Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Ashton, Councillor Hedgley and Councillor Yule.

Councillor Molyneux attended as substitute for Councillor Yule.

On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 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.

The Cabinet Member shared slides which gave a high-level overview of each of the projects, focusing in on key areas of interest, a copy of the slides was made available to the Committee members.

The Cabinet Member advised on the engagement that had taken place with Sea Link and that they were feeding in to how Sea Link planned to come ashore and how they will proceed. He told the Committee that the next step for Sea Link was the DCO Application submission to PINS which was expected in Quarter 1 of 2025 noting the importance of being involved at this pre-application stage.

The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that the Sizewell C main build and preparatory works were now progressing, with Sizewell C Company implementing staff and ground works to enable the build to begin. These were being looked at by officers and councillors and forums are in place under the DCO to examine the various stages of development. The various forums in place were listed and the role that they played.

A link to the Sizewell C tracker was shared, an important document where members and officers can view the project progress Home - Sizewell C Works Tracker.

The site delivery and offsite infrastructure schematic was displayed with the Cabinet Member advising all elements of it would create concerns and feedback in communities, particularly for those living nearby.  It was anticipated that the communities would be talking to East Suffolk Council as well as Sizewell C, therefore it was important for East Suffolk Council to engage with the development to alleviate and address residents’ concerns.

An overview of the Ofgem Regional Energy Strategic Plan Policy (RESP) Framework consultation was given and East Suffolk Council’s response outlined. There are 11 RESPS in total and East Suffolk Council are part of this RESP.  Each region would have a Strategic Board comprising local government and industry, East Suffolk Council in the centre of so much energy activity would seek involvement on the Board and continue to drive the need for the intelligence led energy projects.

The Cabinet Member outlined the involvement with other projects that were directly and indirectly affecting East Suffolk Council and their timelines.

The Committee was advised of the NSIP working group which comprised cross party councillors, an important group attracting important input, eg National Grid re Sea Link at Saxmundham/Friston.  The next meeting is scheduled for 19 November 2024.

The Cabinet Member shared the East Suffolk Council Press Release in response to Ofgem’s approach to national Grid’s Nautilus project and the concern that they would not regulate at Isle of Grain due to costs.

In summing up the Cabinet Member confirmed that the grant of a development consent order is not the end the planning process for NSIPs and outlined the remaining work and engagement with internal/external stake holders, statutory bodies and communities.  The Committee was advised of the two designated inboxes for all NSIP queries – Energyprojects@eastsuffolk.gov.uk and SizewellC@eastsuffolk.gov.uk.

The Chair invited questions to the Cabinet Member.

It was noted that Councillor Deacon was erroneously included as a member of the Cross-Party working group, this would be amended.

The Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning agreed to organise a site visit to Sizewell C, with members of the NSIP working group visiting first and a second visit for remaining committee members.

A member referred to attendance at the National Grid meeting and the importance of being sufficiently pre-briefed to enable their contributions and those of their communities to be made. The impact of the DCO on the wellbeing of communities was raised.  It was questioned whether a website portal could be added to enable the public to quickly access information. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the concerns and noted the different ways that their voices could be heard.  Firstly, via the officers with their strong, technical knowledge to engage with and interrogate applicants to understand their intentions and influence decisions.  Secondly, via the political voice, noting that as a member of the NSIP group, other members could also take forward the message.  The Cabinet Member asked that he had an oversite of anything being produced to ensure consistency.

The concern and impact on certain communities was raised. The political dilemma was noted as although not wanting to be seen as part of the development of something that they are opposed to it was vital to engage on behalf of the communities to secure the best outcomes for them.

The strain on town and parish councillors was raised and what support was available? In response the Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects noted that the current officer funds negotiated were for district council officers, however this would be taken forward as part of the discussions to consider a unified response.

It was asked whether Sizewell C was subject to BNG, the Cabinet Member told the Committee that it was in the DCO with a requirement to reinstate things to how they were or better than how they were. The Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects added the target for all new DCO was 10%, and Sizewell were committed through DCO to 19%.  The Committee welcomed this and noticed the importance of monitoring and enforcing it, which fell under the remit of East Suffolk Council.

