Meeting Details

The Democratic Services Officer opened the meeting and sought nominations for a Chair of the Committee for the 2024/25 Municipal Year. 

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Daly it was 

RESOLVED

That Councillor Plummer be elected Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee for the 2024/25 Municipal Year.

The Chair sought nominations for a Vice-Chair of the Committee for the 2024/25 Municipal Year. 
 
On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was

RESOLVED

That Councillor Packard be elected Vice-Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee for the 2024/25 Municipal Year.

Councillor Ewart referred to item 4 of the minutes and queried why there was no reference to her comments regarding the energy projects meeting with Councillor Daly as it was important for residents to know the questions Ward Councillors were asking on their behalf.  The Democratic Services Officer clarified that minutes were not verbatim and a balance had to be struck on what to include given the length of the minutes overall, however, she agreed to discuss the matter further with colleagues.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 11 April 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a presentation on energy projects in East Suffolk from the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change. 

It was noted that a cross party NSIP Working Group had been set up and would consider the impact of each project to try to ensure that impact on the district was minimalised. Clarification was sought on the composition of the Working Group and the Cabinet Member stated that he was keen to ensure the Group included members from the host parishes to get the views of the residents and he added that each Group Leader had been invited to nominate representatives.

Reference was made to the application for demolishing Sizewell A by 2096 and a query was raised as to how that would be done at the same time as Sizewell C was being built.  It was noted that the inter-relationship between A and C would be taken into account and conditions could be imposed if there were any concerns.

There being no further questions, the Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for his presentation.

The Committee received the six monthly update from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management in relation to major sites across the district and in particular on garden villages and neighbourhoods. He added that he hoped appointments to his previous post of Development Manager and the Major Sites Manager vacancy would be completed by the next meeting but that, in the meantime, an Assistant Planner had been appointed for the Major Sites Team to add capacity and support.

The following responses were given to Members' queries:

• The Woods Meadow link road was dependent on surface water drainage issues which would hopefully be resolved soon to enable the road to be built, especially bearing in mind it was important for the wider review of the road network that would be undertaken when the link road and the Gull Wing Bridge were open as both would change the way traffic moved around the area. The remediation works on the former Borthwicks (fat and bone) site had been signed off last month.  Persimmon had consulted with the Parish Council and residents, and Officers had also met recently with Oulton Parish Council. 
• The effects of the Anglian Water plant on the Corton Garden Village were an ongoing matter to ensure odour effects were not significant when the development came forward and the houses were the right distance away from the plant.
• There was no intention for houses to be built on the Grove woodland in northern Felixstowe as it was an important community open space, however, it was likely there would be walking and cycling infrastructure.  It was expected the Master Plan would enhance the Grove as an integral part of the community and Council owned land was being looked at to see what could come forward for housing with access routes to the Grove and connectivity from the paddocks to the open fields. The Healthy Environment SPD agreed last month stated the need to respect open space.  In respect of Eastwood Ho, if there was development then compensation and more open space could be expected as there was a need to provide very natural spaces and high quality recreation spaces as part of the Habitats Regulations requirements.
• The Council as a Planning Authority would not be able to influence the withdrawal of land to save it from development.  As a landowner, however, the Council could consider it but there needed to be a balance because if the amount of land was reduced then that would impact on the number of houses being built in this location and consideration would then have to be given to building elsewhere.
• There was a lot of opportunity to maximise cycling, walking and wheeling as part of the masterplan process, particularly for around north Felixstowe.
• An update on the Cycling, Walking and Wheeling Working Group as well as the new Transport Member Working Group could be given at future meetings.
• The North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood was a long term process with major sites delivered over 15 years so pausing planning to enable any empty properties in the area to be occupied would be premature.
• The Housing Land Supply report was currently being updated and landowners of allocated sites or sites with permission for five housing units or more had been written to in order to get a more up to date picture of what was coming forward.
• Highways had stated that the current network around Felixstowe could accommodate the additional housing, however, a local plan review would look at the needs and determine if a new road into Felixstowe was required although considerable growth was needed before new roads were built.

