Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Planning Committee North
12 Nov 2024 - 14:00 to 19:01
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Meeting Details
MeetingDetails

Members are invited to a Meeting of the Planning Committee North

to be held in the Conference Room, Riverside, Lowestoft

on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 at 2.00pm

 

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://youtube.com/live/BaHTROtEO04?feature=share

Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1

The Chair congratulated Steve Milligan on his recent appointment as Principal Planner, Central Team.

 

The Chair announced that the Agenda would be re-ordered, with Agenda Item 6 being heard after Agenda items 7 and 8, this was due to the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management, who was presenting Item 6, arriving later.

 

Apologies were received from Councillor Parker and Councillor Byatt attended as his substitute.

2 Declarations of Interest

Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of interests, and the nature of that interest, that they may have in relation to items on the Agenda and are also reminded to make any declarations at any stage during the Meeting if it becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

2

Councillor Pitchers declared an interest in Agenda Item 8 as Ward Councillor for the area.

 

Councillor Gee declared an interest in Agenda item 6 as Ward Councillor for the area.

 

Councillor Ashton declared an interest in Agenda items 8, 10 and 11 as Cabinet Member for Assets and recused himself from those items as they related to land under the ownership of East Suffolk Council.

 

Councillor Byatt declared an interest in Agenda Item 7, noting that he would be speaking as Ward Councillor for the item and would not take part in the vote.

 

Councillor Graham declared an interest in items 8 and 11 as Ward Councillor and also noted that she had met Mr and Mrs Warner, objectors for item 8, through previous matters relating to Sizewell C.

 

Councillor Ewart noted that she also knew Mrs Warner through previous matters relating to Sizewell and as part of the election campaign.

3 Declarations of Lobbying and Responses to Lobbying
To receive any Declarations of Lobbying in respect of any item on the agenda and also declarations of any response to that lobbying.  
3

The Chair declared that all members of the Committee had received emails regarding Agenda Item 7.  Councillor Plummer noted that she had acknowledged the emails but not responded.

 

Councillor Plummer had received email communication in relation to Agenda item 8, which she had acknowledged but not responded to.

 

 Councillor Ewart had been lobbied on Agenda items 6, 7 and 8.

 

 Councillor Gee had been lobbied on Agenda items 6, 7 and 8.

4 pdf Minutes (201Kb)
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2024.
4

On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was

 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
5

The Committee received report ES-2147 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement cases for East Suffolk Council up until 28 October 2024.

 

The Assistant Enforcement Officer advised that there was one update to the report, an enforcement notice had been serviced on 31 October 2024 on the Hornbill Business Park, Hornbill Way, Ellough.  This related to the unauthorised change of use from concrete runway to a business park through the citing of permanent business units. The notice would come into effect on 30th November, with the requirement to permanently cease use of the land and a there would be a 9 month compliance period.  

 

The Chair advised that Legal Team update would be added to future reports and this would start from the next meeting.

 

Councillor Byatt asked what the cost implications were for very long standing cases.  It was agreed that this response would be brought to the next meeting along with the legal updates.

 

Councillor Ewart advised that she was working closely with the Enforcement Team and noted the volume of hard work that was being carried out by the team.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 28 October 2024 be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management .
6

At the request of the Chair this item was re-ordered in the agenda and heard as Agenda item 8.

 

The Committee received report ES/2148 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/23/3191/FUL.  The application was for a phased hybrid development on 8.27 hectares of land to the north of Hall Lane and south of Union Lane.  It comprised a full planning application for the erection of 26 residential dwellings, residential access, associated infrastructure and public open space, and an outline application for up to 159 dwellings, associated infrastructure and public open space and a pre-school (if required).

 

The application was before Planning Committee North due to the scale of the proposed development and the inclusion of the paddock area outside the allocated site.

 

The Committee received a detailed presentation from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management on behalf of the case officer for the application.

 

The site location plan was shared, the full site area was 8.277 hectares.

 

The aerial photograph showing the site in context was displayed, comprising of 3 separate land parcels, south – area of paddock, square arable fields to the top ( the majority of the site) and a smaller paddock type area over to the west.

 

The area location plan was shared with the Committee, Oulton was described as a village to the North of Lowestoft, bordering with Lowestoft and Oulton Broad parish to its south, containing a large residential area as well as mix of schools and community facilities. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out the area on the map that was previously approved allocated site in the local plan and the considerations around that with access from Oulton Street and the surrounding effects. The ongoing development area of Woods Meadow was highlighted, a development of approx. 800 homes, country park and new primary school. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management noted that land was due to be released for a new doctors surgery.  The relationship through to the cross roads in Oulton and routes beyond that as well as the location of the Benjamin Britten Academy Secondary School and the Limes and Woods Loke Primary Schools were shown.

 

The Policy map showing the two allocations WLP 2.14 and WLP 2.15 was shared (area to the North already had granted planning permission and one to South was the current application site). Part of the application site was outside of the allocated area which the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained further in the presentation.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management noted the green corridor policy constraints from the Oulton Neighbourhood plan passing through the application site and the previously consented development. 

 

It was noted that the site allocation is described fully in the Waveney Local Plan and sets out the various considerations required, as a site in the Local Plan there are 190 homes allocated in the smaller area, this application is for 185 in a larger area and opportunities to deliver a preschool and other major design and  infrastructure.

 

The proposed site layout plan was shared, which gave a clear indication as to how the site could be developed and the mix of landscapes.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out the area of Paddock, which plays an important role in the development of the site . The paddock was promoted as part of allocation in Local Plan, but later removed due to an objection from Historic England which related to the Manor House (Grade 2* listed building). The planning application gives a full consideration of all of the effects, and it has been determined that there is an identified less than substantial harm to the effect of the Manor House and this is well documented in the application report and outweighed against the public benefits of development. The public benefits include delivery of affordable homes, pre-school and open spaces and the cohesion that the site gives to the rest of the village.

 

The proposed parameter plan was displayed.  Access arrangements were detailed, showing direct access into the site as well as offsite improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.  Highway improvements will give full access to woods meadow, Oulton north and this proposed site.

 

The Committee was told that the site could connect into footpaths 2 and 6, and the route connecting union lane to those footpaths, although established, was proposed to be formalised through section 106 funding.

 

The housing mix was shared showing the proposed housing type.

 

Photographs of the area were displayed, noting that the manor house could be just glimpsed between the trees, not highly visible but it’s flint characteristics could be viewed.  There were various photos shared showing the context of site and the manor house. The Committee viewed photographs from Hall Lane, where the  allocated site meets the highway, the maintained pond and looking back from the location across the paddock. Views from Union Lane and Flixton View were shared.

 

Referring to Heritage assets, it was noted that the Blue Boar Inn has been considered for heritage impact as had the listed building.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reminded the Committee of the importance of allocated sites in the Local Plan to maintain plan led development in the district. Historically they have maintained a 5 year land supply, with the forthcoming publication of the 5 year land supply, it is about 5.51 years in Waveney, which is close to the requirement and that can be risky for the development of unplanned sites.

 

All statutory consultees have played an important role in the application, including highways and lead local flood authority.  All have no objections with the exception of Historic England who have agreed that there is less than substantial harm for the manor house.

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

  • Principle of development
  • Design and layout considerations
  • Heritage considerations
  • Landscape and visual impact
  • Flood risk and drainage
  • Ecology
  • Public benefits

 

The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Ashdown thanked the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management for a comprehensive report and presentation. Having reviewed the plans, he asked what the timescale was for the phased development. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management replied a single developer could deliver a maximum of 50 per year, so this could be built out over 4 or 5 years.  This could vary dependent on the number of developers, but the applicants could clarify.

 

In response to Councillor Byatt, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management clarified that the comments relating to building on the burial site were relating to the land north of Union Lane site.  He confirmed that the location of the pre-school would be determined at the reserve matters stage as the Section 106 agreement will dictate the location for the pre-school.  Councillor Byatt questioned if it was located near to an old tip site, and it was confirmed that all normal contamination land risk assessments had been completed.

 

Councillor Ewart referred to the design and characteristics and asked why the windows were so small.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said this was in relation to Building Regulations which dictated the amount of window space in each room and the height of windowsills for safety.  Throughout this development there was a reasonable balance from overall building space to overall elevation.

 

Councillor Ewart asked about the safety of the drainage basin.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management replied that a lot of time was spent with developers to get all the correct dimensions that bring landscape and biodiversity, and don’t result in heavily fenced off basins, the ideal is shallow slide slopes.  A training session for members with the Lead Local Flood Agency is being organised.

 

Councillor Ewart noted that one public response referred to disability not being considered. In response the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said that this was covered in the new design, with open spaces meeting regulations and it would be designed into the play area.