In response to a member regarding stopping planning permission for such projects, the Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects confirmed that since the recent election the Secretary of State announcements had made it clear that projects were coming and would be consented.  He added the challenge going forward was to get the least bad outcome through engagement and advice. The Cabinet Member reinforced this emphasising the importance of being involved to enable the local view to be heard.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member for their presentation.

The Committee received an update from the CIL and S106 Officer on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which is the annual process to collect and spend the district and local fund of Community Infrastructure Levy.

A presentation was shared with the Committee outlining:

• Total cumulative DCIL Income and allocation broken down annually to the end of financial year 2023/24.
• The process for collecting CIL, split into 3 funding pots:
  • ESC scheme administration
  • Town and Parish Council allocation of 15-25% (25% if made neighbourhood plan)
  • Strategic District CIL
• In 2024/25 there has been  a continuous increasing trend in CIL money, with a greater proportion being allocated/ringfenced. This year has seen an allocation of £4.5million CIL, which after administration costs, leaves a pot of approximately £3.5million.
• CIL spending working group considers bids annually between April and May.
• For District CIL bids, recommendations are made to Cabinet.
• For local fund, the CIL team has delegated authority to allocate funds (up to £50k).
• CIL team works with key partners to look at infrastructure needs for the next 5 years, ensuring funding is available for essential health and education needs and ringfencing of allocation takes place. Current ring-fenced amount is £13 million of district CIL.
• Annual review and update of Spending Strategy takes place, recent changes following September 2024 Cabinet were outlined as:
  • Existing 3% of district CIL reserved for local play funding.
  • Approval to make delegated decision in advance of CIL funding being received to ensure the communities can deliver the infrastructure needed.
  • Ongoing annual review of ringfencing needs for essential health and education projects to ensure it is affordable from CIL.
• An overview of 5 local fund bids were shared with the committee – these were match funded to a maximum of £50k and are for smaller, community led projects.  Awarded £123,900 this financial year – with a small amount of carry over to next year.
• Overview of District CIL (DCIL) awards shared with the Committee, highlighting the use of collaborative funding to maximise the funding opportunities where possible.
• The website story map was highlighted which gives a user-friendly view of all of the CIL allocated projects to date.

The slides from the presentation were made available for the Committee and key terms and useful links shared.

 
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

In response to a query regarding returned CIL allocation, the CIL and S106 Officer clarified this could be due to not all funds being required at project completion or project abandonment, and funds would be reallocated as part of the pot.

 
The CIL and S106 Officer confirmed that members could feed into the spending strategy for CIL and contribute to the annual review, adding CIL has an infrastructure funding statement, which is an annual requirement for all authorities, with the CIL report, section 106 report and infrastructure list looking at what is planned for growth and the infrastructure requirements to meet that growth.

 
The question was raised as to whether the CIL fund could support energy projects, in response it was confirmed that projects needed to  be evidence led to generate CIL funding and be able to identify how they would mitigate the effects of housing growth, looking at community benefits and targeted via neighbourhood plans.

 
When reviewing the CIL projects for the past 5 years it was asked whether the infrastructure mitigation was proportional to the amount of growth that has been seen.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management replied that it varied across the district.  ESC provided the funds but didn’t always deliver the infrastructure, therefore the CIL team maintained close contact with the infrastructure delivery providers of health and education to track project progress and identify where progress is happening.  There was often a lag in the infrastructure coming forward compared to the housing as the community needed to be there first to generate the need.

In response to a question regarding the historically lower CIL investment in Felixstowe and whether that related to bids not being submitted or slower housing growth in that area historically, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management due to the pattern of development in that area, the demands on infrastructure haven’t occurred until more recently.

The CIL and Section 106 Officer emphasised the importance of neighbourhood plans when attracting CIL funding as they demonstrate that the need for plan led development and growth is there and has been consulted on with the community.

The funding of schools within developments was discussed and it was confirmed that generally these are funded through the developer contributions via a Section 106 agreement.  On occasions the Section 106 funding may not cover all the places required and CIL funding may need to be used to supplement, which reinforces the importance of ring-fencing funding for education and health within the CIL spending strategy.

The Chair thanked the CIL and Section 106 Officer for her report to the Strategic Planning Committee.

The Committee received report ES/2117 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 planning guidance 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.

