Meeting Details

The Chair explained there had been some changes to the Planning Committees. Following a short illness and the death of Kay Yule Councillor Mark Packard was now Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management and Councillor Seamus Bennett was the Chair of Planning Committee South. Full Council would be recognising in a more formal manner the sad death of Kay Yule.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashdown, Ashton, Deacon and McCallum. Councillor Folley attended as Councillor Deacon’s substitute.

There were no Declarations of Interest made.

There were no Declarations of lobbying made.

Two minor changes had been made; ‘Members of the Cabinet present’ was changed to ‘Members of the Committee present’ and BSR was explained in full in the Building Control item.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 October 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, and a copy of the slides was made available to the Committee members.

Councillor Daly gave a brief update on the Sea Link, National Grid Electricity Transmission (NGET) project. He stressed the importance of engaging with developers to effect change for the better and get the best possible results for the District. There had been some amendments from NGET in response to the Council's submissions and those from others, an example being the realignment and rotation of the crossing over the River Fromus which resulted in protection and retention of veteran trees. This was a good example of the Council's involvement to get better results.

He moved on to Sizewell C which was moving into development on and off-site. This project would have a significant impact on the District over a long period of time. Again he stressed the importance of talking to the Sizewell C team, communities and campaigners. He highlighted that there were some benefits such as the Community Fund. He showed photographs of the preparations currently underway at the logistics park and park and ride sites. He noted that it was having a huge impact on people locally and the landscape. The logistics park on the A14 was a good example of how the Council's engagement had an impact as it was originally going on a greenfield site until they were persuaded to move to the brownfield area. 

The Forum Schedule for 2025 (transport, community and main development site) was shared as was the offsite structure infrastructure delivery timeline for the next two years. He stressed that it was important to know what was happening when to minimise issues and surprises and maximise community awareness. He referenced the Works Tracker (Sizewell C Works Tracker).

He gave an update on the Nautilus project, which was an interconnector due to come in at Friston. The developer, National Grid Ventures, responded to community concerns and agreed to use a brownfield site in Kent rather than the greenfield site in Suffolk even though it was contrary to Ofgem’s original proposal. 

Councillor Daly showed a list of six other projects and their stage status. He explained it was important to be involved in all stages.  At the pre-application stage the Council could affect the final form before it was signed off by the Secretary of State and at post decision to make sure things were honoured properly and community benefits were maximised.

He gave a brief overview of the impact of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and again stressed the importance of East Suffolk working with the Government. He explained it was important that the targets weren’t an obstacle to effective delivery into the future or not used as a short cut to proper delivery. He pointed out that hugely expensive national projects were favoured by the Government and there was no empowering the people or community energy projects explicitly included in any of the Government’s targets. However East Suffolk would work hard to persuade the Government that it needed to go that way.

He explained that there had been intimidation and aggression towards contractors working on some of the development sites including keys being removed from vehicles, bore holes filled with excrement and attendance on site of someone with a shotgun being aggressive. He showed the statement that was being sent out in the January newsletter and to the press in response to these incidents.

He finished by stating that the Council would be engaging as much as possible going forward with existing and future projects and they looked forward to continuing to have an influence. East Suffolk would be engaging with projects that were at pre-application stage or just coming forward, working closely with the community and campaigners.

The Chair invited questions to the Cabinet Member.

Councillor Ninnmey thanked Councillor Daly for the comprehensive update. His constituents gratefully appreciated the use of the existing site for the Orwell crossing logistics park. He asked if Sizewell C had full funding yet. Councillor Daly said it didn’t and the Council was aware of the issue. The Council had raised this in the meetings with Sizewell C and a Government representative at a meeting. There was still uncertainty and so the Council would wait to see what happened.

Councillor Folley asked about community engagement and if this would be transferred to other major projects such as the Felixstowe North Garden Neighbourhood. Councillor Daly said the Council was already engaging with residents in Felixstowe and the Chair pointed out that this was more relevant to agenda item 6 - Major Sites and to bring that question back at that point.

