Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Planning Committee North
11 Mar 2025 - 13:00 to 17:56
  • 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 March 2025 at 1.00pm

 

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://youtube.com/live/p4vo515daag?feature=share

 

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

Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Wakeling.
2 Declarations of Interest

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

2

Councillor Pitchers declared a non registerable interest in agenda item 7 as Ward Councillor.

 

Councillor Ewart declared a non registerable interest in agenda items 5, 6 and 8 as Ward Councillor.

 

Cllr Ashton declared an interest in Agenda item 9 as Cabinet Member for Assets and Deputy Chair of Southwold Harbour Committee and recused himself from the item.

 

Councillor Ashton declared a non registerable interest in agenda item 5 as he lived in close proximity to the application site.

 

Councillor Graham declared a non registerable interest in agenda item 5 as she lived in the same village as the application site.

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

All members of the Planning Committee had received emails relating to agenda items 5 and 7, they had not responded.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
4

The Committee received report ES/2308 of the Head of Planning and Building Control 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 20 February 2024. At that time there were 28 such cases. There were two updates since the report had been published:

 

The enforcement notice served on 243 London Road South, Lowestoft, had now been complied with and the case would be closed.

 

The land in Lound – majority of work had now been completed with a utility box left outstanding – discussions were due to take place to decide on the appropriate action for that remaining item.

 

The Chair invited question to the Enforcement Planner.

 

Regarding the Paddock in Lound, Councillor Ashdown noted the work that had been done but asked if there was anything that could be done regarding the atrocious high fencing.  The Enforcement Planner replied that they could only request work to be done that fell within a breach.  Whilst she understood the fence issues, it was under permitted development height and would not constitute a breach.

 

Councillor Ashdown noted that The Pastures, North Cove was getting worse and if there was anything that could be done to expedite the action.  The Enforcement Planner replied that there was not much more that could be done whilst they awaited the enforcement notice. She added that most of the additional items on the site would be captured by the enforcement notice.

 

In response to Councillor Plummer, the Enforcement Planner said there was not anything further that could be done to speed up the process once it was under appeal.  It was a nationwide issue with planning application decisions being prioritised over enforcement.

 

There being no further questions or comments, on the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 20 February 2025 be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
5

The Committee received report ES/2309 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/1199/FUL.  The application was for extensions and alterations of the public house, to include the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation and a new car park on the opposite side of the road.

 

The application was before the Committee as it attracted significant public interest and was called in by the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee North.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application.

 

A variety of slides were shown comprising:

 

  • Aerial photograph and site location plan, showing the Griffin Inn to the west, the proposed car park to the east and all other land owned by the applicant.

     

  • Map of the carpark within the conservation area of Yoxford and the grade II listed park associated with Cockfield Hall.

     

  • Existing block and floor plans, the current layout was explained to the Committee. 

     

  • Images of the existing front, rear and side elevations and plans of the existing outbuilding.

     

  • The proposed block plan, with extensions wrapping all around the north boundary and the rear stable block being replaced with a large building.  The northwestern boundary flat roof extension with the sedum roof and the gap from the building to the walled boundary was shown.

     

  • Proposed plans for the ground and first floor of the building. The side and rear elevations were shown, noting that the pitched roof was set back and therefore wouldn’t be as dominant to its neighbour.

     

  • Outbuilding – this was a new building of a storey and a half scale with dormer windows, retaining the historic stable block appearance.  

     

  • The extension would include a new layout of the area around the Griffin Inn.  The existing access will be retained, there would be a new pedestrian crossing, with double yellow lines opposite and dropped curbs to accommodate the crossing.

     

  • An aerial photograph of the existing car park area, part of the wooded area of the wider estate.  The proposed car park would accommodate 74 spaces, including 5 disabled spaces and 12 EV charging spaces.

     

  • The entrance - through a pair of grade II listed gates, with plans to formalise it into a vehicular access.  The narrowness of the gates was noted and vehicles would have to access one at a time and wait for a clear roadway. The public right of way was pointed out to the Committee. A photograph showed the gates as they were currently. It was proposed to have a new boundary hedge of 1.8m in height as part of the car park.

     

  • Flood Map Zones 2 and 3 - the area didn’t suffer much from tidal flooding, however surface water flooding did affect a significant area of the proposed car park.  The proposed cellular format car park drainage system was explained – a cellular format, 1 foot above existing ground floor level, to retain and slowly disperse surface water flooding back into the river over time.

     

  • A series of photographs showing the location of the Griffin Inn, the car park and the surrounding areas. 

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were outlined as:

 

  • Impact on Highway
  • Impact to residential amenity
  • Flood risk
  • Impact on wildlife
  • Impact to conservation area

 

It was recommended to approve the proposal, subject to the conditions summarised in the report.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee, asking first for questions regarding the Griffin Inn and then on to questions regarding the car park.

 

Councillor Ashton asked about the extension towards Magnolia House, being a kitchen, and what mitigation was planned.   It was confirmed there was a condition for an odour assessment and noise assessment which would need to be produced prior to the installation of a new ventilation system.

 

Following on, Councillor Plummer asked what had been put into place for deliveries.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) displayed the proposed ground floor plan and pointed out the service entrance to the north leading into the store.  The applicant had confirmed that larger deliveries would use the driveway to the south in order to keep them off the road and would walk them around across the path and into the service area.

 

Councillor Ewart said food delivery was often via large noisy trucks, whose average size was larger than the width of the driveway.  She had reviewed the traffic report and the proposed volume of traffic alongside the proposed plans and people using the facilities and asked how the deliveries could happen safely, when needing to park up and reverse in.

 

The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted it was a tight road in Yoxford with a lot of parking all along it.  Therefore, if they were going to have deliveries, they would not be able to accommodate anything excessively large.  A turning space was provided in the plans.  Suffolk County Council Highways had been consulted and had not raised any objection.  He did understand the concerns regarding narrowness and busyness.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control added it was the Suffolk County Council Highways Authority that they depended upon as a consultee, and they had raised no objections or recommendations.  They would have considered tracking arrangements, access arrangements, and safety considerations.  There had also been a road safety audit as part of the submission, and this could be picked up with the applicants.  This was an established pub and the level of deliveries to a pub was not considered to be excessive and could be practically managed.  Councillor Ewart replied that it said there would be 13 deliveries a day.

 

In response to Councillor Ashton, the Senior Planner (Development Management) said that the only plans for double yellow lines were on the other side of the road for the pedestrian access (nothing directly outside the pub).

 

Councillor Ewart asked how wide the pub was on the curtilage, the Senior Planner (Development Management) agreed to measure and confirm.

 

Councillor Ewart noted that the plans with multiple bedrooms were more like a hotel and asked the officers if they supported the non-application for C1 status and what would that require. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that they viewed the site as a pub with an ancillary C1 use.  A pub use is currently sui generis, at best it would be a mixed-use application site. It wouldn’t gain anything special as C1 status and the change would have to go through a planning process, as would any pub.

 

Councillor Ewart asked if the home at the rear of the building belonged to the Wilderness and if it did, why that wasn’t included as it would give more fluidity to the plans.  Currently it was difficult for someone using that property or the disabled bay to get out if a truck was there. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was purchased after the planning application was submitted and the plans had to be judged as they were currently, he added the applicant might be open to different arrangements in the future. He explained that a delivery vehicle could reverse back to let the occupant or someone using the disabled bay out.

 

Councillor Pitchers was concerned about how many trees might be lost in developing the car park. The Senior Planner (Development Management) revisited the plan, noting all trees in purple would be lost to accommodate the car park.  The Landscape Officer had advised that none of the trees held specific importance to be retained and the applicant had tried to retain as many trees as possible. Councillor Pitchers commented on the sheer size of the car park with 74 spaces.  It was confirmed that the car park would be open to the public and was for the whole village, not just the pub.

 

Councillor Graham asked how the car park related to the number of covers provided by the pub? The Senior Planner (Development Management) said that Suffolk County Council stipulated the required spaces for the floor space. They viewed the pub car park as suitable, and any additional car parking would be for the public.  The applicant would confirm the number of covers later in the meeting.

