Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Planning Committee North
11 Feb 2025 - 13:00 to 19:52
  • 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, 11 February 2025 at 1.00pm

 

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://youtube.com/live/8MYK1glcPzs?feature=share

 

To register to speak at the Committee, please complete the online form

Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1
There were no apologies for absence received.
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 Wakeling declared a non-pecuniary interest in items 7 and 8.

Councillor Graham declared she was Ward Member for item 8.

Councillor Plummer declared she was Ward Member for items 11 and 12.

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

Declarations of Lobbying and Responses to Lobbying


All Planning Committee North Members declared that they had received emails regarding Agenda Item 7 and had not responded to any of them.

 
Councillor Wakeling declared that he had attended a site visit with the developer in 2023, accompanied by the Senior Planner (Development Management).

 
Councillor Plummer declared she had received emails from Mr Gordon relating to Agenda Item 8 and procedure, which she had responded to purely on procedural matters.

 
Councillors Ashdown and Graham declared that they had received an email regarding Agenda Item 8 and had not responded.

 
Councillor Plummer declared that she had received an email on Agenda Item 9, when it was previously on the agenda and had not responded.

 
Councillor Ewart declared that she did know one of the people living in the location of the Southwold site visit that had taken place regarding Agenda Item 9. However, it had been approximately 25 years since they had last seen each other.

 
Councillor Plummer declared that as Ward Councillor she had met with Shaun Crowley, Beccles Public Hall, relating to Agenda Items 11 and 12.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2024.
4

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

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 November 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2024.
5

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


RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 
Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management
6

The Committee received report ES/2278 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 where enforcement action had been sanctioned under delegated powers up until 28 January 2025. At that time there were 27 such cases

There being no further updates or questions from the Committee, on the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Gee, it was 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 28 January 2025 be noted.

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

The Committee received report ES/2272 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/22/3313/FUL.  The application was for the installation of a temporary (40 years) ground mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) farm with Battery Energy Storage System (BESS); along with continued agricultural use, ancillary infrastructure, security fencing, landscaping provision, ecological enhancements and associated works on Land off Gray’s Lane, Wissett.

The application was before Planning Committee North, having been referred by the Head of Planning and Building Control due to the significant location, scale and nature of the application.

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

The Senior Planner (Development Management) told the Committee that a Committee site visit was carried out on 25 November 2024.  The application had been screened against Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, firstly in 2021 and more recently in 2025 due to the change in the scheme over the course of the application.   On both occasions, the application has been screened as not being considered to be EIA development.

The Senior Planner (Development Management), displayed the following slides:

Slide 1

This slide showed the surrounding area of the site.  The Senior Planner pointed out Halesworth to the Southeast, Wissett to the South and the circled areas which showed other renewable energy in the area – Bonner’s Solar Farm and the former Holton Airfield.  Rumburgh was shown to the West and Spexhall to the East.

Slide 2

This slide showed the closer context of the application site and the route that was taken by the Committee on the Site Visit was outlined to the Committee.

Slide 3

This slide showed the proposed layout of the application, with rows of solar panels from East to West, facing in a Southerly direction.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out the trees on the site to be avoided (most of which were covered by Tree Protection Orders (TPO’s)). The site would be surrounded by deer fencing and the CCTV cameras, internal access tracks and 7 invertor cabins were shown.  Field H was shown, noting it was slightly remote from the main field.  Pear Tree Villa was pointed out along with the second access through to the Eastern field for the battery storage unit.

Slide 4

This slide showed how the scheme was originally proposed and the area that had since been removed from the proposal.

Slide 5

This slide showed the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in more detail, with the layout of 23 battery units and 7 inverters, the access tracks from Gray’s Lane with passing bays splitting into two separate tracks, with security fence around the battery storage unit and CCTV cameras.  The proposed screen planting was shown.

Slide 6

This slide showed the Public Right of Way network in the area, noting footpath 16 was the route that the Committee walked along as part of the Site Visit.

Slide 7

This slide showed Bonner’s Solar Farm, Wissett.

Slide 8

A slide showing a list of the material planning considerations and key issues as detailed in the report was shown and the Senior Planner continued with his presentation addressing each of the issues in turn.

Principle of Development

Proposal is supported by Policy WLP8.27, subject to the relevant criteria in that policy and paragraph 161 of the NPPF.

Landscape
 

Referring to the Waveney Landscape Character Assessment, the majority of the site was in character area I2 – Saints Plateau East, which covered a large part of the district, with the application site sitting in the Southwestern corner of it.  Adjacent to it was character area H6 – Blyth Tributary Valley Farmland.  For the purposes of policy, this was considered to be a value landscape.  The overlay highlighted that most of the site was outside of the valued landscape apart from the battery storage unit and its access track which just crossed over into it.

Paragraph 187 of the NPPF highlights that valued landscape should be protected and enhanced. Local Plan Policy WLP8.35 highlights that development would not be permitted where it would have a significant adverse impact on the valued landscape.

A map showing the viewpoints submitted within the Landscape Visual Assessment (LVA), submitted by the applicant, was displayed. Alongside this, there was a Cultural Heritage Baseline and Impact Assessment.  In response to this, the Save Gray’s Lane group submitted a report by E-nigma.  Both of these were assessed by the Principal and Senior Landscape Officers, who visited the viewpoints.  It was noted that the viewpoints were not chosen by the Council, but they were considered to be acceptable in terms of the scale of the application.  More recently, an arboriculture impact assessment has been submitted to assess the impact on protected trees/hedgerows and the impact on any trees on Gray’s Lane.

A series of photographs showing the characteristics of Gray’s Lane were displayed for the Committee.  Starting at the southern end, it was a narrow road, tree lined, high hedges, giving tunnelling effect.  Moving northwards it opens up slightly, and as you approach the application site there are more 2-metre-high mature hedgerows, it was noted there are gaps in hedgerows.  As the application site itself was approached, it was much more open, particularly at the proposed access to the western field.

The Committee were walked through a series of photographs showing the various viewpoints of the solar array and the battery storage area and from the LVA the impact at Year 1 and the impact at Year 10 with the proposed mitigation in place.  The following viewpoints were shown:

Viewpoint 7, Viewpoint 8a, Viewpoint 8, Southside of BESS (footpath 16), Viewpoint 5, Viewpoint 9  Viewpoint 1, View into Field H (viewpoint 11, although not included in LVA, E-nigma report raised this was missing), Viewpoint 10.

Committee Members were told that the report identified moderate to major visual effects in viewpoints in close proximity to the site, such as viewpoints 7,8,9, this would be reducing to moderate and minor when the planting becomes established.  It was noted these were localised impacts, and there wouldn’t be any visual impact from much wider views of the landscape.

Landscape character – there would be moderate harm from the loss of characteristic arable farmland and the industrialisation of the landscape in that location, loss of seasonality associated with agriculture.   There would be some landscape character impact from the introduction of high hedges at 3 metres, which was not always characteristic. There would be loss of tranquillity around the battery storage area.  However, it was noted these impacts were localised and the characteristics of the wider landscape would prevail.

Heritage Impacts

There was a heritage report submitted with the application and the Principal Design and Heritage Officer had scrutinised the application.  A slide was displayed showing the location of the various heritage assets along with a table which listed the particular heritage assets, their grade and level of less than substantial harm.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) explained there were two levels of substantial harm – less than substantial harm/substantial harm.  Substantial was generally for when a development involved demolition of listed buildings and a development that effects the setting was usually less than substantial harm.  The level of less than substantial harm to each of the assets were presented to the Committee in turn.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that Historic England had also been involved in the application, having commented on the higher-grade heritage assets such as the Scheduled Monument, grade 1 and grade 2* listed.

The Senior Planner (Development Management) told the Committee that there was a Statutory duty under Section 66 of Listed Building Conservation Act to give special regard to preserving the setting of heritage assets.  Paragraph 212 of the NPPF highlighted that great weight had to be given to assets conservation.  The more important the asset the greater the weight.

The Committee was shown a slide on Pear Tree Villa, Grade 2 Listed Building.  The harm caused to the listed building through the development in the setting was the diminished connection between the farmhouse and the landscape.  This was caused by uncharacteristic development of the rural landscape.  

A separate balancing exercise had been carried out in relation to the harm to heritage assets, referred to in Paragraph 7.141 of the report.  The NPPF states great weight must be given to the harm, therefore substantial negative weight had been attributed, however this had been balanced against the public benefits involved through renewable energy and associated benefits (very substantial positive weight – paragraph 215 – NPPF), therefore the conclusion was that the benefits outweighed the harm.

Neighbour amenity

Pear Tree Villa was the building with the most neighbour amenity impact, the photos shown to the Committee showed the impact on the outlook from Pear Tree Villa.

Other impacts were the impact from noise to the properties in the vicinity.  A noise impact assessment had been carried out and assessed by Environmental Protection, assessing properties within 1km of the development.   The report stated that noise limit of 30 decibels would not be exceeded.  If approved, they would recommend conditions to ensure this limit was adhered to and a validation check would be required after 3 months of operation.

Glint and glare was another potential impact on neighbour amenity.  A glint and glare assessment had been carried out - 90 properties were assessed, 51 highlighted as glint and glare being geometrically possible. The assessment highlighted that due to intervening vegetation and other buildings there wouldn’t be any impact on residential properties from glint and glare.  

Policy 8.27 highlights that there should be no significant adverse effects on amenity.  It is considered that there would be minor level of impact on amenity on Pear Tree Villa, it wouldn’t reach significant adverse effects levels.

Use of Best Most Versatile Land (BMVL)

Best Most Versatile Land (BMVL) is defined as Grade 1, 2 and 3a.  The classification map displayed showed that the site was made up of predominantly Grade 3a (78.9%), the remaining being Grade 3b (21.1%).  There was no specific policy in the Local Plan regarding BMVL, therefore the reliance was on paragraph 187 of the NPPF – economic and other benefits of BMVL be recognised. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and various ministerial statements cited a preference to using non-agricultural land and where agricultural land was used it had to be shown to be necessary, poorer quality land was to be used in preference to high quality land.  The PPG also encouraged continued agricultural use, and grazing was proposed as part of the proposal, it encouraged biodiversity enhancement which again was part of the proposal.

The Officer’s view was that here had been adequate site search, avoiding highest quality grades 1 and 2 land – only 15% of the holding was proposed to be used, this was a small proportion of land across the district as a whole.  The supporting report stated the land was the lowest yielding on the holding. There would be no permanent structures, the loss was temporary, albeit 40 years being a long time. The land could be brought back to agriculture use in the future.

A visual was shown, displaying the site search corridor and the expanse of Grade 3 land.  It highlighted the land in the applicant’s ownership and the higher grade 2 land being avoided in preference to the lower grade land.

Highways


The Senior Planner (Development Management) outlined the Highways impacts, which had been raised within the objections.

Construction period would be for 26 weeks (5.5 working days/week).

Transport assessment showed there would be 558 HGV deliveries (1,116 two-way movements) note this is based on worst case scenario of all HGV, but there would be a mix of vehicle types.

 

Average of 4 HGV deliveries per day (8 movements), equates to 1 HGV movement per hour.

Maximum of 30 staff vehicles (60 two-way movements per day).

There would be a booking system to avoid peak hours and vehicles meeting one another, other mitigations measures were highlighted in Section 7 of the Transport and Access Statement.

A Construction Transport Management plan would be required by condition.

There had been objections that no assessment of the movement of battery storage units had been made, other legislation was in place to consider this – Health and Safety Executive Legislation, Dept of Transport Moving of Dangerous Goods.  

Construction Route

Concerns were raised by Halesworth Town Council on the point where Wissett Road joins the A144 and safety concerns with increased HGV movement. Moving along Wissett Road, there were highlighted implications with heavier vehicles using this.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted there was no weight limit on the bridge, Suffolk County Council hadn’t raised any concerns regarding that. Photos were shown moving down towards the application site, it had been highlighted that there were often parked cars in the street in Wissett and generally more vulnerable users, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders use Gray’s Lane as well.

Along Gray’s Lane it was proposed to have passing bays.  There was one existing parking bay at present, and other informal areas have been created.  Slide showed one of 4 plans as to how the passing bays could be created.  Suffolk County Council Highways approved of the plans.

Flood Risk and Drainage Strategy

The site was within a low-risk area of flooding – Flood zone 1. There is a Drainage Strategy within the application which has been scrutinised by Suffolk County Council  – Lead Local Flood Authority, they have commented throughout the application process and are satisfied with the proposed drainage strategy.

The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out the shallow swales on the plan and the attenuation basin proposed for any surface water.

The proposal is compliant with flood risk Policy WLP8.24.