Councillor Bennett asked about the Sizewell C train link and construction taking place this quarter which referenced two trains a day to the ACA (Ancillary Construction Area). The Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects explained that trains will come into a siding at the rear of the ACA site whilst they construct the Leiston branch line.

Councillor Ewart asked about the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) Group that had been set up and expressed concern about how it was being run and would like it to be realigned. She mentioned the National Grid meeting that took place on 17 September but that the following meeting was cancelled, and the next one was on 21 January but online. She explained she was running the gauntlet when she went shopping and didn’t have sufficient information to share with her constituents when asked about what was happening. She believed they should meet monthly and it needed cross-party representation. She expressed concern that a response was due on 12 January for Sealink but that hadn’t been mentioned. She stated that no-one had contacted her for a response and it was important to be representing the people. She doesn’t consider the Suffolk Energy Action Solutions (SEAS) campaigners to be lobbying her anymore as what she hears them saying is deeper and more granular than what the Council is delivering. She would like to see a cross-party team sitting directly underneath Councillor Daly to help make their responses because at the moment it was just Councillor Daly and the Officers making responses.

Councillor Daly explained that the group had its terms of reference and if the group wanted to think about its role then it could. He explained that the group was set up as a cross-party approach to look at the issues. He pointed out that it wasn’t a formal consultation at the moment for Sealink but the Council will put in a response to their suggestions (as shown on the slide). In terms of East Suffolk’s approach to consultations this was all communicated to the Council and the responses were extremely granular. He advised Councillor Ewart to look at the website, speak to him and speak to the officers to get more information. He was going to a SEAS meeting this weekend and the relationship with them was good at the moment, but he pointed out that they didn’t always get things right. The Council making big campaigning statements doesn’t work and it was important that although the Council's basic position was one of opposition it had to engage at every level on behalf of the community. He suggested that they discussed this issue at the next NSIP meeting but for her to make herself aware of the Council’s responses before making statements like she had.

Councillor Ewart stated that she did read absolutely everything and expected more support. She wanted an opportunity to meet in person on 21 January. She felt people weren’t responding to consultations as they were leaving it to East Suffolk. She was very concerned that she had no idea what the response would be in six days’ time.

Councillor Ewart stated that at a meeting on 17 September with Tom McGarry from Sizewell C, he said there was a possibility that Scottish Power was not coming into Friston and that Sizewell C would take over the site. She asked the Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects if the position had shifted at all. He stated no, he had not heard anything from Scottish Power about this.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management began by giving an update about staffing changes. Kathryn Oelman joined the team as Major Sites and Infrastructure Manager in November and Katie Fowler joined the team just before Christmas as Principal Planner for Major Sites. They join Danielle Miller and Jack Hannan in the Major Sites team. Lara Emerson will be joining on 20 January from Norwich City Council as Planning Manager and would be working closely with both Planning Committees.

The Committee then received a presentation on the Major Sites in East Suffolk from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.

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

He explained that the two Local Plans were nearing five years old and they expected a lot of the strategic allocations to come forward this year as planning applications. It demonstrated the time it took to bring strategic scale sites forward.

North of Lowestoft Garden Village had been through two stages of engagement (2021 and 2022) and the final refinements were being made to the master plan. He hoped there would be further engagement with the Parish Council before the application was submitted. He explained this was being led by Suffolk County Council, in partnership with Lovell, as they owned the site. He expected a full application for the southern area of the site and an outline application for the rest of the site as later phases in the Spring and would keep everyone informed as it materialised.