The Committee received report ES/2007  of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided an update on key elements of the current work programme, including the preparation of Supplementary Planning Documents and Neighbourhood Plans, and on housing delivery. Updates, as appropriate, were also included for Specialist Services (Design and Heritage, Arboriculture and Landscape (including Rights of Way) and Ecology) that formed part of the Planning Policy and Delivery Team, together with an update on the delivery of infrastructure to support growth through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

The Cabinet Member invited the Planning Manager (Policy, Delivery and Specialist Services) to comment on the report. The Planning Manager referred in particular to paragraph 2.16 of the report and the preparation of a Developer Charter as a tool to encourage developers to achieve higher environmental standards than those set out in the current Local Plan in advance of new policies being developed as part of the Local Plans review.  House builders would be consulted in drawing up the Charter and, once in place, those achieving the Charter standard would be recognised, possibly as part of the Quality of Place Awards.  It was thought that the Charter would include how developers worked with communities during the pre-application process, how they kept residents updated throughout, to post-application stage in relation to mitigating the impacts of construction on residents including traffic, noise and dust etc. The Cabinet Member stated that there had been very positive dialogue with the Brightwell Lakes developers throughout their application and she envisaged that landscaping would also be included in the Charter. 

The Chair invited questions to the Cabinet Member. In response to a query regarding how CIL money was spent, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that it had been a record year with over £7.2m CIL.  The CIL Spending Working Group looked at bids for spending the money and a lot went to Town and Parish Council for Neighbourhood CIL. There were also local CIL funds where match funding was given eg for skateboard/play areas etc.  It had been recommended this year that an amount be ringfenced for play and in future enough CIL money was likely to be set aside for education and health.  Concern was expressed that a bid process was used rather than looking at the money strategically, especially given some areas such as Felixstowe generated a lot of CIL but it might not be spent in that area.  The Cabinet Member stated that she was happy to look into that and added that more bids were being received lately from schools and for health related projects.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that recently there had been a lot of focus on infrastructure required in Felixstowe and the Trimleys and the annual Infrastructure Funding Statement that accompanied the CIL Spend Report would be available soon.

In response to a question on Neighbourhood Plans, the Planning Manager reported that 23 Neighbourhood Plans had been adopted since 2015 with two new ones going to Full Council in July.  There were also 12-20 in different stages of preparation, partly due to some Parishes being less active than others.  She explained that a previous Town and Parish Council Forum had been dedicated to Neighbourhood Plans and had included speakers from several Parishes that had a Plan approved to enable others to learn about the work and commitment required, as well as the timescales involved.  She acknowledged that Neighbourhood Plans might not be suitable for all Parishes but added that information was available on the Council's website and the team was happy to discuss what was involved with any Parishes thinking about it.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that Town and Parish Council Forums were held every six months and lots of information was made available to them but in addition, he was trying to get out to as many areas as he could.  He clarified that each Parish Council was invited to have two attendees and it was encouraged that one of these would be the Clerk.  He added that attendance was recorded and he would be reaching out to any Parish Councils who had not attended in the past.  Clarification was sought as to whether ESPA were invited and it was confirmed that they were.  The Committee was informed that the East Suffolk Planning Alliance was a new group formed in the last year and Officers were engaging with them quite closely and there was talk about creating a Community Engagement Group and having defined terms of reference. 

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Bennett it was

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2002 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management which sought agreement to:

• make new Article 4 Directions to replace the existing Article 4 Directions in the Conservation Areas in Southwold, Wangford and Homersfield covering amended areas;
• make a new Article 4 Direction in the Marlesford Conservation Area where no such Direction currently existed;
• agree the making of a new Article 4 Direction in the Walberswick Quay area of the Walberswick Conservation Area to ensure that the area was still protected following the removal of the Southwold Harbour and Walberswick Quay Conservation Area and the changes to the Southwold Article 4 Direction.

Councillor Bennett left the meeting at 11.48am.

The Committee was reminded that Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) allowed local planning authorities to make directions restricting permitted development rights (pdrs) within a conservation area, meaning that development normally allowed under pdrs would require planning permission.

 The Design and Heritage Officer explained that Marlesford was a pilot project as it was the Parish Council that had expressed an interest in having an Article 4 Direction.  She added that there would be public consultation on the proposal.  She also explained that new guidance was that Directions should be reviewed to ensure that as small areas as possible were covered and evidenced which had resulted in the Wangford and Homersfield areas being reduced. She reminded Members that Article 4 Directions only applied to residential dwelling houses so areas would be concentrated on where they had the most impact and would keep the historic character of a village. A photo survey would be undertaken of all the building in the area.  It was clarified that the proposed new Article 4 Directions would not come into effect until such time as they were confirmed by a future meeting of the Committee (following public consultation) so, in the meantime, where relevant, the existing Article 4 Directions would remain in place.

