7
At the request of the Chair the agenda was re-ordered and this item was heard as agenda item 9.
The Committee received report ES/2350 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/4213/FUL. Planning permission was sought for the reconstruction of 4no. former agricultural buildings for use to a single guest house (Use Class C1), including associated leisure and recreation uses at Valley Farm, Laundry Lane, Huntingfield, Suffolk, IP19 0PY. The application was described as part retrospective as it had been substantially constructed but differed in some respects to the previously approved plans within planning permission Ref: DC/22/2572/FUL.
The previous planning permission granted under DC/22/2572/FUL was for 3 holiday lets totalling 17 bedrooms in total and this application was for a single guest house with 18 bedrooms. Within the application process a clarification note was provided to highlight the uses which are included within associate leisure and recreation uses, these included weddings, spa retreats, corporate events, celebrations, ranger activities and educational visits.
The variation to the plans mainly included enlargements of the lower ground floor area, slight enlargement to the main barn itself and some other minor design alterations.
The application was called directly into Planning Committee North at the request of the Vice Chair of the Committee due to the significant public interest.
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the case Officer for the application. This covered the following:
- The site location plan, highlighting the application site and access from Brick Kiln Lane.
- An aerial photograph of Valley Farm area, known as Blyth Farm Estate, showing the context in terms of its relationship to Huntingfield, Heveningham, Heveningham Hall, and Chapel Barn Estate. These were covered by the masterplan of the landscape and ecological benefits. The Senior Planner noted the separate masterplans for Sibton and Cockfield Hall by the Wilderness – the applications for Cockfield Hall are under consideration at the moment.
- The block plan showing Valley Farm buildings (known as Blyth Barn), in context with the Farmhouse (known as Blyth Manor) and in context with the other applications, which were to be looked at later in the Committee, the car park and the management services building.
- The Senior Planner (Development Management) pointed out one of the lodges approved at last month’s planning Committee and the structure and curtilage of the listed farmhouse. The potential areas for marquees were shown and it was noted that these were covered within the noise impact assessment.
- The aerial images from 2021 and 2024 were shown and a closer image – showing the extent of the former range of outbuildings and plans. Previous applications were to convert the buildings; latterly in the 2022 application, the proposals were for demolition of the majority of the buildings, except from a couple of parts of the courtyard structure.
- Policy SCLP6.5 in the Local Plan refers to tourism accommodation comprising of permanent buildings. The Senior Planner (Development Management) noted there were a few scenarios where those were permitted. In terms of this application, it was where such development falls as part of a comprehensive master plan which supports wider landscape and ecological gain. There are masterplans in place that support the different Wilderness sites across the estate.
- An extract from the 2009 Heveningham Hall Masterplan was shared, giving an indication of the proposed use for these buildings in the future. At that time, it was envisaged that the main farmhouse would be used, 7-bedroom house refurbished, and the courtyard farm buildings would be converted into 8 cottages. It was noted at that time the intention for holiday use and special occasions/events. This suggests the higher intensity use was expected within the site and the landscape and heritage enhancements had been carried out in advance of the development.
- An artist impression of what converted buildings may look like from Masterplan was shared.
- Photographs of the valley farmhouse prior to alterations and photographs of valley farmhouse as completed, showing heritage gains.
- Proposed elevations, external elevations were shown to the Committee, highlighting slight enlargement of main threshing barn. Other than that, with the exception of some very minor design alterations, it was similar to what was previously approved.
- Elevations from the courtyard were shared.
- Ground and first floor layout plans – pointing out areas that were proposed to be used for wedding ceremonies/other events. Main threshing barn and raised patio area.
- Floor plan of Blyth Barn lower ground floor, showing event space along with marquee areas.