The Cabinet Member invited the Planning Manager (Policy, Delivery and Specialist Services) to comment on the report.

The Planning Manager highlighted paragraph 2.20 which related to the recent consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and noted that the Council’s responses provided to the consultation were attached to Appendices A and B.  It was a lengthy response with 106 questions to respond to, not all related to the changes to the NPPF, but including other planning proposals which the Government is looking to take forward such as in relation to planning application fees.

In terms of the changes to the NPPF, there were a lot of areas covered, with the Planning Manager highlighting housing numbers as an area that had generated the most attention at the national level.  The proposal is looking to increase housing numbers quite significantly.  A lot of the response is centred around that and the challenges as to how that will be delivered, particularly in the short term and how this will be considered in the future local plan. There were a number of areas that the response is supportive of, particularly around affordable housing and enabling local authorities to assess their own needs to inform policies. The Planning Manager advised that the response was submitted prior to the deadline of 26/9/24 and although initially it had been anticipated that the revised NPPF would be published before the end of the year, it was understood that this was now likely to be next year due to the volume of responses received.

The Chair commended the team on the volume of work carried out for this consultation.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee note the contents of the report.

The Committee received report ES/2118 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which sought confirmation of the new Article 4 directions in the Southwold, Homersfield, Wangford Conservation Areas and the Walberswick Quay area of the Walberswick Conservation Area which were to replace the existing Article 4 directions. The new Article 4 directions were made on 8th July 2024 by agreement of the Strategic Planning Committee, and a statutory period of public consultation subsequently ran from the 15th July to 26th August 2024 (6 weeks). The report set out the proposal background, showed the results of the public consultation and proposed the confirmation of the Article 4 directions, which if agreed, would take effect on 14th October 2024.

The Senior Design and Heritage Officer (Planning Policy and Delivery) summarised the consultation responses as follows:

• Homersfield, no responses from the public – parish council support.
• Wangford, no responses from the public – parish council responded to say they had no comment on the proposals.
• Walberswick quay, no responses from the public, parish council were supportive and supportive of proposal to look at wider Walberswick conservation area for Article 4 direction.
• Southwold – two public questions, mainly procedural questions that were answered. Town Council were supportive of extending the Article 4 Direction area to cover most of the agreed extended conservation area but disappointed to not see PV panels included, otherwise happy with proposals.

In July a brand new Article 4 Direction was proposed in Marlesford and there was a lot more public interest with a consultation sent out to 59 home owners, in response they had the Parish Council and 1 other resident in support but they received 12 comments in opposition, plus 3 further objections after report, equating to approximately 25% of people that were written to being in opposition. 

The Senior Design and Heritage Officer recommended that the Article 4 in Marlesford was not confirmed as the public support was not received and going forward a public meeting will be held in Marlesford if the Parish Council think this would be beneficial.

 
The Senior Design and Heritage Officer confirmed that for any other brand-new Article 4 directions a public meeting would be held ahead of any formal consultation period to explain the proposals and the reasons behind them. 

 
The Senior Design and Heritage Officer confirmed that the areas decided on for Article 4 consultation vary between Waveney and Suffolk Coastal.  In Waveney it is by reviewing the existing Article 4 Areas and in Suffolk Coastal it is as a result of Town/Parish Council request. As part of the 3-year project the Design and Heritage Team will present at Town and Parish Forums.

 
The Chair thanked the team for their work.

 On the proposition of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Gee it was

 RESOLVED

 That Strategic Planning Committee: 

1.  Agrees to confirm the new Article 4 directions in the Southwold, Homersfield and Wangford Conservation Areas and the Walberswick Quay area of the Walberswick Conservation Area, to take effect on 14th October 2024 on which date the existing Article 4 directions are cancelled and superseded. 
2.  Does not confirm the proposed new Article 4 direction in Marlesford which will result in the made Article 4 direction expiring on 14th October 2024 and therefore will not come into effect. 

Councillors Smithson and Deacon left the meeting at midday.

The Committee received report ES/2119 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which sought to agree the agree the implementation of a new Historic Building Grant Scheme, which will use the existing allocated budget of the Design and Heritage Team. The grant scheme will provide small grants to building owners to repair and maintain historic windows and doors on properties in Article 4 direction areas.