Ecology

There were no designated sites within the vicinity. There were non- statutory sites such as Long Meadow County Wildlife site, running along the southern boundary of the eastern field.

There is a high percentage of BNG.  Although no BNG mandatory requirement due to the date of submission, the NPPF and Policy WLP8.34 requires improvements to biodiversity.  A number of ecology documents were submitted with the application, ecological impact assessment, preliminary ecological appraisal and associated surveys, BNG calculation and the landscape environmental management plan.  There would be modified grass and other natural grass proposed to be grown around the solar array.

There had been no objections from natural England, and although Suffolk Wildlife Trust initially raised concern with the BNG calculation, they had since not objected to the application.

A slide was displayed showing the mitigation strategy proposed, with greater detail of that being required by condition.

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)

This was of great concern to members of the community.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that battery storage was essential to maintaining grid stability and resilience and was vital to the energy mix, becoming more common place. 

Planning Practice Guidance encourages applicants as well as local planning authorities to engage with the local Fire and Rescue Service.  This has taken place. The application was supported by a fire safety management plan (version 5). It was noted that it had been criticised by objectors. The Fire and Rescue service’s most recent comment stated that they were satisfied that it complies with national fire chief councils’ guidance.  Particularly with spacing increased to 6m and the water supply provided (228,000 litres in underground tank) to provide a supply of 1900 litres/minute for 2 hours.

An Emergency Response Plan/Risk Reduction Strategy would be required prior to any work commencing on the site (Suffolk Fire and Rescue Service would work with the applicants to develop this). Regarding the water supply, it was noted there had been many comments about the suitability of the amount of water for 2 hours. There is draft NFCC guidance due to be published later in the year which indicates that the same minimum would be required.  This report indicates, in certain situations manufacturers are advising against just putting huge quantity of water on the fires.  In this application, it is proposed to use an attenuation basin, large enough to take any contaminated fire water.  Some alterations to the battery storage unit would be required to create impermeable seal.  Sealed drainage would be implemented to ensure no contamination to existing waterway.

The application had been criticised for the lack of specification on batteries, the Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was common to not have the detail at this stage, and this would be provided within an emergency response plan.  It was noted that the applicant suggested the storage capacity would be 46 megawatt hours, based on a capacity of 2 hours of storage per battery.

The Senior Planner (Development Management) provided a local example of battery storge that had recently been consented with lesser separation. This was closer to commercial premises and industrial property and the fire service found this to be suitable separation distance.

Overall, the proposal as a whole would not have adverse safety impacts to warrant refusal of the application (WLP 8.27).  The Emergency Response Plan was deemed suitable to minimise risks and mitigate impacts.

Referring to the statement that hazardous substance consent was required for these types of application, the Local Authority didn’t agree that hazardous substance consent was required.  According to Planning Practice Guidance it was not the intention to bring into scope premises which do not manufacture or store hazardous substances, solely because of a fire might generate hazardous substance.

A series of slides were shown, showing the proposed structures on site, these were:

Inverter cabin
Example of typical battery energy storage container shown (Acoustic barrier would surround at 3.5 m in height)
Substation building
Grid connection
Solar Panels maximum height of 3m, 800 mm off the ground
Deer fence
CCTV cameras shown round perimeter of site.
Proposed access track
Typical security gate

Returning to the original slide, summarising the Material Planning Considerations/Key Issues, it was considered that the proposal complied with the criteria in WLP 8.27, and it would contribute to the Government’s objectives through transition to a low carbon economy increasing renewable energy generation as part of net Zero commitments.

Throughout the topics covered it highlighted some minor conflicts with Local Plan policies, particularly Landscape Policy WLP8.35 and Heritage WLP8.37, minor conflict with WLP8.29 and paragraph 187 of the NPPF.  Overall, the application accorded with Policy WLP8.27 and the Development Plan as a whole.

In order to explain the conclusion of the report, the slide was shared showing the detailed planning balance exercise that was carried out and the weight given to each of the harms and benefits. 

The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the report.

The Chair thanked the Officer for the in-depth report and invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashton asked to revisit the slides of the various viewpoints, looking particularly at the impact at Year 1.

Running through the viewpoint slides, the Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed:

Viewpoint 8b - Year 1 just the acoustic barrier could be seen and at year 10 there was more shielding from the copse of trees.

Viewpoint 5 – This was taken from behind an established tree belt, the views at year 1 and year 10 were the same.

Viewpoint 1 – confirmed solar panels higher than the hedge at year 1 and at year 10 the higher hedge prevailed.

Councillor Graham asked about hazardous substance consent, noting it was not always necessary in terms of BESS storage, but it was advised when the amount of hazardous substance (lithium) reaches or exceeds a controlled quantity set by the regulations.  She asked the Officer what the controlled quantity was and to explain the decision not to request consent.

In response the Senior Planner (Development Management) said that hazardous substance consent was a separate regime, therefore even if it was needed, there could still be a planning application without the hazardous substance consent. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the hazardous substance regime does not apply unless those quantities are stored or manufactured on site. If they are released through an accident such as a fire, it is highlighted within the PPG that it doesn’t bring it into the scope of the hazardous substances consent regime.

Councillor Graham responded that if it provided assurance to the neighbouring community, what is the barrier to the Council seeking hazardous substance consent.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied if dealing with hazardous substance consent, that they were the determining authority and they would then seek advice from the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.  He reiterated that this application did not fall within the control quantities of the hazardous substance regime.

Councillor Wakeling referred to the noise, stating although 30 decibels didn’t sound very much, it would be at a constant low hum.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that was taken at worst case scenario, the tables within the noise impact assessment showed the detail, and the EP limit of 30 decibels would only reach 2 residential properties (at which it would be reached but not exceeded). Councillor Wakeling understood that but was concerned if it was a constant low hum, it would affect the users of the area, the walkers, and those using the bridleway.

Referring to the moderate weight benefit given to associated jobs, Councillor Wakeling asked after the build was done, how many jobs would be offered.   The Senior Planner (Development Management) did not have the exact number of jobs on site but referred to the wider benefits of job creation within that sector.

Councillor Ewart asked how the fuel power would be installed under the road, this question was deferred to the applicant to answer later in the presentations.

Councillor Ewart asked about the weight of the storage units, and how the Council supports the community by developing the road, making sure the bridge was strong enough etc.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed the applicant had stated that the 44-tonne limit would not be exceeded.  Anything over those weights required a special licence and further clarity would be given by the applicant.

Councillor Ewart asked if there was a drawing of the turning off the lane, towards the BESS site, that would accommodate a fire engine of 15 to 20 tonnes to take a right-hand turn onto the roadway. The Senior Planner (Development Management) did not have the drawing, but referred Councillor Ewart to the Transport Statement, where the Highways authority was looking closely at track path diagrams.  Councillor Ewart noted she had asked for this in relation to the comments regarding having to reverse 20 metres to get to a fire.

Councillor Ewart continued, given this is an application that is hazardous and flammable, it would be advisable to have a dual approach, yet the applicant says that was not feasible.  Councillor Ewart stated surely everything had to be feasible if there was a fire? The Senior Planner (Development Management) stated the NFCC Guidance does encourage 2 access points. If that was fundamental, SCC would have objected, the application is showing a single access point that divides into two, they hadn’t said they would be dissatisfied with that.

Councillor Ewart concurred with Councillor Wakeling’s concerns regarding decibels, stating she would follow up with the applicant.

Councillor Ewart was surprised the Environmental Agency (EA) were not a statutory consultee.  She referred to the comments from Liam Robinson of the EA to Mr Burton, 6/11/24 regarding fire contamination water and battery waste.

Noting the concern, Councillor Ewart asked where would the water run off go to?  Whilst there was an attenuation basin, she questioned if in a fire, could they direct that volume of toxic water into the right place.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that was the suggested solution.  It would be conditioned to make sure it was sealed and not permeable and any fire water would be directed into the fire attenuation basin which was shown to hold the required capacity.  He added this would be dealt with in an emergency response plan in more detail. 

Councillor Ewart referred to the letter from Third Revolution 12/7 regarding Field H and the removal of the access track in response to the considerations raised.  Noting that access to field H would be via light vehicles such as quad bike only, so as not to damage the RPA’s or canopy of the trees.  She asked how they would install into field H, or should it be stated it wasn’t allowed.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was a concern that had been raised, and an Arboricultural impact assessment had been carried out with plans changed accordingly.  He confirmed there would be a cellular construction over that area of land to enable vehicles to access without damage. The Tree Officer had reviewed that and was happy with the detail, which would be conditioned.

Councillor Ewart raised a concern about whether the deer fence was high enough.

Councillor Wakeling asked about the construction traffic route, which was on single track windy road, not lit for a lot of the way and whether alternative routes had been considered.   The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that throughout the duration of the application, this was the favoured route.  Councillor Wakeling expressed concern that this was the favoured route, as it was still quite dangerous.

There being no further questions, the Chair invited the first of the public speakers, Symon Clarke from Save Gray’s Lane to speak in objection.

Symon Clarke read out the following statement:

The proposed battery energy storage system is contrary directly to Waveney Local Plan 8.27 because it creates a risk of severe adverse effects to local people and the environment.  There has been confusion throughout over the size and specification of the batteries.  PACE, the developer, originally stated there were 10 containers with 10-megawatt hour capacity and no substances which were combustible or likely to explode were involved, thereby avoiding an environmental impact assessment.  As we now know we’re looking at 46 megawatt hours in 23 containers of substances that are potentially lethal if a thermal runaway fire occurs. There is further confusion because the amended planning application includes a cursory fire safety report that specified a type of container that would actually increase the current capacity if used by eight times. What are we to believe now? Particularly when PACE has an option to lease another 100 acres from the same owner on land adjacent to Bullam’s and running up to Rumburgh street. The Save Gray’s Lane campaign commissioned a fire report from Dr Fordham the leading expert who has given evidence at the Sunnica hearing.  He demonstrated that a 26 mega hour thermal fire runaway fire would release about 170 tonnes of toxic chemicals into the environment and that any battery site over 22 megawatt hours should require hazardous substance consent.  This planning department however assess the developer claim that the batteries are safe, that environmental impact assessment is still unnecessary and that its own local plan does not apply.  A thermal runaway fire requires vast amount of water to keep under control until it burns out, there is no water on this site so PACE will install a tank with enough water to manage a single container fire for 2 hours, after that there are no other options.  It took 58 hours for a single container fire in Liverpool a couple of years ago to burn itself out and there was a water hydrant on site.  How can the planners assert that the public benefit from solar energy outweighs all other considerations by asking this committee today to agree to such a potentially dangerous installation where there is doubt over its energy capacity, no detail as to the chemical composition of the batteries, no hazardous substances consent, no fire risk assessment and no emergency response plan.  A slide was shown showing a battery site in Halesworth. Work was halted on this site when a member of the public reported that it did not conform to the design permission granted. the developer then submitted a new planning application for what they had actually built contrary to the original design, the council granted permission.  He concluded how can any agreement be made today be trusted by the public and this committee.

There were no questions for Symon Clarke. 

There were representatives from 3 Parish Councils, Wissett, Spexhall and Rumburgh, it was agreed that Mr Burton of Wissett Parish Council would answer any questions from the Committee following all three Parish Council making their representations.

The Chair invited Frank Burton from Wissett Parish Council to speak.

Accompanied by a PowerPoint that was shared with the Committee, Mr Burton read out the following:

The second reason for objection as that it causes significant adverts impacts to the locally protected landscape of Blyth tributary farmland contrary to Policy 8.35.

Last month the Government stated the queue to access the grid was overwhelmed with more than 700 gigawatts of projects. The solar target for 2035 is 70 gigawatt and wind is 86 gigawatts, this led the CEO of the grid to announce a year ago there were 5 times the projects required in the pipeline that were needed to decarbonise electricity by 2035.  This means that you can easily ensure that projects are not built in a locally protected landscape, are not built in the middle of a ring of heritage assets and are not built on BMV land.  Your council commissioned landscape studies in 2008 and 2016 to help planners decide which landscapes could be developed and which conserved, both were incorporated into Waveney local plan which categorically states development will not be permitted if it has a significant adverse impact on tributary farmland. The studies said the ancient landscape and tranquil nature of the area should be preserved. Road signage should be kept to a minimum to avoid urbanisation.  It is perverse and unnecessary to ignore your own prohibitions.  You may need no persuading that locating the whole of this BESS, 23 6-metre-long containers causing 94 decibels, 7 inverters, 3.5m high sound barrier storage, cameras, signage fencing, all in Blyth tributary farmland amounts to significant harm and adverse impact.  No wonder the opposition has been extreme, over 230 people have written objections, and it is your duty councillors, and I know you will comply with it, to listen to your constituents, they paid thousands of pounds to have experts report to assist you. Expert barristers report, scientist report.  You do not have any counsel opinion, solicitors’ opinion or scientific evidence. There is a report from Helen Donnelly LVA expert and Suffolk Preservation Society who say that considerable harm would be done by industrialising the landscape and heritage assets.  Also, the Council’s own strategic landscape and heritage advisors found harm to the landscape and harm to the heritage assets. The report before you is extraordinary in its bias towards the developer by claiming that green energy overrides the council’s own policies and experts’ views.