- The largest area, 270 guest capacity was shown. Noise assessment based on upper limit.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) suggested there may have been some confusion from letters received regarding the numbers that could attend these events, with the assumption being that the total from all potential areas could attend. The noise impact assessment was based on 270 guests. In the clarification note, the applicant provided details of other wedding facilities across the estate. The average wedding size at Chapel Barn estate was 120 and Sibton was 90. To give an idea of frequency, Chapel Barn had 9 weddings in 2024, and they have 8 bookings in 2025.
The noise impact assessment process was explained by the Senior Planner (Development Management), it looks at live music, amplified sound, noise from people, car park noise, plant noise, ambient noise in courtyard and outside music. It is based on the low observable adverse effect level being 33 DBA at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. All assessments met that level, and the Environmental Protection team were happy with assessment carried out.
The Committee was taken through the historic applications and the changes that had taken place:
- Approved plans 2020 application
- Variation of condition application (minor design changes) which followed
- Subsequent 2022 approved plans - these included change to the roof pitch of main barn.
- Current application - Extent of basement enlargement.
- Recent photographs of the site showing the high-quality finish to proposals to reinstate the barn.
- Internal main function area, curved roof and directional speakers to control noise level.
- The main barn was dismantled and restored.
- Courtyard, the noise assessment suggested the sunken area would provide noise mitigation.
The access arrangements were shown, noting the objections to traffic and access arrangements that had been received. It was proposed to use Brick Kiln Lane temporarily. However, once the January 2025 approved access was complete, then access would be via there. It was recommended that a condition to complete the new access within 6 months was added.
There had been a complaint regarding the use of Laundry Lane – this was a temporary solution to avoid guests to Owl Cottage using Blyth Barn construction site.
The access strategy was that guest were directed to the main reception at Chapel Barn and directed from there to their accommodation avoiding Brick Kiln Lane. Guests would remain on site and be transported via shuttle buses to prevent lots of cars. Suffolk County Council had considered the application with the access strategy and addendum and had no objections.
The material planning considerations/key issues were summarised as:
• Principle of development
• Neighbour amenity
• Landscape impact
• Heritage impact
• Design
• Access
The application was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions set out in the Case Officer’s report.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor Ninnmey noted that evening receptions could often result in an increased number attending a wedding and asked that the capacity was clarified. The Senior Planner (Development Management) said it was their understanding that 270 was the maximum capacity for the entirety of an event but suggested this could be asked of the applicant. Councillor Ninnmey asked about guests using the outside space and if this would add to the number using the venue, again this was referred to the applicant for clarification.
Councillor Gee asked for clarity regarding the use of the additional venues, such as marquees and concern that this would escalate the numbers using the venue considerably.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referenced paragraph 7.37 and 7.38 of the report and only one event taking place at a time, therefore the inclusion of the marquee would not alter the maximum capacity which would remain at 270.
Councillor Gee asked what assurances they had, and how this would be controlled and enforced. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied that the clarification note was added with the application, which was an approved document. This together with the noise management plan, noise impact assessment and noise strategy would be subject to condition.
Councillor Ashton asked for clarity whether a condition had or could be placed on the maximum number of guests.
The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that the clarification document was an approved document which would have reference to those restrictions within it. What needed to be considered was whether something was required that explicitly stated the maximum capacity within the final drafted conditions. It was suggested the applicant could cover that point when they came to speak.
Councillor Ashton clarified that he was asking if that was possible from a planning perspective to add those restrictions.
The Planning Manager (Development Management) said that if, following debate, members felt that was a necessary condition to make the scheme acceptable, then one could be worded. He added it could be useful to ask the applicant team to understand how such a restriction would affect their operation and how feasible it was in terms of compliance.
Councillor Byatt noted the application was part retrospective, he asked how much had been built and how much were they being asked to approve. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was in the process of being constructed. The plans that the Senior Planner (Development Management) showed of the eventual completed development were what was being considered for approval, recognising that there was a considerable amount that has already happened.
