The land is approximately 3.5 acres and will now accommodate 35 properties on this development.
That works out at 0.1 acres per household

29th May 2012
Charles Church already advertising this development on their web site.
Listed as "Braeburn Gardens"

Braeburn is a variety of apple, chosen no doubt after the orchard on which site the development is to take place
Pity Persimmon didn`t pick an english apple variety to represent an English orchard
(Braeburn was discovered in 1952 by the farmer O. Moran from Waiwhero in the Moutere Hills near Motueka, New Zealand.)

Final Plans accepted by Babergh

Soil Test results by Richard Jackon Intelligent Engineering of Hadleigh
Extract taken from a 63 page document

5.3Risk Assessment

From the above, it is evident that the U95 value for benzo(a)pyrene ( derivative of coal, fossil fuels etc) of 1.126 mg/kg is greater than the screening value of 0.89 mg/kg. However, in this case, the Tn value is greater than the Tcrit value indicating that the highest value is not consistent with the underlying data set and should be treated as a ‘hotspot’.

Considering initially end users of the site, exposure to contaminants would be through dermal contact or ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil where soil is exposed, such as in gardens or areas of landscaping.
There is considered to be no risk beneath buildings and paving as in such areas there is no pathway by which the pollutant linkage may be completed.
Plans provided indicate TP4 to be located under hardstanding, whilst TP1 is located in a garden area. Remediation is therefore considered necessary. It is recommended that further limited investigations are carried out prior to remediation proposals being finalised in order that the extent of the contamination can be established.
Soil Contamination and Construction Workers, Maintenance Workers and the Public:
Risks to site workers and site neighbours during redevelopment are again primarily through dermal contact, ingestion and inhalation of contaminants. It is considered that the degree of contamination observed poses a low risk to site workers and a very low risk to site neighbours.
In order to reduce the risks of site workers during redevelopment, safety measures should be adopted on site.
Workers should avoid contact with the soil by the use of protective boots, overalls and gloves, and should wash before eating, drinking and using the toilet.
To prevent inhalation of contaminants by site workers and wind blown transfer of contaminants off site, the generation of dust should be avoided, this may be achieved by spraying the materials with water if necessary. Measures should be taken to ensure that contaminated materials are not accidentally transferred off site, for example on vehicle tyres.

It is considered very unlikely that the levels of benzo(a)pyrene encountered will have an effect on the underlying secondary aquifer. Furthermore, elevated levels in garden areas will be remediated against, whilst in other areas the contaminants will be covered by hardstanding, which will significantly reduce the potential for downward leaching of the contaminants. It is also considered very unlikely that the water table will rise to a level sufficient to come into contact with any contamination.
Therefore there is considered to be no significant risk to the secondary aquifer below the site.

5.4 Hazardous Gases
Given the presence of Made Ground to a depth of 2.8m, with organic matter within this Made Ground, it is considered that hazardous ground gases may be produced.
Ground gas monitoring should therefore be undertaken to assess this risk

Extract from Suffolk Free Press 28th May 2012

Newspaper headline reads:- Councillors give Bures protests short shrift

The construction of 35 new homes in Bures has been granted permission – despite the protests of villagers.

Proposals to build a variety of properties, including flats, bungalows and houses, on a site south of Friends Field went before a development committee at Babergh District Council on Wednesday.

Although a combined total of 115 residents from Friends Field, Claypits Avenue and Tawneys Ride had signed two petitions outlining their grievances with the development, the plans were approved.

Bures District Councillor Peter Holbrook opposed the plans, citing over development, along with parking and traffic issues.“I wasn’t happy with the decision,” said Mr Holbrook.
“I am not against the principle because the site has been allocated for housing but the primary school is already at capacity and the roads around the school get clogged up.
“There is insufficient parking on the development and this will cause big problems in other parts of the village.”

Bures Parish Council had objected to the plans on the grounds of increased congestion and advice from the Suffolk Wildlife Trust that the site may be of ecological interest.

Parish councillors also argued that the positioning of the 12 affordable houses on the development, next to another area of affordable housing in Tawneys Ride, gave the impression of a “ghetto area”.

Mr Holbrook, who lives in Croftside, Bures, said these views should have been given more weight by the ruling committee.

“For 115 people to sign these petitions is a very big percentage in a small village,” he said.

“There are problems with access to Tawneys Ride due to the presence of garages – a recipe for disaster with people reversing into the path of speeding cars.”

The plans, which were submitted by property development company Charles Church, were approved subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement – money to offset the impact of the development – and under the provision the homes are built within the next three years.