 

Councillor Ashton asked how the size of the car park was arrived at, was it determined by SCC or the applicant.  It was confirmed that the application was submitted, and Suffolk County Council were happy with the size of the car park proposed.  Councillor Ewart referred to the ratio provided by Suffolk County Council regarding car parking and said it was top heavy.

 

Councillor Ewart commented on Condition 20 regarding electric charging infrastructure, and said the power available would only add up to 3 chargers currently and not the 12 planned.  She asked if the provision of power was taken into account with UK Power and whether there was a condition to assure the village that power wouldn’t decrease with the use of EV chargers.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control said there was a right to seek access to a certain level of power from the grid, which shouldn’t be at the detriment to the residents’ access to power.  If the applicant sought to install the EV charging points and they were told by UK Power that they could only have a certain amount, then they would have to revisit the condition. There was an expectation for the grid to adapt to provide that level of service.

 

Councillor Ewart was concerned that Cockfield Hall was not being included in the report and noted the interest from Heritage England regarding the level of parking and the importance of retaining the parkland for Cockfield Hall.  She queried why this wasn’t being taken into consideration.  The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that these were two separate applications, and the Griffin Inn was to be considered on its own merits.  Councillor Ewart said that the applications needed to be considered as a whole and considered the officer’s report to be light on information regarding Cockfield Hall.  The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that the information had been added to the update sheet as per Councillor Ewart’s request and considered there to be fair recognition of Cockfield Hall with Heritage Officer involvement throughout, they were not able to prejudge the influence of a separate live application at Cockfield Hall.  They recognised the close interaction with Cockfield Hall and the conservation area of Yoxford, the listed buildings etc, all of which had been fairly judged.

 

Councillor Ewart described the location of the car park and its proximity to Cockfield Hall, noting the large size of the car park and asked who was going to use it.  The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that it was not proposed for Cockfield Hall, that application would have to address their own parking needs.  This was a proposal for village and pub parking.

 

Councillor Ashton asked the Officer what the boundary was between the car park and the properties that backed on to it.  He replied there was currently a wall, however additional planting was proposed to bulk it up and minimise noise and views across. The intended height on the plans was 1.8m, this could be grown taller if necessary.

 

Councillor Graham said there had been concerns raised about the parking being remote and a venue for antisocial behaviour. She shared this concern, particularly when there was nowhere for young people to go in the village. She understood that the application could not be refused on the grounds of Anti-Social Behaviour, but asked how the car parking would be managed and overseen. This was referred to the applicant to respond to later in the meeting.

 

The Interim Planning Manager clarified the following points from questions:

 

  • The width of the frontage of the building was approximately 27 metres across.
  • Input from Historic England – comments had been received back from Claire Campbell, Team Leader, stating not wanting to provide comments and had referred officers to the expertise of their in-house team.
  • The Principal Design and Heritage Officer supports the application, they strongly support the elements regarding refurbishment and reuse of Griffin Inn. Identifies, as does the case officer, some level of harm from the car park, but that needs to be weighted against the public benefits of the proposal – overall conclusion was that the application can be supported.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked whether on road parking was used by residents or visitors, and what difference the car park would make to the street scene.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that on street parking was generally busy, the car park could take some of that off the road. It was primarily planned to be a car park for the pub, with the benefits that others could use it if necessary.

 

Councillor Ewart raised some question regarding safety and lighting. Condition 8.25 referred to low level bollards, residents raised concerns about an influx of lighting, and the duration of it, due to the times staff would be entering and leaving the car park. She added with only one disabled space at the pub, would the lighting be sufficient for disabled users at the car park.

 

The Senior Planner (Development Management) said nothing had been detailed as yet re lighting; there was a condition in the report that there would be an impact assessment prior to anything being installed.  This would be something that both ESC ecology teams and Environmental Protection would want to check and make sure it was low level to not impact dark skies.

 

Councillor Ewart expressed her disappointment in the report from the fire department.  The refurbished gateway would be 3m wide, which precluded large vehicle access (SCC safe access for fire engines is 3.1m to 3.7m, therefore fire engines could not access car park).  There was no reference to hard standing for the fire engine and it was not clear where they would get water.  She referred to examples from other Essex and asked what procedures would be followed.

 

The Head of Planning and Coastal Management replied that the Highway Authority have responsibility for safe access for all vehicles and they had reviewed the application and the access. The fire service had been consulted and there were no objections. He understood the concerns re EV charging and noted that future homes would have on plot EV charging points.  He confirmed that the Officers had to rely on the Highway/Fire Service response.

 

Referencing flooding – Councillor Ewart said that Yoxford was involved in Storm Babet, and flood reports show that Yoxford is in an active flood plain. She found it strange that Suffolk County Council had Yoxford on its S19 flood investigation list yet made no comment. The proposed location of the car park was the side of the village that suffered extreme impact.  She said she was starting to tire of the reports received as they didn’t actually say what was going on.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that if there were concerns about the nature of the reports received then this could be discussed offline.  Reports pulled together all the necessary consultees and comprehensively reviewed all the considerations that applied to the application.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) had ensured that all engagement with the Flood Authority had taken place and there was suitable design around flood mitigation. It was not for planning officers to question the professional input of statutory/non statutory consultees. It was fair that members scrutinise and question it, but ultimately the officers had to present a comprehensive picture in the report, he was satisfied that this had been fully considered by officers in this case.  Councillor Ewart replied that it was up to them to support the officers more in such instances.

 

In response to Councillor Gee, the Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed there would be no hedging up against the historic wall on the boundary of Magnolia House/Griffin Inn and the wall was to be retained as is.

 

The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that the distance between the car park and the Griffin Inn had been checked by officers.

 

In response to Councillor Ewart it was confirmed that the pedestrian crossing was not proposed to be lit.  The applicant had liaised with SCC Highways about the most appropriate crossing, and a dropped kerb crossing was proposed.

 

Continuing the questioning about the crossing, Councillor Ewart noted the importance of it for the village and asked for more detail.  The Head of Planning and Building Control said the crossing had been proposed for the purpose of the public house and was not proposed for the wider benefit of the village. He continued there may be opportunities via future developments/CIL etc to consider a village crossing, but the crossing required for school children was not what was being proposed as a result of the Griffin pub developments.  Councillor Ewart said there may be challenge from the village as it said in the report that the Wilderness were contributing to the cost. 

 

Councillor Ewart asked about the area near Horner’s Store and why there had been no consultation with the public or school.  She raised concern about the area to the front of Horner’s store and the implications of trucks offloading, shoppers stopping, pedestrians using it. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it would remain an option for parking, and the shop had unrestricted parking in front of it. He added the shop had the opportunity to comment, and SCC Highways had not raised any concerns, they had taken on board the feedback from Highways.

 

Councillor Ashton commented that the delivery vehicles to the shop did tend to park outside the shop.

 

Councillor Ewart asked the Principal Planner (Development Management), how entering and existing the car park would work.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) shared the layout plan of the access and explained how it would work, with the car coming in having right of way and checking visibility of approach. He added the off-road access should stop multiple cars causing congestion on the road.  Councillor Ewart quoted from the report where it talked about the ability of vehicles seeing who was entering and exiting and questioned if that was satisfactory. 

 

The Chair invited Sandra Wallace, objector, to make her representation.

 

Having lived in Yoxford for over 20 years, she represented the village in finding parts of the application, especially the car park and road planning, challenging.  She told the Committee if they had been to Yoxford recently they would be shocked how the Sizewell roadworks were changing the A12, and this impact was affecting the A112 that ran through the village.

 

She considered the Griffin re-opening to be a significant move forward and many were in agreement with this part of the application, though there were some major issues,  the car park was too large, the tarmac out of keeping, entrance difficult and dangerous to access and too far away for differently abled guests. None of the spaces in the non-conjoined car park met the disabled access requirements.

 

The flow of traffic to the car park can not be seen from the main road which would be dangerous.  Deliveries could not fit through the gates. Traffic could not see whether a car has left, meaning a head on meeting and a car could not reverse back onto a blind corner.