Woods Meadow, Oulton had some final areas to be delivered, which were outlined in red and blue. The red ones were Persimmon sites and the blue with other developers. The area shaded in red was Parcel 3a that had recently had approval for 51 homes and a play area. The play area had been subject to a lot of remediation recently. The 74 home site to the south west was pending consideration as was the 51 home area. Phase 6 on the north of the site for 34 homes was likely to be approved this month. It relied on a link road to Hall Lane which was being finalised with the County Council. It required a new drainage basin outside of the site for which permission was granted at the end of 2024. There would also be pavement delivery on that road and works were progressing in enabling the retail and doctor surgery areas.

The Kirkley Waterfront and Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood site for 1,380 homes was being progressed and hoped to conclude what can be delivered in the following months. An application for 500 homes and 3.2 hectares of employment on the Jeld Wen site had been submitted and would be progressed in the next few months. The old Sanyo site, owned by East Suffolk, was being worked on by the Housing Team and public engagement had been carried out. They were closely engaged with the Brooke site landowner to bring forward the extant permission. It was noted that the opening of the Gull Wing bridge had made a significant positive impact.

The landowners were working collaboratively on the Beccles and Worlingham Garden Neighbourhood to complete a comprehensive master plan. The first public engagement event took place last summer and the second stage of public engagement would be taking place in late January/February. They hoped that a well-informed planning application would be received later this year.

The South Saxmundham Garden Neighbourhood for 800 homes had its first stage of public engagement in 2020. There had been a lot of engagement recently between the promoter Pigeon and Town Council and Pigeon had taken on a new master planning consultant for the site. More detailed proposals were expected and further public engagement should take place this year.

The Brightwell Lakes development was well underway. The vehicular access had been delivered and homes were being constructed. The initial phase of 600 homes and green open space and lake developments were underway. The primary school and sports pitches would be delivered later this year. A further 650 homes, public open space and two local centres were expected between 2029 and 2033 and the final 750 homes by 2040. The pink outlined area had reserved matters approval and the first residents moved in last July. The blue outlined area gained reserved matter approval and would be the next area of housing to be developed by Wimpey. The light blue area was being developed by Denbury homes and they had submitted their reserve matters application. There could be a number of developers across the whole site. The orange area had received reserve matters approval and was underway but a variation of condition should be coming to Planning Committee South this month regarding a change to the arrangement for the affordable delivery on that site.

The North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood was an East Suffolk Council led master plan process. Engagement had taken place and the master plan was being developed. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management showed the latest iteration of the master plan, although this may evolve further before a planning application was submitted this year. There was a lot of focus on how infrastructure could be delivered. The Persimmon Trelawny Place development in the middle of the site was well underway. The County Council was now at detailed design stage for the primary school and they hoped to submit an application this year. The Community Infrastructure Levy spending that was agreed by Cabinet last September had a focus on doctors surgeries in the Felixstowe and Trimley area. The Haven Health surgery had been given £611k and the Grove surgery £61k. They were working with the Integrated Care Board to look at ongoing further opportunities. This was the same for all the strategic sites.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management finished by giving an update on the Humber Doucy Lane Appeal Public Inquiry. This was an application that covered East Suffolk and Ipswich Borough Council (IBC). An application for 600 homes was submitted last year. There had been some engagement prior to the application but the process didn’t meet the Council’s requirements. It was felt that the master plan was not adequate and there were too many deficiencies with the application. The Council did not want to agree an extension and therefore issued a refusal as a delegated decision but gave the applicants the opportunity to offer a fresh application. However, the applicant chose to go to Appeal and it has progressed to a Public Inquiry. The team is working collaboratively with IBC and the County Council on the Appeal. The key matters for the inquiry are the quality of the master planning, landscaping open space quality and quantity, habitats regulations, highways, surface water drainage mitigation and the loss of sports pitches without mitigation. The Inquiry is happening at East Suffolk House on 21 to 24 January and 4 to 19 February. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management felt they had a strong case to defend this appeal and would keep Members updated.

The Chair invited questions from Members.

