitable, central location for an important community facility like
this. The vias designation is intended in this case to protect the playing field for its
amenity value, but it need not prevent appropriate types of community development - such
as a sports pavillion or village hall - and a community shop would be a similar, suitable
exception.
Core Strategy policy CS6 supports the provision of local services. including shops.
David Sparkes,
Planning Policy.
From: James Bailey
Sent: 05 August 2010 08:18
To: David Sparkes
Subject: FW: Consultation on Planning Application 0975/10
c:
From: Susan Thurston
Sent: 04 August 2010 15:47
To: James Bailey; David Sparkes
Subject: FW: Consultation on Planning Application 0975/10
From: [email protected] .uk [mailto:[email protected]]
24/08120]0
Page 2 of2
sent: 04 August 2010 15:20
To: Susan Thurston
Subject: Consultation on Planning Application 0975/10
We request your comments regarding this application and these should reach us
within 21 days.
The planning policies that appear to be relevant to this case are GP1, PPS1, PPS9, CorS, Cor4,
CL8, SC4, PPS2S, T10, T9, which can
be found in detail in your copy of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan.
We look forward to receiving your comments.
To view details of the planning application online please click here
Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in
accordance
with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any
security risks.
The information contained in this email or any of its attachments
may be
privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of
the addressee.
Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by
mistake,
please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
your email software.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do
not relate
to the official business of Mid Suffolk District Council shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by Mid Suffolk District
Council.
24/08/2010 Economy, Skills and Environment
~Suffolk \.~ County Council
Highway Network Improvement Services
Development Management
5th Floor, Block 1
Endeavour House
Russell Road
Ipswich
Suffolk
IP12BX
The District Planning Officer
Mid Suffolk District Council
131 High Street
Needham Market
IP6 SOL
Enquiries to: Robert Higgs
Tel: 01473 265102
Fax: 01473 216864
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.suffolk.gov.uk
For the Attention of: Ian Ward
Your Ref: MS/0975/10
Our Ref: 570\CON\1230\10
Date: 19th August 2010
tw
Dear Ian
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
CONSULTATION RETURN MS/0975/10
PROPOSAL:
of associated car
LOCATION:
ROAD CLASS:
Erection of building for use as a community shop and laying out
parking
Somers ham Playing Field, Main Road, Somersham, Suffolk
C450
Notice is hereby given that the County Council as Highways Authority does not wish to
restrict the grant of permission.
//j
Yours
sincer~el \
I
//
Lgs "': I
(
Mr Robert
\
.-\.,
."""
'IVV
I
i
I
I
Development Control Technician
Page I of I
Ian Ward
From:
Dinwiddie, Neil R [[email protected]]
Sent:
07 October 2010 12:38
To:
Ian Ward
Subject: 0975/10 - Main Road, Somersham
MrWard.
I refer to our conversation earlier this week in respect of planning application 0975110 and flood zone
classification. I can confirm that based upon the flood levels for this locality and the actual site levels
provided that the actual proposed building footprint (as per the drawings and plans submitted as part of the
application) is above the predicted 1 in 100 year plus climate flood level. This means that the actual footprint
of the building is within Flood Zone 2. the medium probability zone.
I hope this offers the clarification required. If however, you have any further questions, then please contact me
on the details below.
Regards.
Neil.
Neil Dinwiddie
Planning Liaison Officer
Environment Agency
lceni House
Cobham Road
Ipswich
IP39JD
01473706819
Neil,Pinwiddie@environment-agency,gov,uk
Weekday Daytime cal/s cost 8p plus up to 6p per minute from BT Weekend Unlimited. Mobile and other
providers' charges may vary.
...4
The Environment Agency has reduced its water consumption by 16% in the last tlJree years, Please
help to conserve water where you can.
Information in this message may be confidential and may be legally privileged. If you have received
this message by mistake, please notify the sender immediately. delete it and do not copy it to anyone
else.
We have checked this email and its attachments [or viruses. But you should still check any attachment
before opening it.
We may have to makc this message and any reply to it public if asked to under the Freedom of
Information Act, Data Protection Act or for litigation.
Email messages and attachments sent to or
from any Environment Agency address may also be accessed by someone other than the sender or
recipient, [or business purposes.
If we have sent you informat on and you wish to use it please read our terms and conditions which you
can get by calling us on 087 8 506 506.
Find out more aboul the Environment Agency at
08/]0/2010 ';
Mr Ian Ward
Mid Suffolk District Council
Planning Policy
131 , Council Offices High Street
Needham Market
Ipswich
IP68DL
...