Councillor Bennett re-joined the meeting at 11.50am.

Concern was expressed that the report did not contain any evidence for having an Article 4 direction in Marlesford and it was suggested that this was required to establish the need before public consultation went ahead.  The Design and Heritage Officer referred to the maps attached to the report and stated that the field surveys carried out had shown there was a good survival of historic windows and doors etc in the area, however, the Parish Council had raised the fact that there had been some loss of these when requesting the Direction.

The point was made that there was a difficult balance between preserving heritage versus energy efficiency in these types of historical areas.  It was clarified that if they were the original windows then the preference was for them to be retained, however, homeowners could have secondary glazing installed but if they were not the original windows then they could replace with double glazing.  It was stressed that Article 4 Directions addressed cumulative change to an area and allowed the Council to have some control.

In response to a query on how residents would be consulted, the Design and Heritage Officer explained that all residents in a proposed area would receive a letter and guidance leaflet explaining the restrictions and there would be site notices and adverts in the press.  She added that it was also added to Land Charges so would come up when a search was carried out.

Councillor Graham left the meeting at 11.59am.

Clarification was sought as to why it looked in the maps as if the vet surgery was included in Wangford and the Design and Heritage Officer responded that they had tried to keep the area to the centre of the village, however, she reminded Members that if a property was not residential then the Article 4 Direction would not apply even if it was located in the defined area.  The point was made that residents would have to pay for planning permission so the process needed to be as painless as possible and not include any properties that had no historic value.  The Design and Heritage Officer stated what whilst specific buildings could be selected rather than a wider area, this approach made it difficult for those on the ground to know if they were in or out of the Direction.

Councillor Graham re-joined the meeting at 12.01pm.

The Design and Heritage Officer clarified that East Suffolk used the same approach as other Councils and had already reduced some areas, however, she acknowledged that how the Council communicated with residents could be reviewed and they would ensure that the public was clear on which properties were included, how and when it would go ahead.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management referred to there being three separate areas in Wangford as they had taken care to exclude where the Direction was not needed and instead had targeted where it was so that the Council had a level of control.

Councillor Ninnmey left the meeting at 12.03pm.

In response to a query, the Design and Heritage Officer clarified that a Direction was not just restricted to historical buildings so even if a property was new in the area then it was still protected.

The Democratic Services Officer reminded those Members that had left the room during discussion of this item that they could not take part in the voting.

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Ashdown it was

RESOLVED:

1.  That approval be given to the making of new Article 4 Directions in the Southwold, Homersfield, Wangford Conservation Areas and the Walberswick Quay area of the Walberswick Conservation Area, covering amended areas shown on the maps and including those properties and land included in the schedule at Appendices A-D.

2. That approval be given to the making of a new Article 4 direction in Marlesford, where there was currently no such Direction in place, covering the area shown on the map including those properties and land included in the schedule at Appendix E.

3. That the statutory public consultation period start on 15 July 2024 and conclude on August 26 August 2024 to collect public representations, including from members of the public affected by the proposed changes.

4. That, following the statutory public consultation period, the new Article 4 Directions be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on 7 October 2024 to consider their confirmation on 14 October 2024.

5.  That the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, be authorised to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Article 4 Directions and accompanying maps, prior to the public consultation period.

The meeting adjourned at 12.10pm and Councillor Daly left.  The meeting reconvened at 12.18pm.

 The Committee received report ES/2005 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided the quarterly and annual figures for the number of ‘Planning Applications’ and Planning related applications determined within government targets or agreed extensions of time within the most recently completed financial quarter.

 The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management) summarised the 2023/24 statistics in the report and highlighted in particular that the Council was exceeding both the national and its own stretch target in relation to determining major planning applications, exceeding national targets for non-major planning applications and had dealt with a significant number of formal complaints, EIR and FOI requests.