The Design and Heritage Officer (Planning Policy and Delivery) told the Committee that currently there was a recurring yearly grants budget of £22,700, and the proposal was to formalise the budget into a grant scheme to ensure transparency and accountability when spending the budget.  As it is a limited budget the eligibility criteria were narrowed down to reach more people in a meaningful way. It will run alongside the Article 4 direction review project and will focus in on properties in Article 4 direction areas. The intention is for a recurring scheme which will return to the Committee for review as necessary, the grants scheme would open on 14 October 2024.

In response to Members, the Design and Heritage Officer confirmed that there wasn’t currently a process for means testing, it would be allocated on a first come first served basis with the funding team assisting with the grants.

A discussion took place regarding promotion of the scheme, and it was agreed that advertising would take place to residents via the website and a press release as well as being promoted via the Article 4 Consultation project and to Town and Parish Councils.

 
A list of the target areas for Ward Councillors to contact would be circulated after the meeting.  The Chair clarified that the target areas were those already in an Article 4 area and the project offered up to 50% of the cost as grant.

It was agreed that as this was the first time the scheme was being offered in this way, ongoing monitoring and review would take place.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee:

1. Agrees the implementation of the new Historic Building Grant Scheme, which would open for applications on October 14th, 2024.

The Committee received report ES/2120 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which contained statistics and summaries of Building Control related work, as a means to monitor the quality of decisions made by the Local Building Control Authority and identify any key learning points to improve future decision making.

A detailed presentation on the work of the Building Control team was given by the Building Control Team Leader on behalf of the Building Control Partnership Manager.  The presentation contained an update on Building Control work at East Suffolk and the team as well as the significant changes that had occurred over the past 12 months within the sector. 

An overview of the department was shared including:

• How planning and building control work closely together, highlighting the work that is carried out by building control on the technical requirements and the advice given at pre-application and planning stage to ensure what is being delivered is in line with building regulations.
• Links to the wider network – Local Authority Building Control, how they work closely with clients and developers engaging with design forum and home buildings forum to encourage projects being delivered that are over and above the required minimum standards.
•  The team are self-financing, have about 80% market share, competing with private sector. Significantly higher than average nationally, and in some cases double to other authorities.
• Run an enforcement department.
•  Work closely with other teams in the council, eg design teams in the early stages to gain highest quality compliance.
•  Progress against KPIs was shared.
•  As of April 2024, anyone working in Building Control must be regulated, national requirement of 4.5k competence, currently only at 2k nationally.
•  Fortunate to have a well-resourced team that represents all aspects of competency. Work on succession planning and continue to recruit and train in house which is a 3-year process.
•  As part of BSR, audits will commence from 1st quarter next year with over 100 KPIs to report on.

 
A copy of the slides was shared with the Committee members.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management thanked the Building Control Team Leader for their first comprehensive report into Strategic Planning Committee, noting he was keen for Strategic Planning to reflect the whole of the service that is covered.  

There was a question regarding the private building control sector and whether there were tensions.  The Building Control Team Leader noted there were not tensions, there were occasions when they had to give advice and guidance but then may not secure the work.  They had a dual role both as a self-financing building control service and a regulator, establishing compliance which could be costly and time consuming, but legally as a local authority they have a duty to carry out.

It was noted that any compliance issues identified by outside building control companies could be reported to BSR or the Health and Safety Executive dependent on the nature of the non-compliance.  On a large-scale development, it would be anticipated that there would be 2 to 3 inspection visits a week, with every plot inspected 10 to 12 times.

The team had to evidence annual CPD as Chartered Surveyors and they proactively worked with developers and manufacturers to engage with them, eg timber framed construction, passive house.

The Committee asked about large sites and whether it could be part overseen by private inspectors and part by East Suffolk. It was confirmed it is common to have consortium developers with varied building controls. The BSR constraints regarding conflict of interest should make it easier to work on the sites, eg warranty provider/building control conflict.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coast Management referred to the Major Home Builders Forum taking place later in the month, where building control will be there selling the service, highlighting the importance of problem solving together.

It was noted how fortunate East Suffolk Council was to have the Building Control team.

The Building Control Team Leader told the Committee that they had recently been nominated for local authority building control team of the year.