 

There were concerns for the environment with the car park attracting litter. Yoxford is an area of outstanding natural beauty.

 

The proposed hotel development could be designed with less bedrooms, enabling a car park on site. The applicant does not have good title to land near entrance gates. It would be a common choice for lunch, destination venue, private car parking inadequate, needs to be redesigned, older users and young children need to cross busy road. She was saddened to say preparatory works had started on site, and she relied on the Committee with open minds to do what is right.

 

The Chair invited questions to the objector.

 

Councillor Graham asked what the suggested alternative parking was.  The objector replied that the Griffin had the bowling green and area behind it that could be used for car parking on site, this would accommodate approximately 30 spaces.

 

Councillor Ewart asked to review the image of the HGV truck and asked how long they were sitting there. The objector confirmed there was lots of comings and goings and they could be there for a while.  Councillor Ewart noted they would be an obstruction to anyone turning right.

 

The Chair invited Yoxford Parish Council to make their representation.

 

Yoxford Parish Council welcomed the proposal to renovate and reopen the Griffin.  They looked forward to it opening and anticipated that it would be a welcome asset to the community. Their concerns lay solely with the proposed car park.

 

They welcomed the offer for villagers to use the car park free of charge but questioned how many actually would. At present, villagers living in the High Street park on the street outside their homes and a number of them have said they would continue to do so for their own convenience. In addition, the on-street parking serves as a speed management measure.  Without it, speeds through the village would increase. For that reason, they urged the committee to make their considerations around the car park primarily on its use as a pub car park.

 

They asked were 74 spaces necessary or could it be reduced in size.  The Unruly Pig had 50 car parking spaces, they could not think of any other pub that had 74 spaces.

 

Their primary concerns were noise and light disturbance to neighbouring houses, safety of pedestrians (particularly non-ambulant) and traffic congestion at the entrance to the car park.

 

The proposed entrance through a 3m wide listed gate was on a one in, one out basis. With vehicles waiting to turn right into the site and others stopping outside the shop. They envisaged congestion and potential collisions that could ensue, particularly as the entrance was on a bend in the road.

 

The present plans foresee pedestrians entering and leaving the site through the same gate. This would cause obvious safety concerns, as well as creating a significant walking distance to and from the car park to the pub. Residents in the High Street have raised concerns that this may lead to on street parking by pub users. While welcoming the proposed crossing point on the High Street to address some safety concerns, they urged that an alternative pedestrian route be identified.

 

With regard to noise and light disturbance, if plans were approved, they asked that strict conditions were placed on the nature of the car park surface, lighting EV points and screening at the boundary between the car park and neighbouring homes. These should also include non-reflective, noise suppressant surfacing and low-level lighting. They also urged that any EV points were silent and minimally lit.

 

With regard to screening neighbouring houses, they asked that a condition be imposed that a reflective acoustic barrier should be installed, sympathetically placed behind trees and shrubbery to minimise the negative impact on neighbours.

 

The Chair invited questions to the Parish Council.

 

Councillor Graham asked if they would be satisfied with a smaller car park in the proposed area or would they prefer an alternative area.  The Parish Council representative replied they would prefer parking in the footprint of the pub itself, ideally in the land that was the old bowling green, but if the car park had to be where it was proposed, they suggested it should be smaller with minimised disruption.  He described the location of the old bowling green and said it made sense to put the car park there and it was within the applicant’s ownership.   Councillor Graham noted the resident would have to move to make that happen and asked if there were other suitable sites. The Parish Council replied there was the Village hall car park, which was less distance than the proposed car park, and in need of resurfacing but were a benefactor to resurface it, it would be suitable.

 

Councillor Ashton confirmed with the Parish Council that they were referring to the applicant discussion concerning access through Mulberr Park, which would connect to the car park.

 

The Chair invited the applicant, Mr Matt Bostock, to speak. He told the Committee:

 

The Wilderness Reserve acquired the Griffin Inn in December 2020.  The intention is to reopen the pub with a flexible offering, primary as a local pub for the village with a typical pub food offer with the option of higher end menu in the rear dining room. The proposal was prepared with extensive advice from several publicans. The vision is to bring a new green heart to village which is currently dominated by the A1120.  The greener setting would be a visual reminder to visitors that they are passing through a village, encouraging them to driver more slowly and considerably. To achieve this, they removed the car parking from front.  They considered parking to the rear, but this would adversely impact certain guests. They were keen to find a proposal to accommodate all of the predicted car parking and cycle spaces without requiring on street parking.  Arrived at the proposal for the car park nestled in existing woodland with safe access for vehicles and pedestrians. Extensive Consultation has taken place, commencing September 2022 with a 3-day exhibition, followed by a further exhibition in June 2023.  In all 410 members of the public attended, this included proposals of the nearby Cockfield Hall estate.  A community website and email address has been in operation since September 2022. As a public venue the Griffin achieved lots of interest, members of public shared memories of the Griffin as well as their thoughts on what would make it successful – this was important as local people are key to the long-term success. Further engagement took place with the Parish Council and neighbours that share a boundary.  They also met on numerous occasions with planning officers, members of the highway team, historic England and the forestry commission. As a result of this engagement a number of key amendments were made to the design, including reduced massing to the rear, relocation of kitchen extractor, enclosing a staffing area to minimise noise.  Access to the pub and car park was redesigned. A disabled space on site was included with improved drop off, an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point, and an additional landscape buffer to the car park. Historically Yoxford was home to four pubs and the reopening of the Griffin will be an asset to the village.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Ashton asked the applicant to clarify the number of covers and number of bedrooms, leading to the calculation of car parking spaces. The applicant replied there were approximately 150 covers across all dining areas and 11 bedrooms with the number of spaces being determined by the Suffolk County Council guidance.

 

Councillor Ewart asked if they would consider cutting the garden back to create a layby that the larger trucks could use, making it safer.  The applicant replied that they were hesitant to do that as their plans were designed to create more green space in the village.  They had undertaken vehicle tracking, tracking a vehicle up to 10m to make sure it could be accommodated.  There were no double yellow markings on the pub side of the road, and a minor element of it near the uncontrolled crossing, there was suitable space to get vehicles off the road. Therefore, it would not impact on the free flow of cars using the A1120.

 

Councillor Ewart referenced the transport statement stating that the vehicle coming to the pub would require someone with expert risk experience to guide the truck in.  She asked where the truck would go that wouldn’t result in them blocking the road. The applicant acknowledged that could be the case on occasions, but not all trucks delivering goods to the pub would be that of scale. Their experience was that larger vehicles with alcohol might deliver in the mornings, but a lot of the actual servicing vehicles for other goods would be smaller, and those vehicles could come in straight away and turn on the site as well.  Historically, the operational pub servicing to the Griffin, occurred to the front and rear, most vehicles would not need to reverse.

 

The applicant confirmed to Councillor Ewart, that the piece of land to be crossed was currently unregistered. It was a legal technicality and if they were not able to register it, they may not be able to proceed with the application, as it was currently.

 

Councillor Ewart referenced the Capital Road Safety Audit and the comments within that, asking the applicant how they would see that working? The applicant responded they were not a Highway’s expert; a Suffolk County Council assessment had been carried out and they were satisfied with that.

 

Councillor Gee asked why several trees had already been felled.  The applicant responded that the estate had an existing woodland management plan which covered the whole of the Cockfield Hall Estate and the associated felling licence. They obtained that approval in 2018.  As an estate they have a lot of land under management, and it was part of the forestry team’s 10-year regenerative plan agreed with the forestry commission.  This was nothing to do with the planning application.

 

Councillor Gee suggested it was to create a space for a car park and not just related to the woodland management plan.  The applicant responded this was not the case and commenced 3 years prior to acquiring the Griffin Inn.  An arboricultural assessment was carried out as part of the application, this was to remove and replace 28 trees.

 

Councillor Ashdown asked how many delivery vehicles were required per day to service the pub. The applicant did not have that information to hand but noted the earlier figure quoted of 13 per day was inaccurate and based on the trips/highway survey work which incorporated Sizewell C traffic at peak times. 