Councillor Daly asked if the master plan for Brightwell Lakes was also led by the Council like North Felixstowe as it was being held up as a very good example. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained it was between the landowner and the land promoter. Felixstowe was Council led because of the extent of Council owned land. He explained that Brightwell Lakes was being held up as a good example and East Suffolk did have a lot of input. The landowner spent over £1m producing the outline planning application which paid off at delivery stage. 

Councillor Bennett asked about the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and housing targets. With the full delivery of Brightwell Lakes and Felixstowe far in the future was there a threat to the green open spaces. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that this would be covered by item 7. He stated that it shouldn’t diminish the quality of what was delivered and the quantity of green spaces.  There would be pressure to deliver homes but there were key things not to compromise on. It was acknowledged that large sites do take a long time to deliver and by bringing additional home builders on board this could speed things up, as was the case with Brightwell Lakes. However, the quality of design and green infrastructure were still very important in the NPPF so these sites shouldn’t be impacted.

Councillor Folley asked for clarity about Suffolk County Council’s involvement in the primary school on the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood as this wasn’t what was conveyed to the public. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the County Council was progressing the primary school on the Persimmon Trelawny Place site. East Suffolk was still leading on the other primary school and this was part of the master plan discussions.

Councillor Ewart mentioned that she had spoken to the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management about the lack of inclusion of the County Councillors in the workshop. She felt it was very important to get more involvement with the County Councillors to get better outcomes. She also asked if East Suffolk would attract a penalty if they didn’t deliver the expected houses and would it be worthwhile developing our own building school.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained much would be covered in item 7 but the Council could be penalised if they didn’t deliver enough homes. Opportunities for unplanned sites were more likely to come forward and if the Council wasn’t to consent enough sites, particularly if sites were refused and lost at appeal, the Government could default that the Planning Inspectorate made all the planning decisions for the District, or the applicants had a choice. This would have a financial impact for the Council and we would lose out on local control and influence. East Suffolk was very aware of the construction labour shortage and Sizewell C was looking at developing construction skills. He explained this was an ongoing discussion.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the landowners for North Felixstowe were now signed up to the master plan or was the Council awaiting agreement. He also mentioned that together with Councillor Reeve he had addressed the lack of public engagement with the wider area of the Trimleys and Kirton by producing materials themselves, although the library refused to display the information as they said it was political. He reiterated that any consultation needed to go wider than the immediate development area.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said he should raise these points with the team doing the master plan rather than the local planning authority. 

Councillor Ninnmey thought the Planners should have more influence because it was a Council led scheme. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the team progressing the master plan sat under the Economic Development and Regeneration team, not the Planning team. 

The Principal Planner (Policy and Delivery) responded to Councillor Ewart’s point that they had monthly meetings with Suffolk County Council where they had lots of ongoing discussions about a wide range of issues, particularly education and schools as well as flood risk, roads, cycling and walking etc. They engaged with their opposite numbers at County regularly.

Councillor Ewart was pleased to hear this. She was particularly frustrated at the lack of response from the Suffolk County Council portfolio holder for Highways with regards to Yoxford.

Councillor Molyneux asked if there was a similar commitment with the Denbury provision as there was for the Wimpey delivery at Brightwell Lakes. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said that a current reserved matters application had been submitted but was not aware of the full content yet but they expected to see how matters of sustainable construction would be achieved. He advised that Danielle Miller could provide the detail.

The Committee received a presentation on the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) update from the Planning Manager (Policy, Delivery and Specialist Services). A copy of the slides was made available to the Committee Members.

She explained that the NPPF was the main government policy on planning and it was a material consideration for planning decisions and informed planning policy and local plans. The revisions to the NPPF were published on 12 December 2024 and a briefing note was sent out to all Councillors. Many of the changes related to the Government’s ambition to increase delivery of new homes with a desire to achieve a national annual target of 370,000. This was like the scale of building that took place in the post war period. The current national average housing completions for the last three years was around 230,000. 