Accompanied by a presentation, Les Sharman of Spexhall Parish Council read out the following statement:

PACE accept nearly 80% of the land in issue is BMV contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 180 and persistent ministerial statements over the last two years that BMV land should not be used for Solar Development and it if is proposed there must be compelling evidence that it is necessary.  PACE have provided no evidence that is necessary. PACE originally said very little of the land was BMV this clearly was not the case.  The national policy guidance adopts the protection of BMV and quotes of ministerial statement that solar energy was desirable but not at any cost, not in any place and not if it rides rough shod over the views of local communities.  For larger deployments brownfield land should always be preferred.  In other parts of the country solar has been installed on disused airfields and former industrial sites. This is the model for future projects, we will do our best to spread examples of best practice focusing deployment on buildings and brownfield land not greenfield.  Subsequently four other ministers and three prime ministers confirmed the position that there is a strong presumption against the use of grade 3a land or above for solar arrays and it is suggested that its use must be demonstrated as necessary and proven by compelling evidence.  PACE imposed on itself narrow parameters for search, namely the site had to be within one kilometre of the 33v Halesworth grid, at least 50 hectares and owned by no more than two people.  This meant that pace only looks at BMV land in the Halesworth grid corridor.  It recognised there were brown site areas available but claimed they were too far from the grid connection.  In two appeals concerning solar developments in Sawston, the secretary of state agreed with the inspector that no weight be attached to the assertion that a connection the National Grid is an essential site requirement.  The government has acknowledged the need to develop a food system that recognises a threat to food security created by global warming.  Almost of the of the land solar farms now occupied was once agricultural land and all of the land in the 900 applications in the system is agricultural land. A study in hydrology suggested there would be a loss of 2 million acres of agricultural land between 1990 and 2025.  A study by the University of Cambridge suggested a land shortfall to farming of 4.8 million acres by 2030.  Assuming an annual wheat yield of 9 tonnes per hector the annual loss from this site will be over 15,000 tonnes over 40 years.  This is why footnote 62 to paragraph 181 NPPF requires that food production should be considered when deciding what sites are most appropriate for development. The decision to seek planning permission on this site is manifestly contrary to NPPF 180, 181 and footnote 62 and as such should be rejected.

The Chair invited Mr Paul Fenner, from Rumburgh Parish Council to make his representation.

Accompanied by a presentation, Mr Fenner read out the following statement:

Section 66 of the Planning Act 1990 requires special regard to be given to preserving a listed building or its setting.  It is a statutory requirement that great weight must be given to preserving the setting of a listed building, which means keeping it safe from harm.  It’s clear, therefore, that this Committee has got strong and defensible grounds for rejecting this application.  There are 34 listed buildings near the proposed site in three parishes, one grade 1 st Andrew’s Church, two Grade 2* Hatton Farm and St Peter’s Church.  The Council looked at how this development would disturb these national heritage assets and Mr Scrimgeour said PACE only looked at the individual affected asset without any overview of the significant character these farms share.  He also said the development would directly cause harm to 14 listed buildings plus the Wissett village conservation area, this was when he considered the original application in February 2023.  He maintained his position when he looked at the amended application later that year, though he agreed there was a slight reduction in harm to Pear Tree Farm, Brooke Hall Farm and the area.  He said there was strong evidence of harm to National Heritage assets.  Please note strong evidence of harm. The same principal design and heritage officer quoted the national planning framework when he stated great weight should be given to the assets conservation regardless of the level of harm identified.  Whatever the level of assessed harm it still amounts to damage.  His position is supported by the experts, ESC Strategic Landscape Advisor, report March 2023. Expert opinion of Helen Donley, Enigma Planning November 2022 and September 2023 and the authoritative condemnation of the Suffolk Preservation Society in January 2024. The map on screen showed the location of the site is inappropriate. The site is within a mile radius of 31 listed buildings and the Wissett conservation area. The Council’s own consultation says the development will cause harm to many heritage assets and that harm also amounts to the detriment of Wissett given the existing 70-acre solar farm at Bonner’s Farm on the other side of the village.  The Council should be aware that East Lindsey District Council rejected a 49.9-megawatt application in Hatton new Newcastle on heritage grounds with harm to just one grade 2 listed building and its landscape setting.  Councillors should also be aware of their own planning guidance which states the Council will work with partners, developers and the community to protect and enhance the district’s historical environment.

Having heard from all parish councillors, the Chair invited questions from the Committee. 

Councillor Ashton thanked the public speakers for their presentations and asked for clarification of NPPF 180, making sure that the Committee was referencing the same document.  Mr Burton read out the paragraph. It was clarified that the part of the document referred to was now paragraph 187 in the current NPPF.

Councillor Ewart noted she had a question for Ruth Chittock, and the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed questions for officers would follow all public speaking.

Mr Burton offered clarification to Councillor Graham regarding her concern with hazardous substance consent.  He said that they had consulted an expert who stated that should there be a thermal runaway there would be a breach of hazardous substance. The expert had looked at the details of what happens under a loss of control, and this was statutorily defined in the provisions of Part 3, schedule 1 of the 2015 regulations. He told the Committee they had been advised by planning and in law what matters was what the statute says.  Acknowledging that the planning guidance advised that hazardous substance consent was not needed, he stated their lawyer had written the book on the issue and as far as he was aware the Planning Committee had not been advised by lawyers. He referred to Dr Fordham’s report and the change in law that had occurred in Northern Ireland regarding hazardous substance consent.

The Chair noted that they were a planning committee and not a legal courtroom.

Councillor Graham asked Mr Burton if they had discussed these matters with the fire and rescue service and what was their feeling about it?  Mr Burton responded that they were not a consultee and in the early days Save Gray’s Lane had contacted them and they knew nothing about the proposal.  Subsequently national fire chiefs have set out what is required, and Suffolk fire and rescue says that what PACE are doing fits the new guidance. As objectors they are making the point that two key elements are missing, risk assessment and emergency fire response.

The Chair stated that it was only necessary to answer the questions from the Committee and not an opportunity to present beyond those questions.

Councillor Pitchers asked for clarification of the figures quoted for Best Most Versatile land and why there was a difference to those that the officer presented.  Mr Burton clarified that 80% is 3A and the rest was 3B.  He added whilst there is a push to make 3B as BMV it isn’t currently.  There were no differences in the figures.  He told the Committee that PACE could never comply with building outside of BMV as they didn’t look outside of BMV land when conducting their search.  

The Chair thanked the objector and Parish Council representatives for their presentation.

The applicants made their representations, presentations were received from Mr Kelly, Mr Shaw and Mr Hadingham.

First the Committee heard from the landowner.  He told the Committee that the PACE proposal would help them to provide a long-term income stream outside the fluctuations of crop margins whilst also addressing the needs of national requirements for green energy.  It was important to realise a solar farm would not be a loss from agricultural production as they would still farm sheep on the farm and after the term the area would be returned to cropping.  They have farmed in the local area for over 100 years and the local environment is and always would be important to them.  Food security, wildlife protection, and energy self-sufficiency are key to agricultural landscape and initiatives such as this proposal help them move closer to their long-term sustainability objectives.  Farming has been through significant changes in recent years. To be sustainable their business needs to be viable.  Markets and climatic conditions resulted in them achieving a significant loss in the tax year ending 2024.  He has 2 young sons and a diversified income would help to ensure longevity of the business for future generations.

The agent told the Committee:

Today is a culmination of years of work, having used the advice from the community, from specialists, from officers to refine the scheme so that any local impacts are within policy expectations and outweighed by the considerable benefits the scheme will bring from renewables, climate and biodiversity.  The site was chosen following an extensive site search. And as per local government policy they’ve shown it’s necessary to use agricultural land and located the land on the lowest quality land. In response to the community concerns fire risk is extremely low for this type of battery and the design meets the national fire chief’s guidance and they would continue to work with them.  The NPPF is clear that significant weight should be given to any renewable energy.  Changing the Energy System does change part of the landscape and they respect those concerns but the impacts have been fully considered and officers agree that they are outweighed by the benefits it brings.  The extensive ecological surveys have confirmed no harm and we will deliver a substantial benefit.  He added there was still a very significant need for renewable energy.  The UK is falling behind on the delivery of renewables.

The Chair invited questions to the applicants.

Councillor Ashton asked about the suggestion that the land under the panels would be used for grazing, particularly what sort of scale would occur and what evidence they had of that being done elsewhere.  The applicants replied that it was fairly standard practice with approximately 50% of their solar farms having sheep grazing on them.  Mr Hadingham added they were arable farmers but business has changed.  They would look into the ability to have their own sheep or rent the sheet.  Cover crops were a much larger part of their farming location and the sheep would provide a solution on that for the winter.

Councillor Graham asked what opportunities for brownfield land exist and why they hadn’t explored them.  The applicant replied they had carried out a review of sites within the study area with grid connection. They had carried out a site search in order to comply with national policy land and consulted with the brownfield register.  There was nothing or it wasn’t large enough.  He explained that the usual process was, is there brownfield, is it big enough (which is very, very rare).  Then if there was brownfield land, it has to be a viable proposition.  House builders offer more money than a solar development for this land. He confirmed that there was specifically none available in this area.

Councillor Wakeling continued to explore the question around the choice of land, asking whether they looked further afield in the area, between the brownfield and grade 3a and 3b land.  The applicant confirmed the first steps in identifying land was identifying where there was capacity to connect to the grid.  The Case officer map showed this line and 1 km band around it, they referred to publicly available maps which identified most of that land was grade 3 (not possible to determine 3a or 3b until further digging/testing takes place).  They then looked for what was available, was there a willing landowner and followed a series of criteria, national policy statement, heritage landscape, ecology agricultural land grade. Checking all those criteria there were no sites available or clearly better than their scheme.  They are directed by national policy that agricultural land grade should not be the predominant criteria when deciding on a location.

Councillor Ewart referred to her experience as a Strategic Project Manager, coming from the design and build industry and said her questions would be around that.  Regards to Field H, she asked how they would install on that site, or was that something on reflection that needed to be taken out of the picture.  The applicant said they took a view that they needed to protect the trees and their root protection areas.  In order to do so, they took everything that needed heavier equipment out of that field, anything that didn’t need its own access track.  Putting that into context, the applicant noted that the Hadinghams used substantially heavy farm vehicles daily.  It was clarified that any transformers/inverters had been taken out.

It was clarified to Councillor Ewart that the containers were the size of standard shipping container.  Councillor Ewart queried whether there would be sufficient space between each of the containers.  She asked about the term satisfactory provision used in the fire response and asked if that was good enough for the community and concurring with Councillor Graham’s question, she asked why there was no risk assessment, she didn’t understand.

In response the applicant said the most probable technology to be used is Lithium Iron Phosphate – not aware of any significant incidences with this technology in the UK and very few globally. He confirmed that the separation had been adjusted, and it is 6 metres between each one, which meets the guidance.  He confirmed satisfactory was appropriate in that context as it related to its genuine meaning (not needing to go further).  Assessed by officers and fire service to be suitable and there was a planning condition that would provide the further detail.  The equipment specification used in renewables moves quickly, therefore it was necessary to have the flexibility within the legally binding constraints of planning to give the detail. 

Councillor Ewart referred to BESS guidance and asked what the limitations were to achieve maximum access for overall security for this community.  Why could there not be a one way in and one way out?  The applicant replied there is one way in from Gray’s Lane which then divides and goes around.  In the context of the work carried out, it was agreed with the fire authority that this was an appropriate solution at this site. 

Councillor Ewart reiterated her concern with only one way in, noting that once the fire engine was in it would be blocked, reservists could come (as noted in the report) but they don’t deserve to be pushed up a lane where they could not get out if there was a significant fire.  The applicant responded that the likelihood of a fire is incredibly small.

Following some calling out from the public gallery, the Head of Planning and Building Control asked for continued silence for all speakers.