Work is due to start this summer and the first homes are expected to be ready later this year.

===========================================================================================

May 16th 2012

Babergh Development Committee granted planning consent to build 35 homes on this land.
This was despite 115 objections mainly concerning access and traffic along already congested roads.
Bures St Mary Parish Council opposes these plans on Highways, Road Safety and School concerns.
It would appear that the traffic problems didnt warrant any discussion at the meeting.

NOTE:- The committee members listed below, who have our interests at heart !
With these councillors representing wards such as Chelmondistan, Brantham, Copdock, Holbook, Bentley, Lindsey etc what possible interest have they in our congested village.
Well done to our own Councillor Peter Holbrook, for speaking out against this development.

Babergh Planning Committee Membership

* C W Arthey.....Lindsey, IPSWICH
* M F M Bamford........Bentley IPSWICH
* P K Beer (Chairman).... Broom Street, Great Cornard
* M J Deacon..........Chelmondiston
* K Grandon.........Hadleigh
* P J Holbrook............BURES, ..................STRONGLY OBJECTED TO PLANS - excellent
* P Jones............Copdock and Washbrook
* D H Keane............Bildeston,
* N MacMaster............Great Cornard
* M O Munson.............Hadleigh
* A F D W Osborne...........SUDBURY
* D C Rose............Holbrook,
* R C Smith...........SUDBURY
* R W Thake..........Glemsford,
* A J Ward...........Brantham, MANNINGTREE

Soil test rig late 2011 Richard Jackson of Hadleigh.   See above for test results

Once again in Mid 2004, this plot of land was once again been put forward as a possible site for housing development. This time however, Babergh District Council have elected to place this area in their "Local Plan" suitable for housing. Although this was tentatively supported by the local Parish Council, very few residents agreed with this change of use, all were concerned by the restricted access, density of the housing and school overcrowding. Residents were once again asked by Babergh for their comments, prior to the Local Plan Public enquiry. When the Inspectors report and comments were quoted back to them from 1988/9, the reply given by the District Council was that these were now "invalid objections" The conclusion reached by Babergh was that:- "The Inspector is asked to make no changes in the light of all of these objections" The District Council readily agreed with the Planning Inspector in 1988, but now disagree with him when they are clambering for land. During September/October 2004, there was the Public Enquiry where the Government Inspector decided in favour of the District Council. It has now been included in the Local Plan as land suitable for housing development Extract from EADT/Suffolk Free Press
Planning Application B/933/88 In 1988. developers (Vaughan and Blyth, Colchester) applied for planning permission to erect 19 properties on this land. Objections were made by the residents and the parish council. Babergh District Council refused this application on the grounds: (a)The Site is located outside the built-up limits of the village as defined in the Planning Guidlines. This states that land uses will remain for the most part undisturbed and applications for residentional development will not normally be approved. (b) The proposal represents an undesirable extension to the built-up area in the countryside which if permitted would be to the detriment of the character of this local village, in addition it would also create a precedent for similar proposals and would adversely affect the satisfactory pattern of development in this locality. (c) The site lies within the potential extension to the Dedham Vale AONB which also lies within the Stour Valley Special Landscape Area. where the Council seeks to safeguard the landscape ......... . (d) Visibilty at the junction of Friends Field with Cuckoo Hill is substandard and results in Traffic dangers   Vaughan Blyth then went to an appeal. The HM Planning Inspector again refused this application. The Inspector agreed with all the refusal reasons given by Babergh in addition to these additional comments:- (a)" .....the site lies within the Bures conservation area adjacent to its eastern edge and being densely populated with fruit trees it represents in my view an important visual feature and one which fulfills a worthwhile transitional function between the neighbouring housing and the open countryside. As such, it seems to me to be a detrimental element in the pleasnat semi-rural character and apperance of an otherwisw relatively unremarkable part of the conservation area and the village............................................... (b) Babergh also refer to the lack of adeqaute visibility at the junction of Friends Field and Cuckoo Hill, any increased usage would cause traffic dangers. ..........in the absence of any further information that the juction could be improved without spoiling the rural appearance of this part of Cuckoo Hill, I see this as another defect of the appeal proposal Full Report After this, harmony was restored and the orchard once again flourished with its magnificent display of pink apple blossom, that could be seen from miles around. ISSUE 2 Documents from Babergh DC
	Orchard to the rear of Friends Field circa 1980 (Courtesy of Aerial Scenes, Earls Colne Airfield)