A consultation on amendments took place from July to September 2024 to which East Suffolk submitted a lengthy response, particularly outlining concerns about the achievability of increased housing numbers and also gave alternative suggestions. There were almost 11,000 responses to the consultation from a range of consultees. 

The Government has a target of 1.5 million new homes in this parliament and alongside this was a push for Local Authorities to have Local Plans in place. It stated the importance of developing previously developed land, support for social rent homes and the increase in planning fees. 

The NPPF changes apply immediately for decision taking as a material consideration so they will need to be taken into account. There were some transitional measures for Local Plans, but they don’t apply as East Suffolk is not currently preparing a Local Plan. There are some measures for Neighbourhood Plans, and any not submitted by 12 March will have to comply with the revised NPPF.

The Planning Manager explained there had been other announcements and publications which were detailed in the presentation. There had been updates to guidance and policies that sat alongside the NPPF. There was a change to how housing need was calculated and updates to the planning policy for Travellers Sites. East Suffolk passed the 2023 Housing Delivery Test (103%) although this did still reflect the allowance made for lower house building figures during the Covid pandemic. 

There was a request for updated Local Plan timetables to be submitted to the Government by 6 March. Officers would be reviewing what was needed to be submitted and it would be taken to Cabinet on 4 March. 

The Development and Nature Recovery working paper was published on 15 December, focusing on strategic approaches to managing and mitigating impact of development and officers will be reviewing the implications. 

The Devolution White Paper was published on 16 December which proposed a universal system of strategic planning within five years.  The last time there was formal strategic planning in place was Regional Spatial Strategies which were abolished in 2010. There was no suggestion that preparation of Local Plans should slow down.

The Planning Manager explained there were other changes expected, referencing the Ministry for Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG) newsletter, including introducing agile, shorter and faster local plans in 2025 and refreshing the national model design code They also expected further detail on the National Development Management Policies in the Spring. These would have the same status as the policies in our development plan but set nationally. The Planning Manager suggested that take up some of the changes in the NPPF might be translated into policies at the national level.

The Planning Manager ran through the headline changes to the NPPF, citing the MHCLG newsletter as the source. She highlighted that a lot of the announcements referred to making housing targets mandatory which would need to be taken forward through the Local Plan. It was also pointed out that the Green Belt policy changes were not relevant to East Suffolk as we do not have any Green Belt; the nearest were Cambridge or London.

She explained there was a change to the standard method for calculating housing need. Housing need was originally introduced in 2018 and prior to that the Local Authority would assess their own housing need. The housing need was previously calculated using household projections and then applying an uplift based on affordability ratios depending on the level of affordability need. There were two key changes to the calculation in the NPPF. Rather than use household projections it used an uplift of 0.8% on the Local Authority’s current housing stock and the uplift applied in relation to affordability had more of an impact; where there was an affordability issue the number increases more than it would have done under the previous calculations. East Suffolk has expressed concern about the deliverability of the proposed numbers of homes, as highlighted earlier in this meeting. The housing need figure for East Suffolk under the new method if calculated now was 1,644 compared to 916 under the existing Local Plan. The figures are updated annually in the Spring but she didn’t expect the figure to deviate significantly from the 1,600-1,700 mark as they started preparing the new Local Plan. The direction from the Government is that Local Plans should be about how not whether to plan for this new number.

There have been changes to the national policy on how to calculate housing land supply. Local Authorities were required to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites which was demonstrated annually by the housing land supply assessment. It was last published in November under the previous NPPF, which demonstrated a supply of 6.39 years for the Suffolk Coastal and 5.16 years for the Waveney Local Plan areas. There has been a reintroduction of buffers which means we have to demonstrate a higher housing land supply. Officers are looking through the changes from the NPPF and a position statement will be brought to Cabinet in March along with the Local Development Scheme. There is a policy in the NPPF called the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Where an authority can’t demonstrate a five year supply or the housing delivery test is below 75%, much greater weight is given to housing delivery on planning applications and this was known as the tilted balance. The policy gave greater clarity that development should be in sustainable locations, effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes. What this would mean for green spaces is that well designed places should have good quality green spaces.

