Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 6 January 2025 agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Head of Planning and Building Control gave a brief update on the team. Congratulations were extended to Joe Blackmore who was promoted to Planning Manager (Development Management) and Kathryn Oelman who was now the Planning Manager for Major Sites and Infrastructure. This meant the Leadership team was now in place to support the wider team. They were currently recruiting for the vacancies at Principal level. The Head of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning (NSIP) explained he was retiring in 14 days and Martyn Fulcher would be starting as Head of Energy Planning and Coastal Management on 6 May. Bethany Rance had taken a new role as Energy Projects manager on 1 April, replacing Naomi Hayes. Grahame Stuteley has been promoted to Principal Planner. They interviewed for two posts in the energy projects team last week and are finalising who to appoint. They reviewed the work of the team and identified a need for a programme manager, so they were interviewing for that post. Emma Devereux left as energy projects co-ordinator so they would be looking to replace her. The Chair extended her thanks to everyone in the teams and she wished the Head of NSIPs all the best for the future.

The Committee received a presentation on energy projects in East Suffolk from Councillor Daly, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change. A copy of the presentation was made available on the website.

He explained there had been significant staff changes on the energy team, but recruitment was ongoing and the team was filling the gaps flexibly. He would be meeting the Nuclear Energy Minister on the day the Head of NSIP left so might miss his leaving event, so took this opportunity to extend his thanks and appreciation. 

The presentation gave a high-level overview of each of the projects, focusing in on key areas of interest. He explained there were a lot of spinning plates in the District with Sizewell C, offshore wind, interconnectors and reinforcement projects.

Sea Link – East Suffolk Council will be registering as an interested party and he would share the relevant representation with the NSIP group. The team was looking at how to support town and parish councils, who were under resourced, so they can engage effectively in the examination.

Nautilus – This interconnector would no longer come into Suffolk but would go to the Isle of Grain in Kent. Ofgem had initially opposed this as the costs were too high but have now agreed that it won’t come in at Suffolk and the connection agreement has been closed. Therefore, Lion Link was the only current remaining interconnector project proposed in Suffolk.

Sizewell C (SZC) – the development on and off site was ramping up significantly. Lots of meetings were taking place and East Suffolk was engaging as much as possible. There were concerns about the amount of vegetation clearance and East Suffolk wants SZC to do minimal hedgerow/vegetation removal. At the last two forums the team pleaded with SZC to liaise with the other energy projects in the District to minimise the impact on communities. There were several planning applications in the pipeline for SZC including the Orwell Logistics Park and caravan parks. SZC Forums were getting better and the last two he attended went very well. The nature regeneration and post project plans presentation was very impressive. The first nature reserve started in 2010 at Wild Aldhurst and their commitment was impressive. He keeps asking about the final investment decision in engagement with central government. Councillor Daly had asked if it would reduce some of the extra things SZC were doing in terms of environment and community, but SZC was adamant that it was all locked in and no way it could be changed. He said it was important to register the plusses as a lot of what they are doing doesn’t have to be included.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill – published on 11 March and second reading was scheduled for the 24 March. This included consideration about payments for energy infrastructure including energy bill discounts for communities impacted by NSIPs.  

Councillor Daly finished by saying there was a lot of work ongoing for officers, and they continue to engage with the government and developers and communities. Although East Suffolk was not the decision makers for NSIPS they do have an important role to play and he pointed out the two email addresses that can be used to contact the Energy Projects team.

Councillor Bennett asked if they had any influence to send Lion Link in the same direction as Nautilus. Councillor Daly confirmed that their position was one of objection and they would love to see it go in on the Isle of Grain. There were a number of sites that would be suitable but at the moment it was looking likely that it would come to East Suffolk.

Councillor Ninnmey was pleased to see Nautilus going to ‘Treasure Island’. He asked how SZC will be financed now that EDF has stated the amount they are prepared to invest in SZC has reduced. Councillor Daly explained that they raise the investment issue every time they meet with SZC and the Government. There is no guarantee from Government but a new tranche of money was released recently and it would be almost unimaginable for the plug to be pulled now. He said they expected to know the finances by mid June. EDF would maintain their 20% stake but apart from that they waited. Councillor Ninnmey commented that it appeared true that nuclear power wasn’t really an investable project.

Councillor Ewart was pleased to accept the role of Vice Chair to the NSIP committee. She went to a lecture from Professor John Glasson about Hinkley Point C where a key takeaway was that there would never be enough parking or beds. She said they needed to look at solutions early. She also requested that arrangements were made to take two members from each parish to visit Hinkley Point to help support the villages that would be impacted.