 

Councillor Graham commented that this development was submitted pre biodiversity net gain, and she was pleased to see most of the ecologist recommendations met, apart from the Skylarks which had recently been added to the red list.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management replied that there had been a fair response from the ecologists.  The basin would provide scrubby, wild habitat and district wide there would be far more habitat opportunities which would compensate for other sites.

 

There was a proposed new design of having green space on the corner near the roundabout, Councillor Graham asked that as many trees as possible were retained rather than new planting. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management noted that there was a mix around the site, and whilst there would be inevitable tree losses, there was a good tree belt round the back of the paddocks.  There would be tree protection as well as tree planting in frontage.  The landscape plan was shared with the Committee, and it was noted that the Landscape and Arboriculture Officer had reviewed it and was satisfied with the balance of tree loss, tree prevention and new planting.

 

The Committee then heard from the applicant’s agent, Alan Presslee.

 

Mr Presslee thanked the Officer for the report and highlighted the following points:

 

  • This was a hybrid phased application, long in consideration and preparation through extensive public consultation, with pre-application communication with the community and parish council etc.
  • They have worked with officers, responding to recommendations to arrive at the proposal submitted.
  • The proposal delivers what is in the Local Plan, including a mix of affordable and open market housing and pre-school etc.
  • The proposal meets in full the provision of the local plan, it represents a rational material consideration that any minor harm is outweighed by benefits.
  • They have liaised with key stakeholders and consultees to address and meet issues arising as demonstrated in the report and presentation.
  • The S106 agreement has already been drafted (set out in report).
  • There is the full 20% affordable housing and service land for preschool site.
  • Foot and cycle links are provided.
  • New Public Right of Way linking Union Lane.
  • Notable biodiversity measures to achieve net gain.
  • Much needed family housing and associated needs to meet the planned needs.

 

The Chair invited question from the Committee.

 

In response to Councillor Ashdown, the applicant confirmed they were hoping to start Summer 2025 and the timescale would be 4 to 5 years for the build of the 185 homes.

 

He confirmed all homes would have their highest commercial rating, B, possibly A and they would take a fabric first approach to gaining carbon neutral, with lots of insulation, air tightness, car charging points, photovoltaics and heat pumps.

 

Councillor Byatt asked when they would commence work on the nursery.  The applicant responded that the site would be available for the County Council to call upon them with an arrangement for 5 to 10 years for the site.

 

Councillor Graham thanked the applicant for for being enlightened on fabric first and asked about the Biodiversity Net gain measures being put in place. The applicant confirmed that a tremendous amount of work had taken place from where the site started from. There had been lots of biodiverse planting, 60 bat boxes, 60 swift and bird boxes, hedgehog corridors. In response to the Skylarks, they commented that they didn’t have the habitat and had spoken to the ecologist who concurred with that view.  Every other item they had gone over and beyond.

 

The applicant assured Councillor Plummer that the frontage wouldn’t look like a park and would be reasonably wild.

 

The Chair asked the Committee to debate the application.

 

Councillor Pitchers stated it was a very well designed, considered proposal that he was happy to propose was recommended for approval.

 

Councillor Ashdown noted the applicants had listened and responded, noting the issues with building in that area and the residents concern.  He added that all developments in that area needed to be compatible and well designed, which he felt this was, therefore he was happy to second the recommendation.

 

Councillor Gee commented that the reason why the local residents are aggrieved is there has been more and more development until it is completely suburbanised.  Representing the Parish Council, Councillor Gee noted the original application was for 6.3 hectares and the current application was for 8.27 hectares, which she presumed related to the inclusion of the paddock and the local plan stipulates that the paddock should not be built on.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management commented that he completely understood the position on this and had experience of a productive pre-application process and application insights.  Referring to the inclusion of the Paddock, it was because of the setting of the manor house that the paddock was not included initially, and now that the issues with manor house had been addressed there was less than substantial harm.  The paddock gives a more spacious and lower density development and the neighbourhood plan (biodiversity and green corridor 4 of the plan) has been considered. 

 

Councillor Ewart asked how this could be taken forward as it was set out in the report the departure from the local plan and all of the balancing and benefits that have come out of bringing forward the paddocks, was it to bring forward the whole allocation in a better designed way.

 

Councillor Gee noted that the problem was that local residents in the village felt that they were being swamped and completely surrounded by local housing developments.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management commented that Oulton had a strong village identity in itself, and this development is essential for the wider Lowestoft community.  Importantly there will be neighbourhood CIL which will help to bring forward community development.

 

Councillor Gee asked if this meant that local plans could be totally overturned by the Planning Committee.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management assured that the vast majority of the development was local plan led, there was one component element of it which made the overall site more deliverable.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management clarified that the local plan had not been overridden.

 

Councillor Byatt understood Councillor Gee's concerns but recognised that things moved beyond the planning, and there was the need to provide housing.  He supported the proposal as it was reflecting the need and was well designed.

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

 

 RESOLVED

 

That planning permission be granted, subject to the completion of the S106 agreement, including the following obligations and conditions set out in section 10:

To secure the policy complaint amount of affordable housing;
To secure 5% Custom/Self Build Housing;
To secure the Pre-school site;
To secure funding for the creation of a Public Right of Way Link between Union Lane and Footpaths 2 and 6;
Payment of a per dwelling RAMS contribution; 
Provision and long-term management of public open space;
To secure a Biodiversity Gain Plan and Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan;
Payment of a BNG Monitoring Fee;
Payment of a Travel Plan Monitoring contribution

Conditions:

1.     For the development comprising up to 159no. dwellings:

a) Application for approval of any reserved matters must be made within three years of the date of this outline permission and then
b) The development hereby permitted must be begun within either three years from the date of this outline permission or within two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, whichever is the later date.

Reason: To comply with section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 2. For the development of 26no. dwellings where full planning permission is hereby granted:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

3. For the development of 26no. dwellings where full planning permission is hereby granted:

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/drawings:

Reason: for the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

4. No development shall commence until manufacturer’s details (including brand, product name, material, colour and finish) of the roofs, wall materials and external facing finishes, fenestrations and doors to be used have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity. 

5. No development shall take place within the whole site until a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety prior to the occupation/use of any building. It shall thereafter be retained and maintained in its improved form. 

Reason: In the interests of the safety of the future occupants of the hereby approved development. 

6. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecological Report (Norfolk Wildlife Services, May 2024) and the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (Norfolk Wildlife Services, May 2024) as submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination. 

Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.

7.       Prior to works above ground level in the part of the site covered by the full planning permission and commensurate with the reserved matters application for any subsequent phase of development, a “lighting design strategy for biodiversity” shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: 

a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for biodiversity likely to be impacted by lighting and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and 

b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places.

All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure that impacts on ecological receptors from external lighting are prevented.

8.       No development shall take place (including any demolition, ground works or vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following: 

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. 
b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. 
c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). 
d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. 
e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. 
f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. 
g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. 
h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. 

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected as part of the development.

9. A landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority prior to first occupation of the development. The content of the LEMP shall include the following: 

a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. 
b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. 
c) Aims and objectives of management. 
d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. 
e) Prescriptions for management actions. 
f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five-year period). 
g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan. 
h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures. 

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: To ensure that the long-term ecological value of the site is maintained and enhanced.

10. Prior to works above ground level in the part of the site covered by the full planning permission and commensurate with the reserved matters application for any subsequent phase of development, an Ecological Enhancement Strategy, addressing how ecological enhancements will be achieved on site, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Ecological enhancement measures will be delivered and retained in accordance with the approved Strategy. 

Reason: To ensure that the development delivers ecological enhancements.

11. The development shall not commence until a Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) and Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP) for the offsite Biodiversity gain land have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include: 

- a non-technical summary; 
- the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the [HMMP]; 
- the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to  achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan; 
- the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and 
- the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority. 

The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be implemented, retained, managed and monitored in accordance with the approved HMMP for a minimum of 30 years. 

Reason: To ensure that habitats created or enhanced to deliver Biodiversity Gain are appropriately managed and monitored for a minimum of 30.

12. (In relation to the detailed part of the application) The strategy for the disposal of surface water and FRA Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy Report Rev.C (08-04-2024) shall be implemented as approved in writing by the local planning authority (LPA). The strategy shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved strategy. 

Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal, to ensure that the proposed development can be adequately drained.

13. No development shall commence until details of a Construction Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction (including demolition and site clearance operations) is submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA. The CSWMP shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of construction. The approved CSWMP shall include: Method statements, scaled and dimensioned plans and drawings detailing surface water management proposals to include:- i. Temporary drainage systems ii. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses iii. Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction. 

