Creeting St Peter - some thoughts on Poundfield Products

As possibly expected, Monday night saw a slightly uncomfortable meeting. A packed agenda saw us adopt our 2021/22 budget and set our precept - we have not raised the band D charge, leaving it at the same £52.27 that it is this year. We declared a Climate Emergency without challenge, and dealt with the rest of the business in our usual efficient manner.

Of course, the spectre of Gateway 14 hangs over us still, but until the actual planning application comes in, we’re in limbo to a certain extent. However, we did have the application from Poundfield Products to expand their facility to consider. Their Managing Director had sought an invitation to attend - the same gentleman who had announced by e-mail that he would have nothing to do with the Parish Council whilst I was still Chair. You might guess that my welcome might be a less than entirely warm one.

The problem, I suspect, is that he has little understanding of what a Parish Council does. He seems to be under the impression that we should be supporting a growing local business, whereas our role is to represent the interests of our residents. That does lead to a degree of conflict.

It turned out that he wanted to do two things, firstly to explain what his company were doing to meet our concerns and why we should support expansion, secondly to express his unhappiness about the objections from local residents. I did have to politely explain that we had no control over the right to free expression of the citizenry, nor would we seek to influence them - they have a right to express their concerns, just as he does. However, we had to measure the likely impacts of expansion on our community.

We are concerned about the impact on local roads of additional heavy goods vehicles given that they are not designed to handle such weights and are suffering significant, and potentially dangerous, degradation already - the road edges are already collapsing in a number of places, offering hazards to traffic after dark. The rural location of the facility is already impacting on overlooking properties, and by encroaching towards the valley of the River Gipping, it jeopardises the ecosystem of the valley floor.

And finally, the expansion, combined with the company’s continued attempts to overturn the restrictions on operating hours included as part of the conditions for approval of the facility in the first place, will cause disturbance and loss of amenity to those living on Mill Lane and Fen Lane, as heavy lorries and staff arrive as early as 5.30 a.m.

In truth, it was a remarkably stupid place to put such an industrial facility in the first place, with poor infrastructure, no public transport for staff to use and little in the way of parking. However, that fight was lost long ago and whilst relocation to a more appropriate, better resourced site would probably be in everyone’s interests, it is acknowledged that too much capital investment has been sunk into the current site for that to be a credible option.

We voted to object, as was probably always likely, although there was some sympathy for what Poundfield Products are trying to do. The problem is that the business has a long and somewhat ignoble record of subverting planning conditions, and the initial exchange went badly wrong from their perspective. I do not, for example, take kindly to be talked over at a meeting by his local plant manager.

There was an unexpected ending though, when Mr Roddy offered us £7,000 towards Parish projects. I admit to having been taken somewhat by surprise, especially as we had just voted to object to his company’s planning application. I wasn’t really sure what to say in response but took the sensible view that, if in doubt, seek advice. Subsequently, I’ve let the Parochial Church Council know that there are funds potentially available, and that they should approach him - the Church Room needs work done on it, and £7,000 would go a long way towards funding that.

So, another eventful meeting came to a close, and I could retreat to my armchair and ponder over what I had learned...

Creeting St Peter - a philosophical dilemma for the Chair...

As Chair of Creeting St Peter Parish Council, one of the most troubling aspects of the role is the ongoing saga of the Poundfield Products facility at the southern end of the Parish.

In truth, the problems started with the very establishment of a concrete products factory in a river valley location, poorly served by the road network, and surrounded by agricultural land. The original owners had a rather challenging relationship with the village, tending to disregard planning conditions where it suited and using the weakness of the District Council’s planning enforcement team to extend the business over time.

The takeover of the business by SigmaRoc plc in 2017/18 promised a new relationship between business and community but, sadly, that proved to be a bit of a false dawn. And, following a difficult Parish Council meeting last January during which the local manager decided it was a good idea to talk over the Chair of the meeting despite numerous attempts on my part to restore order, meaningful dialogue ceased.

The problem is that, despite planning conditions that limit their operating hours, they insist on the right to start earlier, with the concomitant impact on local residents. They applied for an alteration on the basis of custom and practice, which was refused by the District Council in the basis that they had not proved their case, and followed that up with a formal request for such an alteration. That’s been pending now for more than a year, with a deafening silence from Mid Suffolk District Council in the meantime. It would be fair to say that residents weren’t keen.

At the time, we were told that the business had no plans to expand its footprint. A year later, the business has lodged a planning application to expand onto an area of agricultural land it owns. The stated intention is that the expansion will be for storage and outdoor manufacture only, with no new buildings proposed.

They are, of course, perfectly at liberty to apply. Likewise, residents are perfectly at liberty to object and have already done so in some cases. As Chair of the Council, my role is to enable councillors to consider the views of residents, determine what might be an appropriate response in our capacity as statutory consultees, and work with our Clerk to ensure that this is submitted in a timely manner.

I have my reservations about the application, some of which are linked to the attitude of the company towards compliance with the planning constraints placed upon it. But, ultimately, we must be guided by policy and impact, and rely on Mid Suffolk District Council to enforce the conditions they choose to set.

It’s likely to be a lively meeting, made more so by the apparent desire of the Managing Director, Michael Roddy, to attend. It would be fair to say that our personal relationship is somewhat strained, but we’ll doubtless see what it is he wants to contribute to our deliberations.

I’m going to have to be on the top of my game on Monday night...

Are difficult planning applications like buses? Because it surely feels like it right now...

If having the challenge of the Gateway 14 planning application wasn’t bad enough, we’re now faced with a proposal to expand the Poundfield Products facility at the other end of the Parish.

Given that the applicants had a fairly poor record of compliance with planning constraints previous to their takeover by Sigma Roc plc, and that the relationship between the new owners and the village is, how can I put it, suboptimal, we are wary as to their intent.

The new proposal is to extend towards the River Gipping by adding an outdoor storage and fabrication area and likely objections are pretty obvious, in truth. The impact on the setting of Creeting Hall, both visually and in terms of noise, as well as the probable effect on Mill Lane, already damaged in places by the sheer weight of lorries transporting concrete products out towards the A14, are all likely to be factors in resident objections.

Naturally, the Parish Council will meet to consider our response, and I don’t want to prejudge that. But I am hesitant to support anything that will lead to more traffic from what is already a highly unsuitable site for a concrete products factory, and given the persistent breaches of the working hours conditions - admitted by the local management in the presence of one of our two District councillors - you can’t help but wonder if an outdoor fabrication area is likely to impact on the residents of the clutch of houses at Creeting Hall.

A village resident described the application as being “their traditional Christmas planning application” and, whilst my memory isn’t good enough to recall the accuracy of that, it does feel sometimes as though their strategy is intended to make it as difficult as possible to make a balanced and complete response.

Ah well, we’ll struggle on, I guess, but I have to admit, it does feel a bit wearing so early in the year...