Councillor Deacon asked if Nautilus would have been going in at Friston.  Councillor Daly confirmed it was.

Councillor Bennett asked for more detail on working with parishes in relation to Sea Link. Councillor Daly explained that Friston parish council desperately needed support, so the team was talking to the Suffolk Association of Local Councils and Nick Khan to get a package together to help them. The team has asked National Grid Electricity Transmission, as the promoter for the Sea Link project, if funding could be made available to help parish/town councils which was looking positive. The Head of NSIPs suggested that the National Grid could do something similar to Planning Aid to help parish and town councils, as was raised in the SZC process in 2021. They have offered help but they don’t know the details at the moment but it would be to help the town and parish councils review and respond to consultations and proposals.

Councillor Ashton felt it was good news that there was some support for parish and town councils however he wanted to press the urgency of this. The Planning Inspectorate was expected to make a decision on accepting the Development Consent Order application at the end of the month and then it left 6 weeks for the responses from us and parish/town councils so there was a need to move quickly.

The Committee received report ES/2344 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. The report provided 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, statistics and summaries of planning related appeal decisions received and information on the activities of the enforcement section of the Development  Management Team.

The Committee received an update from the Principal Planner. She drew their attention to three key appeal decisions in Appendix A relating to flood risk and although they appeared to conflict with one another the two cases had very different circumstances and therefore it was a consistent view from the Planning Inspector on the assessment of flood risk.

Councillor Plummer commended the work on sorting historical enforcement cases and asked if there was still a backlog to get through. The Principal Planner explained that they were going through the oldest historical cases first and had made good progress, but it would be an ongoing process.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the table at 2.8 and the turnaround target of 47% against the national target of 60%. He acknowledged there was a high number of significant planning applications and there was churn in the department. He asked if the government was providing funding to help recruit planning officers. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the primary focus of the government’s planner recruitment was called Pathways for Planning and it was a national incentive. He noted that East Suffolk had a good graduate/junior recruitment programme. More significant now was the increased planning charges and fees so they now reflected the officer time taken on cases. This was very positive and they were looking at how they would utilise those additional fees. The recently published Planning and Infrastructure Bill included legislation about ringfencing planning income for development management services within planning teams. However the biggest challenge was recruiting experienced officers and there was a national shortage so they needed to be innovative in solving this problem and he was working with the team on this. Nationally everyone was working towards growing the pool of planners.

Councillor Plummer raised a concern that it was very frustrating how long it takes for information to come through from the Planning Inspectorate regarding enforcement. The Head of Planning and Building Control said there was a big recruitment drive by the Planning Inspectorate. There will be a big surge in Local Plans which will increase the load on the Planning Inspectorate. There was a real challenge here and the Planning Inspectorate was aware of the impact on timescales on enforcement appeals.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Bennett it was unanimously

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, outcomes of appeal decisions and enforcement activity. 

The Committee received report ES/2345 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. The 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. An update on the delivery of infrastructure to support growth through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was also provided.

The Committee received an update to the report from the Planning Manager (Policy and Delivery). The Westerfield and Carlton Coville Neighbourhood Plan referendums would take place on 15 May and the Kirkley Waterfront Planning Position Statement had been published and the consultation was running from 3 April to 8 May.

Councillor Ninnmey attended the Local Plan presentation recently which was excellent and would like it rolled out to the local parishes. He asked if Neighbourhood Plans had to indicate where a parish would be willing for houses to be placed as if this was not a requirement it might encourage more parishes to engage with developing a Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Packard said that the next planning parish forum would have exercises on how much housing each area was likely to have so they could understand the pressures the district was under.

The Planning Manager explained it wasn’t mandatory for a Neighbourhood Plan to have site allocations and some in East Suffolk don’t have site allocations. She advised that any town or parish considering doing a plan should speak to her and the team. The Head of Planning and Building Control added thanks for recognising the recent workshop and thanked the Planning Manager and her team for the recent training which had been excellent.

Councillor Bennett asked about the usefulness/feasibility of Neighbourhood Plans for towns as opposed to parishes as Felixstowe was considering doing a plan. The Planning Manager said it would be useful for Felixstowe to speak to Lowestoft about their plan as well as her team. It was important to identify the role of the Neighbourhood Plan and what issues they wanted to address through it or if it was better for the matters to be addressed through the Local Plan. The Head of Planning and Building Control said Neighbourhood Plans were useful for towns in relation to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as they identified priorities for CIL spending and gave a route in for bidding for District CIL.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor Deacon it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee note the contents of the report.