Reason: To ensure the development does not cause increased flood risk, or pollution of watercourses or groundwater https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/guidance-on-development-and-flood-risk/construction-surface-water-management-plan/  

14. (In relation to the detailed part of the application) Within 28 days of practical completion of the last dwelling or unit, surface water drainage verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, detailing and verifying that the surface water drainage system has been inspected and has been built and functions in accordance with the approved designs and drawings. The report shall include details of all SuDS components and piped networks in an agreed form, for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s Flood Risk Asset Register. 

Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage system has been built in accordance with the approved drawings and is fit to be put into operation and to ensure that the Sustainable Drainage System has been implemented as permitted and that all flood risk assets and their owners are recorded onto the LLFA’s statutory flood risk asset register as required under s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in order to enable the proper management of flood risk with the county of Suffolk https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-register 

15. Concurrent with the first reserved matters application(s), a surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority (LPA). The scheme shall be in accordance with the approved FRA and include:

a. Dimensioned plans and drawings of the surface water drainage scheme; 
b. Further infiltration testing on the site in accordance with BRE 365 and the use of infiltration as the means of drainage if the infiltration rates and groundwater levels show it to be possible; 
c. If the use of infiltration is not possible then modelling shall be submitted to demonstrate that the surface water runoff will be restricted to Qbar or 2l/s/ha for all events up to the critical 1 in 100 year rainfall events including climate change as specified in the FRA; 
d. Modelling of the surface water drainage scheme to show that the attenuation/infiltration features will contain the 1 in 100 year rainfall event including climate change; 
e. Modelling of the surface water conveyance network in the 1 in 30 year rainfall event to show no above ground flooding, and modelling of the volumes of any above ground flooding from the pipe network in a 1 in 100 year rainfall event including climate change, along with topographic plans showing where the water will flow and be stored to ensure no flooding of buildings or offsite flows; 
f. Topographical plans depicting all exceedance flow paths and demonstration that the flows would not flood buildings or flow offsite, and if they are to be directed to the surface water drainage system then the potential additional rates and volumes of surface water must be included within the modelling of the surface water system; 
g. Details of the maintenance and management of the surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
h. Details of a Construction Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) detailing how surface water and storm water will be managed on the site during construction (including demolition and site clearance operations) is submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

The CSWMP shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan for the duration of construction. The approved CSWMP and shall include: Method statements, scaled and dimensioned plans and drawings detailing surface water management proposals to include:-
i. Temporary drainage systems 
ii. Measures for managing pollution / water quality and protecting controlled waters and watercourses 
iii. Measures for managing any on or offsite flood risk associated with construction The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved. 

Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site for the lifetime of the development. To ensure the development does not cause increased flood risk, or pollution of watercourses or groundwater. To ensure clear arrangements are in place for ongoing operation and maintenance of the disposal of surface water drainage. https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/guidance-on-development-and-flood-risk/construction-surface-water-management-plan 

16. (Relating to the outline part of the application) Within 28 days of practical completion of the last dwelling or unit, a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) verification report shall be submitted to the LPA, detailing that the SuDS have been inspected, have been built and function in accordance with the approved designs and drawings. The report shall include details of all SuDS components and piped networks have been submitted, in an approved form, to and approved in writing by the LPA for inclusion on the Lead Local Flood Authority’s Flood Risk Asset Register. 

Reason: To ensure that the surface water drainage system has been built in accordance with the approved drawings and is fit to be put into operation and to ensure that the Sustainable Drainage System has been implemented as permitted and that all flood risk assets and their owners are recorded onto the LLFA’s statutory flood risk asset register as required under s21 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in order to enable the proper management of flood risk within the county of Suffolk https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/flooding-and-drainage/flood-risk-asset-register/ 

17. Prior to commencement of development of each phase (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance or other operational works), a construction management plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

It shall include the following detail:

a. parking and turning areas for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors;
b.         provision of public car parking during construction;
c. loading and unloading of plant and materials;
d.         piling techniques (if applicable);
e.         storage of plant and materials;
f. provision and use of wheel washing facilities;
g. programme of site and all associated works such as utilities including details of traffic                      management necessary to undertake these works;
h.         a communications plan to inform local residents of the program of works;
i. provision of boundary hoarding and lighting;
j. details of proposed means of dust suppression;
k. details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction;
l. haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network;
m.         monitoring and review mechanisms; 
n.         details of site working and deliveries times to the site during construction phase; 
o. details of the measures to protect footpaths/cycleways from motorised vehicles                                accessing them; and
p.         HGV delivery management plan.
q.         details of a Dust Management Plan and a variety of mitigation measures
r.         details on how noise, dust, and light will be controlled

Thereafter, the approved construction management plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction of the development.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway, to ensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase, and to reduce the potential impacts of noise pollution and additional vehicular movements in this area during the construction phase of the development. 

18. The hours of working (Including deliveries) during the construction phase shall be: Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours Sunday and Bank Holidays None Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

These restrictions also apply to deliveries/collections from site.

Reason: To protect neighbouring amenity.

19. Noise from fixed plant or machinery (e.g., heat pumps, compressors, extractor systems, air conditioning plant or refrigeration plant) can be annoying and disruptive. This is particularly the case when noise is impulsive or has tonal characteristics. A noise assessment should therefore be submitted to include all proposed plant and machinery and be based on BS4142:2014+A1:2019. A noise rating level (LAr,Tr) of at least 5dB below the typical background sound level (LA90,T)should be achieved at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. Where the noise rating level cannot be achieved, the noise mitigation measures considered should be explained and the achievable noise level should be identified and justified.

Reason: To ensure appropriate levels of amenity are provided to residents.

20. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation consisting of the following components has been submitted to, reviewed by, and confirmed in writing by the local planning authority that these requirements has been met: 

1) A desk study and site reconnaissance, including: 
- a detailed appraisal of the history of the site; 
- an inspection and assessment of current site conditions; 
- an assessment of the potential types, quantities and locations of hazardous materials and               contaminants considered to potentially exist on site; 
- a conceptual site model indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and 
- a preliminary assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant                    receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and            property (both existing and proposed). 

2) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including: 
- the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the           materials  encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy; 

 - explanation and justification for the analytical strategy; 

 - a revised conceptual site model; and 

- a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed). 

All site investigations must be undertaken by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM). 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

21. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning consent, shall take place until a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) has been submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified by the submitted assessments. The RS must include, but is not limited to: 
- details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures; 
- an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies); 
- proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and 
- proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring. 

The RS must be prepared by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019 and Land Contamination Risk Management. 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

22. Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development, the Remediation Strategy agreed under Condition 20 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works. 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. The Environmental Protection Team may want to observe works for example the effective installation of ground gas measures and geotextile membranes.

23. A verification report must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to have addressed the risks identified prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. The verification report must include, but is not limited to: 
- results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met; 
- evidence that the RS agreed under Condition 2 has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and 
- evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

The verification report must be prepared by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, CIRIA C735 and Land Contamination Risk Management. 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

24. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety. 

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that likely risks have been identified and will be investigated accordingly. 

Where remediation is necessary a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) must be prepared, and is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified. The RS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The RS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works. 

Following completion of the remediation strategy a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the LPA as likely to have addressed the risks identified. 

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

25. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and 
a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording 
b. The programme for post investigation assessment 
c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording 
d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation 
e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation 
f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. 
g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Priority 3 and WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

26. No building shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 24 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Priority 3 and WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

27. No building shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 1 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition. 

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Priority 3 and WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

28. No development shall take place within the area indicated [whole site] until a Historic Building Recording (HBR) of the Pillbox, undertaken to Historic England level 3 HBR guidance, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Priority 3 and WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

29. No development shall take place within the area indicated [whole site] until a management plan detailing the preservation of the pillbox, which is to remain in situ, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted management plan must detail the preservation of the WW2 structure during the development of the site, which should be fenced off during construction and included within a construction exclusion zone to prevent any damage this heritage asset. The management plan should also include details on the long-term preservation of the structure which would make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of the development.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Priority 3 and WLP8.40 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023).

30. The hereby approved development shall be served by the most viable high-speed broadband connection.

Reason: To ensure that all new housing in the district is served superfast broadband, in accordance with policy WLP1.3 (Infrastructure) of East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Plan (2019).

31. The residential development hereby approved shall be designed and built to achieve a water consumption rate of no more than 110 litres/person/day. All required water conservation measures installed to achieve this rate shall be retained/upgraded to ensure the required water consumption rate is not exceeded for the lifetime of the development. 

Reason: To ensure the finished development implements the approved sustainable measures to comply with policy WLP8.28 of the East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Plan (2019).

32. Unless Building Regulations require otherwise, all dwellings (including affordable/custom/self-build), hereby approved, shall be constructed and fitted out in accordance with the recommendations with the submitted and approved 'Sustainability and Energy Statement for Residential Development' prepared by Eastern Energy Consultants Limited.