The applicant said there had been no major instances in this country with the lithium iron phosphate, the technology had improved since then as had the guidance which they had followed.  Referring specifically to the question of routes in, the applicant said in order to minimise the number of access tracks from Gray’s Lane across the field, they had created a single track with passing places.  As you get toward the battery unit itself there is a turning head where there is the ability to turn and the ability to go in and out in that unlikely event of a fire. 

The applicant confirmed to Councillor Ewart that it was unmanned but monitored 24/7 remotely, details of how the remote monitoring worked were given and it was confirmed that all of the safety measures in the fire chief’s guidelines had been taken seriously, and they had provided a scheme that was safe and appropriate.  He added in fairness to the community this wasn’t an issue for the sector when they first raised it some years ago, they were ahead of the game and have pushed them to look at it.

Councillor Ewart raised that in the document it also said about safety and security, considering the likelihood of someone who may wish to attack the site.

Councillor Ewart asked about light pollution and said she assumed there was an emergency light plan, asking how that worked and would there be light pollution in the village? The applicant confirmed there would not be lights on day in, day out. Referring to the battery safety detail, they would expect to include emergency lighting that would only be used in the case of emergency.  There would be no light pollution from this scheme at all.  Should there be an incident that could not wait until daylight hours then those lights would be brought on or in the case of the battery they would only be turned on in that instance.

Councillor Ewart noted therefore when the siren goes off, the lights would go on and they’ll be safe.  The applicant confirmed that would be part of the detailed planning condition to be signed off with officers.

Councillor Ewart referred to the noise impact assessment and the equipment used.  Using the manufacturer’s data, the typical noise would be approximately 89-106 decibels.  The EP assessment is saying it needs to be 30 decibels. Looking at the detail of the BESS assessment, Councillor Ewart noted it was carried out in a cooler month and most of the time the weather will be warmer, and the fans will be on.  Councillor Ewart felt therefore that not only Pear Tree Villa, but possibly the other 12 homes could be affected and asked how they would mitigate the noise.  The applicant referred to the noise assessment where it assumed a worst-case scenario, it assumed everything (fans/batteries) are operating continually, which they would not be. What is important is what is the sound level at sensitive receptors, e.g. Pear Tree Villa.  What the assessment shows is that by that time the predicted noise levels will have reduced dramatically down to worst case scenario of 30 decibels in one receptor. This is a condition of the application, therefore there would be the condition to monitor, regulate and take action accordingly.

Councillor Graham asked why the fire safety plan would be in place after the site was completed, querying why they would not want that in place earlier. The applicant responded that materials may change when the development is constructed in the future.  The planning condition would require the detail and safety plans/emergency plans. He said they were not agreeing them for sensible reasons and there was a legally binding mechanism in the discharge conditions which would be subject to scrutiny.  He confirmed what had been provided to date was confirmed by Fire and Rescue as being appropriate and adequate.

Councillor Graham commented that whenever private infrastructure development came into their communities there is an understandable resistance for a lot of reasons.  This is often due to a lot of the impact is felt by the community and it is not clear to see what is in it for them.  She noted other developers had been in discussions with communities regarding compensation packages and asked if any of these discussions had taken place with the community.

The applicant confirmed that they had met with the community, particularly early in the process.  They had held events with each of the parish councils and had made the offer of community benefits, he noted this was not part of the planning process.  They had not been taken up but they remained open to those discussions.

The Head of Planning and Building Control asked that the public gallery remained silent whilst public speaking was continuing, and pointed out that the claimed community benefits were not material planning considerations for the Planning Committee and asked them to make sure they were not influenced by that potential.

The applicant continued that they considered the scheme to have benefits, recognising that they would be contrary to the views of the local people. He listed these as additional landscaping, climate change benefits, ecological benefits, significant biodiversity net gain. 

Councillor Ewart asked if there had been a public consultation in the last 24 months. The applicant confirmed there had been events at Wissett, Spexhall and Rumburgh where lots of questions were asked and feedback forms were provided for completion.  The outcome of these events was published as part of the community involvement statement.  Post submission, there had been a local authority event, where responses were made that helped to shape the reduced scheme.

He added that PACE were keen to develop a positive community relationship going forward, they were not a developer who would build this scheme and sell it, they were in it for the long term and would continue to engage with the community, should the scheme be approved.

Councillor Ewart commented that they were a new administration and they were very community based.

In response to Councillor Graham it was confirmed that PACE are managing the biodiversity net gain side of the project.

There being no further questions for the applicants, the Chair invited Councillor Beth Keys-Holloway, Ward Councillor to make her representation.

Supported by a PowerPoint, Councillor Beth Keys-Holloway read out the following statement.

She started by quoting Sarah Jones, Department of Energy and Security, 19/01/25. “We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production.  The government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look at them very carefully.  We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first.  If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower quality land first.  We agree that food security is enormously important for this country.  The government remain committed to balancing the urgent need for renewable electricity with considerations of land use, food production and community benefit.  We want to take people with us on this journey.”

Councillor Keys-Holloway said she had felt conflicted by this application, green energy was important to her, but not if it cancels out its purpose of being clean and green, by potentially wiping out wildlife, green spaces and communities.  She could see the reasons that these communities, felt that they were not, ‘with us on this journey.’

She said the proposed site was 1. Not on a brownfield site, 2. Ignores food security, 3. The community is opposed to it and 4. The community gains no benefit and possibly harm from it.

Having spent time listening to the communities she represents, she said it was not that they sit in opposition to green energy, they are a very active community and work hard to bring the environment to the forefront of the villages.  They have proven this in Wissett, by already housing a solar farm. 

She stated that the evidence produced here today, gives valid reasons as to why this solar factory is in the wrong place. The four principled planning reasons carry weight but not enough to outweigh the desire to establish renewable energy sites, in the right places.

There is emphasis here that we need to work alongside the communities.  There is nothing within these plans to contribute to the local area, and one thing she had heard over and over was the fear of the damage to the natural landscape and the potential poisoning of the water. 

She stated that unfortunately, any risk avoidance, taken by the company to prevent disaster, does not prevent a thermal runaway, that would release tons of gases and chemicals into the environment causing danger to residents, polluting the water table, the river Blyth would be immediately affected, and the countryside would be destroyed.  Dr Fordham’s report has not been addressed by PACE or its fire expert.  It would be ironic that the very wish to help improve our energy habits, consequently wiped out the very thing we are working to protect.

She added that again she felt the objection here, was not to solar, it was to the proposed site being looked at.

Careful consideration is taken when looking at all planning applications.  Acknowledging this, the residents feel confused that solar panels cannot be placed on or in the curtilage of their listed buildings surrounding the site, but these same buildings will overlook tens of thousands of panels.

She asked if that was because we can see the emphasis on avoiding development on BMV land and that it should be only permitted if enough compelling evidence is produced, could we not look for better and more suitable places? Rooftops and brown field sites for example.

The Greenpeace website states – ‘If your solar farms are competing with food production, you’re doing it wrong.’ With this in mind, could the community have been more involved with the plans?  Working with them in their efforts of continuing wildlife and biodiversity growth.  Using the land for dual use farming such as grazing and food growth.  This surely, would have been more beneficial.  Can the communities have a say or shares within where the energy and profit is going?  Can they be resolutely reassured that, there is no chance that more solar farms will immediately follow, and that there is no potential risk to the Blyth Tributary farmland or conservation area established by ESC?

No one involved is against solar, it is that this site is not the right place for this farm to thrive in the way it wishes. 

There is also significant over-provision in the system with nearly 400GW of projects in the connection pipeline, 40% of which is solar, the CEO of the National Grid has stated that this is over five times the amount needed to meet the 2035 decarbonized electricity commitment.  She concluded whilst this is fantastic news and in no way a negative, as we should be striving for clean energy. It also means, that we can be mindful of the communities and the placement of solar farms.

The Chair asked the Committee for any questions for Councillor Keys-Holloway.

Councillor Ashton asked for the pipeline of solar projects and where had the data come from that had been used in her presentation. The data was included in the information shared with the Committee.

Councillor Ewart asked if PACE had consulted with her as a Green Councillor. Councillor Keys-Holloway confirmed she had had brief email communication with them approximately 2 years ago.  She commended them coming to them.  She had spoken with them about the community’s concerns they had been taken on board. The fundamental concerns remained the fire risk, the lanes, the positioning of the solar farm.

The Chair thanked Councillor Keys-Holloway for her presentation.

Following some calling out from the Public Gallery, the Head of Planning and Building Control addressed the committee on matters of process. He told the Committee that the process of public speaking and planning committee is governed by the ESC Constitution, and any diversion from that puts it at risk of legal challenge on the decision-making process.  Therefore, he noted the importance of confining public speaking to the opportunities that were available. He outlined that the Committee would now move on to the next stage which was final questions and clarifications to the Officers and then on to debate.

Following ongoing challenge from the public gallery, the Chair and Head of Planning and Building Control reiterated that they would be opening themselves up for judicial review should the order of public speaking not follow as laid out in the ESC Constitution.

The Head of Planning and Building Control raised, for the public record, that Mr Burton in his 3 minutes did suggest that the report written by Mr Robertson on behalf of the Head of Planning and Building Control was biased.  He noted that he didn’t think that was genuinely intended, and he wasn’t aware of any legal submissions to the Council on that.  He told the Committee that all officers at East Suffolk conducted themselves with great integrity, and no decision on any planning application is biased. As holders of public office, the officers uphold the Nolan principles and that includes a requirement for objectivity.  Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.  Furthermore, he added that both he and Mr Robertson were Chartered Members of the Royal Town Planning Institute which also governs integrity on their decision making.  He concluded if there was any identified bias in the report then he would expect interested parties to write to the Council’s Monitoring Officer upon publication of the report, in advance of the meeting.  He reassured the Committee that the report had been subject to comprehensive review both internally and through legal counsel, prior to publication.

The Chair asked for any points of clarification from the Officers at this stage.

The Interim Planning Manager clarified the following paragraphs for the Committee to refer to:

NPPF Heritage – Para 7.109 of the Committee report
Best Most Versatile Land – Para 7.19-7.21 of the Committee report.
Commentary around hazardous substance 7.250 to 7.257 of the Committee report
Commentary around emergency response plan – that was summarised as recommended condition 29 of the Committee report (the detail would be pre-commencement in its nature, meaning it had to be submitted and fully agreed before that element of the scheme being carried out).

Councillor Ashdown asked if the Principal Design and Heritage Officer could give his response to the points brought up by the Parish Councils.  The Officer stated that the statements drew heavily on extensive analysis and assessment to impacts on heritage and he was happy that they mirrored what had been said and was content with the way they had been conveyed to members of the Committee.

Councillor Gee asked about the information that the Parish Council referred to, asking if they could have a copy of all information.  It was confirmed that this had been supplied prior to the meeting as part of the Update Sheet and Save Gray’s Lane Councillor Briefing Sheet.  The third paragraph of this briefing note was read out to the Committee.

Councillor Ashton confirmed that he had already found the information that had been provided.

Councillor Ewart, in response comments from Spexhall Parish Council Ewart asked for clarification on the use of Gray’s Lane from the Senior Landscape Officer.  The Senior Landscape Officer clarified there was an LVA process undertaken as part of the project which assessed a series of viewpoints from the public right of way network. This provided information on potential harm to views at year 1 and year 10 none and developed mitigation, and overall, she was happy with the findings as the impact would be mitigated over time by vegetation. She confirmed there would be moderate residual effects, and only at significant would it warrant refusal.  She was happy with the Officer’s report, and the removal of panels from the field to the east reduced a lot of the visual harm.  There was a lot of planting restored around it.

Councillor Ewart asked about the legislation changing considerably and where that would leave the project.  The Chair confirmed that they have the plans in the proposal they were considering, and they cannot speculate on what might occur.

There being no further questions, the Chair asked the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Pitchers said he had listened to all of the debate; he was greatly concerned about fire risk possibilities and lithium-ion batteries. He had sought advice on this and felt the fire risk was negligible and things were advancing so fast, he could disregard that.  He still hadn’t made his mind up on the landscape and was looking forward to what people had to say.

Councillor Ashdown was in a similar situation, having not made his mind up yet.  He said the Officer’s report was excellent, and had covered everything that was needed to know, he appreciated what the local community felt, but there was a comprehensive list of conditions which should resolve any issues.  At the moment he was edging towards approval.

Councillor Wakeling said his mind made up, he came in conflicted, as a green councillor, a farmer, but as more has progressed, there hadn’t been enough weight made on the impact on the landscape.  He had driven along the M25 and seen solar farms along the motorway, which he could accept.  This was a small sleepy farmland village, weight had to be given to the impact of the unit and the loss of BMVL.  He had serious concerns around construction management and the route for traffic back and forth which was dangerous.