,t
Our ref:
Your ref:
AE/2010/111178/01-L01
0975/10
Date:
23 August 2010
~,>.~.,
J)~:f-'.~~"""'\
~\ it:
,~,
.., v
.• ; .('·4
).
.
Dear Mr Ward
A'
-,- .r,~
J
(
\
l
,
'.
:t.<~:r. , .. ! , i';'; _ i.~
t,\~""-"'""\\i:J'"''
,j
ERECTION OF BUlL
,,"
.,
MMUNITY SHOP AND LAYING
OUT OF ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING. THE PLAYING FIELD MAIN ROAD
SOMERSHAM
Thank you for consulting the Environment Agency regarding the above planning
application, which we received on 6 August 2010. We have reviewed the plans, as
submitted, and offer the following comments in response:
Flood Risk
The proposed development lies within Flood Zone 3 of our indicative flood maps.
Flood zone 3a is defined from PPS 25 'Development and Flood Risk' Table 0.1 as
High Probability. This zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 year or
greater annual probability of flooding from rivers (1 %) in any year. Developments in
this zone are required to contain a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in accordance with
the requirements of PPS25.
A FRA, prepared by Badger Designs was submitted with the planning application.
The FRA has demonstrated that the land levels around the development are higher
than the predicted 1 in 100 year plus climate flood level. The finished floor level is
above this level and flood resilience measures have stated to be incorporated into
the development.
Environment Agency position
The proposed development will only be acceptable if the following measures as
detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application are
implemented and secured by way of a planning condition on any planning
permission.
Environment Agency
Iceni House Cobham Road, Ipswich, IP3 9JO.
Customer services line: 08708 506 506
Email: [email protected]
Cont/d ..
Condition
The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) by Badger Designs
and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
1. Finished floor levels are set no lower than 21.500m above Ordnance Datum
(A 00)
2. Flood-resilience measures including those detailed on page 1 of the FRA shall be .
incorporated into the development.
Reason
1. To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants.
2. To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future
occupants.
Advice to LPA - Flood Response Plan
The Environment Agency does not normally comment on or approve the adequacy
of flood emergency response and evacuation procedures accompanying
development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our
involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering
flood warnings to occupants/users.
Planning Policy Statement 25 and the associated Practice Guide (paragraphs 7.23 to
7.31) places responsibilities on LPAs to consult their Emergency Planners with
regard to specific emergency planning issues relating to new development. In all
circumstances where warning and evacuation are significant measures in
contributing to managing flood risk, we will expect LPAs to formally consider the
emergency planning and rescue implications of new development in making their
decisions.
It is recommended however, that a flood evacuation plan is conditioned onto any
planning permission that is granted.
Advice To Applicant:
Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws,
the prior written consent of the Agency is required for any proposed works or
structures in, under, over or within nine metres of the top of the bank of the main
river (Somersham Watercourse). For further details please contact James Hitching ­
Development and Flood Risk Engineer (01473706723).
Sequential Approach
We note that the applicant has stated within their FRA that locating the community
shop further up the playing field would impact on the properties on Princes Gardens
and so has been ruled out for this reason. The LPA should be satisfied with this
aspect in applying the sequential approach on site and locating the shop in the area
at least flood risk.
If you have any Questions please contact me on the details below.
Yours faithfully
Cont/d..
2
Mr Neil Dinwiddie
Planning Liaison Officer
Direct dial 01473 706819 Direct fax 01473 724205 Direct e-mail [email protected] cc Badger Designs
End
3
SI Samantha Summers
From:
Tom Barker Sent:
05 August 201014:20 To:
Planning Admin Cc:
Ian Ward Subject: RE: Consultation on Planning Application 0975/10 Cons!!/tation rerulonse from MSDC Community Development
Offi~err
Thank you for consulting me on the above proposal for a Community Shop in Somersham. I
have worked with the group for some time to help develop their ideas so am well aware of
the project.
They have received some Grant Aid to develop the project and an offer has been made,
subject to receipt of planning permission, for Grant Aid to contribute towards the capital
costs associated with construction of the building.
The general benefits of Community Shops are many and varied. More information can be
found here: http://www.plunketLco.uk/whatwedo/rcs/rl,Jr(3lcommunityshops.cfm and here:
http://www.plunkett.co. ukiwha twedo/rcs/ruralcommunityshops. cfm
The village shop was lost a while ago and they have been working to provide a 'community­
based' replacement for some time. This will help address the lack of facilities in the village
and contribute towards improving their sustainability. It will provide volunteering
opportunities as well as a social space for villagers to meet. An open community meeting
was held at the beginning of the process which over 80 people (10% of the population)
attended and all supported the principle of developing a local shop.