Reason: To ensure a sustainable standard of design interest of addressing climate change to secure sustainable development in accordance with policy WLP8.28 of the East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Plan (2019).

33. No development shall take place until plans demonstrating that 40% of the dwellings hereby approved comply with Building Regulation requirement M4(2) 'accessible and adaptable dwellings' and/or requirement M4(3) 'wheelchair user dwellings' have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter retained in accordance with those plans.

Reason: To ensure the development provides accessible and adaptable dwellings in accordance with policy WLP8.31 of the East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Plan (2019).

35. The internal noise levels must achieve standards as per BS8233:2014 and listed below:
Daytime noise levels for indoor living spaces of 35dB LAeq 16 hour (between the hours of 07:00 - 23:00 hours)
Night-time noise levels for bedrooms of 30dB LAeq 8 hour (between the hours of 23:00 07:00 hours)
Night-time LAmax levels of 45 dB LAF,max night-time (bedrooms only)
Reason: To protect the amenity of future residents.

36. Before the development is commenced, details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, landscaping, lighting, traffic calming and means of surface water drainage), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.

37. Notwithstanding the details indicatively presented within submitted Drawing Numbers C100 Rev P3 and C100B Rev P2 before the development is commenced details of the proposed off-site walking and cycling infrastructure on Hall Lane and at the junction of Hall Lane, B1375 Oulton Street, B1375 Gorleston Road and B1074 Somerleyton Road shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The off-site improvements shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety in full accordance with approved details prior to first occupation of the development. The off-site improvements shall be retained thereafter in its approved form. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and sustainable development by providing an off-site improvement scheme at an appropriate time where no provision may deter people from traveling sustainably and safely to the development site.

38. Before the development is commenced, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit shall be undertaken for the proposed off-site walking and cycling infrastructure on Hall Lane and at the junction of Hall Lane, B1375 Oulton Street, B1375 Gorleston Road and B1074 Somerleyton Road. 

The Road Safety Audit shall be carried out in accordance with current Road Safety Audit Practice and Guidance and any necessary amendments or changes undertaken. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure the approved layout is properly designed.

39. Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. C100 Rev P3 with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 70 metres [tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway] and thereafter retained in the specified form. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.

Reason: To ensure drivers of vehicles entering the highway have sufficient visibility to manoeuvre safely including giving way to approaching users of the highway without them having to take avoiding action and to ensure drivers of vehicles on the public highway have sufficient warning of a vehicle emerging in order to take avoiding action, if necessary.

40. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of the proposed access indicatively shown on Drawing No. C100 Rev P3 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to occupation. 

Reason: To ensure that the access and necessary highway improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and sustainable travel.

41. Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway including any system to dispose of the water and who the adopting bodies will be. 

The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

Reason: To prevent hazards caused by flowing water or ice on the highway. *This needs to be a pre-commencement condition to avoid expensive remedial action which adversely impacts on the viability of the development if, given the limitations on areas available, a suitable scheme cannot be retrospectively designed and built. This is a pre-commencement condition because insufficient details have been submitted at planning stage.

42. Before the development is commenced details of the areas and infrastructure to be provided for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including powered two-wheeled vehicles and electric vehicle charging points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved scheme shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to its first occupation and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure the provision and long-term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the current Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.

43. Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the secure, covered and lit cycle storage including electric assisted cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved scheme shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to its first occupation and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel by ensuring the provision at an appropriate time and long-term maintenance of adequate on-site areas and infrastructure for the storage of cycles and charging of electrically assisted cycles in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023).

44. Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for the storage and presentation of refuse and recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved bin storage and presentation areas shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to the occupation of the dwelling those areas serve and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure that space is provided for refuse and recycling bins to be stored and presented for emptying and left by operatives after emptying clear of the highway and access to avoid causing obstruction and dangers for the public using the highway.

45. Prior to the occupation of the new development the two local bus stops shall be improved to provide Bus shelters/ DDA kerbs on both sides of the road and RTPI displays details of which previously shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Note: For RTPI our approved supplier should be used. 

Reason: To promote and facilitate access to sustainable transport modes and to provide safe and suitable access for all users in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2023) Para. 114 and Para. 116.

46. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development, details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, landscaping, lighting, traffic calming and means of surface water drainage) serving the Outline element of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling associated with the Outline element of the development shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level or better in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure that roads/footways are constructed to an acceptable standard.

47. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development, details of the proposed walking and cycling connection onto Union Lane (including visibility splays, layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, lighting and means of surface water drainage) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwelling associated with the Outline element of the development shall be occupied until the proposed walking and cycling connection onto Union Lane has been delivered in accordance with the approved details. 

Reason: To ensure that the necessary highway improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and sustainable.

48. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway including any system to dispose of the water. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form. 

Reason: To prevent hazards caused by flowing water or ice on the highway. 

49. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development details of the areas and infrastructure to be provided for the loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles including powered two-wheeled vehicles and electric vehicle charging points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved scheme shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to its first occupation and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure the provision and long-term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles in accordance with the current Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety.

50. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development details of the areas to be provided for the secure, covered and lit cycle storage including electric assisted cycles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to its first occupation and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To promote sustainable travel by ensuring the provision at an appropriate time and long-term maintenance of adequate on-site areas and infrastructure for the storage of cycles and charging of electrically assisted cycles in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023).

51. Concurrent with any Reserved Matter application associated with the Outline element of the development, details of the areas to be provided for the storage and presentation of refuse and recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

The approved bin storage and presentation areas shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to the occupation of the dwelling those areas serve and retained as such thereafter. 

Reason: To ensure that space is provided for refuse and recycling bins to be stored and presented for emptying and left by operatives after emptying clear of the highway and access to avoid causing obstruction and dangers for the public using the highway.

52. No development above ground floor slab level of any part of the development hereby permitted shall take place until the travel arrangements to and from the site for residents of the dwellings, in the form of a Revised Travel Plan in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the submitted Transport Assessment Addendum[20 May 2024] ; Transport Assessment /Technical Note and Framework Travel Plan [11/07/2023] shall be submitted for the approval in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. This Travel Plan must contain the following: 
- Baseline travel data based upon the information provided in the Transport Assessment, with suitable measures, objectives and identified targets to reduce the vehicular trips made by residents across the whole development, with suitable remedial measures identified to be implemented if these objectives and targets are not met 
- Appointment of a suitably qualified Travel Plan Coordinator to implement the Travel Plan in full and clearly identify their contact details in the Travel Plan 
- A commitment to monitor the vehicular trips generated by the residents and submit a revised (or Full) Travel Plan after baseline survey on occupation of 50% dwellings
- A further commitment to monitor the Travel Plan annually on each anniversary of the approval of the Full Travel Plan and provide the outcome in a revised Travel Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority until five years has passed after occupation of the final dwelling using the same methodology as the baseline monitoring 
- A suitable marketing strategy to ensure that all residents on the site are engaged in the Travel Plan process 
- A Travel Plan budget that covers the full implementation of the Travel Plan 
- A copy of a resident’s travel pack that includes a multi-modal voucher for not less than £150 to incentivise residents to use sustainable travel in the local area 

No dwelling within the site shall be occupied until the Travel Plan has been agreed. The approved Travel Plan measures shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable that shall be included in the Travel Plan and shall thereafter adhered to in accordance with the approved Travel Plan. 

Reason: In the interest of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, and relevant LPA Policies. 

Note 1: The Travel Plan and Resident Travel Pack should be produced in accordance with Suffolk County Council’s Travel Plan Guidance (www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/travel-plans/information-for-developers) 


53. Within one month of the first occupation of any dwelling, the occupiers of each of the dwellings shall be provided with a Residents Sustainable Active Travel Pack (RTP) in accordance with the Travel Plan. Not less than 3 months prior to the first occupation of any dwelling, the contents of the RTP shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority and shall include walking, cycling and bus maps, latest relevant bus timetable information, car sharing information, personalised Travel Planning and a multi-modal travel voucher for an amount not less than £150 per household. 

Reason: In the interest of sustainable development as set out in the NPPF, and policy CS15 of The Approach to Future Development in Waveney to 2021 - Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2009) 

Note: The Resident Travel Pack should be produced in accordance with Suffolk County Council’s Travel Plan Guidance (www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/travel-plans/information-for-developers 

54 Prior to the commencement of any development, an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be carried out and submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. 

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity to protect existing trees on and near the site. 

55 Within 3 months of commencement of development, satisfactory precise details/specifications of a landscaping scheme to include tree, hedge, boundary treatments and other planting as appropriate (which shall include species, size and numbers of plants to be planted) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-laid out scheme of landscaping in the interest of visual amenity. 