 Clarification was sought on whether the Council could learn anything in relation to the complaints that were upheld or partially upheld.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the Team was now much better at actively monitoring the range and nature of complaints which had changed over the last two year.  Previously complaints had tended to be about poor customer relations on planning permissions whereas now the trend was about the follow up on enforcement cases and this had been fed into the Enforcement Implementation Action Plan. A request was made that the Committee receive more information on the root causes of complaints at future meetings and it was agreed that officers would liaise with the Head of Digital, Programme Management and Customer Services on whether this should be just in the Planning Team or as part of the Council wide Customer Services Strategy.  It was noted that complaints regarding enforcement tended to be from neighbours and the officers agreed to review how the questions were asked and the information available.

In relation to pre-application discussions, it was noted that these were available to all developers and were a useful tool to filter out applications and gave officers an opportunity to shape developments.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management referred to the recently updated Validation Checklist and stated that he thought there were more enhancements that could be added to provide a more efficient process for householders and small developers, with more being required of major developers.  He added that Councils were not able to make a profit on fees and that the LGA's Planning Advisory Service review of the pre-application process had shown that it varied greatly across the country.  He also confirmed that, once agreed, the Charter would be included as part of those pre-application discussions.

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2003 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided an update on the planning performance of the Development Management team in terms of the quality and quantity of appeal decisions received from the Planning Inspectorate following refusal of planning permission by East Suffolk Council.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced the report and the Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) highlighted that, as part of the appeal process, applicants could seek an award of costs against the council, however, there were no such applications for costs during this recording period, which was consistent with the previous financial year, during which there were also no cost decisions.

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Ashdown it was

RESOLVED

That the report concerning the appeal performance of the team and the appendix containing a summary of appeal decisions be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2006 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided a review of the work of the Strategic, North, and South Planning Committees, and the operation of the Planning Referral Panel for the 2023/24 Municipal Year.

Councillor Yule introduced the report and invited the Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) to comment. The Principal Planner gave a presentation summarising the information set out in the report and referred to the recommendations and update sheet.  She also expressed concern at the lack of written comments/involvement of Members in the consultation process, resulting in a low number of applications triggering the call in process.

A Councillor expressed concern that the call in process was not being fully utilised and that this Council had a low percentage of applications being considered by the formal Committee in comparison to other Local Authorities and the LGA guidelines.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reminded Members that the process had been changed about a year ago so that Ward Councillors and Town/Parish Councils could request applications go straight to the formal Committee, which can then trigger the call in process.  He encouraged Members to attend the Referral Panel to see how the process worked.  He also stressed the need for the right amount of applications to come forward to Committee bearing in mind Officer/Member capacity.

The point was made that all a Ward Councillor could do at a Referral Panel was to confirm the accuracy of a report and concern was expressed that the process was not as democratic as it could be.  The Cabinet Member acknowledged Members' frustration but stressed that the Referral Panel was not a mini Committee so it was not a good idea for Ward Councillors to give an opinion on an application at a Panel but they were welcome to do so at a formal Committee meeting.

 Councillor Ninnmey left the meeting at 1pm.

The Chair suggested that it would help the process if more Ward Councillors responded to the consultation on applications so the Panel could know their views.  She added that she thought enabling Ward Councillors and possibly even Town and Parish Council representatives to speak for a minute or so at Referral Panel would not make it a mini Committee.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reminded the Committee that the Referral Panel was only an advisory process on the direction the application should take so introducing a level of public speaking would lead to discussions on the application itself.  He suggested waiting to see how the call in process worked and if it was not effective then changes to the Referral Panel be considered.  He explained that the Audit and Governance Committee had suggested the effectiveness of the call in process be reviewed six months after implementation so he would do a report back to that and this Committee after this time.

Reference was made to an instance where a Councillor had asked to call in an application but had not been allowed to.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management acknowledged that there had been some misunderstandings in that particular case but encouraged Members to try the new process and react to notifications when there was an application in their Ward.  Officers would then review the process, although he stressed that there was a need to try to avoid a large increase in applications going to Committee. 

A suggestion was made that a briefing be offered to all Members on their Ward Councillor role in planning applications, the call in process and what constituted pre-determination of an application. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management agreed, adding that he would also raise it at the Town and Parish Council Forum too. He encouraged Members who received notification of an application to attend the Referral Panel to listen to the presentation but stressed that the real influence Ward Councillors had was as part of the consultation process and if their view was the same as the Parish Council then a call in could be triggered. He added that the Planning aspects of the Constitution were being reviewed and if there were any major changes then they would have to be looked at by the Audit and Governance Committee.