Councillor Graham told the Committee that she was a Green councillor, who had moved from London for all the reasons that people love living in Suffolk.  She said rapid climate change had brought a state of crisis for the land, giving the need for food security, for renewables to connect to the grid urgently and the biodiversity crisis.  She recognised the need to support communities. She said it was very much the same in her ward and it was not the type of solar development she wants to see, with developers coming in top down. She would much rather see community infrastructure projects where town and parish councils could plan together and reap the benefits. She recognised that wasn’t what the current proposal was, however, she had researched into targets and noted that they were not where they needed to be, they were short both nationally and locally.  She knew this following frequent conversations with community energy groups.  Global warming was an issue. She noted the policy re BMV land, and guidance that we should try to steer towards lower grade land, and this did have a connection.  The backlog was waiting for a grid connection. Food security is a concern, but DEFRA say the greatest threat is climate change.  She noted Labour were rolling out a new land use framework.  She said more land was given to golf courses than any renewable projects.  This was a small-scale project, and she was reassured by the BNG and farming.  She recognised with regret the impacts on heritage and community, noting a strong case for community compensation.  With great sympathy, she understood the community arguments, she would be moving to approve the application with a hazardous waste consent secured as a condition.

Councillor Gee had a contrary view, she always put the environment first. For all of its benefits, she felt the proposal would damage the corner of Suffolk.  She had been on the site visit and saw the devastation that would occur first hand.  She didn’t understand why it had to be so near to Gray’s lane. Waveney Local Plan Policy WLP8.27 states renewable and low carbon energy projects will be supported provided they have been identified in an adopted neighbourhood plan and there were no significant effects on amenities of businesses properties.  It would take 10 to 20 years for mitigation of the trees and shrubs.  She said it was unacceptable for the people impacted. She felt there was a danger of fire, referring to issues with lithium. Having read all of the objections and information, she could not vote in favour and felt it needed to go back to the drawing board. 

Councillor Ashton stated he had attempted to get as informed as possible about the challenge to get to net zero and the country was well overdue a debate at Government level. Information was needed on what was required to get to net zero by 2030, and to grow the grid, the frustration was with Government, particularly the secretary of state.  The discussions needed to be in context, as at Planning Committees they were taking the heat for a decision that largely needed to be sorted at Government level. Referring to the application, he noted that they were heavily constrained by the potential for connection to the grid.  This application was attractive to the applicant and achievable.  The pipeline included a lot of speculative things, not full of projects ready to go.  They had to look at what was in front of them.  With what they could see, national debate and solar and wind.  These developments will happen all over the country.  The targets will not be med with putting everything on roofs, some will need to go on land too.  He agreed with Councillor Graham and agreed with the proposal.

Councillor Pitchers moved that the proposal was accepted.

The Interim Planning Manager, referred to Councillor Graham’s comment regarding approval subject to the hazardous substance condition being granted. It was separate legislation, and it is something that would be applied for and granted separately if required.  If minded to approve, members could apply an additional condition, that, in conjunction with the conditioned emergency response plan required prior to the development of the BESS area, final detail around how that element of the scheme would be developed and details to demonstrate no requirement for hazardous substances consent, must be submitted for approval.

Councillor Ewart returned to the document regarding balance and the harm and benefits of the scheme. She noted that professionals and residents are quite different when considering the balance and that was where the issue lay. They hadn’t heard from the resident at Pear Tree Farm, and his home has been carolled by this situation as have 12 others.   Waveney Local Plan rural areas benefit from a rich environment and when this type of plan is considered, we don’t have green belt but there are areas. This site is in the middle of everywhere, uses good BMVL – she felt it was fractured as a project, industry dangers, unmanned. A detailed response document had been on behalf of Save Gray’s Lane, and she asked the Committee to take this document forward.  She did not give this planning permission her vote.

Councillor Ashdown asked if there was any way that the planting could be speeded up and larger trees and bushes put in place earlier.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) said the landscape condition requires detail to be provided prior to commencement and for the planting to be carried out 2 months after approval. 

The Landscape Officer confirmed there would be bolstering of existing hedgerows, development of existing hedgerows, and at that point they can incorporate species that grow quickly, develop a dense habit.  Smallish plants if managed well will grow quickly.

Councillor Gee referred to the mitigation of fence panelling surrounding the site, and expressed concern it would suburbanise the whole character of this very special place.  She stated they were putting aside the heritage and the beauty of the unique landscape of Suffolk, it would be a sacrificial lamb, at the altar of net zero.

Councillor Pitchers proposed that the recommendation was approved, subject to the change of condition as explained.  Councillor Ashdown seconded the proposal.

Councillor Plummer said she would like to be able to parachute this into place, like Councillor Wakeling she was quite bothered about the transportation route in. She was wavering but was completely on side with everything that Councillor Graham said about green energy.

Councillor Parker having listened to everything that everyone had said and could see valid points from both sides.  He had a tendency to vote against and had issues with the access for vehicles.

Councillor Ewart revisited the chart which showed the harms given to all aspects of the proposal.

The Chair asked everyone to take a vote on the recommendation to approve by Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Ashdown. It was by a majority vote

RESOLVED

That approval of planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Conditions (summarised)

1) Time limit.
2) Approved plans.
3) 40-year temporary period.
4) Reinstatement scheme if operations cease
5) 40-year restoration
6) Offsite highway improvement works.
7) Condition survey/repair to Gray’s Lane.
8) Construction Transport Management Plan.
9) Noise levels.
10) Validation of noise survey.
11) Inverters and substation.
12) Acoustic barriers.
13) Drainage Strategy.
14) Maintenance & Management of drainage.
15) CSWMP
16) Verification report.
17) Ecology report compliance.
18) Construction Method Statement Ecology.
19) Annual Reviews Ecology.
20) Nesting skylarks.
21) Glare complaints
22) Landscape scheme.
23) Landscape implementation.
24) Details of signage to SM.
25) Sheep grazing strategy.
26) Archaeology 1.
27) Archaeology 2.
28) Archaeology 3.
29) Emergency Response Plan
30) Soils management Plan
31) Impermeable Drainage Strategy

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management
8
The Committee received report ES/2273 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/23/4039/FUL.  The application was for the refurbishment and extension of the property along with landscape design and was before the Committee having been subject to the call-in process by the Ward Councillor.

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

The site’s location plan was shared, the property was a semidetached property and its position within the conservation area was shown.  This and the neighbouring property were converted into residential properties in 1999. Part of the application site was subject to a tree preservation order which covered a number of trees on the property. The Principal Planner (Development Management) noted the properties to the South, in Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens, which backed onto the property in a more elevated position.

The site arial photograph showed the significant levels of surrounding tree growth, subject to TPO.  As stated in the report, there was an illegal felling of a tree that was subject to TPO and a subsequent council prosecution, for which a replacement tree had been agreed.

Various photographs showing the views of the property from Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens, from the front of the application site and from within the site were shown.  Looking from within the site, the rising ground levels were highlighted.

Views of the front of the property showed the original historic part of the building and the additions that occurred as part of the conversion.  The proposal would add a second dormer on the front of the property, which would match those already on the adjoining property at Number 2.

The view to the property from the rear was shown, highlighting the dividing boundary wall.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) told the Committee that the issue with the application was its relationship to the properties at the South.  The views from numbers 10 and 12 Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens were shown and the screening which existed.  Showing the view from number 13, the illegal tree removal had resulted in an open boundary, however the lower level of the application site meant that any terracing area would be screened by the boundary fencing.
 
The proposed block plan and elevations were shared, highlighting the existing tree coverage, the replacement tree, and the intended landscape and renovations and the extent of the impact on the neighbouring properties. The extension would be a distance of approximately 27/28 metres to the neighbours in Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens which was not considered unacceptable.

The floor plans were described to the Committee. Plans showing the relationship between the proposed terrace areas and the Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens highlighted the proposed screening, resulting in no considered significant impact on their amenity. 

Plans and photographs showing the relationship to the property were displayed.  Describing the plans, the Principal  Planner noted there would be no significant impact on that property and there had been no objections received from them.

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

Design/impact on Conservation Area.
Impact upon residential amenity.
Impact upon TPOs.

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

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Gee commented on the size of the extension, noting it looked large enough to be a hotel.  The Chair responded that the Committee had to decide on the plans that were in front of them.

Councillor Graham asked for clarification regarding the Town Council comment, which raised the point that the illegally felled trees were obstructing the plans for development and when it was replanted it wasn’t put back in the exact place.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) returned to the block plan and pointed out the location of the original and replacement trees. It was considered to be an acceptable replacement location in terms of its amenity value and agreed by the Council’s Arborocultural Officer.  The Principal Planner confirmed to Councillor Graham that when a tree had been illegally felled it didn’t need to be replanted in the exact original location. 

Councillor Ewart asked about the scale of increase and the Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was approximately increased by a third.

Referring to the elevations the Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed that they were Juliet balconies, and it was a full height window.  He noted that the agent could clarify further.

In response to Councillor Ewart’s concerns regarding the proposed landscaping and how the gardens would be secured, the Principal Planner (Development Management) said it was assumed there would be retaining structures.  There would be a requirement to secure the site, and the appropriate angle retained to ensure adjacent properties were not prejudiced. 

The Principal Planner (Development Management) replied to Councillor Ewart that the property at number 13 had raised concerns regarding both the front and rear balconies.

Councillor Ashton reverted to the tree that was illegally felled, noting that the location of the replacement tree had enabled a planning application that would not have been possible if they were complying with the TPO. The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that was correct, noting that the previous issue had been dealt with and the Committee needed to judge the applications on its current merits.  Councillor Ashton understood but noted that the application could not have been applied for as defined here if this had not happened.  He understood it needed to be treated independently but found the situation frustrating. 

There were no further questions for the Committee.

The Chair invited Mr Gordon, Objector to speak. 

Mr Gordon told the committee that there were 8 properties in Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens that ran along the southern boundary of the Gunsite, and he was speaking for the 8 neighbours who had all objected and registered these objections online. They asked that this application be refused. The overarching reason for refusal is the unlawful felling of protected trees in 2022.  The Council took action in respect of one tree as that was in the way of the proposed development.  The development couldn’t have gone ahead if the tree had been there.  Paragraph 7.13 of committee report stated that the tree unlawfully removed would have been in direct conflict with the proposed development. The reaction of the Council then was that the replacement tree must be planted in the same place and a press release was issued in July 23 saying that was the case.  Had that happened the application wouldn’t be possible.  In their view the replacement tree was planted in a ridiculous place, on the southern boundary without any consultation. When they’ve asked why that happened, they have had no response.  He said to grant permission under these circumstances means the applicant would benefit from his illegal act and this was not acceptable, and it would contravene proceeds of crime act, that seek to prevent anyone benefitting from illegality. He referred to the Poole Council who had successfully prosecuted a TPO offender and recouped his financial gain.  He summarised the reasons for refusal were - Conservation area- paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 of the committee report set out the duty of the Council to ensure developments preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.  This application failed to enhance and failed to protect from harm. Residential amenity – the illegal tree felling has completely changed the outlook from Aldeburgh Lodge Gardens. Before the tree felling there was not intrusion into privacy from Gunsight and it now dominates the outlook. Photographs showing before and after were shared with the Committee. The trees taken out have completely changed the outlook and other trees will come out if the development goes ahead.  The land stability had also been referred to, this would create an unstable mini cliff.  Paragraph 7.23 says the developer is responsible for any problems, but they have to sort them out.  His final point referred to noise disruption and dust, the building works would be on the west side with difficult access, meaning all incoming and outcoming materials will be transported via the narrow strip between the properties, the back gardens will be unusable, which creates concerns for health.

The Chair invited questions to the objector.

In response to Councillor Graham it was clarified that 4 trees were illegally felled at the same time, 1 was obstructing the development. 

Councillor Ewart asked if the soil was clay and if it dried in the summer and cracked.  The objector confirmed it was, and they did have movement, and by the time the site was levelled the drop would be considerable.

It was confirmed to Councillor Gee that all trees had TPO’s.

There being no further questions, the Chair invited Cllr Fox of Aldeburgh Town Council (ATC) to make her representation.  