56 The approved landscaping scheme shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of 5 years.  Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained. 

Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-laid out scheme of landscaping in the interest of visual amenity. 

57 Within six months of commencement of development, a management plan for the continued management and maintenance of the approved landscaping scheme shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The maintenance plan should include, long term design objectives, management responsibilities and a scheme of maintenance for a period of 40 years. The schedule should include details of the arrangements for its implementation. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved management plan. 

Reason: To landscaping is properly maintained in the interest of visual amenity.  

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
7

At the request of the Chair this item was re-ordered and heard as Agenda item 6.

 

The Committee received report ES/2149 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/23/3356/FUL.  The application was for full planning permission for the change of use of the former Fen Park Primary School into 7 self-contained flats and the construction of 8 dwellings on the playground along with associated car parking.

 

The application received objections from the Town Council and Local Ward Members, triggering the call-in process.  It was requested that the application be called into the Planning Committee due to the comments that had been received.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

 

Setting out the background to the application, the Senior Planner told the Committee that the application was originally submitted for 8 dwellings in the playground, however the officers considered it a benefit to also include the redevelopment of the existing primary school in the scheme as it was deemed to be a non-designated heritage asset.

 

The Senior Planner showed the site location plan and explained the site.  The site comprised the former primary school and adjacent playground on Lovewell Road, Lowestoft. The school was closed in 2013 as part of the Suffolk restructuring of the School system and has had no real use since that time.

 

The aerial photograph was displayed, highlighting the amenities in the wider area. 

 

3D Visualisations of the existing site were shared from all directions, showing the school building amongst the densely developed surrounding area, noting the rationale for its non-designated heritage asset status.

 

Various photographs were shown, showing the views into and from the front and rear of the building, the playground area and the surrounding street scene. The Senior Planner confirmed that the proposal included several enhancements such as the removal of the modern front flat roof extension which would enable the original windows to be on display.

 

The existing and proposed block plan was shared.  The application would provide 10 parking spaces for the 7 flats and 2 parking spaces per dwelling, the Senior Planner acknowledged this was an under provision by Suffolk Local Parking Standards, however the sustainable location and nearby amenities allowed for the Policy under provision.  It was acknowledged that an element of on-street parking would be lost to provide access points.  The Senior Planner shared the swept path analysis which showed that tracking in and out of spaces could occur without impact to those parked on the opposite side of street.

 

The proposed design elevations and floor plans of the new build dwellings were shown, acknowledging their good design in keeping with the original school building and whilst higher than the surrounding two storey dwellings they were not considered to be out of character with the existing street. 

 

The existing and proposed elevations were shared, with the Senior Planner highlighting the design changes such as the removal of front flat roof, reinstatement of windows and the maintaining the current building openings to preserve the heritage value.

 

Finally, the proposed street scene was outlined, showing the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the former school.

 

The material planning consideration and key issues were summarised as:

 

•          Principle
•          Housing mix
•          Design and heritage
•          Neighbouring amenity
•          Future residents amenity
•          Highways and parking (noted that currently concluding a minor matter on visibility display detail – with the Highways authority)
•          Affordable housing
•          Ecology
•          Other Matters

 

The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Ashton thanked the Officer for the report and asked the Officer to outline the discussion that had taken place with the applicant and how they had arrived at the solution being brought to Committee?   The Officer confirmed that they had visited the site and noted the complicated floor plans and the difficulties in sub-dividing the property into dwellings in the most appropriate way whilst protecting the heritage asset.  This had led to the on-balance decision, resulting in the under provision of 1 dwelling compared to policy requirements.

 

Councillor Ashton asked specifically about the playground units and the Senior Planner referred to the report where they had raised concern about the provision of 5 bed dwellings and whether that was the appropriate size given the area. The applicant had carried out their own due diligence.

 

Referring to the height of the planned new builds, Councillor Pitcher noted that the old school was to remain a 2 storey and confirmed that the nearest 3 storey building was on the seafront. The Senior Planner agreed the old school was 2 storeys high, but its scale was bigger, more like 3 or 4 storeys.  He added that the new builds would be more like 2.5 storeys high in scale, and the old school was noticeably higher than those.

 

Councillor Ewart questioned the purchase history of the school and the Senior Planner confirmed the applicant had bought the school and playground from Suffolk County Council and that they had encouraged the comprehensive scheme to come forward from the applicant as one development, rather than phased.

 

Councillor Ewart asked to review the corner elevation, querying the height and how/if that would affect the light of the neighbouring properties. The Senior Planner confirmed that the height was 9.6 metres.

 

Councillor Ewart referred to the concerns from residents regarding drainage and asked what conditions had been put in place.  The Senior Planner confirmed this had been considered by building regulations and there had been no correspondence from water authorities to say there wasn’t adequate provision in the network. Therefore, there was no material reason to refuse on those grounds and no specific condition.

 

Councillor Ewart asked what the average size home required in the area was currently, noting most were 2 or 3 bedrooms. The Principal Planner (North Area Lead) confirmed a more balanced mix of housing would have been preferable to the proposed development of 5-bedroom houses. However, the school was a building of historic value and initially it was excluded from the scheme, however the applicant had revised the scheme to include it and it would be a challenge bringing the building back into use. The Principal Planner had questioned whether there would be a market for the homes, but noted it wasn’t a planning consideration and that members needed to decide if they were content with the mix of housing and development of land adjacent of the school building.

 

Councillor Ewart asked if the applicant decided that having a garden car park would be better for the community, would that change be considered.  The Principal Planner (North Area Lead) noted that the scheme presented to Committee was the one to be considered.   Should such a scheme come forward then they would consider it fairly, however it was unlikely that a developer would only consider converting the school building due to the financial commitment, and realistically the new build would be needed for financial viability. 

 

Referring to Parking, the Principal Planner (North Area Lead) noted the importance of considering the previous use of the building where there would have been impact to parking at school drop off and pick up times. 

 

Councillor Gee asked if the height of the roofs of the new builds would seriously impact the light of the existing properties.  The Senior Planner stated that there would be a level of light impact, but they would not be adversely affected.  The road between the properties limited the impact and it was an urban development with close relationship between houses.

 

Councillor Graham praised the non-designated heritage asset being brought back to use and accepted that whilst the financial viability necessitated the additional development, it was frustrating that the development was larger than what was needed in the area, bringing with it unsustainable parking, asking would that undermine the whole development.

 

Secondly Councillor Graham asked what the consultation process was and had it been adequately carried out? The Senior Planner confirmed that the consultation process had been adequately carried out, in line with requirements, neighbouring residents had been consulted with and site notices displayed. The Chair clarified the consultation process with the Committee and the Principal Planner (North Area Lead) checked and confirmed that over 20 letters were sent out to immediate/adjacent residents. 

Councillor Graham referred to one resident’s point, asking what mitigation would be in place for people who worked nights and had to sleep during the day when construction work would be taking place. The Principal Planner (North Area Lead) confirmed there would be construction plan controls and conditions, but unfortunately it could be a source of disruption for someone working nights.

 

In response to Councillor Ashdown, the Senior Planner confirmed that the bin collections would come from the rear with sufficient access. 

 

Councillor Graham noted that Highways were satisfied with the parking, but asked how it was a sustainable solution for a new 5-bedroom development with potentially 3 or 4 cars.  The Senior Planner confirmed it was acceptable because of its sustainable location and access to nearby amenities.

 

The applicant was available for questions.

 

Councillor Ashton asked the applicant how they arrived at the decision to make the new builds 5 bedroom, noting he was supportive of mixed developments and that it had to be financially viable, however the housing need in Lowestoft was not 5-bedroom units and added pressure on parking.

 

The applicant confirmed that the overall scale and height of the building wasn’t too different, and it offered flexible living for people working from home or multi-parent families.   The additional bedrooms were in the roof space and the properties could be for rent as well as sell.   Councillor Ashton asked why more smaller developments wasn’t considered in the space and the applicant confirmed that smaller flats would not have worked financially given the margin.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked about the sewage system noting the extra strain that would be added to the system and the current struggles with the original Victorian system and whether they were planning on improving the sewage system.  The applicant confirmed that they could only work with the sewage system that was there.  As Ward Member, Councillor Pitchers was aware of 5-bedroom houses in the area that belonged to the Council, and these were difficult to rent out.

 

Councillor Graham asked how the homes were going to be heated and whether cycle storage would be provided.  The applicant confirmed that there would be cycle storage and whilst they hadn’t got to the detail of the heating, they would be in line with modern building regulations, and they anticipated it to be via heat pumps.

 

Councillor Ewart admired what the applicants were trying to do and noted the importance of retaining these buildings when the County Council were selling off the portfolio. Initially the applicant was going to work on the playground and not on the school and Councillor Ewart asked whether they had intended to take the school down.  The applicant confirmed they always wanted to keep the school, but it wasn’t viable without the development on the playground and that they were a design and build company.