The Committee received report ES/2346 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. The report related to the making of new Article 4 directions in the Conservation Areas in Beccles, Holton and Wissett covering amended areas, which are to replace the existing Article 4 directions. It also related to the making of new Article 4 directions in the Thorpeness and Walberswick Conservation Areas, where no such directions currently exist. The proposed new Article 4 directions would not come into effect until such time as they are confirmed by a future meeting of this Committee (following public consultation), in the meantime, where relevant, the existing Article 4 directions would remain in place.

The Design and Heritage Officer gave an overview, explaining that this was year 2 of the Article 4 project.  Small areas of Wissett were being removed and in Beccles there was a bigger change to the area covered, where there are groups of positive residential buildings that are unlisted. Informal conversations with Beccles town Council had been held regarding non designated heritage assets and their Neighbourhood Plan. There was a proposal to create a new Article 4 direction for Thorpeness and Walberswick. These areas had important characteristics that needed to be protected. The Parish Councils were largely supportive of the proposals. As most of the properties in Thorpeness are second homes and it might be difficult to contact the owners there is a public meeting drop in session around Easter. The Walberswick meeting was well attended and the feedback was broadly positive. It indicated that more of the conservation area should be included in the Article 4 area but they would leave out neutral buildings and just include positive unlisted ones.

The Article 4 direction for Thorpeness would include painting restrictions to preserve the black and white that was very distinctive. A public consultation would be running for 6 weeks from next Monday to 23 April. They have been in close communications with the Broads Authority for Beccles and the dates have been approved by them.

Councillor Gee was at the recent Broads Authority Planning meeting and there was a discussion about the Article 4 directions. She understood that the government had changed the rules on painting and the council had no jurisdiction on the shades anymore. The Design and Heritage Officer explained that any painting specification must be either included or not included in the Article 4. In areas where there is no prevailing colour palette it would not be appropriate to include colour restrictions, which was why it wasn’t included in the Beccles Article 4. The Head of Planning and Building Control said there were no recent changes in relation to the colour of a property and that painting of any colour was permitted development.

Councillor Ashton asked if there was a clear policy for East Suffolk as all the Article 4s were in the old Waveney area. He also asked if the proposed Article 4s were because there had been deterioration of the conservation area due to the lack of direction. He was concerned that the associated costs were huge as any change would now require the homeowner to gain planning permission. The Design and Heritage Officer explained that part of the review was to survey the conservation areas. The features that would make an Article 4 for Walberswick and Thorpeness can be found in appendix F. She said there had been some gradual minor negative changes in those areas such as the loss of doors, windows and front boundaries but there was still enough there to merit further protection. 

Councillor Ashton asked if a policy on the creation of Article 4s for the district was required and could it have its own planning fee charges. His concern was that people who were less well-off that have houses in conservation areas had a disincentive for preserving the area. He acknowledged it was probably less of an issue for Walberswick and Thorpeness but was true for other areas. The Head of Planning and Building Control appreciated the desire. With regards to fees there could be some cases where the planning fee was higher than the works. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill allowed for the council to charge their own fees and this could be an instance where the council set a lower fee for certain things. He explained it might need secondary legislation but would keep a close eye on this.

Councillor Ewart asked what format the information went out to the public and if those with disabilities were considered. She felt there could be pushback as lots of the areas are also impacted NSIPs. The Heritage and Design Officer said they were writing to everyone who was affected and made the letters as clear as possible with the inclusion of maps and a guidance leaflet. Physical copies were also available at the Council office, Beccles and Aldeburgh libraries as well as being online. Comments can be submitted in writing, by phone or online.

Councillor Ewart asked if the whole property or just aspects of it were covered by an Article 4. The Heritage and Design Officer explained it was anything that fronted a highway, waterway or green space.

Councillor Bennett asked if the articles were just for conservation reasons. The Heritage and Design Officer explained it was to preserve conservation areas and to cover Houses of Multiple Occupancies (HMOs). The Principal Planner explained there were Article 4s to cover HMOs and whilst historically the emphasis used to be about control the Article 4 areas were now much more refined and targeted. They were taking a more pragmatic approach to the type of products that could be used in these areas.

Councillor Bennett asked why there were lots of applications for window replacements in Felixstowe even though there was no Article 4. The Principal Planner explained it would probably be for flats as they don’t have permitted development rights. Generally, windows and door replacements were permitted development outside of an Article 4 area.