On the proposition of Councillor Molyneux, seconded by Councillor Graham it was 

RESOLVED

 That Strategic Planning Committee note the report concerning the performance of the team and the attached appendix containing summaries of Building Control Work.

The Committee received report ES/2121 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided an overview of Coastal Partnership East (CPE).

This presentation was supported by the Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning who is currently supporting coastal management during the management handover.

The Partnerships and Engagement Manager gave a thorough presentation on Coastal Partnership East, a copy of the presentation was circulated to Committee members.

Coastal Partnership East is the Coastal Management Team for North Norfolk District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council and East Suffolk Council.  The partnership was formed in 2016 and comprises 92km of coast from Kelling Hard to Landguard Point, including almost 1,000 coastal assets. It is one of the fastest eroding coasts in Northwestern Europe. There is a shared team of 33 people, who work boundary blind. 

They have expertise in:

Coastal engineering

•  Coastal processes
•  Geomorphology/geology
•  Funding and finance
•  Adaptation
•  Emergency response
•  Communications and engagement 

All of the work is carried out under the CPE Business Plan, comprising the following themes:

• Knowing our coast
• A climate ready coast
• Climate resilient communities and businesses
• Managing resilient assets
• Investing in our coast
• Investing in our people and partnerships

There is not a lot of government funding so the team is always looking for innovative funding solutions.  In 2023 they were successful in a bid for £8.4 million for the longer-term resilient coast projects. They are on target with project outcomes with the Environment Agency, and with all project work being carried out alongside business as usual and the community work.

Using Lidar drones they are monitoring the coast in a way that hasn’t been done before which helps with planning with communities and infrastructure.

They are currently looking at Seafund for communities which would see £2 million ringfenced and look at ways to grown funding for communities to take over themselves, enabling them to understand their risks.

In response to members the tiered approaches to coastal breakdown were explained.  Further detail on this would be circulated to members which would highlight where the ESC coasts sat within the tiered approaches to coastal breakdown. 

In response to the tidal barrier not getting funded in Lowestoft due to no central government funding, the Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning noted that work is ongoing with the Environment Agency to see what can be done going forward as the lack of flood defence was inhibiting planning opportunities coming forward.  Officers were working with the Environment Agency and Communities to manage the message going forward.

In response to a query regarding the various agencies and support and how joined up they were, Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning suggested a briefing session could be organised ahead of a full council meeting to detail the varied work being carried out.

Innovative ways to generate funding were discussed such as working with insurance companies to reverse engineer support.  It was confirmed that the Resilient Coast project was engaging with them in that way to look at the longer-term picture.

On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Gee it was 

RESOLVED

 To raise awareness and understanding of CPE’s work it is recommended to read the CPE Business Plan and Internal Newsletter. The CPE annual report will be shared at future meetings once signed off by the CPE board for distribution. To receive any comments and recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee for inclusion in this annual report for inclusion in this quarterly report.

Councillor Ewart left the meeting at 1.00 pm.

The Committee received report ES/2122 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided an overview Planning Performance from April to July 2024.  This report contained the published figures for the number of ‘Planning Applications’ determined within government targets or agreed extensions of time within the most recently completed financial quarter.

The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management) pointed out there were:

• 95% of  majors within the target time or within an extension of time
• 75.9% of non-majors within the target time or within an extension of time

This demonstrated that they were above thresholds for both majors and non-majors and the update sheet that included figures to the end of September demonstrated that performance was being maintained above the required thresholds.

The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management) Team noted that the team were to be praised for their hard work especially during the past two quarters where there have been a number of challenges and changes as set out in the report.

On the proposition of Cllr Pitchers, seconded by Cllr Graham it was 

RESOLVED

That the report concerning the performance of the Development Management Team in terms of the speed of determining planning applications is noted.

The Committee received report ES/2123 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.

The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management)  highlighted that the team have closed more notices than those that were logged during the quarter, partly due to the closure of historic cases but also the hard work by the team to close down the more recent cases.

There had been 4 enforcement notices served on breach of condition notices, 2 of which have been appealed, they were awaiting planning inspectorate appeal decisions before there could be any further action taken.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

The Chair expressed concern at the length of time appeals were taking to be processed externally.