The Planning Manager pointed out that there would be protection from unplanned development for Neighbourhood Plans up to the point they are five years old where they contain housing allocations and policies to meet their housing requirement. The government acknowledged that in the shorter term there would be an increase in unplanned permissions but that was necessary to meet the 1.5 million homes target. The Planning Manager reiterated that officers were giving detailed consideration to these changes and would provide a position statement to update members in due course.

There was to be a greater emphasis on Social Rented Housing and for Local Authorities to identify the needs for their areas. When they prepare the Local Plan they won’t need to require a certain percentage of needs for First Homes but it would be based on the Local Authority’s understanding of their own needs. There was a specific reference to social rented housing and the previous requirement for 25% of affordable housing on residential sites to be First Homes has gone. 

Chapter 6 of the NPPF saw a new emphasis on meeting a ‘modern economy’ and chapter 8 directs Local Authorities to refuse hot food takeaways applications in locations where young people would congregate. 

There was a five minute adjournment whilst some technical issues were resolved.

The Planning Manager explained that Chapter 9 expects a vision led approach to transport which was important to the Local Plan. It prioritised sustainable transport which would be particularly relevant to some of the larger sites coming forward. There was an increased focus on the use of previously developed land for housing and brownfield sites also included areas of hardstanding. The word ‘beautiful’ had largely been removed as it was very subjective but well designed places was still important. There was a changed emphasis on the role of locally prepared Design Codes which would give authorities more flexibility. 

Chapter 14 relating to Climate change, flooding and coastal change has removed the restriction on wind energy developments. Identifying suitable areas was now more discretionary than the consultation draft had proposed. The Sequential Test for flood risk was no longer required where the area at risk of flooding was not for any built development, access routes or vulnerable elements. The Government would be considering whether further changes in light of climate change and flooding were required.

There was a real push for Local Authorities to have up to date Local Plans in place. The Local Development Scheme will be submitted by 6 March and the new plan-making system will be brought in in 2025. They want to prepare the new Local Plan under that system. Duty to co-operate remains in the legislation and it was important to align with neighbouring authorities.

The Chair invited questions from Members although reminded them to be mindful of time.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the building land availability figures and if this was to deliver 916 houses or 1,700 annually. He was conscious that the failure to provide a five-year land supply had caused issues before such as Trewlany Place in Felixstowe. 

The Planning Manager explained that the land supply, as published in November 2024, was based on the previous housing requirements of 916 a year. She anticipated that things might change in the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan area when the plan was five years old this September. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked what the risk would be for land that was not in the Council's Local Plan.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained it would be judged when they came to planning but there was a genuine risk across the whole District. He anticipated unplanned sites would be submitted and they would need fair consideration. They would have to give considerable weight to the number of homes that would need to be delivered in the District. However it shouldn’t mean it diminished the attention given to the quality of design and the environmental effect. 

Councillor Smithson asked if appeal sites were at greater risk of coming back again and what their  position was as a planning committee.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management referenced sites at Tuddenham and Witnesham but because they had been rejected on technical matters that shouldn’t change how those matters were interpreted and assessed. Because the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan was less than five years old and they had a five year land supply the Council was in a window where the Local Plan had full weight. However, this may change after September, but the two sites should have had their appeals determined before then.

Councillor Ewart felt it was an opportunity for East Suffolk to shine and put together a suite of architectural plans that could be taken off the shelf by the developers so it could speed up the process and meet the policies.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the Design Code would help with this, however the challenge with sites coming forward wasn’t the house designs but about the layout drainage, highways etc which were very site specific. He stated that they would look at being as proactive as possible though.

Councillor Bennett referred to transport and active travel and felt that to him it didn’t read like it was a significant change and asked if he was correct.