Councillor Ashdown stated that it had been well debated through the Local Plan Working Group and it was their recommendation to bring it to this committee. Councillor Ashton asked for clarity that the recommendation was to go to consultation and this was confirmed.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee:
1. Agrees the making of new Article 4 directions in the Beccles, Holton and Wissett Conservation Areas, covering amended areas shown on the maps attached and including those properties and land included in the schedule attached at Appendices A-C.
2. Agrees the making of new Article 4 directions in Thorpeness and Walberswick, where there are currently no such directions in place, covering the areas shown on the maps attached, including those properties and land included in the schedule attached at Appendices D and E. 
3. Agrees that the statutory public consultation period is to start on 14 April 2025 and conclude on 23 May 2025 to collect public representations including from members of the public affected by the proposed changes. 
4. Agrees that, following the statutory public consultation period, the new Article 4 directions will be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee at its meeting on 7 July 2025 to consider their confirmation on 4 August 2025.
5. Agrees that the Head of Planning and Coastal Management, in consultation with the Cabinet member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, is authorised to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Article 4 directions and accompanying maps, prior to the public consultation period.

The Committee received report ES/2347 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. The 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.

The Head of Planning and Building Control asked that the report be taken as read and thanked the team for their work. There were no questions from Members.

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

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/2348 of the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. The report and attached appendices provided an update on the dissolution of Coastal Partnership East and the recent work of ESC’s coastal management team.

Councillor Packard gave a brief update, noting the particularly bad erosion at Thorpeness. They had £3m per year to help hold back the sea with a team of 20 working on it.

The Head of NSIP explained that the Coastal Partnership East was dissolved at the end of March so the team will now concentrate just on the East Suffolk coast and Ward members will be heavily involved in the coming months. Caroline Thomas was back at work. Workshops and sessions will be organised and it was noted that the coast was forever changing and at pace. Appendix B gave a resume of the things impacting the coast and the growing list. 

Councillor Bennett asked if the coast was eroding here because of sea level rise or due to other factors. The Head of NSIP said sea level rise was impacting the erosion as was climate change; the wave pattern was more significant. He pointed out that properties in Thorpeness were under pressure and 5 metres was lost in recent weeks. He explained they needed to work with the communities to manage the issue and build resilience. Unfortunately putting lots of concrete and rock on the coast was not the solution as it was too costly and didn’t really work.

Councillor Ninnmey was very conscious of the 1953 flood and the inadequate river defences so it wasn’t just coasts that were at risk. He asked who was responsible for making sure those defences were adequate and requested a briefing on who was responsible for river defences. The Head of NSIP explained it was a complex relationship and ownership between the Environment Agency and the district council. Resilience for those living on rivers could be part of the Coastal Management team’s remit and he would speak to Councillor Packard about this matter.

Councillor Plummer explained that the committee had a briefing from the local lead authority regarding flooding recently and advised Members to look back at that meeting.

Councillor Pitchers asked if the district was losing land as Kirkley was building up, but Pakefield was eroding. The Head of NSIP said overall more land was being lost than gained. They used drone data for the team to analyse and the team can provide briefings through Councillor Packard once Martyn Fulcher has joined. Councillor Ewart said the district council had permissive powers, not duties to manage the coast so asked who was ultimately responsible. The Head of NSIPs was uncertain and would get back to Councillor Ewart with a more detailed response.

Councillor Ewart said the Alde and Ore group would like to meet with Councillor Packard and Martyn Fulcher to present what they were doing. They have broken the project into cells and were responsible for garnering £15m in the next few years. They needed to get ahead because if there was a sea surge there would be chaos. She explained the group was a very tight cohort who were not 21. They have received a substantial grant from DEFRA and would like Councillor Packard to take them up on their invitation and get a meeting set up for May. The Head of NSIP said he was sure Martyn would like to meet with the group. He mentioned the issue of river wall management and that the clay coming from the Benacre estate could be used but the Environment Agency would class it as waste and could prosecute. He explained there was an ambiguity in the legislation for using clay to build up the river wall defences. He hoped with the new structure of the coastal management team sitting within the wider planning team there would be further conversations and there would be progress.

Councillor Ewart asked if those involved with the interior challenges of water could work with those involved with the coastal issues of water and be on the committee. She was keen for all the civic groups from Lowestoft down to Felixstowe to work together to make sure they didn’t lose the £2.5m of funding. The Head of NSIP referred to the resilient coasts brochure and explained the project was looking at adaptation and runs to 2027 and will provide regular updates to Strategic Planning Committee.

Councillor Bennet asked about the phrase ‘influencer analysis’. The Head of NSIP wasn’t familiar with the phrase but thought it meant that if they found something that worked they would promote it.

The Chair extended her thanks to the Head of NSIP for all his work. Councillor Ninnmey asked that the river defences should be included in the report going forward.

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

RESOLVED

To raise awareness and understanding of the above it is recommended to read appendices A. To provide any comments and recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee for inclusion in this update going forward.