 

Councillor Ewart asked how much research the applicant had done into the size of homes they were looking to build in the area.  The applicant confirmed that they felt there was a demand, historically there were larger builds built and there were a lot of them nearby which were being turned into family homes. 

 

The Chair invited Councillor Byatt, Ward Member, to speak.

 

Councillor Byatt congratulated the Senior Planner for working with the applicant on the scheme, he knew the building well and was delighted to see the Victorian building brought back to life.  His concern was that it was being overdeveloped with the number of properties being squeezed into it.  Whilst the height may be agreeable with the extra bedrooms being in the roof, it was still going to be 9 metres and facing into properties on Beaconsfield road. He felt it was over development of the playground, he recognised the need for properties, but questioned the demand for 5-bedroom properties and cautioned the developers to look at the Royal Court Hotel on London Road South which was originally built as luxury flats.  Whilst rental properties in the school building could be needed, he felt consideration should be given to reducing the number of properties. He noted the small area in the rear garden for a family to be using.  He welcomed Councillor Graham’s questions about cycling and told the Committee that the main issue was parking, there was already a big problem in the area without the additional 30-40 vehicles which would affect the way people move around in the area.  Before any decisions were made Councillor Byatt requested that the site was viewed as it would be an imposing development. He objected to this application as whilst he welcomed the development, he felt it was overdeveloped and unreasonable for the residents to have the additional parking problems imposed on them. 

 

The Chair invited questions to Councillor Byatt, Ward Member.

 

Councillor Ewart asked what the common number of bedrooms was in the area.  Councillor Byatt confirmed in that area they were generally 3-bedroom houses, further towards the seafront there were larger properties.  He expressed concern that if the developed properties were to become rentals, he would not want the risk of them becoming an HMO.

 

Councillor Ashton noted it was a welcome development that required compromise.  The upside was that the school building was being re-developed and the playground which was rapidly becoming an eyesore with some anti-social behaviour issues would also be developed.  He asked Councillor Byatt if there could be a compromise that would be acceptable, whilst considering the developers financial viability.  Councillor Byatt replied that the immediate properties would be visually impacted and there would be parking issues for a number of people that needed to be considered, he suggested compromise by reducing the number of properties and the height, which would remove the end away from Beaconsfield Road, noting it had to be viability but acknowledging it was a principle that could then happen anywhere in the district and was having an upsetting effect on a number of people in his ward.

 

The Chair noted that there had also been positive views expressed about the development and that she acknowledged the views of Councillor Byatt and other Councillors that going to see the site would be beneficial. 

 

Councillor Ashdown said they had received a thorough presentation and heard from residents via email, he recommended that the application was deferred for a site visit.  Councillor Pitchers said that parking is a problem, and a site visit would be good, but it was important to view in in the evening or school finish time to get a true picture of the parking issues. 

 

There was a discussion around the need for a site visit and whether that was necessary or just delaying a decision that could be made. Councillor Ashton proposed that the objection was rejected, expecting it to return to Committee with more work, noting the need for more discussion around the housing mix and car parking, particularly relating to the number of 5-bedroom homes, looking at the sub-division of the accommodation and the financial viability. 

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reflected on the discussion and the complexities of the site, noting that the deferral for a site visit could be used to present updated plans or a strengthened case around the existing proposal.

 

Councillor Ashdown proposed that the determination of the application was deferred partly for site visit and for the applicant to consider the proposal following the feedback at Committee.  Councillor Pitchers seconded the proposal and stressed the importance of the site visit occurring at the correct time. 

 

The Principal Planner (North Area Lead) added it was also important to see the impact on the street scene and the site visit would take place in the day.  Councillor Ashton requested that the inside of the school was viewed as part of the site visit. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be DEFERRED to enable the Committee to visit the application site and, following feedback from members, have further consideration of the application.

 

Officers advised that a site visit would be arranged and that details would be circulated to members of the Committee in due course.

 


Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
8

At the request of the Chair this item was re-ordered and heard as Agenda item 7.

The Committee received report ES/2150 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/1956/FUL.  The application was for full planning permission for the erection of one dwelling within the curtilage of Timber Top, Sizewell Gap, Sizewell. 

The application was before Planning Committee North as the access to the proposed dwelling is within the ownership of East Suffolk Council.

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (Development Management), who was the case officer for the application.

The Principal Planner (Development Management) displayed the site location plan and map, explaining the site to the Committee along with the land which was in East Suffolk Council’s ownership, the public rights of way and the listed building – Coastguard’s Lookout.

An aerial photograph showing the public footpaths, general context and Timber Top was shared.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) highlighted the plot of land in the curtilage of Coastguard’s Cottage which was the subject of a refused application in the 1980’s, and subsequently refused on appeal (as mentioned in the Committee report).

Various photographs were shared with the Committee, showing views of the properties in the area, the pub and caravan parking, the outbuildings and the access driveway.

The proposed elevation, block plan, floor plan and artist impression was displayed, showing the committee the planned development and design in the context of the area.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) pointed out the amendments that had been made since the original submission, in response to the concerns raised by the Suffolk and Essex coasts and heaths national landscape and the East Suffolk Landscape team. 

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

•          Compliance with cluster policy
•          Suitability of access
•          Impact upon national landscape
•          Impact on setting of listed building
•          Impact upon right of way
•          Impact upon neighbours/neighbouring caravan site. 

The Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed that there had been a late email from the Planning Consultant working on behalf of the applicant sent to members.  This was too late to include on the update sheet but it suggested that the development should not be approved and set out the consultant’s reasons for this. 

The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

The Chair thanked the officer for his presentation and invited the Committee to ask questions. 

Councillor Pitchers noted in the report that there was a previous appeal to the Planning Inspectorate which concluded that the access road was unsuitable to serve an additional dwelling. He asked how does the current application overcome that view? The Principal Planner (Development Management) responded that was the view presented at the time and it was difficult to gauge if that was the only reason for refusal, adding that the policy was different then to the current cluster policy.  The Principal Planner(Development Management) had included the information in the report for background and the Suffolk County Highways Authority and Rights of Way team did not object to the access being suitable to serve one dwelling. He confirmed that the current view was that the access road was not so adversely affecting things from a highway safety perspective to justify the refusal of planning permission.

Councillor Ewart asked how many homes there were in the Sizewell Gap hamlet.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) responded there were 6, dependent on if Coastguard Cottage was included.  Councillor Ewart noted that one more changed the percentage and given the sensitivity of the land in the AONB what was the rationale for accepting the division of land into two? The Principal Planner replied it would be considered in line with the cluster policy, which didn’t rule out additional dwellings within the national landscape, it would have be a judgement on a case by case basis, considering the impact on the area. 

Councillor Ewart referred to the lack of drainage and lack of septic tanks and asked if they were resolved? The Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed that there was sufficient space within the curtilage of the property to have a treatment plant in place and the conditions would allow for significant drainage.

The Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed the distance between the back of the building to the top of where the caravan site starts was approximately 9 metres.

Councillor Ewart referred to the recommendations from the Heritage Team and Highways and the Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed these had all been implemented as recommended conditions.

Councillor Ewart questioned the height of the dwelling and how much would be seen as you come into the gateway of Sizewell Gap, adding it was an important dimension to consider when making a decision.

In response to Councillor Byatt, the Principal Planner (Development Management) said the cottages were Victorian and did not necessary justify archaeological work.

The Chair invited the objector, Colette Warner to speak.

The objector told the Committee that she spoke on behalf of her husband and other residents who objected to the application.  Sizewell is a hamlet, visited by fisherman, artists, enjoyed by daily visits and with smugglers history. She presented her objections and highlighted four areas:

Landscape – Coastguard Cottages and Coastguard lookout were built in 1820 to police and protect present times and had a historic role over 2 centuries.  The landscape is iconic and has been recognised as such for generations and Timber Top has been part of that since 1966 as a brick, low level three-bedroom home.

Footpath 21 is a rough unmade unlit narrow single track owned and maintained by East Suffolk council, since bought by developers Timber top has been rented out to a group of young people with 5 cars regularly parked there, resulting in the footpath deteriorating greatly.  The footpath has no passing places or turning point meaning vehicles have to reverse back down meeting walkers and vehicles entering the footpath.  This causes other vehicles to reverse onto a blind bend.

Highway C228 – developer’s traffic survey 2022, 20 m east of nuclear entrance, recorded during a 7 day period, 5,385 vehicles, on average 769 per day. This excludes walkers, cyclers, horse riders etc. C228 has a national speed limit to Sizewell Beach car park and due to parking charges vehicles are regularly parked from the nuclear entrance to the car park and use the bottom of footpath 21 to turn around, leading to major deterioration and hazards on the blind bend. 