Cllr Fox told the Committee that ATC works hard at protecting the viability, character and appearance of town, representing in particular its full-time residents and they supported the views of the neighbours affected. They asked that previous submissions were considered and together with the Aldeburgh Society objects to the application. The Non-Designated Heritage Asset is the extensive 2 storey semidetached building, seen on both entering and leaving the town in a prominent location.  The recent loss of tree cover had broken the uninterrupted nature of the canopy of the trees that were heavily protected and conditioned by the original planning permission granted previously.  Conditions 3, 4 and 5 of that permission refer to BS 5837 – trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. A 1.2 metre chestnut fencing was to be erected to prevent and avoid damage to the trees, their roots and hedgerow and to ensure they were retained in safe and attractive condition.  This was also to safeguard visual amenity together with required landscaping works. Point 14 specifically refers to protection of the TPO trees and safeguarding the character of the conservation area.  ATC understood that the TPO tree recently illegally removed stood in the way of the development now proposed.  ATC is glad this fact is concurred with in the officer report at 7.13 but confused with ESC decision for the location of the replacement tree planting to vary from its original location. ATC disagreed with the Officers Report points 7.19 and 7.4 and asked that the Committee refused the application.

The Chair invited questions to Aldeburgh Town Council.  

Councillor Ewart referred to a particular resident’s objection.  Aldeburgh Town Council did not have the detail to answer that question. 

There were no further questions, therefore the Chair invited the applicant’s agent to make their representation.  

Councillor Wakeling raised a point of order, as Mr Beech had been employed as his architect 8 years ago.

The agent told the Committee that the application was for the extension of 1 Gunsite, the house was a modern dwelling that replaced the former Gunsite building except for the ground floor front elevation.  The same scale dwelling had been in existence for over 25 years.  The existing house had not been renovated since its construction and the family now wished to renovate the house to create more space for grandchildren.  The proposal was to demolish and replace the 2-storey rear extension, extending to the rear by 5 metres. The house remains the same height, and the south gable remains untouched. First elevation changes are limited to adding the second dormer and relocating the front door.  The Juliet balconies do not project and there is no possibility of walking onto them for the view.  There is a proposed extensive landscape scheme enhanced native planting/hedging with which the Council Conservation and Design Officer agreed.  The agent said it was acceptable design and policy compliant.  The Tree officer noted no significant harm to existing trees.  The felled tree had now been replaced in line with ESC guidance.  He had worked closely with planning officers, amending the scheme as requested to develop a suitable scheme.  He urged the Committee to recommend approval.

The Chair invited questions to the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Plummer referred to previous concerns regarding the proposed landscape changes and how that would be carried out with minimal effect.  The agent replied that a landscaping scheme had been submitted which had been consulted on by ESC officers and would help to mitigate the change.

The agent told Councillor Ewart that the increase in scale of the property was 19%.

Councillor Pitchers asked for a point of clarification that the illegal felling of trees could not be taken into consideration.  The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed this was not a judgement that could be taken into consideration.

Councillor Ewart referred to the building being a Non-Designated Heritage Asset and asked how that impacted the decision made.  The Principal Design and Conservation Officer clarified how this had been taken into consideration when reviewing the application.

Councillor Gee asked why no action was taken in relation to the other 4 trees that had were subject to TPOs.  The Officer responsible was not available online to comment.  The applicant interjected, however as this was not the time for applicant representation or questioning the Chair advised them that they couldn’t present their views at this point.

The Interim Planning Manager referred to the report and read out the detail from paragraph 7.12 providing the context and clarity required. 

The Principal Planner (Development Management) added that there may have been more than one tree removed at the time of the prosecution, but it was determined that the prosecution could only take place against one of the trees.  He noted this was a decision that happened some time ago.  The Chair stated that the Committee could concur that they were all unhappy with the tree felling that had occurred.  

Councillor Graham asked for more detail regarding the 10 trees proposed to be felled, what was their condition and would they be subject to replanting and in what location.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) referred Councillor Graham to the Arborocultural officer detail within report. He confirmed that it was in a 2023 application. 

Councillor Gee stated the importance of replacing any trees that were going to be removed, noting the potential to open up the area further causing more aggravation for neighbours.

It was not possible for the Principal Landscape Officer to join the meeting. 

Councillor Ashton, referred to the discussion regarding the illegal felling of trees and noted that they were all extremely dissatisfied with this situation, he asked that offline the legal team were asked to explore all necessary steps, being clear that people cannot benefit from illegally felling of trees.  He added it was not a material consideration for this application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control agreed with Councillor Ashton, he too felt penalties were not hard enough on people who felled TPO trees, particularly for development. However, in the application in front of them, this was not a material planning consideration.

The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application. 

Councillor Ashdown focused on the application in front of them, which was an application for an extension on a property.  Agreeing that the issues raised regarding TPO’s needed to be addressed later.  He felt the construction of the extension was not out of character and was happy to recommend approval.  Councillor Pitchers seconded the proposal. 

Councillor Ashton found the situation infuriating, stating that none of the Committee were happy about the tree felling, and the Council would need to take all steps to seek redress.   However, as the application stood, there were no grounds for refusal. 

Councillor Gee proposed they could go ahead but not remove the 10 trees, adding if it went ahead, it would completely change the character of the neighbourhood.  The Chair responded that they had to focus on the application as it was presented. 
 
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed it was outside of the application to seek a condition for further additional planting.  He stated it was in a conservation area so required notification for felling trees, especially any that didn’t have TPOs.  He stated the focus had to be on the application before them which was a planning application which could proceed with affecting the trees. 

Councillor Ashton asked was it possible to put a condition on the current application to state that prior to commencing work, the condition on the 10 trees from the previous application was complied with.  The Head of Planning and Building Control felt as they were different legislation it would not be possible to draw the two together.

The Chair asked the Committee to vote on the application.  On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers, it was by a majority 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 carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/reports:
Drg Nos 21 656 A; 15 656 F; 16 656 D and 18 656 C received 05.12.2024
Drg Nos 2203-203-B-TP and 2203-202-A-MP received 20.05.2024
Drg 01 656 received 19.10.2023
Arboricultural Method Statement (5th August 2024) received 09.08.2024
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 and thereafter retained as such.

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

4. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations and methodology set out within the approved Arboricultural Method Statement.

Reason: To ensure that the works undertaken in the vicinity of trees of importance to the Conservation Area and National Landscape are carried out in a way that minimises/prevents damage to them.

5. No construction activity shall take place before 8.00am on weekdays and Saturdays nor after 6.00pm on weekdays and 1.00pm on Saturdays, nor at any time on Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays.

Reasons: In the interests of residential amenity.
Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
9

The Committee received report ES/2274 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2894/FUL.  The application was the extension and alteration of the property along with landscape design and building of an outbuilding. It was before the Committee having been subject to the call-in process following objections from the Ward Member and Town Council.  The application was initially heard at the Planning Committee on 10 December 2024 where it was deferred for Committee Members to undertake a site visit.  This site visit took place on 7 February 2025.

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

A series of slides were shared with the Committee, showing:

  • Site location plan
  • Aerial view of the property
  • Existing block plan and floor plans
  • Existing elevations, showing front, back and both sides.
  • Proposed block plan – pointing out the swap between pedestrian access and parking at the front of the building, the proposed rear extension and the outbuilding.
  • Proposed ground floor plan
  • Proposed second floor plan – pointing out the second floor extended an additional 3.6m to the right up to the boundary with the neighbour and the gable extension on the other side of approximately 1.6m.  New second floor within the roof of the proposed dwelling and dormer windows in front and rear of the roof slope.
  • Proposed front, side and rear elevations were showed highlighting where the building would be extended, the retained side access and the extension at the rear.
  • Looking at the west side elevation, the Senior Planner (Development Management) clarified following the site visit that there would be approximately 2 ft difference in the existing and new extension height with an additional 1 ft for the chimney along the boundary.
  • Proposed outbuilding, parking and wall plans
  • Proposed elevational plans of the outbuilding
  • Comparisons of the original and proposed elevational plans with views from inside the garden and looking at the rear of the property from Skilmans Hill.
  • Landscaping plan
  • Wall replacement, showing reconfiguration with swap of pedestrian and vehicular access.
  • 3d visual of front, rear and garden with the proposed materials
  • Sketches of street scene
  • Photographs of the original coach house.
  • Photographs of the existing property, taken from various views, showing its relationship to the neighbouring properties and the impact of the proposed changes.  Photographs of the hedge on the western boundary were shared, noting that a 2metre high boundary wall would be built.
  • Photographs from inside neighbours’ properties. 
  • Photographs looking back from Skillman’s Hill, noting the tree coverage that would be present during the summer.
  • Photographs of the private lane leading onto Skilmans Hill, showing a car accessing the lane and the parking at the rear of the property.
  • Aerial photograph of Skilmans Hill.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) referred to the debate regarding vehicular access from Skilmans Hill, noting as no changes were proposed within the application, it would be increasing the use of the access which did not require planning permission.  Therefore, the legality of access from Skilmans Hill was not considered something for debate at the Committee.
  • Skilmans Hill Public Rights of Way Map.
  • Skilmans Hill Map from Southwold Neighbourhood Plan.

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

  • Design – impact on appearance of the street scene, conservation area and surrounding listed buildings.
  • Impact to neighbouring properties – loss of light, sense of oppression and overbearing.
  • Greater vehicular traffic on Skilmans Hill.
  • Damage to vegetation from new wall.

 

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

The Chair thanked the Senior Planner (Development Management) for the presentation and for organising the Site Visit and invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Gee was unable to attend the site visit but had visited the site independently.  She asked why there was the need for vehicular access at the back. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that was the proposed application parking and it provided sufficient parking to meet the parking standards of Suffolk County Council Highways, which advised that a 4-bedroom property should have 3 parking spaces.  He added there was hard standing and access there currently. The access did appear to look like it could support a car accessing it and any access increase did not require planning permission.  He reiterated that the legality of whether or not the access could be used was not a matter for the planning department.

Councillor Graham asked what the percentage increase of the site and access would be and asked to review the slide of the final design. The 3d visual of the site was shown. The Senior Planner (Development Management) displayed plans and highlighted the revised footprint.  Considering the outbuilding and the internal reconfiguration it was approximately 40% increase.

The Interim Planning Manager stated the Committee could look at percentage increase figures, however what should also be considered was how much do the proposals compare visually, how does it compare the surrounding area, heritage assets etc. 

In response to Councillor Ewart, the materials planned to be used were confirmed as gault brick, flint, timber cladding and pan tiles.  It was confirmed that the garage door effect on the front would not open it was just visual.

It was confirmed that the front wall would be retained and replaced with salvaged materials as much as possible.

The location of the front door was pointed out to Councillor Gee.  Councillor Plummer clarified that it was not a garage door, but a different material finish to the front wall. 

The Chair invited the Objector, Mr Haslam, to make his representation.

Mr Haslam told the Committee that the revised report submitted by officers referred in new paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 to the duties imposed on the council by sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 listed buildings act.  He said that the Court of Appeal states a decision maker should give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings when weighing this factor in the balance with other material considerations which have not been given special statutory status.  Mr Haslam said this statutory duty was not mentioned in paragraph 9.1 of the Officer’s report, and it hadn’t been properly assessed.  There was considerable concern in Southwold that the Southwold neighbourhood plan had been substantially ignored in the officer’s recommendation. He stated the policies in Southwold plan that are relevant to this application were stronger than the relevant policies in the local plan.  In these circumstances section 38.5 of the planning and compulsory purchases act 2004 states that the last adopted plan should prevail, in this case the Southwold neighbourhood plan. He added two of its policies were particularly relevant to the application but had not been properly assessed in the officer’s report.     He referred to Policy SWD6 which dealt with design and required compliance with all 5 clauses.  He said the site committee would have seen the potential effect of the application on 20 and 22 Park Lane, the houses opposite, the street scene and the natural back garden boundary hedge. Policy SWD12 dealt with the loss of private garden space, he stated the rear extension and studio were much larger than similar buildings approved in the immediate area and there was no apparent justification for the size of the studio outbuilding. Referring to the car parking area, he stated it could only be accessed by cars first manoeuvring on Skilmans Hill and then reversing across the land and footpath, adding it would quickly become a mud bath – this would be unacceptable. He noted the relevance of the letter on file from the Suffolk PROW team.  In conclusion, he said the proposal was overdevelopment and contrary to Policy SWD6 and 12 of the neighbourhood plans and urged the Committee to refuse it.

There were no questions for Mr Haslam.  The Chair invited Councillor Flunder from Southwold Town Council to speak.

Councillor Flunder thanked the Committee for attending the site visit to see the potential impact of the application and thanked the Case Officer for bringing out a lot of the issues with the latest pictures in the presentation.  

Referring to the rear access Councillor Flunder stated that from a Southwold Town Council point of view, it was common land, they were trustees, and the existing property did not have any right of access. It cuts across a public footpath so it would be difficult for the owners to use it on a regular basis.  He was pleased about the incident that occurred to bring that out. 