Councillor Topping referred to the conditions 5, 6 and 7 and the associated documents, and asked if those documents already existed and whether they were part of the application. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that they did already have the documents, and they were submitted as part of the application and had been publicised.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed if the application was approved with those conditions there would be no further detail to submit as it was all contained within the pack publicised.
Councillor Ashdown sought clarification for whether the access needed to be completed before any events took place. The Senior Planner (Development Management) said there was a condition for any work to be completed within 6 months of approval. That was seen as a reasonable amount of time to complete the work and Highways Authority did not object to the Access Strategy. The existing access on Brick Kiln Lane was built to Highway’s standard, the primary access on to Halesworth Road was to minimise the amount of traffic using the single-track roads.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed to Councillor Ashdown that there was not a condition for it to be completed prior to events taking place in the barn, this may be something that the Committee wished to consider.
The Chair suggested that the timescales for access completion were raised with the applicant.
Councillor Pitchers asked the Officer to explain what condition 3 meant – tourism occupancy restriction. The Senior Planner (Development Management) replied it was a standard condition, used for tourist accommodation purposes only with a 56-day limit in any calendar year, and prevented it being used as a residential dwelling. He clarified to Councillor Pitchers that guests attending the weddings would be classed as tourists, staying in tourist accommodation and compliant with that condition. Councillor Pitchers asked if the hotel was already let out to tourists, and there was also a wedding, would that count as extra people?
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested it was not the expectation that every guest would stay on site, there was accommodation available as part of the wider package. Equally a wedding may have exclusive access to the accommodation. This could be clarified by the applicant.
Councillor Ninnmey was concerned that something that started as 3 holiday lets now appeared to be a very corporate activity. He asked if the historic context of the barns had been removed altogether, as there were 3 barns initially. The Senior Planner (Development Management) explained the layout of the 3 units and how they were derived from the main threshing barn and courtyard buildings. He confirmed to Councillor Ninnmey that the main farmhouse had been refurbished and was also a large holiday unit.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed to Councillor Ashton that planning permission for the access road was granted in January 2025, it would provide access to all the Blyth Estate, this was outlined in the access strategy.
There were no further questions for the Officers. The Chair invited Edward Watson, Objector, to speak.
The Committee were handed a printed version of the map that was included in the pre-circulated handout from Edward Watson.
Mr Watson told the Committee that this was another retrospective planning application which had far reaching implications for their rural community. In paragraph 8.6 of the Committee report, the planning Officer described the application as disappointing. They described it as devastating.
Referencing Traffic – He said SCC Highways did not consider the proposal to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. This was assuming the construction of the bridge and access to the B1117 took place. However, there was very little sign of the bridge being built at present. Wilderness Reserve had not confirmed a completion date. He said, given the applicant’s complete disrespectful approach to planning processes, what was to say the application DC/24/3019 would not be used to get around the planning objection and would never happen. SCC Highways had not considered nor sought to quantify or limit the number of vehicles that would still use Brick Kiln Lane access due to the weight limit of 13 tons of the proposed bridge, this was not publicly stated in the application. They have been informed they will use Brick Kiln Lane for access. This was clearly an oversight and must be addressed and considered as part of the application. The access strategy states that guests will be instructed to use the Halesworth Road entrance where possible. It did not state all vehicles, so what about service vehicles etc, as they want all the heavy movements to use a quiet lane which is Brick Kiln Lane. He suggested the solution would be for a condition to be imposed if the application was approved. This was that the lower access in Brick Kiln Lane was to be closed, and all vehicles use the existing alternative entrance at the top of Brick Kiln Lane. Until these points were addressed, they said it was not possible to say the applicant met the requirements of SCLP 6.5 paragraph F or paragraph 116 of the NPPF and therefore the application could not be approved.