Cluster – Sizewell is a hamlet in an AONB, which has predominantly family owned homes, which is rare in coastal communities. Any improvements made are small scale, and in keeping with the traditional landscape allowing the coastguard cottages and lookout grade II listed buildings to be undisturbed.

The Chair invited questions to the Objector.

The objector told Councillor Ewart there were 13 homes including the pub and confirmed there was no representation from Sizewell Gap on Leiston Parish Council, therefore the residents take it upon themselves to raise issues.  

The Objector confirmed the location of Sizewell Gap.  The Objector told Councillor Ewart it was difficult to gain permission to develop Coastguard Cottages due to AONB, hamlet, countryside and sea.  They said that neither they nor their consultant had been able to establish the height of the house from the hill to the pavement. 

Councillor Ewart asked about the 790 traffic movements currently in Sizewell and asked what attracts people to Sizewell Gap, the objector replied it is the beach and a beautiful place to live and visit.

In response to Councillor Byatt asking whether they would object if it was a one-off, the objector said they were concerned about it setting a precedent for other developments, particularly with the potential traffic increase.

The Objector confirmed that the most recent house to be built was Timber Top in 1966, before that they were all there for hundreds of years, with the Vulcan Pub being 1600’s.

The Chair invited the applicant, Alec Greenwell, the applicant to speak.

The applicant thanked the Principal Planner (Development Management) for the report and agreed with the objector about how beautiful the area was. 

He told the Committee that the proposed new dwelling had been laid out and designed to comply with planning policy at East Suffolk and the officer’s report confirms that the scheme is fully compliant with local planning policies. He made the following comments regarding the application: 

 

Principle of development – the local plans cluster policy exists to enable small developments to come forward in existing clusters of dwellings and this development complies with policy as it is located between existing dwellings, constituting a cluster.  The development will help meet local housing needs, the house will be small with just 2 bedrooms, meeting the needs of the Leiston neighbourhood plans which asks for smaller homes. The most recent strategic housing market assessment for the area requires a greatest increase in homes with two bedrooms.  The house is designed to be adapted for older people if necessary. It will provide good quality accommodation for future occupants and the external design materials will give an attractive appearance and sit comfortably within the landscape. Council landscape officer and national landscape officer are happy with the designs.

 

The applicant told the Committee he had been responsive to feed back to statutory consultees, reduced number of roof lights and made changes to the front garden and boundary treatment landscaping, the changes were received positively by consultees and national landscape officer confirmed development now conserves and enhances natural beauty of AONB. 

 

There is listed building to north east of site, the heritage officer found the development would preserve the significance of the listed building and would have no negative impact. The chosen black cladding is suitable and would not dominate the area. The site is of low ecological value at present due to lawn expanse, however they propose some conditioned enhancements and a lighting strategy to minimise impact.  The scheme is fully compliant with the local plan and Leiston Town Council acknowledges it complies.

 

The Chair invited questions to the applicant.

 

The applicant confirmed to Councillor Ashdown that it would be for a permanent residence.

 

Councillor Ewart declared she sits on the drainage board with applicant’s father.

 

Councillor Ewart asked how tall the building was at its highest point, the applicant did not have that information available but could provide it. Councillor Ewart felt this information was essential to determine what the view was going to be coming into Sizewell Gap.  The applicant confirmed the building would be almost hidden by the Hawthorne hedge, which would remain.

Councillor Ewart asked why a home similar to Timber Top had not been considered as a more consolatory option. The applicant confirmed that another 1960s bungalow could not be fitted on the site and they were not sure it was the most appropriate architectural style. 

Councillor Byatt referred to the concern raised about the height, asking if the build could go further into the ground.  The Chair confirmed that the application in front of Committee was what was being judged.

Councillor Ashdown noted the good presentation and having seen what is there, one property, complying with the policy with appropriate design, he recommended approval.

Councillor Byatt echoed the concerns regarding future development and asked if conditions could be added. The Principal Planner commented it was not possible to prevent other applications coming forward and confirmed having measured the dwelling it was 6m tall to the ridge. 

Councillor Pitchers, referred to the discussions taken place, he liked the idea of the black cladding, it was in keeping with Coastguard Cottages.  He felt one dwelling was acceptable and was concerned about the access, however this didn’t warrant turning it down, he was happy to second the proposal.

Councillor Graham knew the area and didn’t think it was a suitable site, it is within a special part of the AONB, a historical hamlet with access routes that aren’t particularly suitable. It does set a precedent and for those reasons she recommended refusal.

Councillor Ewart expressed that the houses sat in two clusters not one and had their own unique characteristics and styles.  A new build would dwarf the existing dwellings. 

Councillor Gee referred to the previous refusal by the planning inspector, particularly the access road, and that hadn’t changed. The Principal Planner noted it was correct for the application to reference the appeal report, although this was 1988 and therefore was cautious to give weight to previous appeal decisions, he emphasised it was important to pick up on the key issues with the current report and relevant policies.  There are not currently any objections from Highways or Coast and Heath or East Suffolk Landscape Officers.  Councillor Gee noted that the same impacts still exist since the previous objections.

Councillor Pitchers asked if the Council’s policy on Clusters had changed at all since the last appeal.  The Principal Planner said there wasn’t a cluster policy then and it is now a completely different set of policy circumstances to judge the application against.

There was discussion regarding the concern of setting a precedent for future development between members. 

Councillor Ashdown proposed that the application be accepted, and Councillor Pitchers seconded the proposal.   It was by a majority vote resolved 


To REFUSE the application.

 

The Committee was reminded that if the recommendation was for refusal, then the reason for refusal needed to be cited in line with Planning Policy.

 

On the proposition of Councillor Byatt, seconded by Councillor Ewart it was by a majority vote

 

RESOLVED 

 

To refuse the application DC/24/1956/FUL as it will result in undue harm to the character and appearance of the cluster, resulting in harmful visual intrusion into the surrounding landscape.

 

The reason being that 

 

In line with Policy SCLP 10.4 landscape character, development proposals are expected to demonstrate their location, scale, form, design and materials will protect and enhance:

 

D. Visually sensitive skylines, seascapes, river valleys and significant views towards key landscapes and cultural features. 

 

The skyline and the gateway into Sizewell Gap changes considerably and it is a historic village, and part of the AONB that doesn’t require that addition.  The secondary reason being concerns about highway access.

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
9

The Committee received report ES/2151 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/2463/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for 14 one and two bedroom flats to be used for temporary homeless accommodation, and the external refurbishment of the building, including the reinstatement of the front entrance doorway, the removal of canopy and external metal staircase at the rear of the building; repair and replacement of existing windows; and insulation and rendering of the exterior of the building at Avenue Mansions, Royal Avenue, Lowestoft.

 

The application was before Planning Committee North as the building and land is within the ownership of East Suffolk Council.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

 

The site’s location plan and photographs were shown, showing the building as it was originally constructed.  The Planner noted it was not a listed building, but a non-designated heritage asset located within the North Lowestoft Conservation Area.

 

The Committee were shown photographs of the site detail showing how it had been modified over time. The Council had acquired the building, and it had previously been used as rough sleeper accommodation.  It was noted that the building to the left-hand side was not part of the application site, there was a shared pedestrian undercroft which was to be retained for bike and bin storage.  A small pedestrian ramp would be removed, and the route would be widened.

 

The rear of the building was heavily modified, and the application sought to remove a number of external fire escapes.

 

The scheme would be entirely car free, and the reinstatement of the front entrance would take place to enhance the front visualisation. The applicant sought to increase cycle storage to 24 spaces in total to reflect the number of bed spaces.

 

Plans were shared showing the existing floor space.  The plan was for 1 x 2 bed flat and 13 x 1 bed flats. The entire building would be DDA compliant. There would be a site office just off the main entrance to the building and emergency temporary accommodation for acute housing needs.  It was envisaged that occupants would be in flats for 6 months to a year whilst awaiting suitable accommodation.

 

The application would provide a good standard of temporary accommodation which would all meet nationally prescribed minimum floor space standards.  Some of the 1 bedroom flats would have studies so they could provide temporary accommodation for people with children short term or couples.

 

All the existing timber windows to the front elevation and flank elevation facing Yarmouth Road were proposed to be retained and refurbished in situ with secondary glazing installed.  The existing and proposed rear elevations were displayed with the main change being removal of the fire escapes and there will be smoke lobbies internally. The rear would be rendered and the elevation which is less visually prominent would be rendered. The extent of render to the Yarmouth Road elevation had been reduced at the request of Heritage Officers.

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

 

  • Housing need – acute shortage of temporary homeless accommodation.
  • Heritage impacts – avenue mansions is a NDHA within the North Lowestoft Conservation Area
  • Design and amenity
  • Access and parking – car free scheme
  • Biodiversity and impact on protected habitats – RAMS mitigation secured.