 

Councillor Ewart asked about the pre-application engagement with the local community and how was this recorded. The applicant confirmed it was all recorded via email and comment cards, collated as part of the community involvement statement. This engagement included the wider proposal for Cockfield Hall.  All information was shared with the Parish Council. They understood the concerns raised and that the option of where to place the car parking was an emotive point. The car park had to go somewhere, and the village car park came about through early engagement with church, village hall. He added if car parking was a problem, it could be taken away, but without additional parking, residents may not be able to park outside their houses, and on balance they considered this to be the best option.

 

Councillor Ewart referenced the applicant’s report and how it should refer to the conservation area and historic environment.

 

Councillor Ashton asked about the car park and what mitigation would be implemented for flood risk and lighting and noise.  The applicant confirmed that it would be a permeable surface allowing the water to discharge back to the river. The boundary wall varied in height, but would conceal the light and headlights. There would be low level lighting, as deployed elsewhere on the site, and it was not considered a significant concern. There would be some noise from people accessing the car park, softer measures such as signage would be in place.

 

Councillor Graham said there was the potential for the carpark to be a hub for ASB and asked what oversight would take place.  The applicant said it would be regularly used, which would provide natural surveillance. They may consider a parking management company, free issue tickets and some form of management. Councillor Ewart asked where it said in the report that there was a ticket machine.  The applicant replied that they wanted to encourage patrons to use the car park, and a ticket with an incentive such as discounted first drinks order would be considered.  This had been discussed at Parish meetings.

 

The Interim Planning Manager clarified that the route to the car park was 150m to 200m distance.

 

The Chair moved the Committee on to debate.

 

Councillor Ashdown said they had received an excellent presentation and there had been lots of consultation, considering what to do with the pub to revitalise the village.  It was a business, and people would travel some distance to it for a meal. The car parking whilst not as nice as it might be, was safe, managed and adequate.  He was likely to support the proposal.

 

Councillor Graham as a village resident would like to see the pub back into use, she welcomed the green space rather than existing concrete.  She had concerns about the safety of the car parking arrangements and the road and felt frustrated as if the car park was smaller it could be situated somewhere else, and so had reservations about the proposal.

 

Councillor Ewart, as Vice Chair of Planning, had called in the application and proposed that the application was deferred for a site visit.  Councillor Gee seconded the proposal for a site visit. Councillor Ashton did not agree with the site visit proposal, the difficulties faced by the Committee, would still be present following a site visit.

 

The proposal for a site visit by Councillor Ewart, seconded by Councillor Gee was voted against by the Committee.

 

Councillor Pitchers was in favour of the pub renovations, he had reservations regarding the car park but could see no legal reasons to object.

 

Councillor Gee welcomed the restoration to the pub, but found the extensions large, altering the building and street scene. She said it could be argued that the size of redevelopment was over development of the site.  Whilst the distance of 150 to 200m was not far for abled bodied patrons to walk, with only 1 disabled car parking space available at the pub, she felt it was too far.  She would not be supporting the application.

 

Councillor Ewart said the Griffin Inn new designs were ambitious, bringing valuable opportunities to the village, but had accessible and logistical flaws. The single disabled space on site was inadequate for a restaurant and pub of that size, the deliveries had not been thought through.  The Parishes concerns were important to her, the pedestrian crossing was not in the place that they wanted it to be. The proposed car park was hugely problematic. She referred to the heritage concerns with Cockfield Hall and asked that these were considered and upon weighing up all of the concerns she could not support it as it was currently.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control raised a point of clarification. Historic England had not raised the car park as of excessive scale and their response was that they provide advice when their engagement added value, in this case they were not offering advice.  He said the reference from Historic England that Councillor Ewart referred to may have been related to the Cockfield Hall application, which was not before the Committee.

 

Councillor Ashton was a Yoxford resident, there had been several owners of the pub. Generally, the village welcomed a long term development to the Griffin. Parking was clearly a big issue.  His view was that some of the possible parking around the venue, eg development of bowling green etc, would not create enough parking spaces for the pub to be viable. The applicant had attempted to address the issue of excessive on street parking.  The village residents and trade depended on passing trade and the ability for on street parking. A separate car park makes it viable, the challenge was there wasn’t a good place to put it, the village hall was even further away, this was the best option from the applicant.  Councillor Ashton said the size of the car park could be helpful with village events. The ticketing to use the car park was interesting and the signage needed to be in keeping with Yoxford (and conditioned to reflect it).  He knew people who objected and he understood why. Being guided by planning policy and the potential for appeal, he understood the concerns but did not have reasonable grounds to reject.  He added opening up Mulberry Park would help, with a more direct path between proposed car park and pub.

 

Councillor Ashdown proposed that the application be approved, and Councillor Ashton seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Graham wanted to refuse on the grounds that the access to the parking was unsuitable, but Suffolk County Council Highways had not said that which made it difficult. She said opening up Mulberry Park would help as would a second pedestrian crossing.

 

Councillor Ashton noted the possibilities from CIL funding/Sizewell funding for a second pedestrian crossing.

 

Councillor Pitchers was not happy with proposal but could not find any legal grounds for refusal that would not be overturned.

 

Councillor Ewart stated that the decision made about the application, particularly with regard to Highways was hazardous and she would be taking that up with Matthew Hicks.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That Authority to Approve be granted subject to: the applicant submitting a revised ownership certificate (D), and the necessary consultation process having been undertaken following service of that notice; and the completion of a Section 106 agreement.

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 all respects strictly in accordance with:

CO.120.001 REV A received 28/03/2024
CO.120.008 REV A received 28/03/2024
CO.120.010 REV A received 28/03/2024
CO.120.012 REV A received 28/03/2024
CO.120.007 REV E received 09/11/2024
CO.120.009 REV E received 09/11/2024
KMC22031 / TR08 C received 09/11/2024
KMC22031 / 019 D received 09/11/2024
CO.111.001 REV A received 03/12/2024
CO.111.003 received 03/12/2024

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

3. Prior to commencement of any works, details in respect of the following shall be submitted to and approved by the Council as Local Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with such approved details:

Full specification of external materials to be used in alterations and additions to the Griffin Inn
Full specification of external materials to be used in the accommodation block to the rear of the Griffin Inn
Representative fenestration details to show materials, finish, opening operation, ironmongery, glazing type
Confirmation of eaves and ridge heights to rear outbuilding

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

4. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (CSA environmental, 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 adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.

5. Prior to commencement of development a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), in accordance with BS 5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The TPP and AMS should include details of the following:

i) Measures for the protection of those trees and hedges on and adjacent to the application site that are within influencing distance.

ii) Details of all construction measures within the root protection areas of those trees on and adjacent to the application site which are to be retained specifying the position, depth, and method of construction/installation/excavation of service trenches, building foundations, hardstandings, roads and footpaths.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved TPP and AMS unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Required to avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees pursuant to section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Local Plan Policy SCLP10.4

6. Prior to commencement on site, a detailed landscape planting plan for the carpark site shall be submitted to the planning authority for approval. It shall include:

- A schedule detailing sizes, numbers and species of all proposed trees/hedges and other planting.
- Sufficient planting specifications and maintenance regimes to ensure successful establishment and survival of new planting. 

Any new trees or hedging plants that die, are removed, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the same or following planting season. Replacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details (unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent to any variation).

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the area, to provide ecological, environmental and biodiversity benefits and to maximise the quality and usability of open spaces within the development, and to enhance its setting within the immediate locality in accordance with Local Plan Policy SCLP10.4.

7. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
b. The programme for post investigation assessment
c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation
e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation
f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy SCLP11.7 of Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

8. No building shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 7 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy SCLP11.7 of Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

9. No development shall take place until the applicant or developer has secured the implementation of a programme of historic building and analysis work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy SCLP11.7 of Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

10. Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. KMC22031 / 019 rev D with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 43 metres [tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway] and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.