Referencing Noise - in the Committee report paragraph 7.46 it stated the impact from noise from people and the car park had been tested. This was not the case; they had been estimated which was very different. The objector said he was not an acoustic expert, but he could not explain how noise from car doors and people was considered an issue in the noise impact assessment version 1.4 dated November 24 but is no longer an issue in version 1.6 dated March 25. One car park has been moved but they still have a 53-space car park for potentially 200 people next to the Millenium green and orchard. Noise from this car park according to tables 13 and 14 of the November document exceeded the levels at night. There was no explanation for the difference. He said the revised noise impact assessment was deliberately misleading. The fact that LOAEL is not achieved meant that requirements of SCLP 11.2 and para 135 of NPPF could not be met. These were his two reasons for not granting retrospective planning permission.
The Chair invited questions to the objector.
Councillor Ninnmey asked when Brick Kiln Lane was made a quiet lane. The objector replied this was 2 or 3 years ago, prior to the application. He was suggesting an alternative entrance that already exists at the top of Brick Kiln Lane, approaching via B1123 and Barrel’s Hill, this would not be single track road.
Councillor Ninnmey asked the objector what the potential increase in traffic would be, looking at the activities proposed. He was conscious of late-night intrusion from car doors and people leaving the venue, he asked if the venue was far enough away not to cause this disturbance. The objector replied that Huntingfield at night was totally quiet with dark skies. The accommodation meant there would be 270 people to get in and out of Blyth Farm at night. He was concerned about the volume of traffic leaving, cars, minibuses, coaches etc and the associated door slamming, impact of headlights. There would be a halo from the party house venue at the back of the Millenium Green.
Councillor Ashton referred to the map showing the proposed new access point from Halesworth Road, over the Blyth, following the route around the outskirts and joining Brick Kiln Lane. He asked if the new access point was separate to Brick Kiln Lane. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed it was separate and was discussed at the previous Planning Committee meeting. He pointed out the internal access track would also serve the four holiday lodges, running along the woodland edge within the site itself.
Councillor Ashton referred to the condition placed for 6-month completion of the access road – and asked the objector if after 6 months the access road was not completed do you still have concerns about accessing the site? The objector confirmed that he did, the bridge had a maximum weight of 13 tons, so any heavy vehicles would all have to use Brick Kiln Lane. The weight restriction of the bridge was not high enough to handle all the traffic. Councillor Ashton said the applicant could clarify the expected number of vehicles of that size. He noted that once the access road was built, the proposal was for guests to register first at Chapel Barn and use that route. Therefore, the expectation was that those vehicles would not go through the village, they would use the access point at the outskirts. The objector referred to the licensing hearing where the barrister asked why anyone would want to leave the Wilderness reserve and go into the village. He noted the justification in the local plan that it boosted tourism in the area, yet Wilderness were keeping everything on site, meaning a few jobs. He added the Parish Council approved the original plans for a quiet retreat, but this had scaled up from 34 people up to 280. The Chair interjected to keep the questioning on track.
Councillor Ashton recognised the applicant’s concern about noise, which would also be referred to the applicant. He asked how much concern regarding access remained once the new access road was built, was it just larger delivery vehicles predominantly, rather than guests. The objector replied that small numbers of people staying in the accommodation using their cars to go into the local community and spend money was not an issue. The issue was with heavy vehicles using Brick Kiln Lane. He said the damage from heavy vehicles using this lane was already visible.
Councillor Byatt asked the objector, if he was suggesting it was not possible to make a decision without making a site visit? The objector replied he would love for everyone to visit as it put the whole application in context.
Councillor Byatt asked how often they experienced helicopters. The objector replied there were 3 helicopters that regularly used Heveningham hall they and they were a nuisance. It if was used for more corporate events with more air traffic then it would be a nuisance.
The Chair invited Jeannette Redway, Huntingfield Parish Council to speak.