Referring to the size of the development, he stated that 40% might relate to the size of the building, but the studio had to be considered as well.  At Southwold Town Council they had spent a lot of time looking at this from a neighbourhood plan perspective, they were concerned about the environment and the effect of additional outbuildings. He added there were outbuildings in Southwold which were being used as second homes, it was a real problem, and he asked the committee to consider this. 

Referring to the wall – he stated it would be a disaster; it would mean existing bushes and hedges would be destroyed and should be taken into consideration. 
  
Referring to the views from the properties, he said the outlook down Skilmans hill was very different, and one property could see Sizewell C, the extension in place would stop this view.  From an amenity point of view there would be a lot of harm which was why the Town Council were against it. The garage type building was ugly and impacted the street scene.  In summary the Town Council said the application was not in accordance with SWD6 and SWD12 of Southwold Neighbourhood Plan and caused unnecessary harm to the area.

The Chair invited questions to Councillor Flunder.

Councillor Ewart referred to the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan and whether attention was paid to it and asked Councillor Flunder to share more detail.  Councillor Flunder replied they had a well-developed neighbourhood plan, they were a conservation area with Article 4 to consider, and it was very important that they maintained the heritage and design of properties in the town.

The Chair invited the agent to make their representation.

The agent stated his clients wished to continue their long-standing relationship with Southwold and make the Coach House their forever home, he confirmed no aspect of the proposal was to be used as a holiday let.  He said the applicants had gone above and beyond to ensure that design was sensitive, appropriate and enhanced the setting within the conservation area.

The application had been through the commissioning of 2 heritage appraisals, daylight sunlight assessments as well as close work with the local authority through 2 2 pre-applications.  The building in its current form was unlisted and had not been identified as a positive unlisted structure.  The senior design and heritage officer visited the site and appraised the application, recommending it for approval.  It was noted that there was no negative impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings or the Southwold conservation area, as the design and materials added interest and quality over the existing arrangement.  The daylight/sunlight assessment concluded that the proposal was in accordance with planning policy requirements and was compliant with BRD guidance.  The proposed side extension to the East retained a 1.3metre gap with number 20, and the west first floor retained a 5-metre gap at first floor level. He stated the defining character of Park Lane was an unbroken line of diverse style buildings and therefore the increased width of the proposal was not at odds with the Lane. There was no proposed increase to the eve’s height, ridge height and it would not encroach on Park Lane as the set back of 6 metres was being retained, therefore the proposal was not overbearing to the street scene. The proposed extension and outbuildings still left 75% of the plot uncovered, a substantial rear garden and green space would be retained. The proposed outbuilding would be sunken behind the existing wall and therefore virtually invisible from Skilmans Hill. There were no proposed overhangs on any aspect of the design and all alterations were within the red line boundary as shown in the drawings.  A slide was displayed showing the parking. There was no proposed increase to the number of parking spaces or parking intensity to the front or rear and there was no proposed alteration to the rear entrance of Skilmans Hill. There was a residential access permitted sign to show which residents have access. A photo showed room for a second car in the rear parking zone. The proposals showed improved manoeuvrability in the rear parking zone.  Increased hardstanding area had been implemented by the applicants.  Therefore, there should be no logical objection to this aspect of the proposal.  In summary he stated the Planning Officer, Design and Heritage Officer, Highways Officer, PROW Officer all recommended approval and believed the application adheres to the relevant policies.  He concluded this was a well-considered design that would enhance the conservation area and provide a future proof home for a family that loves and is committed to life in Southwold. 

The Chair invited questions to the agent. 

The agent clarified the points raised earlier in the Committee as follows:

There would be a 43% increase in footprint of dwelling. With the outbuilding this would be an increase of 56% of the site.  He noted the size of the site and that this would still leave 75 of the sites unoccupied with buildings which was unusual in the area.

The front wall had a construction management plan which would mean that all the bricks would be retained and moved. 

Referring to the design on the front, the building used to be a coach house, and the area of cladding was intended to look like a coach house door and celebrate the history of the building.

The Chair invite Councillor Beavan (Ward Councillor) to make his representation. 

Councillor Beavan told the Committee that they were not looking at photographs they were looking at quite generous sketches.  Referring to the unbroken line, he said he would dispute that as that area was a gap that brought light into the whole street. It had historically done that as it was a coach house with a smaller area.  This was particularly important as Park Lane had people living in it all year round. The development would make it a lot darker and affect the amenity of the street.

He said it was particularly unfair on the neighbour to the west; the extension would protrude towards them and effect their light.  The side being the front of their house.  

He concluded that it was a massive building with a large increase of the footprint (43%), it would block light and the view from the street.  It was overdevelopment and against the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan.

The Chair invited questions to Councillor Beavan.

Councillor Ewart asked for Councillor Beavan’s views on the private rear access.  Recognising it was not applicable to the planning permission; he responded that it would not work.  He added that it was a 4-bedroom property, probably 4 en-suite bedrooms and questioned where everyone living there was going to park. 

Councillor Plummer clarified with the Senior Planner (Development Management) that the parking standards stated that a property of that size should ideally have 3 car parking spaces.

The Chair invited final questions/clarifications prior to debate.

Councillor Ewart asked for clarification of the design of the rear elevation with a long stretch of windows.  The Senior Planner confirmed it was not all windows and was broken up with timber panels. 

The Committee moved to debate.

Councillor Gee referred to her visit to the property the day prior to the Committee and the impression of extreme darkness from the street. She agreed that lots of the buildings were in terraces, but there was a glimmer of light at the site of the property.  She agreed with the current building being a bland 1950’s design, however if the proposal was as large as it seemed, it would be overpowering to the street scene, potentially cutting off the light to the neighbour’s windows.  She did not think it was a good thing to have the building line extended to the boundary adjoining the public right of way, and whilst she welcomed improvements to the building, she did not think it should have such a large footprint.  She would be open to something that was more moderate and not causing objections from the neighbours.

The Chair clarified that the building would not go up to a public right of way.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) clarified the location of the public right of way in relation to the rear of the property and that the boundary Cllr Gee was referring to was adjacent to a private alley, pointing out the plans for the proposed and existing wall. 

Councillor Gee felt that the plans for the wall replacing hedgerow would spoil the feel of the property and if it was to be removed, she couldn’t support the application.

Following the consideration of the photographs, the interim Planning Manager reminded the Committee that they were to consider the application that was in front of them, rather than considering amendments to the scheme.

Councillor Ewart reviewed the design of the property, noting it was in a conservation area.  She considered it very important for the property next door to have light and not be oppressive. She was not keen on the design of the property.

Councillor Graham referred to the Neighbourhood Plan and considered it to be unnecessary over development of the site and recommended refusal.   

Councillor Ashton stated that his sole concern remained the overbearing impact of the first-floor extension to number 22 Park Lane. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that members could go straight to a recommendation for refusal, however, there did need to be policy reasons established for that refusal.  There was a discussion between the Committee and the Officers regarding the recommendation for refusal and the policy that led to the grounds for refusal. The Local Plan and the Southwold Neighbourhood plans were reviewed.

On the proposition of Councillor Graham, seconded by Councillor Ashton it was by a majority 

RESOLVED

To refuse the application for the following summary reasons:

Design of development and overdevelopment; contrary to SWD6 of the Southwold Neighbourhood Plan and policies WLP8.29, WLP8.37 and WLP8.39 of the East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Plan (2019) and paragraph 135 and 212 of the NPPF. 

Amenity impact on neighbours, contrary to Waveney Local Plan policy WLP8.29.

Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management.
10
The Committee received report ES/2275 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/1242/FUL.  The application was for a replacement dwelling.  It was before the Committee having been subject to the call-in process following objections from the Parish Council. 

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

An aerial photograph and the site location plan was shared with the Committee showing the site in context, the application site, bordered on to the common on the north and was situated at the end of a private track.  The Assistant Planner pointed out the area was characterised by generous plots of mostly single-story developments.

A plan showing the property’s location in relation to the Walberswick conservation area and proximity to footpaths was shared.

Various photographs were shared, showing the Committee views of the existing 
Site, its relationship with surrounding properties, and the architecture in the immediate area.

Existing and proposed block plans were shown, the existing east to west aligned bungalow was proposed to be replaced with a two-storey house aligning north to south.  Footprint would be slightly smaller, noting two-storeys would mean greater overall bulk. 

Design amendments had resulted in a slightly reduced overall size of 4 metres and the retention of a tree for additional shielding. 

Floor plans were shown, design was an upside-down house, with majority of sleeping accommodation on the ground floor and living on the first floor.  Concerns had been raised as to the volume of glazing to the property, the assistant planner pointed out that the northern gable elevation was set back slightly with overhanging eaves to help mitigate the light spill.

Site elevations were shown, highlighting the proposed design and noting the sloping ground level, resulting in the property being slightly lower than surrounding properties.  

Following concerns regarding volume of glazing some louvring had been added to mitigate the light spill, and all windows were proposed with low VLT glazing and automatic blackout blinds.

Following discussions between officers and the agent concerning amenity impact (particularly to Brackenside), the initial planned western balcony has been removed and the glazing reduced.  Based on national guidance the level of separation between the two properties is adequate.

The material planning consideration and key issues were summarised as:

Design
Amenity Impact
National Landscape
 
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 asked if this was to be a permanent home.  The Assistant Planner said it was and referred question for the architect for further clarity. 

Councillor Ewart asked whether the application was subject to a pre-application. The Assistant Planner confirmed that it did, and some amendments were secured between the pre-application and application stages.

There were no further questions.  The Chair invited the Objector, Mr Bradley to speak.  

Mr Bradley told the committee he lived at Brackenside, he was an experienced architect, having written 35 conservation area appraisals for East Suffolk and was a judge for the Council’s Quality of Place awards.  He said Church Field was a disperse development that scaled down where it faced open landscape.  The architecture was modest, recessive and united by a limited material pallet.  The local plan states that residential amenity safeguards quality of life of residents.  Developments should avoid generating significant harmful effects including overlooking, loss of privacy and overbearing development.  Herons currently has no windows facing Brackenside, proposed are 20, of which 9 are to the first floor.  The committee report states there is a significant amount of east and west facing glazing, he said this glazing overlooks every part of garden, with sight into bedrooms and the sitting room.  The proposed north south alignment ignored a respectful building line 20 metres from the Common.  What was proposed was an oppressive plot with deep east and west elevation.  He said this level of overlooking and overbearing development does not safeguard residential amenity.  He stated the separation distance mentioned in committee report over relied on the national model design code and government advice was to use this code when preparing local design codes.  They were not overarching polices to be employed irrespective of context. The Committee report cited an appeal case in Aldeburgh – not mentioned was the application was refused by planning officers and planning inspectorate as it failed to respond to local context causing harm to a designated asset.  The Committee report described the 3-bedroom bungalow as large – doubling it in size, would result in extremely large and unsuited to the scaling of Church Field and contrary to the design quality policy where scale, character and mass should relate to surroundings.   The proposed materials described in the committee report were neither characteristic of this part of Walberswick or the development along Church Field.  This makes them contrary to the landscape character and design quality policy.  He said the balance in favour of development was misjudged, the application failed to satisfy several local plan polices and ignores context of harming residential amenity and protected landscape. He urged the committee to visit the site otherwise the application should be refused. 

The Chair invited questions to Mr Bradley.

In response to Councillor Ewart, Mr Bradley confirmed he had lived in Walberswick for 20 years and had seen the changes that had occurred in Walberswick as a whole. 

The Chair invited Rebecca Whiting, Walberswick Parish Council to speak.

Speaking on behalf of Walberswick Parish Council as a representative of the village residents, she stated that the residents has submitted 50 objections which represented a significant number of the less than 200 residents.  The Officer’s report listed the many designations bestowed on the common land but had dismissed these objections as well as advice from other 3rd parties - East Suffolk landscape team, Suffolk Preservation Society, East Suffolk Ecology, ECC Coast and Heaths project and the trustees of Walberswick common lands trust (landowners who protect the unique conservation asset). All experts were unified in their concerns - the increased visual impact of the re-orientation, the increased mass of the additional storey, increased ecological impact of the extensive high-level glazing.  She stated none of this had been mitigated at pre-app.  The Officer had acknowledged these points several times, describing the proposal as potentially monolithic. She also added that the comparison shown in the presentation were relating to pre-app drawings. The site was still 10 metres closer to the common land. She disagreed with the officer’s description of a considerable gap between Heron’s boundary and the common, stating there was nothing between them other than low lying vegetation and a footpath.  The wildlife rich heathland has no lighting adjacent to it from any other direction and comes alive at night.  The Officer described the clearest view being from northwest.  This will become clearly visible by day and by night a glaring beacon interfering with nocturnal activity.  She did not accept the mitigation to light spill on the north elevation only as being sufficient. The officer’s view, despite acknowledging impact, is that this must be ignored as design is strong. There is no detail of which parts protect or enhance the special qualities and features of the area.  The proposal is in breach of policy 10.4 and it fails to consider the visually sensitive location. 

