Pre-school replacement facility at Abc Pre School Country Primary School Strickmere, Stratford St Mary

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing an unused single-storey modular pre-school and building a replacement facility with parking, cycle storage, heat pumps and solar panels.

“Development of Description Full Planning Application - Demolition of existing unused single storey modular pre-school building and construction of single storey pre-school facility with dual pitch and flat roofs. flat roofs.”

“Location Abc Pre School, Country Primary School, Strickmere, Stratford St Mary, Colchester, Suffolk, CO7 6YG…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is beside the primary school and playing field, bordered by homes, within the settlement boundary and partly within Flood Zone 2.

“When considering the surroundings of the site, it holds a close relationship with both the Primary School to the south and playing field to the east. To both the north and west the site is bordered by residential properties that are located on Strickmere.”

“The site is located within the defined Stratford St Mary Settlement Boundary, which has been brought forward from the previous Development Plans as settlement boundaries have not been revisited within the Babergh Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan – Part 1 (November 2023).”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and refusal

The existing building had temporary permissions, while an earlier similar application was refused because highway and air-source heat-pump noise information was missing.

“Firstly: the application was refused on highways grounds. It was considered that insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the highway network. During the course of the application a transport statement was requested but was not provided.”

“Alongside this, the application was also refused on noise grounds. It was considered that insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that the proposed air source heat pumps would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers through noise. An acoustic assessment was requested but was not provided.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended approval

Officers considered the proposal acceptable because additional highway, transport, flood, design and noise information addressed the main concerns, subject to conditions.

“Subject to compliance with conditions as suggested by the Local Highway Authority, the development proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of demonstrating safe and suitable…”

“Subject to compliance with conditions as suggested by The Council’s Environmental Health Team, the development proposal is not considered to detrimentally affect the residential amenity of neighbouring residents by way of visual or audible disturbance. It would likely not be possible to argue effectively that undue noise would cause a harm to surrounding users given the information provided.”

Officer report

Objections and support

The consultation included 30 objections and three supporting comments, plus petitions containing 64 valid signatures, covering amenity, highways, design, environment and community issues.

“Alongside this, a petition has also been received in two parts. Following verification from The Council’s Democratic Services Team the petition received 30 th April 2026 contained 75 signatures, 42 of which were accepted as valid with 33 rejected. These rejections are due to their either not being a full name or the signatory not residing in the Babergh area.”

“Boundary issues • Building work • Impact on a conservation area • Conflict with the District Plan • Conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan • Conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework • Design • Development too high • Dominating • Health & safety • Inadequate access • Inadequate parking • Inadequate public transport • Increase in anti-social behaviour • Increase in traffic/highways issues • Light pollution • Loss of open space • Loss of outlook • Loss of parking •…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Members heard from a Parish Council representative, an objector, the applicant and the Ward Member, and received clarification from the highways officer.

What members debated

Members debated parking and school-time congestion, ways to address parking, noise from the heat pump, wraparound care, community benefits, local need and policy compliance.

“Members debated the application on issues including: the concerns over parking, the existing parking issues in the area due to the location of the primary school, how the parking issues could be addressed, and the low level of potential noise from the Air Source Heat Pump.”

“Members continued to debate the application on issues including: the parking issues during school drop off and pick up times, the benefits of a facility providing wrap around care close to the primary school, the benefits to the community of the registered charity status of the proposal, the local need for the facility, and compliance with the Joint Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors voted by nine votes for and two against a proposal to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“Councillor Beer proposed that the application be approved as detailed in the officer recommendation. Councillor Grandon seconded the proposal.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to conditions covering the building, ecology, parking, construction, transport, flooding, noise, lighting and emissions.

“That Members GRANT planning permission subject to the following conditions and informatives and/or any others as may be deemed necessary by the Chief Planning Officer:”

“Conditions: • Commencement time limit • Approved plans and documents • Compliance with Preliminary Ecological Appraisal & Preliminary Roost Assessment • Biodiversity enhancement measures • Vehicle manoeuvring and parking • Compliance with Construction Management Plan • Compliance with Transport Statement • Compliance with Flood Risk Assessment • External plan noise • External lighting • Emissions…”

Minutes