Jeannette Redway was talking on behalf of David Blackmore, Chair of Huntingfield Parish Council. She told the Committee this was another retrospective planning application from the Wilderness Reserve, however this time it impacted on the tiny village of Huntingfield and neighbouring communities. The impacts would be enormous. The current permission granted in 2022 was for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 3 accommodation units for tourist use. What had actually happened was the agriculture buildings were demolished, and developer built an 18-bed hotel incorporating 2 storey wedding venue and corporate event site without planning permission. In anticipation of obtaining retrospective approval, they had already applied for licences, already heavily marketed as 288 wedding seat venue which was available from May 2025. The first major corporate event scheduled 15/5/2025. Despite approval for tourist use only, how could they do that? The implication of having a party venue of that size in the centre of the village was immense. The Committee had already seen many concerns regarding traffic volumes, noise and general disturbance. This building was totally out of context with rural surroundings, too big, too close to centre of Huntingfield. She appealed to the Committee elected representatives; they were the only chance of preventing this development. They approved the initial application for tourist accommodation and accepted the 18-bed premises that had been constructed, if it was to be used as tourist accommodation only. All concerns related to the potential disruption that followed from holding weddings and corporate events. If permission was granted today for this development, they asked that any approval should have the following conditions
1 – premises should be used for tourist use only in accordance with the existing approval not for wedding events/corporate parties.
2 - Any approval to be withheld until the new proposed access road and the bridge is complete and in use.
Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarification of the numbers using the site, taking into consideration the number using the guest house and the numbers using a wedding etc. The numbers seemed to be larger than in the papers. Jeannette Redway replied the numbers had swelled, it started off as 3 self-contained units, but was now an 18 bed hotel and everything that goes with it.
The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed with Councillor Ashton that tourist accommodation meant non-residential including corporate use.
The Chair invited the applicant, Matt Bostock of Wilderness Reserve, to speak.
Matt Bostock told the Committee that the application involved variation to the approved design, to ensure the building could be used flexibly and provided commercial viability for the long term, delivering tourist accommodation but with the ability to hold occasional events to supplement the bookings, providing local employment and investment in the wider area. Blyth Barn was originally granted planning permission in September 2020, in the subsequent 4.5 years through the changing economic climate and the growth of the Wilderness Reserve brand it had been necessary to make changes to its design and operations to ensure it kept up with guest demand. Throughout this period, the Wilderness Reserve had been operating a number of properties, with Chapel Barn its closest comparable. This was a 17-bed property with basement entertainment and spa. It operated predominantly for standard leisure bookings, but over the past 4.5 years had been able to adapt to other accommodation type, e.g. weddings. To give context he said Chapel Barn would host 8 weddings this year, with an average of 90 guests. As the requirements for Blyth Barn had evolved, they have been in regular contact with the local community, briefing the Parish Council in advance of applications and being present at meetings to answer questions. They were notified of the premises application licence 6 months prior to submission. All residents in the village were written to and an event held to present it in the local pub, with approximately 30 attendees. They provided an email address for questions/concerns which to date had not received a single email. He recognised the Blyth Estate developments were not supported by all, but it was important to recognise the positive impact they had on the local community, they currently employed 55 people within the IP19 and IP17 postcodes. They had delivered over £300,000 of CIL which had supported the creation of storage sheds at Millenium green, lights for the steps to the local pub, the bike station at the hub and were now looking to create a new bus stop in the village. They created substantial new environmental benefits through wildlife habitat with the creation of an 800-metre lake, 3 hectares of wetland, over 20,000 trees planted new bird and bat boxes and were funding the undergrounding of overhead power cables across the valley. They had also sought to address concerns from the community by introducing a new access complete with a new bridge structure to ensure that day-to-day traffic did not pass through the village and down the narrow lanes. They were mobilising for a site start imminently. The planning considerations in this application had been tested and resulted in no objections from the statutory consultees and an Officer’s recommendation for approval. They had engaged with members of the community throughout and have a premises licence which sets very clear guidelines on operation and could be revoked if they failed to adhere to it.
Mr Bostock provided the following clarifications from points raised.