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

11. No other part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the new vehicular access has been laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. KMC22031 / 019 rev D with an entrance width of 4.5 metres for a minimum distance of 5 metres measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway. Thereafter, it shall be retained in its approved form. Prior to the new access being brought into use, all other means of vehicular access into the site from High Street shall be effectively stopped up and closed in complete accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the access is laid out and completed to an acceptable design in the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway and to avoid multiple accesses that would be detrimental to highway safety.

12. Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway including any system to dispose of the water. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

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

13. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on drawing no. KMC22031 / 019 rev D for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has / have been provided and thereafter the area(s) 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.

14. The use shall not commence until the area within the site shown on drawing number KMC22031 / 019 rev D for the purposes of secure cycle storage has been provided and thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other purposes. 

Reason: To ensure the provision and long term maintenance of adequate on-site space for the parking of cycles.

15. The areas to be provided for the storage and presentation for collection/emptying of refuse and recycling bins as shown on Drawing No. CO.120 007 Rev E 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.

16. Before the access is first used visibility splays shall be provided as shown on Drawing No. KMC22031 / 016 Rev I with an X dimension of 2.4 metres and a Y dimension of 43 metres [tangential to the nearside edge of the carriageway] and thereafter retained in the specified form. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no obstruction to visibility shall be erected, constructed, planted or permitted to grow over 0.6 metres high within the areas of the visibility splays.

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

17. No other part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until the new vehicular access has been laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. KMC22031 / 016 Rev I with an entrance width of 5.5 metres for a minimum distance of 5 metres measured from the nearside edge of the carriageway. Thereafter, it shall be retained in its approved form. Prior to the new access being brought into use, all other means of vehicular access into the site from High Street shall be effectively stopped up and closed in complete accordance with a scheme which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the access is laid out and completed to an acceptable design in the interests of the safety of persons using the access and users of the highway and to avoid multiple accesses that would be detrimental to highway safety.

18. Gates/bollard/chain/other means of obstruction to the access shall be set back a minimum distance of 5 metres from the public highway and shall not open towards the highway.

Reason: To avoid unacceptable safety risks and traffic delay arising from vehicles obstructing the public highway while the obstruction is removed or replaced by enabling vehicles to clear the highway while this is done.

19. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on drawing no. KMC22031 / 016 Rev I for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has / have been provided and thereafter the area(s) 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. 

20. Before the development is commenced, details of electric vehicle charging infrastructure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall include noise assessment and a light survey. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose.

Reason: To ensure the provision of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) and to protect the amenity of neighbours.

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

The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter and used for no other purpose. The approved scheme shall be implemented for each dwelling prior to its first occupation and retained as such thereafter.

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

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

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

2) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including:
- the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the materials encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy;
- explanation and justification for the analytical strategy;
- a revised conceptual site model; and
- a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, Including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).

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

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

23. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS must include, but is not limited to:

- details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures;
- an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies);
- proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and
- proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring.

The RMS must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019 and Land Contamination Risk Management.

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

24. Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 23 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

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

25. A validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. The validation report must include, but is not limited to:

- results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met;
- evidence that the RMS approved under condition 9 has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and
- evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The validation report must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, CIRIA C735 and Land Contamination Risk Management.

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

26. 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 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 approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS 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 approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

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.

27. Prior to commencement a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" for development, the new building, and features or areas to be lit shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall:

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

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

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

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

28. As the premises is adjacent to residential properties, there is the potential that occupiers may be adversely affected by noise and odour from the commercial kitchen operations.

Prior to the installation of any such plant the owner shall provide an odour and noise risk assessment in accordance with the updated current guidance: Control of Odour and Noise from Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Systems-An update to the 2004 report prepared by NETCEN for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

The risk assessment shall identify potential sources of odour/noise, pathways and receptors and make recommendations regarding the level of mitigation needed.  The LPA will require a rating level (LAeq) of at least 5dB below the typical background (LA90) is achieved.

This report shall be approved by the LPA prior to permission being granted.  Any required mitigation/control measures shall be agreed by the LPA and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved measures.

Reason: To preserve the residential amenity of neighbours.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
6

The Committee received report ES/2310 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/3258/FUL.  The application was for part retrospective application for the construction of 4no. tourist accommodation lodges and associated development pursuant to applications DC/21/3571/FUL, DC/22/2220/VOC, DC/22/2519/FUL and DC/22/2542/FUL - Variations from the approved plans.

 

The application was before the Committee as it was called in by the Vice-Chair of Planning Committee North.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application.

 

 The site location plan and aerial view was shared with the Committee, the Senior Planner (Development Management).  Since the first application, the lodge numbers and names had changed.  The lodge locations were shown and the relationship with the site at Valley Farm.

 

Photographs and plans of the lodges and an explanation of the scale and range of amendments were shown for the following:

 

  • Lodge 1 – Boat House previously approved (now known as Lodge 10, Otter Lodge)
  • Housekeepers Shed – Lodge 10
  • Lodge 2 – West Lodge previously approved (now known as Lodge 11, Mawthers)
  • Lodge 3 – Pond Lodge previously approved (now known as Lodge 9, Owl Cottage)
  • Lodge 4 – Entrance Lodge previously approved (now known as Lodge 12, Mossle)
  • Housekeepers Shed – Lodges 9,11 and 12

 

The access arrangements would continue to be via Brick Kiln Lane.  There had been objection to construction access via Laundry Lane.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) said they were assured this was only temporary, as more recently a new access was approved onto Halesworth Lane – this was proposed to be used for the wider development across Valley Farm, and Brick Kiln Lane would only be used for servicing.

 

The material planning considerations/key issues were summarised as:

 

  • Principle of development
  • Landscape impact
  • Heritage impact
  • Design
  • Access

 

It was recommended to approve the proposal, subject to the conditions summarised in the report.

 

The Chair invited question from the Committee.

 

Councillor Ewart commented that the buildings being moved the distance they were, were not minor changes.  She referred to a further building that was under construction off Laundry Lane and asked what relationship that had with the four holiday cottages. The Senior Planner (Development Management) highlighted the former biomass boiler building on the aerial photograph, of which the design/form had been amended for management services functions, which would be before a future committee.  The scope of the complex was defined on the aerial photograph.

 

Councillor Ewart asked if the Highways report was now out of date.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) said this application was focusing on just the four lodges and therefore the traffic implications would be fairly limited.

 

Councillor Ewart noted the debate regarding Biodiversity Netgain (BNG) and RAMS, and whether it would be paid and how much. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied RAMS was paid with the first application and BNG didn’t apply to retrospective applications, this was out of their control and central government guidance. Over the wider estate significant biodiversity enhancements were being delivered.

 

Councillor Graham noted the Parish Council had raised that Laundry Lane was being used, despite what was set out in the original application. She asked what means there were to enforce it and was that being taken into consideration? The Senior Planner (Development Management) referred to the applicant’s response regarding use of Laundry Lane and suggested this was taken up further with the applicant.

 

Councillor Ewart said retrospective applications were disappointing and transparency was required.  She said the repositioning of the lodges had been extensive, and any further changes must come before the authority.  She asked how the Council checked this and what enforcement was there. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied the onus was on the developer to ensure the application was in accordance with approved plans, and they rely on external parties informing them when this is not the case. In this case, the applicant raised them themselves.  It was confirmed it was not a building control role.

 

Councillor Graham asked for clarity on the distance from the lodges to the village, adding there were claims that the village was inundated with traffic relating to the lodges and asked for an idea of vehicle movements. The Head of Planning and Building Control said this application should only appraise its own traffic impacts, the separate application for Blyth Barn wedding venue would look at the collective effects. The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out the distance/traffic routes from the lodges on the aerial photograph.  It was clarified that the traffic would come through the access on to Brick Kiln Lane.

 

There were no further questions for the Committee, and the Chair invited the Objector, Mr Watson, to speak.