 

The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions to the Committee.

 

Councillor Byatt asked about the non-replacement of the windows.  The Planner confirmed they were originally going to be replaced with uPVC windows but there was strong objection from Heritage. Original timber windows were to be retained and secondary glazing installed, and she outlined the plans to mitigate the concerns.

 

Councillor Ewart noted that a lot of work had gone into it and it was quite a contentious project.  She asked if there was storage in the building for stocks of linen etc with the churn of residents.  The Planner confirmed there was storage within the flats and potential attic storage.  There had been compromises as it is an important building that needs to be retained. She added that the intention is that the temporary accommodation would be used for 6 months to a year apart from the crash pad where there would be a higher turnover.

 

Councillor Ewart asked about the costs to turn the building around, it was noted that information was not in the public domain and the Chair added that within that sum was the retention of a historic building that would be restored.

 

Councillor Byatt noted it would become part of the Council’s housing assets, which was really important and he proposed that the application was recommended for approval.  Councillor Gee seconded the proposal, adding it was a very much needed scheme with wonderful restorations. It was by a unanimous vote.

 

 

RESOLVED 

 

that authority to approve the application be granted, subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions

1. Time Limit
2. Compliance with submitted drawings
3. Condition schedule of windows to be refurbished and replaced and details of replacement uPVC windows, to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, 
4.  Details of materials and finishes to brick piers and end caps to front boundary wall to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval
5. Details of lighting and CCTV to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval
6. Ecological enhancement and mitigation measures in accordance with Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
7. Protection to nesting and breeding birds
8. Cycle storage – details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority 
9. Refuse and recycling storage – details to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
10

The Committee received report ES/2152 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/3089/VOC.  The application sought to vary several conditions (4,5,7,8,9,10) and discharge condition 6 of the extant planning consent DC/23/4537/RG3, which was previously approved by Planning Committee North on 24 May 2024.

 

The application was before Planning Committee North as the application is made by East Suffolk Council on land under the Council’s ownership. and land is within the ownership of East Suffolk Council.

 

The chair welcomed Jack Hannan, Assistant Planner, to the team.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Assistant Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

 

He outlined the variation to the conditions to take place and explained that the rewording would help to streamline the work to allow certain work to go ahead and the project to proceed.

 

The conditions related to the northern wing of the marina centre demolition and the timeline changes would provide the applicant with the flexibility to deliver.  The works would commence on the 18th November for two weeks.  Should they continue longer than work will cease over the Christmas period.

 

The allocated site map, marina building photograph and aerial site photographs were shown to the Committee.

 

The proposed changes were minor and would not materially alter the impact of the development.  The amended conditions table was presented to the Committee along with the revised wording.

 

It was recommended for approval subject to the amended condition outlined in the report.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

The Assistant Planner confirmed to Councillor Byatt that the remaining demolition would continue in the same way.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed to Councillor Ewart that it wasn’t unusual to have amendments, and in this case they were approached at the right stage and time to be able to submit to Committee and they worked closely with the Regeneration team.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That approval be granted, subject to the updated conditions set out in the report, in addition to all other relevant conditions on the original permission ref - DC/23/4537/RG3 (See appendix 1 of the report).

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
11

The Committee received report ES/2153 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/0335/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for a new industrial unit and hardstanding for B8 (storage and distribution) use, on a site on the Eastlands Industrial Estate, Leiston.

 

The application was before Planning Committee North as part of the site area – the access road within the industrial estate is owned by East Suffolk Council.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (Development Management), who was the case officer for the application.

 

The site’s location plan shared with committee and the context of the site explained.

 

The site is allocated within the Leiston Neighbourhood plan as a general employment area.

 

Photographs of the proposed site and the proposed block plan was shown to the Committee detailing the trees to be retained and the area of hardstanding.

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were:

 

  • Impact upon area
  • Impact upon trees

 

The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions to the Committee.

 

Councillor Ewart asked questions of the Principal Planner.

 

It was confirmed that the loading/unloading area was predominantly hardstanding and there was a chain link fence for security.

 

The Principal Planner (Development Management) said the applicant had not stated what material would be used around the rest of the site, just stated the land to be cleared.  The large second door at the back of the building was likely to be used for rear access – no hard standing proposed at the rear.

 

Councillor Ewart asked what properties and environmental characteristics this type of roof had, asking what fire precautions had been included.  Referring to the Town Council’s comments regarding hazardous chemicals, Councillor Ewart asked what it was going to be used for.

 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that there were controls that existed for the storage of chemicals and the usage of the building was not part of the planning application.  He added that the risks associated with what is stored in that building was controlled by other legislation as long as they are storing and not undertaking industrial activity then they are complying with the planning considerations.

 

The Principal Planner (North Area Lead) noted there is a hazardous substance consent that can be applied for which can be looked into.  Fire and rescue service had been consulted and if they had concerns they would raise them. Councillor Ewart added a note of caution and Councillor Graham suggested adding an advisory point would be appropriate.

 

Councillor Ewart confirmed that the concern arose as there is a train track and hazardous waste could be stored.  The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed it was not their responsibility to control what was being stored.

 

On the proposal of Councillor Byatt, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was by a unanimous vote

 

 RESOLVED

 

to Approve the application, subject to the following conditions.


Conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with: Drg Nos 'Dwg.J2417.PSP' received 07.03.2024; 001/6, 002/6, 003/6, 004/6, 005/6, 006/6 and Unit Specification (Spec 3) received 30.01.2024, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application (specifically, the accompanying specification sheet). 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity.

4. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site as shown on Proposed Site Plan Drawing Number J2417.PSP for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area(s) shall be retained and used for no other purposes. 

Reason: To enable vehicles to enter and exit the public highway in forward gear in the interests of highway safety.

5. Before the use is commenced details of the areas to be provided for secure cycle storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose. 

Reason: To enable employees to have access to safe and secure storage for cycles in the interest of assisting in the use of this sustainable form of transport with the aim of reducing traffic and parking congestion.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 as amended, the unit, hereby permitted, shall only be used for purposes within Class B8 (Storage or distribution) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended by The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020) (or any other Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that order). 

Reason: To ensure the appropriate use of the site, protect the amenities of occupiers of properties in the locality, and protect the town centre from inappropriate out of centre development.

7. None of the trees or hedges shown to be retained on the approved block plan shall be lopped, topped, pruned, uprooted, felled, wilfully damaged or in any other way destroyed or removed without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. Any trees or hedges removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of the completion of the development shall be replaced during the first available planting season, with trees or hedges of a size and species, which shall previously have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The trees shall be protected during the course of construction with protective fencing complying with BS.5837, to be erected 1 metre beyond the canopy spread of the trees and hedgerow.

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
12

The Committee received report ES/2154 of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management which related to planning application DC/24/2945/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for a single storey rear extension.

 

The application was before Planning Committee North as the applicant is a member of staff.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (North Area Lead), who was the case officer for the application.

 

The site location plan was shared with the Committee along with an aerial photograph showing the site in context.

 

Photographs of the existing building were shown, including photographs of the rear where the development was proposed and views of the neighbouring property.

 

The proposed block plan and the existing elevations and proposed elevations were displayed along with existing and proposed floor plans.

 

The recommendation to approve the application, as set out in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

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

 

 RESOLVED

 

To Approve the application, subject to conditions.


Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with Site Location Plan, Proposed Block Plan 613-01A and Proposed Elevations, Proposed Floor Plans 613-02A received 16/08/2024; for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

3. The external materials to be used shall match as closely as possible in type, colour and texture those on the existing dwelling.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the development.

4. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.

An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons (see Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework) and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management) and a written report of the
findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that likely risks have been identified and will be investigated accordingly.

Where remediation is necessary a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) must be prepared, and is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified. The RS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The RS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works. 

Following completion of the remediation strategy a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the LPA as likely to have addressed the risks identified.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

Exempt/Confidential
There are no Exempt or Confidential items for this Agenda.

 

Attendance

Attended - Other Members
Apologies
NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
Councillor Graham Parker Councillor Peter Byatt
Absent
NameReason for AbsenceSubstituted By
No absentee information has been recorded for the meeting.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Officers present: Joe Blackmore (Principal Planner (Development Management, North Area Lead)), Katy Cassidy (Democratic Services Officer), Matthew Gee (Senior Planner), Jack Hannan (Assistant Planner (Major Sites and Condition Monitoring)), Steve Milligan (Principal Planner (Central Team)), Agnes Ogundiran (Conservative Political Group Support Officer), Katherine Rawlins (Planner), Lucille Reed (Assistant Enforcement Officer), Ben Woolnough (Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management)