Mr Bostock confirmed the maximum capacity was 270, he added the average size of a wedding at Chapel Barn (biggest event across estate) was 90. It had been tested at maximum capacity, 270. The number of weddings was not significant in terms of volume, and they had held only one event of 200 people. The inclusion of marquees did not increase the capacity, it was part of the venue choice. This had also been tested through noise impact assessment and was not for late night entertainment, any music beyond background level was always inside in the areas that had been robustly tested with specific speakers and proper acoustic attenuation.
Wedding guest and tourism use – Mr Bostock said that case law had set a precedent that the wedding use would be ancillary in the scenario they were talking about and would fall within tourism use.
Mr Bostock updated on progress with construction of the bridge. They were currently getting the minor works notice for the new access point off Halesworth Road and a road space booking needed to be applied for to undertake the work. There were commencement conditions outstanding, everything for those was in place and just needed to be processed, the steels were ordered, and the contractors were in place. They were committed to getting on to site as soon as they could. The third element involved the 8 metres either side of the river which was subject to an Environment Agency permit. This was a time-consuming process, once it was duly made (valid), it could take another 8 weeks. They were working with the Environment Agency to respond to any comments, and were committed to completing as soon as possible, realistically targeting the end of June.
Regarding using the top access from Brick Kiln Lane for any vehicles not able to use the bridge, Mr Bostock said they had tried to design the bridge to accommodate most vehicles and had always been clear with the local community that was not all vehicles. Some emergency services vehicles/estate management vehicles would need to go by a different route. He referred back to the original submission where there was no restriction on the use of Brick Kiln Lane access point and this would be a significant improvement on that, with 90-95% of the vehicles using the bridge. They were happy to explore top access from Brick Kiln Lane, however, highways had not objected to the current access point so they wouldn’t be looking to change at this stage. Highways would need to be consulted, and a potential minor works licence needed, they were committed to move those discussions on, subject to the Committee decision. In response to Councillor Ashton, they clarified that they were proposing exploring with Highways the access at the top of Brick Kiln Lane.
Councillor Ashton asked if the applicant would be happy to be constrained via a condition to a maximum number of guests of 270.
The applicant explained their unique business model, which was if someone had an event at Blyth Barn, then there was the need to have all of the properties including the farmhouse rented via the organisers. He outlined the additional guest capacity at Chapel Barn, Sibton Estate, and if the event capacity exceeded those available, they would be shuttled between venues. The shuttle buses had been tracked and were in line with weight restrictions, they took their impact on the highway network and local community seriously, and looked to minimise it as much as they could.
Councillor Plummer noted they would prefer guests to stay in their properties, but some would stay in other properties or may travel to the venue. The applicant confirmed they had a central car park with overflow spaces if required.
Councillor Topping had visited the estate. She asked Mr Bostock how many events they were planning at the venue, and if there was a restriction on that, what would that number look like? Mr Bostock explained that the business was focused on leisure predominantly, with domestic tourism now more challenging than it was 2 years previously, they were looking for flexibility to ensure they operated successfully, supporting their staff and the local businesses. He drew comparison with Chapel Barn, where there were 8 weddings booked this year, and 9 last year and 20 corporate events. On average 90 people attended a wedding and 60 at a corporate event, with other events smaller than that. Mr Bostock said it was difficult to determine a cap, looking at the variety of events and the need to be operationally flexible. He reiterated that everything was tested at the maximum number and deemed to be acceptable. Their other venues had been well run for the past 4.5 years. During that time, they had only received one complaint which was dealt with within 20 minutes.
Councillor Topping had seen Blyth Barn and described the outside space as an amphitheatre. When she was there, there was building work, heavy plant, noise from the workforce. She went outside of the walled area to get a sense of how much noise was contained. The noise was dulled by the amphitheatre and wall. It was explained that the venue had limiters on the speakers restricting noise, the venue doors also had limiters on them, which would reduce noise if opened. Mr Bostock explained how events would be operated and managed and noted this was part of their noise management plan which they would operate as part of their licensing conditions.