 

Mr Watson asked the Committee to reject the application and drew their attention to the fact that throughout the Valley Farm/Blyth Estate development process there had been a constant succession of part retrospective planning applications. He had been a member of Huntingfield Parish Council for almost 20 years and was involved in the planning process to represent the views of the parishioners. This was becoming increasingly difficult as they had lost faith in the planning processes. The applications at Committee were for retrospective applications for minor amendments, 2 lodges were complete and already in use, therefore this was a fait accompli.  There were 2 still under construction, with descriptions given regarding changes in position and layout, however the reality is they could not be sure of what they were really building. Would there be further retrospective applications when scale and nature had changed beyond recognition.  He asked the project director at a parish council meeting how it was possible to build in the wrong place and was told these were agreed with the builders before work started.  He asked why did they not apply for planning permission at that point, and the director asked if they expected them to apply for planning permission for every change.  He replied yes as this would allow those with a vested interested to have an oversight before construction started. Whilst this planning application in itself did not have significant amenity impact, the principle was wrong and they should not get away with retrospective planning applications, giving them the impression they can do what they wish.  When the planning permission for the original repositioning of west lodge was granted the planning department insisted that only one lodge could be built not both.  He asked was this interference too much for the wilderness reserve and was that why they switched to retrospective planning applications to avoid future interference.  He believed retrospective planning applications were being used to avoid the public scrutiny that the legislative planning processes were designed for.  By allowing them to come to Committee retrospectively, it was supporting developers in avoiding democratic planning process to allow towns and parishes to have a say before the construction starts.  Enough was enough, and the committee should put a stop to these retrospective applications.   He concluded this was not a constituent building a conservatory who was unaware of the processes these were professional property developers who know exactly what they are doing.

 

The Chair invited questions to the objector.

 

Councillor Ashton told the objector that he shared their frustration regarding retrospective applications.  He reassured him that the application would be judged on its own merits and be subject to the same amount of scrutiny. The objector acknowledged Councillor Ashton’s comments and expressed the concerns of the residents who were already seeing construction work taking place.

 

In response to Councillor Ewart, the objector confirmed that the Environmental Protection Team had taken action against the construction noise. Councillor Ewart thanked the Environmental Protection team.

 

The Chair invited Mr Blackmore, Huntingfield Parish Council, to speak. Mr Blackmore described the timeline of events that had occurred as follows:

 

May 2016 - Parish Council supported the application to renovate/develop Valley Farmhouse/Blyth Manor, within whose boundary the lodges stand.

 

February 2021 – developer carries out noise assessment tests on the site, these would be used in future to draw up noise management supporting application of 24hrs/wedding venue licence for the site for in excess of 270 people.

 

April 21 – application to construct garden walls and develop outside area, Parish Council expressed concern with noise from partying by pool with development being so close to village centre – told property was for rural retreats, spa treatments and gentle country pursuits.

 

June 21 – change of use for farm barns and conversion of farm barns to form 3 units for tourist use and modification of basement area into communal social area.  Parish Council challenged developer as this sounded like a party pad, assured it was for tourist, retreat use only.  Despite planning construction of the corporate event venue.

 

August 21 – application for the lodge development (as at Committee today). Questioned developers on the traffic implications and concern that Laundry Lane entrance would be used (this was narrow, leading to centre of village). Told access would be solely via Brick Kiln Lane and Laundry lane entrance would be closed off, which it subsequently was.

 

The Parish council objected due to increased traffic. Having been given assurance that Laundry Lane would not be used, it was subsequently unblocked and is used constantly by guests, service personnel and construction vehicles, causing distress to residents.

 

The Parish Council objected in 2021 and object now. Despite community concerns over increased traffic the developers actually increased the number of bedrooms cause further traffic. They are also objective to applicant’s sense of entitlement – there is a sense they can do what they like without regard to the community and with little regard for the planning system.

 

There were no questions for the Parish Council.  The Chair invited the applicant Mr Bostock to speak.

 

Mr Bostock told the Committee that the application related to 4 tourist properties – originally permitted in December 2021 – since that time there had been a number of variations including re-siting of one of the properties, inclusion of stores to contain bin storage, housekeeper storage and electric charging.  These previous variations resulted from design amendments, operational feedback and feedback on comparable properties at wilderness reserve.  The current application is for further changes, which reflect the evolvement of the business and wider business aspirations, following the pre-app meeting with officers in June 24. It was regrettable these changes were retrospective; however officer and parish council engagement had occurred in advance of applications being submitted. The amendments were considered acceptable by officers having taken into account the originally approved scheme and its context within a 250 acres development which commenced in 2018. The properties are largely concealed from public view, with exception of boat house. Minor design changes led to additional bedrooms.

 

The applicant said the application stated access would remain from Brick Kiln Lane, however following the approval of a new access from Halesworth Road, this would become the new access once operational. One of the properties was using temporary access, he advised the village representatives of this earlier in the summer. They would continue to liaise with village residents and were committed to change the access in May 25 or earlier.

 

The Chair invited questions to the applicant.

 

Referring to the fire service comment regarding a sprinkler system, Councillor Ewart asked if that was a safety consideration they would adopt.  The applicant confirmed this was in place on the boat house/otter lodge because of the distance between fire tender access and the property. They have constructed/refurbished a number of properties across the estate, all with due diligence, often fire-proofing the thatch itself.

 

The applicant confirmed the swimming pools were chlorinated pools. Councillor Ewart was concerned about the waste water and drainage issues in Huntingfield.  It was confirmed that the properties had individual treatment plants due to their location. Pools remained there and were treated with commercial filtration, if they had to be drained a tanker would have to come to drain it.  

 

Councillor Ashton pursued the reasons for the applications being retrospective, he asked did they have the people scheduled to do the work and had commenced, taking on the risk of changing them, once the business needs changed.  The applicant explained that as a business they start off with a blank canvas as to what the properties should be, and that had evolved as the wilderness brand built up. They were continually looking at how they make sure the business was successful and is of interest to holiday makers.  The inclusion of the swimming pools was an example of that, looking at costs versus numbers. Referring to the location changes, he said they looked significant distances on paper but in the setting it was relatively minor.  He was not excusing it but it was all based on a landscape master plan. They take time on the placement of lodges/pools, this led to pre-app meetings, they felt changes were not material as that was the feedback received. They notified the Parish Council, with little push back. This all took time and they had to weigh up the risk of halting delivery and risk losing contractors, he appreciated it didn’t look favourable.  Councillor Ashton understood, but it needed to be avoided in the future.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified how they viewed retrospective applications and the process that was followed. He recognised it was frustrating for communities. 

 

The Chair moved the Committee to debate the application.

 

Councillor Pitchers saw no material reasons to object and suggested approval.  Councillor Ashdown, saw no reason to refuse and was happy to second.  Councillor Graham would be reluctantly voting to approve, the residents were effected.

 

Councillor Gee stated that any alterations had to be put to planning before going ahead – and it was not justified for any business to do it – she did not support it in any circumstances.

 

Councillor Ewart commented on the importance of supporting the applicant transparency and supporting the officers.

 

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

 

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved, subject to the below conditions:


Conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and documents:

Drawing No. BL.100/001/0 - Location Plan - Received 10 September 2024
Drawing No. BL.108/003/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 9 (Owl Cottage) - Proposed Block Plan - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.108/300/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 9 (Owl Cottage) - Proposed Ground Floor Plan and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.105/004/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 10 (Otter Lodge) - Proposed Block Plan - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.105/300/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 10 (Otter Lodge) - Proposed Ground Floor Plan and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.105/301/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 10 (Otter Lodge) - Housekeepers Shed Proposed Plans and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.106/003/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 11 (Mawthers) - Proposed Block Plan - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.106/300/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 11 (Mawthers)- Proposed Ground Floor and First Floor Plan - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.106/301/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 11 (Mawthers)- Proposed Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.106/302/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 11 (Mawthers - Housekeepers Shed Proposed Plans and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.110/003/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 12 (Mossie) - Proposed Block Plan - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.110/300/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 12 (Mossie) - Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.
Drawing No. BL.110/301/0 - Lost Collection: Lodge 12 (Mossie) - Housekeepers Shed Proposed Plans and Elevations - Received 10 September 2024.