There were no questions for Walberswick Parish Council.  

The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Craig Beech, to speak.

Mr Beech told the Committee the application was for the replacement of Herons, Walberswick.  The existing dwelling was a large single storey uninsulated dwelling, built in the 1960s, it was a 214m squared floor area that had not been renovated since its construction. The new owners wished to replace the house to create a family home and proposed an energy efficient new dwelling of 296 square metres for the couple and their 2 children. Extensive landscaping scheme was included with the application, this aims to enhance setting with native planting and hedging. 

They have worked closely with the Council’s planning and design team making amendments as requested throughout pre-application and planning application stages. They have reduced height, length, amount of glazing, as well as removal of western elevation balcony. They have introduced measures to address potential light spill – low VLT glazing, automatic black out blind, and additional louvres. The building has been shortened by 5 metres in length and moved south to retain an existing tree.  The house is now 9 metres from north boundary and 21 m from western boundary. Distance to nearby dwellings is far in excess of recommended national model design code distance. The proposed house lowered in height by half a metre and is now lower than neighbouring properties.

The house to east is a new replacement 2 storey dwelling.  The Planning Officer notes the high quality of materials a modern take on existing materials. The design of the dwelling is strong, and the National landscape team did not object to the scheme. Mr Beech urged the Committee to grant approval and follow the officer’s recommendation. 

There were no questions for Mr Beech.  The Chair invited Councillor Beavan, as Ward Councillor, to make his representation.

Councillor Beavan showed a short video to the Committee, showing the impact of similar developments on the wild heaths and marshes. 

Councillor Beavan said these peripheral developments around Walberswick impinged on the protected landscape and wildlife.  Large dominating buildings with excessive night lighting were an eyesore changing the character of the village. The local plan policies on landscape and design were being ignored, referring particularly to policy 10.4 and 11.1. This building would move 10 metres closer to the protected landscape and add another storey.  Referring to a newspaper article he said that the scheme as proposed would not conserve or enhance the scenic quality or tranquillity including dark skies for the Suffolk and Essex Coast and Health National landscape.  He asked the committee to reject the application to preserve the precious essence of East Suffolk.

There were no questions for Councillor Beavan. 

The Chair invited final questions to the Officers.

Councillor Ashton referred to the differing views that had been presented and asked the Assistant Planner to justify the views presented in the report.  

The Assistant Planner replied it was a sensitive site and there were a number of considerations.  In response to concerns noted by the national landscape team and by ESC landscape team, amendments were secured in application, and these go some way to mitigate. Eg glazing, black out blinds.

He noted there were a couple of misunderstandings in the consultee responses, eg reduction of glazing not being referenced which was incorrect.

Overall, it was in an existing residential area where the dwelling could be seen (noting the generous separate plots).  On arriving at the recommendation, it was felt that there was strong design in a plot which could accommodate a large dwelling. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to the video shown by Councillor Beavan.  He noted that the national landscape team had produced guidance on illumination/lighting and the Committee should take reassurance that the this was being referred to and informing changes and amendments within schemes.  The Assistant Planner also noted the condition that had been added linked to external lighting.

Councillor Ashdown thanked the Officer for a detailed report and proposed that a site visit take place, this was seconded by Councillor Ewart and by a majority vote 

RESOLVED
 
That the application be deferred for a site visit to take place.
Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management
11
Agenda items 11 and 12 were for two linked applications and the Senior Planner (Development Management) presented them jointly to the Committee.

The Committee received reports ES/2276 and ES/2277 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning applications DC/24/1987/RG3 and DC/24/1988/LBC.  The application was for the reconfiguration, refurbishment and extension of the existing Grade II listed building (currently comprising 5 flats and a commercial unit), to provide a total of 9 flats and 1 commercial unit. The application was first presented to the September Planning Committee with a recommendation of ‘Authority to Approve, subject to no objections being received in response to notice period of 21-days following completion and service of certificate on the landowner of the Public Hall’. During the 21 day period, 3 representations were received highlighting concerns/objections to the proposal, triggering the need for the application to return to Planning Committee North.

The site location plan and an aerial photograph was shared with the Committee showing the site in context, noting it was all within the conservation area and the public hall was a non-designated heritage asset.

Photographs showing the buildings affected were displayed, highlighting the changes to the front and the changes to the structure at the rear.

The location of the neighbouring fish and chip shop, who had submitted an objection related to neighbour amenity issues, during the consultation period, was pointed out. Photographs submitted from the objector at number 21 Smallgate were shown to the Committee, with the Senior Planner noting the concerns regarding change to outlook following the proposed structural changes.

A historic photo of the site, showing the changes that had taken place over time was shared.  Existing and proposed block plans were shared showing the planned changes along with existing and proposed elevations.  Reviewing the elevations the Senior Planner made reference to the objections received from neighbour and the representative regarding the scale of the of the extension.  It was noted that the Principal Design and Heritage Officer was supportive of the scheme. 

The proposed 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor plans of the building were shared with the Committee.  The Senior Planner noted that notice had been served on the owner of the public hall, and they had raised some concerns, although considered, these related more to non-planning matters of council negotiations. 

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

Compliance with policy
Design/heritage
Neighbour amenity 
Provision of additional housing
 
The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee. 

Councillor Plummer noted that there had been concerns with certain elements of the internal layout.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that the planning application was as before Committee, however if some of the options proved not to be agreeable when negotiating the lease then that would require amending. 

Councillor Ashton asked about the neighbour’s view that was shown and whether they would be overlooked.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) responded that the amendments provided would prevent this from happening. 

Councillor Graham referred to one objector’s concerns regarding concerns of overbearing and the Senior Planner confirmed that amendments had addressed this.

Councillor Gee asked how much light would be lost from the window, and the Senior Planner (Development Management) revisited the plans to explain, concluding that it wouldn’t be significant.

Councillor Ashton referred to the proposed mitigation about reducing the height of extension asking if that would result in the loss of 2 rooms.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it would be either lose 2 flats or loss of ground floor parking and the lease arrangements were to provide parking, therefore not doing that would have a negative impact on Beccles Lido, who lease the building. 

The Chair clarified that the wall would be set further back and would not come up against the window. 

There were no further questions for the Officer, therefore the Chair invited Councillor Beavan, Cabinet Member for Housing, to speak.

Councillor Beavan didn’t have anything further to add, just that they were desperate to have the building restored.

Councillor Ashdown proposed that the proposal was accepted.

Councillor Ashton noted that the importance of assessing the impact on the window, he was confident that it was addressed and was happy to support. 

On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Ashton it was unanimously resolved
 
RESOLVED 
 
That the application be approved, subject to the following 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 carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1400-P05 - Proposed GA Elevations - Received 18 December 2024
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1101-P05 - Proposed GA Floor Plans - First, second and third floor plans - Received 18 December 2024
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1100-P05 - Proposed GA Floor Plan - Ground Floor Plan- Received 18 December 2024
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-0002-P00 - Proposed Block Plan - Received 30 May 2024

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

3. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation, and enhancement measures identified within the Preliminary Roost Assessment (The Landscape Partnership, July 2023) 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 protected and enhanced as part of the development.

4. No demolition of buildings (whole or in part) shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation and buildings for active birds' nests immediately before demolitions and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that nesting birds are protected.

5. The areas to be provided for the storage and presentation for collection/emptying of refuse and recycling bins as shown on Drawing No. 8616- FM- XX- ZZ- DR- A- 1100-P 02 shall be provided in their entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

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.

6. The use shall not commence until the areas within the site shown on drawing no. 8616-FM- XX- ZZ- DR- A- 1100-P 02 for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles, and secure cycle storage has / have been provided and thereafter the areas shall be retained, maintained and used for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient areas for vehicles to be parked are provided in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to the safe use of the highway and 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).

7. Prior to the installation of any fixed plant or machinery (e.g., heat pumps, compressors, extractor systems, air conditioning plant or refrigeration plant), a noise assessment should be submitted to include all proposed plant and machinery and be based on BS4142:2014+A1:2019.
 
A noise rating level (LAr) of at least 5dB below the typical background sound level (LA90,T) should be achieved at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. Where this noise rating level cannot be achieved, details of any noise mitigation measures considered should be explained and the achievable noise level should be identified and justified.
 
All equipment and/or measures included within the approved noise assessment should be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the area

8. Prior to occupation, evidence of how the required water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day will be achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason To ensure that the finished dwelling(s) comply with Policy WLP8.28 of the East Suffolk Council - Waveney Local Pan (2019), and to ensure Building Control Officers and Independent Building Inspectors are aware of the water efficiency standard for the dwelling(s).

9. 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 validation 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.

10. The living room and bedroom windows to Flat 6 on the western elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass to 1.7m above FFL and hinged on the left-hand side as shown on Drawing No's. 1400-P03 and 1101-P03. The 3 windows on the north/northwest elevation serving the bathroom to Flat 6 and the kitchens to Flat 8 and bathroom to Flat 6 shown on Drawing No's. 1400-P03 and 1101-P03, shall also be glazed with obscure glass. These windows shall thereafter and shall be retained in that condition.

Reason: To preserve the amenity of adjacent property.

11. Prior to commencement of development a construction/demolition 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. loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c. piling techniques (if applicable);
d. storage of plant and materials;
e. provision and use of wheel washing facilities;
f. programme of site and all associated works such as utilities including details of traffic management necessary to undertake these works;
g. a communications plan to inform local residents of the program of works;
h. details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction;
i. monitoring and review mechanisms; 
j. details of site working and deliveries times to the site during demolition and construction phases; 
k. Delivery management plan.
l.  details on how noise, dust, and light will be controlled
          
Thereafter, the approved demolition/construction management plan shall be adhered to throughout the course 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 and dust pollution and additional vehicular movements in this area during the construction phase of the development.
Report of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management
12

The presentation, question and debate for this application all occurred under the linked agenda item 11. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application is approved, subject to the following conditions:


1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 18 of the Act (as amended).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the following plans:

Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1400-P05 - Proposed GA Elevations - Received 18 December 2024 
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1101-P05 - Proposed GA Floor Plans - First, second and third floor plans - Received 18 December 2024 
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-1100-P05 - Proposed GA Floor Plan - Ground Floor Plan- Received 18 December 2024 
Drawing No: 8616-FM-XX-ZZ-DR-A-0002-P00 - Proposed Block Plan - Received 30 May 2024

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

3. Details in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council as Local Planning Authority before the work is begun. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details:

a) Treatment of existing windows/rear of windows to ground floor Female w.c.s to be confirmed.
b) Representative details of new internal doors to former White Lion hotel (only), including fire doors, to show materials, appearance and ironmongery.
c) Details of hard landscape design to rear courtyard.
d) Full specification of external materials to rear extensions to former White Lion hotel.
e) Representative details for replacement second floor rear living room window (Flat 4) to show materials, type of glazing, glazing bar mouldings, ironmongery and opening operation.
f) Representative details for fenestration to rear extensions to show materials, opening operation and ironmongery.
g) Confirmation of final extent of proposed roof-mounted PV arrays to include panel sizes and area.
h) Brick type, brick bond and mortar type in brickwork to rear extensions.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building.


4. Notwithstanding the submission drawing, all new external rainwater goods and soil pipes on the visible elevations shall be of cast metal, painted black.

Reason: In order to safeguard the special architectural or historic interest of the building.

5. Prior to commencement of works the Heritage Asset Assessment shall be submitted to the Suffolk Historic Environment Record with proof of deposition to be provided to Local Planning Authority by email. 

Reason: To ensure that an appropriate record of the building is available for future interest in a public accessible location. 

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

 

Attendance

Apologies
NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
No apology information has been recorded for the meeting.
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: Pip Alder (Democratic Services Officer), Jamie Behling (Senior Planner - Development Management), Joe Blackmore (Interim Planning Manager (Development Management)), Katy Cassidy (Democratic Services Officer), Ruth Chittock (Senior Landscape Officer), Fabian Danielsson (Assistant Planner), Mia Glass (Enforcement Planner), James Meyer (Principal Ecologist), Steve Milligan (Principal Planner), Iain Robertson (Senior Planner), Robert Scrimgeour (Principal Design and Heritage Officer), Ben Woolnough (Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management)