Councillor Topping noted the concerns about noise from people leaving the venue and Mr Bostock confirmed a member of staff would be present to oversee people leaving the venue.
Councillor Topping noted the fire risk assessment was for a maximum of 270 people, therefore the venue wouldn’t be expected to go over that.
Councillor Topping shared the map that was part of the objector’s presentation, and the current and planned future entrances were clarified by the applicant. The applicant noted the preferred entrance suggested by the objector and said it hadn’t been tested by Highways. They were not committing to that as part of the application but would commit to exploring this post application.
Councillor Topping asked the applicant how they promoted the website that was set up for public comment and whether they had invited the Parish Council to come and see the site? Mr Bostock replied there was an event held at the pub, with a separate email address set up. All addresses in the village were written out to, and questions and concerns invited. Many people also had his direct details, but he had not had any responses. The Wilderness reserve website was used for other purposes. They were open to a visit by the Parish Council, and this had only been requested by the Parish Council the week previously.
Councillor Pitchers asked the applicant how many applications had they already had approved that they had not applied to have amended or changed in some way? The applicant ran through the number of applications and amendments. He said they had several applications, each one assessed through planning process, technical process. Their business was quite unique with a slightly different offering to other tourism practices across the county, they don’t have lots of other examples to look to. They remain present at parish meetings and public meetings. Whilst they did change them, they do communicate all planned changes, and they were subject to the rigour of the professional process.
Councillor Pitchers asked if the applicant could see that the number of retrospective applications could be seen as "cocking a snoot" at the planning process? The applicant responded that they didn’t, and they had to make a valued decision for the business, they had made design changes that were generally considered quite minor in their nature. They were not intending to be disrespectful and were looking to respond in the best way that they could in a challenging climate.
Mr Bostock confirmed to Councillor Ashdown that they had events for Blyth Barn planned this year and how they would accommodate them. They had back up options if they were unsuccessful in gaining planning permission.
Councillor Ashdown asked about the number of local business and staff required to support a function. Mr Bostock confirmed a great number of local businesses were involved, local suppliers were used and promoted through the business. He said that they could typically assume a job per bedroom and if they have an event, they bring in extra staff. The number of staff varies depending on the event, an event of 200 would have between 21 and 25 staff on site and all staff would be trained to their expected standards.
Councillor Byatt asked about training. Mr Bostock confirmed all staff were trained to a high standard. Regarding accessibility, Mr Bostock confirmed there was a level threshold access to the property, lift accessible bedroom, they were more than meeting their accessibility requirements.
Responding to the question regarding helicopters, Mr Bostock said it was incredibly rare that any guest asked to be transported by an estate helicopter. Helicopters coming into the area did so on a varied pattern of entry/exit, they were all trained pilots that understood the UK Civil Aviation Authority regulations.
The Chair invited Councillor Ewart, Ward Councillor, to make her representation.
Councillor Ewart thanked Officers for helping her as she had stepped down as a member of the Planning Committee to support the parish for this meeting. She thanked all parishes that were at the meeting and expressed concern that David Blackmore wasn’t at the meeting and thanked him for his hard work.
Councillor Ewart said her response was far less convivial. As Vice Chair of Planning Committee North and a Member of the GLI Administration, she wanted to believe their planning system was grounded in transparency, fairness and due process. But that was not what she had witnessed with the Valley Farm application. She said that good judgement relied on facts, not bias, and a broad open dialogue that reflected the true impact of a development. And that’s why she stepped away, yesterday, to speak quite frankly today and she was challenging the insufficiency of the report we received as Councillors and highlighted the concerns of Huntingfield.