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

2. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the ecology reports listed in section 2 as submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.

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

3. The units shall be occupied for tourism accommodation purposes only and shall not be occupied as a person's sole, or main place of residence. The duration of occupancy by any one person, or persons, of the units shall not exceed 56 days in total in any one calendar year. The owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all occupiers of the premises, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is occupied only as bona-fide holiday accommodation, having regard to the tourism objectives of the Local Plan and the fact that the site is outside any area where planning permission would normally be forthcoming for permanent residential development.

4. No external lighting for any of the lodges shall be installed unless a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" for each building has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include the following:

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

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

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

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

5. Prior to first use, the site entrance shall be improved in accordance with Drawing No BL.101.004 Rev D as approved within DC/22/1009/DRC and shall be retained in the approved form thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that roads/footways are designed and constructed to an acceptable standard.

6. The structure hereby approved for the storage of cycles, bins and housekeeping storage as shown on Drawing Nos. BL.105/301/0, BL.106/302/0 and BL.110/301/0, shall be provided before first occupation of the unit and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that space is provided and used for the purpose specified ancillary to the unit approved.

7. The landscaped areas as shown on Drawing nos. BL.108/003/0, BL.105/004/0, BL.106/003/0 and BL.110/003/0 shall be carried out within 6 months of completion of the unit, or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first 5 years shall be replaced during the next planting season.

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

8. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction Management Plan shown on Drawing No. BL.120.010 Rev A as approved within DC/22/1009/DRC.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and highway safety due to the potential conflict between construction traffic, new residents and the users of the leisure centre.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (As amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no alteration, building or structure permitted by Schedule 2 of the Order shall be carried out without the submission of a formal planning application and the granting of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure a properly planned development.

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

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

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

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

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

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
7

Councillor Graham left the meeting at 16:45.

 

The Committee received report ES/2311 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/23/3356/FUL.  The application was for the construction of 8 dwellings on the former playground, and conversion of the former school building into 7 self-contained flats, with associated car parking.  The application was subject to the call-in process, it first appeared at the November Committee meeting and was deferred for a site visit which took place on 6 February 2025.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application.

 

Since the application was at Committee previously, the following amendments had been received:

 

  • Reduce the overall height of proposed dwellings by 1 metre
  • Reduce the number of bedrooms within the new build dwellings from 5 to 3, with a study
  • Hipping the roofs of the two end of terraced dwellings

 

The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted that since the November meeting, the NPPF had been amended to increase the housing figures for the Council.

 

Various slides were shown to the Committee comprising:

 

  • Site Location Plan, showing the old school site in context
  • Aerial photograph of the application site
  • 3D visualisations of the site.
  • Photographs looking into and from the site.
  • Existing and proposed block plan
  • Swept path analysis for the parking provision
  • Previous and amended elevations for the proposed dwellings as well as floor plans
  • Proposed elevations and floor plans for the school building
  • Proposed elevations of the street scene

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were described as

 

  • Principle
  • Housing mix
  • Design and heritage
  • Neighbouring amenity
  • Future residents amenity
  • Highways and parking
  • Affordable housing
  • Ecology
  • Other matters

 

It was recommended to approve the proposal, subject to the conditions summarised in the report.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked how much hipping the roof would reduce the loss of light. The Senior Planner (Development Management) responded that the hipping would allow additional light to pass into the buildings, but it was difficult to say by exactly how much.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked what the difference was between a 4-bedroom house and a 3-bedroom house plus study.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) responded that they could only assess the application as it was in front of them and could not restrict the use of the study.

 

Councillor Ashdown referred to section 8.34 of the report which stated that the Highways decision was anticipated, he asked how long this decision would be. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that Highways had confirmed that this was acceptable, and this was missed off the report.

 

The applicant was present to answer any questions from the Committee, there were no questions.

 

The Chair invited Councillor Byatt as Ward Member to make his representation.

 

Councillor Byatt welcomed the development, particularly the redevelopment of the school. However there were still concerns with on street parking and he wondered whether the number of properties could be reduced from 8 to 6.

 

He raised a slight concern about the bin storage, there would be additional bins and bin lorries reversing into the car park.  He asked for clarification regarding one of the flats being linked to an HMO.

 

He felt the design blended in with the street scene but reiterated that the overall concern from the local residents was the parking.  He acknowledged the light issue was mitigated by the hipping of the roofs.

 

The Chair invited question to Councillor Byatt.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked if there were problems with drainage, he responded nothing had been brought to his attention.

 

Councillor Ewart revisited the aerial photograph slide which showed another playground, asking if that could be used for car parking.  Councillor Byatt confirmed it was no longer Suffolk County Council property.

 

Councillor Pitchers asked where the nearest comparable height building was.  Councillor Byatt replied it was probably London Road South.

 

Councillor Byatt thanked the Senior Planner (Development Management) for all his work on the application.

 

There were no points of clarification, the Chair moved the application to debate.

 

Councillor Pitchers knew the site well and said the car parking situation was horrendous, especially after people finished work.  The roads were so narrow, that people were parking on pavements. He said when there was heavy rain, the water would come up through the toilets. He approved the school development, but felt it was overdevelopment with the new houses.

 

Councillor Ashdown, felt that the applicant had listened following the site visit. He noted the business viability to make it happen.  He was aware of the road situation and difficulties, but the properties were needed.  He was happy to support the application.

 

Councillor Gee found the development extremely attractive, improving the street scene.  There were concerns about light loss, however, the school was taller than the planned development so hopefully the light lost would be less than anticipated. She asked if there could be a compromise with 7 properties, and if that would enable more available parking.

 

The Chair stated that they were considering the application as it was in front of them.  The Head of Planning and Building Control commented, that level of change wouldn’t have a significant impact on car parking in the area.  There were no issues expressed from Suffolk County Council Highways.

 

Councillor Pitchers proposed that the application was refused on the grounds of loss of amenity, light, parking and overdevelopment.

 

Councillor Ashton clarified that Councillor Ashdown had previously recommended approval. He had visited the site at both morning and evening and had seen the parking issues.  He noted, not just in Lowestoft, but across many towns and cities, there were more cars than they would like.  There were two options, not provide parking and force change or create parking that could alleviate the issues, this was not just about convenience but safety too for emergency services vehicles etc. Whilst he was on the cusp with his view on the application, he felt the applicant had moved far enough for him to support it. It was positively bringing a heritage building back into use and allowed development within the town. Councillor Ashton was prepared to second the application.

 

On the recommendation of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Ashton, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That authority to Approve be granted; subject to final comments of no objections from the Highways Authority being received; and the signing of a S106 to secure the RAMS contribution and commuted sum for affordable housing. Conditions as set out below.

1. Conditions (summarised) 
1. Time Limit
2. Approved Plans
3. Details of materials
4. Retention of existing windows
5. Details of new windows and doors
6. Landscaping plan
7. Construction Management Plan
8. Recording of potential air-raid shelter and construction details
9. Parking provision
10. Bin Storage
11. EV charging
12. Cycle Storage
13. Removal of PD rights for change of use to C4 HMO
14. Removal of PD for means of enclosure
15. Details of measures to reduce overlooking of neighbouring properties
16. Water Efficiency
17. 40% of all dwellings to meet Requirement M4(2) of Part M of the Building regulations for accessible and adaptable dwellings.
18. Flats to remain in C3 use

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
8

The Committee received report ES/2312 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/23/4675/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to amenity land, with pond and landscaping.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Principal Planner (Development Management), on behalf of the Case Officer for the application.

 

The application was before Committee as it was subject to the call-in process, having been called in by Councillor Ewart, who was Ward Councillor.

 

Various slides were shown to the Committee comprising:

 

  • Site Location Plan
  • Aerial photograph of the application site
  • 3D visualisations of the site.
  • Photographs looking into and from the site.
  • Proposed block plan
  • Detailed plan showing pond and excavation to be used to create pond, avoiding impact on roots of trees to be retained.
  • Arboricultural report confirms removal of little or no trees and minimal impact.
  • Some inappropriate planting proposed to be removed and replaced with indigenous hedging.