The group have consulted locally, over a long period of time. These consultations have
identified some local concerns and the group have sought to address these through
changing the proposed location and orientation of the building. It is located in a central area
within the village, which is important for viability purposes. The location provides off-street
parking.
The group explored a number of options during development of the project and this site is
the only available and satisfactory location that could be found.
Overall I fully support the proposal.
Yours,
Tom
Tom Barker
Community Development Officer
Mid Suffolk District Council
131 High Street
Needham Market
Suffolk IP6 8DL
Tel: 01449 724647
05/08/2010
A'.' ;1 \.
I,,·
52
Page 2 of2
tlttp.//www.mldsuftolk.govuk
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 04 August 2010 15:20
To: Tom Barker
Subject: Consultation on Planning Application 0975/10
We request your comments regarding this application and these should reach us
within 21 days.
The planning policies that appear to be relevant to this case are GP1, PPS1, PPS9, Cor5, Cor4,
CL8, SC4. PPS25. T1 0, T9, which can
be found in detail in your copy of the Mid Suffolk Local Plan.
We look forward to receiving your comments.
To view details of the planning application online please click here
Emails sent to and from this organisation will be monitored in
accordance
with the law to ensure compliance with policies and to minimize any
security risks.
The information contained in this email or any of its attachments
may be
privileged or confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of
the addressee.
Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this email by
mistake,
please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in
your email software.
Opinions, conclusions and other information in this email that do
not relate
to the official business of Mid Suffolk District Council shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by Mid Suffolk District
Council.
05/08/2010 Page I ot I
Ian Ward
From:
Tom Barker
Sent:
10 September 201010:26
To:
Ian Ward
Subject: FW: Somersham community shop re planning application
Hi lan,
Further information that may be relevant. ..
Tom
Tom Barker
Community Development Officer
Mid Suffolk District Council
131 High Street
Needham Market
Suffolk IP6 BDL
Tel: 01449 724647
I1ttp//www.midsuffolk.gov.uk
From: Janet Hodge [mailto:[email protected]]
sent: 07 September 2010 09:16
To: Tom Barker
Subject: FW: Somersham community shop re planning application
Hello Tom
I'm not sure if the list below may be relevant to the Somersham Community Shop planning application, but if
so could you please pass to Ian Ward.
Many thanks - Janet
I just thought that there may be a question as to what will be sold in the shop.
I have taken from the questionnaire responses we had returned:
Stamps - 49
Local produce - 47
Stationery and cards - 44
Fresh fruit and vegetables - 43
Bread/bakery products - 43
Newspapers/magazines - 43
Chilled and dairy foods/drinks - 32
Confectionary/snack products - 32
Fresh meat and fish - 21
Frozen foods - 20
04/10/2010 54­
page I ot L
Ian Ward
From:
Tom Barker
Sent:
10 September 201010:25
To:
Ian Ward
Subject: FW: Somersham shop planning application
Hi lan,
This may answer any outstanding queries on the somersham shop application?
Tom
Tom Barker
Community Development Officer
Mid Suffolk District Council
131 High Street
Needham Market
Suffolk IP6 BDL
Tel: 01449 724647
http,//www.midsuffolk,gov, uk
From: Janet Hodge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 07 September 2010 09:22
To: Tom Barker
Subject: FW: Somersham shop planning application
Some more thoughts which may be relevant to the planning application, which could you pass on if thought
necessary. Thanks - Janet
The shop is to be a COMMUNITY SHOP, which means it is run by the community, for the community. How
the community wishes the shop to be run is how it will be run. All residents will be considered.
The hours will be what the community wants and subject to volunteers being able to work at that time. I set
out below the most popular times for opening as set out in the original questionnaires received back:
The most popular opening time is
4.00pm-6.00pm daily with 114 requests for that.
2.00pm-4.00pm - 77 requests
8.00am-10am - 77 requests
10.00am-1.00pm - SS requests
Saturday morning was also generally asked for, this would probably be between 9.00am-12.00 noon.
We will endeavour to plan the opening hours around this feedback from residents. Depending very much, of
course, on the availability of volunteers to man the shop.
Other queries:
Who gets the profits? - This will be divided amongst ALL the organisations in the community. It will not
benefit just one or two, but every organisation - eg tennis club, badminton club, gardening club, over 60's
0411 012010
rage
L.
or
L.