The Planning Manager explained that from a Local Plan view it was a real shift. Previously although sustainable transport formed part of what was considered, the detailed transport assessments often came later on once preferred site allocations had been identified and mitigations identified at that point. She said it would be interesting to see how they could work with Suffolk County Council and transport modelling to inform their vision for transport. It was noted that there was already the Suffolk Street Guide to ensure transport was considered from the outset in development proposals. 

Councillor Daly stated that the Council needed to be careful about the use of language. He questioned what informatives produced the numbers. He felt there were other drivers behind the numbers. He didn’t feel it was about need anymore. He asked about support for social homes and the social rented sector.

The Planning Manager explained that the NPPF gave a clear direction for social rented. This was more challenging as rental income was less than for affordable rented and they would need to assess and weigh up what the need was and what can be delivered.

The Principal Planner explained that there was a separate definition of social rented housing in the NPPF that wasn’t there before. He pointed out that a lot of work was required to disaggregate the 1,644 houses per year into affordable housing and other types and tenures of housing. 

Councillor Folley pointed out that there were over five thousand people on the social housing list in the District with an average wait of four years so there definitely was a housing need.

Councillor Graham asked if there was anything in the new NPPF or housing targets about bringing derelict buildings back into use rather than just using new sites.

The Planning Manager said not specifically but there was an increased emphasis on use of brownfield sites.

The Chair thanked the Planning Manager. Due to time constraints the following agenda items were taken as read.

The Committee received report ES/2206 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report 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 the Specialist Services team, which comprises Design and Heritage, Arboriculture and Landscape, Rights of Way and Ecology. An update on the delivery of infrastructure to support growth through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was also provided.

The Cabinet Member invited questions from Members. There were none.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee noted the contents of the report.

The Committee received report ES/2207 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report provided a summary of the 2023/24 Authority Monitoring Report (AMR). The AMR was produced annually to provide information on the progress of producing and implementing the Council’s Local Plans. The Council monitored planning applications throughout the year to provide a basis on which to judge the implementation and effectiveness of policies contained within Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans. Monitoring data collected by the Council was used alongside information collected from other sources such as Suffolk Observatory, Office of National Statistics and Natural England. The 2023/24 AMR covered the monitoring period 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024.

The Cabinet member invited questions. Councillor Ninnmey questioned if there was a way to see cumulative figures over the whole time of the Local Plan to know what the shortfall had been over the years. This suggestion was noted.

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

 

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the content of the report.

That the Council publishes the East Suffolk Authority Monitoring Report covering the period 1st April 2023 to 31st March 2024.

 

That the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management, be given delegated authority to make any necessary minor typographical, factual or presentational changes to the documents prior to formally publishing them.

The Committee received report ES/2208 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report published the quarterly figures for the number of ‘Planning Applications’ determined within government targets or agreed extensions of time within the most recently completed financial quarter.

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the report concerning the performance of the Development Management Team in terms of the speed of determining planning applications.

The Committee received report ES/2209 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report provided information on the performance of the enforcement section of the Development Management Team.

Councillor Ewart said as Vice Chair of Planning North she had discussed matters with the team and they felt they could do with some more legal support. She asked if we could support them more. The Cabinet Member noted the request.

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

 

 

That the report concerning Enforcement Team statistics is noted. 

The Committee received report ES/2210 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report and attached appendix contained statistics and summaries of planning related appeal decisions received, as a means to monitor the quality of decisions made by the Local Planning Authority and identify any key learning points to improve future decision making.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, 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 Chair pointed out how well East Suffolk did with regards to appeals.

The Committee received report ES/2211 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report and attached appendix 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.

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

 

 

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/2213 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. This report and attached appendix provided an update on the recent work of Coastal Partnership East (CPE).

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

RESOLVED

 

To raise awareness and understanding of CPE’s work it is recommended to read the CPE 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 publication going forward.