 

To summarise, it was proposed to be used as an area for amenity/nature conservation.  A pond was to be reinstated, and it was not proposed to remove trees as a result.  It was recommended to approve subject to the following conditions:

 

  • Three-year time period
  • Approved plans
  • Submission of tree protection plan and arboricutural method statement
  • Development to be undertaken in accordance with ecological statement.
  • The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

 

Councillor Ashdown asked if the area was planning to be open to the public and if there were facilities for parking vehicles.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) understood it was purely privately owned.

 

Councillor Ewart, outlined the history of the land, which was in place since the A12 was built.  She said it was an unusual gesture, and asked how they could support the land being kept in it current state, given the influx of caravans/lodges in Kelsale.  The Principal Planner (Development Management) confirmed that any alternative future development would need planning permission which would be considered on its merit at that time.  The application acknowledges the constraints within the site.  It was not possible to make that a condition of the current planning permission.

 

There being no further questions, the Committee moved to debate.

 

Councillor Ashdown recommended approval, this was seconded by Councillor Ashton.  It was

 

 RESOLVED

 

That the application be Approved with 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 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the following approved plans for which permission is hereby granted:

- Site Plan (Title Number: SK403057, received 4 December 2023);
- Proposed Site Plan (1:200) (dwg no. SJG4410, sheet 1/2, received 4 January 2024);
- Proposed Site Plan (1:200) (dwg no. SJG4410, sheet 2/2, received 4 January 2024);
- Proposed Site Plan (1:500) (dwg no. SJG4410, received 4 January 2024);
- Proposed Site Plan (with sections) (1:100) (dwg no. SJG4410, received 17 June 2024); and
- Landscape Proposals and Tree Survey Information - Appendix 1 (dwg no. 001, received 6 September 2024).

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

3. Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed Tree Protection Plan (TPP) and Arboricultural Method Statement, in accordance with BS5837:2012, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The protective measures contained within the scheme shall be implemented prior to commencement of any development, site works or clearance in accordance with the approved details and shall be maintained and retained until the development is completed. The AMS shall include details of all construction measures within the root protection areas of those trees on and adjacent to the application site. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved TPP and AMS unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To avoid any irreversible damage to retained trees pursuant to Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality, in accordance with Local Plan Policy SCLP10.4.

4. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecological Statement (DCS Ecology, 15 June 2024) as submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the Local Planning Authority prior to determination.

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

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
9

Councillor Ashton left the meeting for this item.

 

The Committee received report ES/2313 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2584/FUL.  The application sought permission for the change of use of a fishing hut to a retail use. The application was recommended for refusal as it was contrary to the relevant policies of the adopted development plan, and was before the Committee for determination as East Suffolk District Council were the landowners.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application.

 

Various slides were shown to the Committee comprising:

 

  • Site Location Plan, showing the site in context.
  • Aerial photograph of the application site
  • Photograph of the hut, and other huts in the surrounding area
  • Photograph of the interior of the hut, as it is currently fitted out
  • Photographs of other established commercial business along the harbour
  • Plan of the Southwold settlement boundary, in relation the harbour and existing hut location

 

The material planning considerations and key issues were:

 

  • Principle of new “Class E Retail Use” in harbour

 

The Senior Planner (Development Management) updated the Committee on the application history. The applicant had bought the hut believing it had a commercial licence to act as a retail unit.  It was discovered whilst fitting it out and getting the correct retail licences that it may not have planning permission to act as a retail unit.  The applicant submitted a certificate of lawfulness to establish historic retail use.  Insufficient evidence could be provided to establish the historic retail use.  ThereforE the applicant had applied for it to be established through this planning application.

 

The Committee advised that this application was to be considered as a new application for retail use and needed to comply with WLP8.18 and Southwold Policy SWD9, which directed retail development within the Settlement boundary, as this was not within that location, unfortunately the recommendation was to refuse, as outlined in the report.

 

There were no questions from the Committee. 

 

The Chair invited the applicant to make their representation.

 

The applicant told the Committee that when he purchased the property, he was told it came with a commercial licence to be used as a retail shop.  He had lived in the area for 35 years and was very passionate about the area, he saw it as an opportunity to put his efforts into the harbour, a personal project to embark on. With his brother, he took on the commercial use of the site in good faith, with a business plan to build on the history of a fish retailer.  His aim was to sell locally sourced fish, beverages and a selection of complimentary goods from artisan makers.  All of this was agreed during the licensing meeting. He was excited about how this small fish hut could be a sustainable small business and contribute locally, and he believed they had done everything they could to support its unique character. He involved the community, and met with people, any concerns that appeared were revoked. The ambition had always been to support local merchants.  They were very aware of how sensitive its position was within the harbour. They saw their business as an opportunity to provide respite from people walking from one end of the harbour to the other. It is a simple small hut with 9 seats, and they have done everything to respect and support that.  When they opened temporarily, they had good feedback that it was a necessary halfway point, particularly for young children and elderly.

 

Councillor Plummer declared that she was Chair of the Licensing Committee, but was not pre-determined in her decision and licensing and planning were separate decisions.

 

Councillor Ewart asked the applicant about the circumstances surrounding the lease.  The applicant replied that they took the lease in good faith, having been told it had commercial usage.  This was coupled with multiple testimonies, and it had been run as a retail premises for the past 10 years.  The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that there was not sufficient evidence to approve a certificate of lawfulness at that time. The applicant explained the history of their case to Councillor Ewart, stating they had contacted all relevant authorities to try and find the suitable evidence, they had obtained the licence, but despite trying all avenues they were not able to gain a certificate of lawfulness.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that it was determined there wasn’t a certificate of lawfulness.  The issue to consider was where is the right location for retail, it was primarily high street. Whilst they were not intending to be bureaucratic or insensitive, they had to follow the guide, they have a working harbour, with a mixture of commercial, food retail use and the policy was in place for a purpose.

 

The history of the harbour and the premises contained there was outlined to the Committee, the issue was if one retail unit was introduced, how was that process managed.  The policy stated that retail should be guided to the town centre or outskirts of town centre.  It was necessary to ensure there wasn’t incremental change to the harbour.

 

Councillor Plummer said it was both a commercial and tourist harbour and asked how that could be considered.  The location of the hut was re-shared with the Committee, and the work that was carried out to secure the balance was outlined by the Head of Planning and Building Control.

 

Councillor Gee said it followed the precedent of selling fish from a local hut, the applicant went into the business venture in good faith and hadn’t hidden anything.  She asked for a sympathetic view to let the applicant proceed, it was good to encourage local fishermen.

 

The Interim Planning Manager suggesting the application should be looked at for its own merits. If there were material planning considerations as to why the use of the hut should be supported, contrary to officer recommendation, then these should be set out in the reasoning.

 

Councillor Ewart, as a boutique retailer it was challenging and the application needed to be supported.

 

Councillor Gee noted the applicant’s intention, they started the business, having been told retail business was possible, based on the previous 10 year’s history of the site.

 

On the proposal of Councillor Gee, seconded by Councillor Ewart it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved.  This was contrary to the Officer’s decision, on the grounds of the benefits to the local economy arising from the use.  

 

The Head of Planning and Coastal Management reminded the Committee that there were not currently any conditions attached, so these may need to be considered.

 

Following a discussion with the Committee, the members agreed that they would wish for a condition to be added regarding the localness of the products sold and were happy for the officers to restrict the conditions.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
10

This item was deferred to a future meeting of Planning Committee North.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control 
11
This item was deferred to a future meeting of Planning Committee North.
Exempt/Confidential
There are no Exempt or Confidential items for this Agenda.

 

Attendance

Attended - Other Members
Apologies
NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
Councillor Geoff Wakeling  
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 (Principal Planner (Development Management, North Area Lead)), Katy Cassidy (Democratic Services Officer), Matt Gee (Senior Planner), Mia Glass (Enforcement Planner), Steve Milligan (Principal Planner), Iain Robertson (Senior Planner), Ben Woolnough (Head of Planning and Building Control)