The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management) confirmed that the figures cited in 3.1 included sites received, logged and visited, noting that visits often took place multiple times to carry out compliance checks.

It was noted that the enforcement workload varied dependent on the time of year, with seasonal variation in terms of complaints.  There was a spell in 2020/21 where the rise in homeworking saw more home extensions and outbuildings etc which were often permitted development or marginal but due to the neighbours submitting complaints of potential planning breaches, still required enforcement visits.

The Principal Planner (Technical Lead, Development Management) clarified the details regarding 3.11/3.12, Port Light appeal had been received and statements written, 333 High Street had the start time but not the full timeline to update. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed, following endorsement from a previous Strategic Planning Committee, that the business case would be taken forward for a new enforcement planner to focus on street scene, adverts and signs and construction management.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee note the content of the report. 

The Committee received report ES/2124 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 introduced the report and the Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) highlighted that there had been 17 planning appeals of which 14 were dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.  This amounted to an 82% dismissal rate, indicating that good quality decision were being made.

The Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) summarised 5 of the key appeal decisions within the report (para 2.14) drawing particular attention to one relating to rebuilding and conversion where the Planning Inspectorate confirmed their decision. 

On the proposition of Councillor Molyneux, seconded by Councillor Gee it was  

RESOLVED

That the report concerning the appeal performance of the team and the attached appendix containing summaries of appeal decisions be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2125 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, which provided a review of the Planning Committee Member Call-in process that was introduced on 24 January 2024.

The Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) noted that 7 applications had triggered the call-in process since January, of which 6 then went on to committee. The one that did not was called-in by a Planning Committee Member, so went to the Planning Referral Panel, where it was delegated.

There was a geographical spread across the district which indicates it is working across the district. Six out of the 7 triggered were due to objections from town and parish councils. There is a direct correlation between the number of applications on which comments are received from Ward Members and the number that trigger the call-in process. Currently there is a low number of applications receiving comments from Ward Members during the application consultation process, hence the low number going through the call-in process.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management noted that the review of this process was brought forward to a 6 monthly review in response to Audit and Governance Committee recommendation prior to the change to East Suffolk Council’s Constitution.

Having carried out this 6 monthly review, the intention was that Strategic Planning Committee would revert back to an annual report, which would be included as part of the annual report covering the outcome and successes of the Planning Referral Panel and the work of the Planning Committees.

The call in process was clarified with the Committee.  When an application is valid, notification is given to all ward members via Public Access. The 21-day consultation would usually start then (could be slightly later due to site notices). During the consultation period ward members need to respond in order to potentially trigger the process. The call-in process would be triggered if both ward member and town/parish council comments are contrary to the planning officer recommendation. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management noted the variation in response to applications from ward to ward and emphasised the importance of ward members remaining alert to developments in their own wards. 

The Chair referred to an issue where an application was not picked up for referral to Planning Committee through the 5-day call-in consultation process, and noted the importance of the Planning Committee members making sure that something that triggered the call-in process was followed up and where appropriate other members of the committee notified.

It was noted that it was not practical for those applications where there were strong views to automatically go to Committee, however strong objection would likely trigger the Referral Panel process where the decision on the determination process route would be made.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management had the opportunity to call into Committee very controversial applications, as did Chairs and Vice Chairs.

It was confirmed that the ward member is able to attend the Planning Referral  Panel, and they are there to observe, check accuracy of officer presentation and receive any questions from Chairs/Vice-Chairs. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed it wasn’t desirable to open it up as that would make it a formal recorded meeting and it worked well in its current format.  The importance of submitting written responses during the application consultation process was outlined to members.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management advised the Committee that officers were there to support members and guidance was available on the website and via consultation letters to support responses to applications.

In multi-councillor wards, just one member of the ward needs to raise concerns to trigger the referral or call-in processes.

Members were advised that they get notifications on all planning matters, but could focus in on items for Planning Permission, i.e those for full permission, outline planning permission, variation  or removal of conditions and approval of reserve matters as a priority to review and respond to, as those cases can trigger the Planning Referral Panel and Call-in processes.

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

RESOLVED

That the report concerning the review of the Planning Committee Member Call-in process is noted and that it should be agreed that future monitoring takes place through an annual report.