55 (Golden link), as well as those not listed here. Traffic - it is not envisaged to have more than two or three cars at a time as the shop is in the centre of the village and within walking distance for most residents. This number will not be constant and most usually there possibly will be none at all. Could the shop be placed anywhere else - NO. We have spent three years looking at possible sites. None were suitable apart from the present application. As well as not being suitable, the village hall committee would not agree to a proposal for a shop to be sited there. The Community Association have been the ONLY people to allow use of the land for a shop. If it is not placed here there will be no shop. Janet 04/10/2010 --------~
Page lof3
Ian Ward
From:
Tom Barker Sent:
15 October 2010 09:35 To:
Ian Ward Subject:
FW: Somersham Attachments: RC - Accommodation Options Appraisal.doc lan, see below and also attached.
Tom
Hello Tom
Thanks for this email.
To address your question of looking at other sites, this was taken into consideration when walking the
village looking at sites for affordable housing - we also looked at:
1. Village Hall - too small an area, on sloping site, at edge of village and too far for elderly people to walk
from other end of village.
Plus the major factor, the village hall committee would not allow it.
2. Baptist Church - again too small an area, at one end of village, bad junction from main road into
Chapel Lane, many accidents there already.
3. Local garage - at one end of village, too small an area. Garage owner said he was in the business of
mending cars not having shops.
4. Garages - enquired of several people if they were willing to allow their garages to be used, as is one at
Stratford-St-Mary. Nobody willing to do this.
S. Park Cottages where new houses being built. Well outside of centre of village. Residents unhappy
about this.
6. One residents shed - bad state of repair, on private land, not easy access from road. Resident not
willing to allow this.
7. Pub - again small area, very bad access from main road at junction of main road and Chapel Lane.
8. Playing field - Community Association very willing to allow shop on playing field. This was the only
positive outcome of after asking about other sites.
Following consultation with David Benham of Mid-Suffolk District Council, we looked at extending the
pavilion. Plans were drawn up for this but the football club strongly objected - one of their objections was
that it would block the view from the pavilion of children on the play equipment.
9. Playing field - following aborted plans for extending the pavilion we looked, with Lisa Evans of
MSDC, at the site behind the houses. Very strong and vociverous objections from residents in houses.
10. Playing field - corner site. Our preferred site. Planners said it came under newly designated Rood
plain. Architect consulted with Environment Agency and so moved the planned building further away from
brook. Strong objections from football club as vehicles may have to cross the football pitch.
11. Where we are at now.
Thanks Tom - Janet
From: Terry Fordham [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 July 2010 13:09 To: Tom Barker; 'Janet Hodge' Cc: [email protected]; richard Browne 15/10/2010
Somersham and District Communtiy Shop Project Accommodation Options Appraisal OPTION
Previous village shop premises
•
OPTION NOT AVAILABLE
•
•
Village hall extension
•
OPTION REJECTED
•
Extension to pavilion on the
playingfield
•
OPTION REJECTED
•
•
New construction situated in the
comer of the playingfield next to the
carpark
OPTION PROGRESSED
•
•
•
•
•
•
HOW IT FACILITATES
Floor area adequate but not
generous
Within a domestic house and
owners changed use to domestic
and did not want a shop
Premises later sold on as a
house
COST
Would have been rented or
leased but not investigated as
shop space discontinued
RISK ASSESSMENT
A viable option but not made available due
to decision of owners to discontinue shop
space
Extension would meet
requirements
Location not ideal as on the edge
of the villa~e
Extension would meet
requirements
Location good as in the centre of
the village
No adjacent car parking although
playingfield car park available
Design will meet requirements
Location good as in the centre of
the village
Site on playingfield uses area not
needed for play/sport
Car parking adjacent
Good pedestrian access
Self contained accommodation
Not investigated as Village Hall
committee rejected our outline
proposal
The location at the edge of the village
would risk some people. especially those
with mobility problems. not using the shop
Estimated at £100,000 +
A viable option but rejected by the
playingfield committee on the basis that
there was excessive intrusion on
sport/playing area
Estimated at £80.000
A viable option that fully meets the needs.
No insurmountable risks obvious and the
following key risks dealt with:
• Approval of playingfield committee
Planning officer outline approval
• Lease agreed
•
The committee brainstormed other less viable options which were soon dismissed based on enquiries and local knowledge. These included outbuildings of
~rivate residence (excessive disru~tion to owners}; local garage {little s~ace/owner unwilling}; Ba~tist church (poor location and access/conflict of use}.
U\ -'