Concern was expressed that the current process was restrictive so perhaps having other people on the Panel would be helpful, especially given the two largest towns in the district were not represented on the Panel. The point was made, however, that the Referral Panel was not political and only looked at planning considerations so it did not need to have political proportionality.  Members were reminded that all Councillors were welcome to attend any Panel meetings to observe.

Councillor Folley left the meeting at 1.25pm.

A query was raised as to whether there was scope to add another Member to the Referral Panel from either Planning North or South on rotation.  The Chair clarified that sometimes there were three or four members present on the Panel and they could refer to the Head of Service too.  She added that Ward Councillors should look at Public Access and talk to their Parish Councils and then respond to the consultation as that held weight with the Planning Committees.

In relation to the proposal to amend the start time of meetings to enable longer meetings, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that this was being suggested in case the number of applications going to Committee increased.  Several Members stated that they preferred to start in the mornings at either 9.30am or 10am whereas others were happy to retain the 2pm start or bring it forward to 1.30pm given only a few had lasted more than about 4 hours and it was more difficult to park at the offices in the mornings than the afternoons.  Clarification was sought on whether a morning start would be more difficult for the applicants/agents, the public and Town and Parish Councils representatives given most would not want to hang around for most of the day waiting for their application to be heard.  It was also queried whether it would be more difficult to schedule speakers if it went beyond lunchtime.  The Chair stated that she accepted starting in the morning would mean that meetings would go on beyond lunch but she hoped they would not go on for an entire day every month.   A suggestion was made that a decision on whether to alter the start times should be postponed to understand the impact of the call in process on the number of applications going to Committee and to review what other Authorities did.

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Packard it was

RESOLVED

1. That the report in respect of the performance of the Development Management Team in terms of the speed of determining planning applications be noted and it was agreed that regular updates would be given to the Committee on Building Control and Coastal Management.

2. That a report in relation to the start time of Planning Committee meetings be considered at a future meeting.

The Committee received report ES/2001 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided information on the performance of the enforcement section of the Development Management Team. 

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2004 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided an update on progress of the Enforcement Improvement Action Plan.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reported that the Action Plan set out some changes and additional resources, together with an ongoing action from the Audit and Governance Committee relating to digital improvement and it was noted that an update on this was being considered by that Committee tonight.

Councillor Ashton left the meeting at 1.46pm.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the report went into the process and programme of work with the Digital Team which he proposed the Strategic Planning Committee have an oversight on.  He added that improvements had already been made to enforcement reports as feedback had been received from Planning Committee Members that they wanted more information on cases reaching the legal stage so more detail would be given provided it did not compromise the Council's legal position. Another action was to improve communication on cases across the district so Members and Town and Parish Councils knew what was going on in an area.  An additional Enforcement Officer had been employed last year which had helped but having another Officer would help to enforce the street scene eg signage and shop windows.  Building Control and the Enforcement Team were working closely with developers on construction management which was presenting an issue eg starting construction earlier in the morning than they should.  In response to a question from the Chair, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that Officers were recommending employing an additional Enforcement Officer subject to the business case.

On the proposition of Councillor Yule, seconded by Councillor Ashdown it was

RESOLVED

1. That the report concerning the Enforcement Improvement Action Plan be noted and it be agreed that further update reports would be provided on progress annually, although any changes/progress would also be included in the usual quarterly reports to enable Members to ask questions. 

2. That the Strategic Planning Committee recognise and agree to overseeing the actions in Appendix A, which were also being provided to the Audit and Governance Committee on 8th July 2024.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that he was keen to continue providing training opportunities for both East Suffolk Members and Town and Parish Councillors.  He added that over 20 hours of training had been given to East Suffolk Councillors over the past year and suggested the following training be provided for Committee Members:

• Highways
• Flood
• Environmental protection matters eg contaminated land, odour, noise etc.

The Chair suggested an all Member session on how to engage with the planning process, respond to consultations and what constituted pre-determination.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management agreed and stated that case studies and perhaps a mock public inquiry would also be useful.

Councillor Ashdown suggested that site visits should revert to being held about a week before the Committee so that minutes could be sent round to Members rather than having them on the morning of Committees. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management agreed to review this, acknowledging that having them in advance gave Members time to digest what they had seen, but he added that it all came down to scheduling and the need to maximise the number of Members attending site visits as possible.  The Cabinet Member suggested that it might be useful for Members to be reminded of the protocol for site visits.