She told the Committee they were deciding on 3 linked applications for the Wilderness Reserve Valley Farm Estate. The Wilderness Reserve is an established business, and it brings economic value. But with so many better positioned luxury venues, it was hard to understand why they have taken this risky application. Site development began in 2015 and since 2020 there had been application after application, nearly every year, overseen by the very same Officer.
She said that the applicant wanted to retrospectively sanction the three already made C3 newly built luxury holiday barns, sleeping 34, that were approved in 2023, and they wanted to make that into an already prepared C1 commercial hotel. Whilst tidying up permissions for a dining room, a bar for 270, a commercial PA system that did play outside (a big concern) and it was also going to be housed within the subterranean basement, which was way bigger than it was ever planned to be. She added, with respect, it was supposed to be a farmyard. This had now become a vast quadrant dominating the landscape and dwarfing the grade 2 listed valley farmhouse, which was really important with regards to terms of planning. It had been built without full planning permission, it had been built without meaningful public consultation with the people of Huntingfield, and concerningly built without the Enforcement Department saying ‘Stop’. She said there was an urgency today as Team Wilderness dare not go home without the Councillors saying yes, because Blyth Barn was advertised to be open on the 17th of May, with a celebrity launch. And the report before you were aimed at legalising that very event - just in time.
She shared with the Committee number of reasons why it should not be approved.
C1 - public transport, SCLP 6.12, Inadequate Infrastructure, everyone’s going to have to drive there to get to work. 10.5 - no justification because these were new buildings, you are not allowed to build new buildings anymore in the countryside. Harm, noise, light pollution, traffic that’s 11.1, 11.2, 6.3, no local need or strategy, there was no data offered. Disregard for the local character. And let’s be clear, this was not a conversion. Councillor Ewart questioned her slides not being displayed; these were then displayed. This conversion was not a conversion because in 2025 the building control reports suggested a refurbishment of a very historic barn. And everything was demolished between 2020 and 22, everything without consent. She said that was not in the Officer’s report, nor was the original concern of the Conservation Officer. She said there was no trust with this company, and the more facts, not clearly set out. She told the Committee it started off with seven units, then went to three. There was shamefully no disabled provision. The whole building concept was turned down by the very Officer that today wants the Committee to take it on! She said that the Officer said in 2020 it couldn’t be. She referred the Head of Planning and Building Control to Condition 16 of 2023’s approval – no new structures will be built without consent. She said that meant that the Councillors in the Committee were dealing with a live condition, and it was being openly breached. She said it was being breached by the applicant and ignored by the Planning Department. She said that everybody watching would be thinking, this is what the reward is, you get your planning permission with East Suffolk Council. It was not acceptable.
Councillor Ewart asked the Committee to really think about what was going on. When a condition is openly breached by the applicant and ignored, what do they do? She said it was small wonder that the wonderful bunch of people at Huntingfield were really frustrated. She said to Councillor Topping that they had not been there and asked did she know that? She said she just learned that her Deputy Leader went there as well. She said nobody had been and it was really embarrassing because it was the size of a monastery. She said there was no routine in all of it. They had the Licence, not just for 270 people, it was for 5,000 people. She said the Committee did not even go there, she referred to the Head of Planning and Building Control and said they didn’t go and have a look. She said it wasn’t the “dog and duck” becoming the “dog and duck”, this was quite different. She said to the Councillors, there was a safeguard, and the safeguard was them and the Committee. She concluded by saying, as an absolute minimum, please proceed with care. Kindly defer decisions, check decisions, take that site visit, gather the true knowledge required to make an informed and important decision.
The Chair asked if there were any questions for Councillor Ewart.
Councillor Topping said she had a huge amount of respect for Councillor Ewart but was really upset about the way that she had just spoken about their Planning Officers. She said the Head of Planning and Building Control had not been in post that long and he had done an absolutely incredible job. She continued to say - regarding the Senior Planner (Development Management), the reason they had the same Planning Officer looking at all those applications was because he understood the site and the scale and the intricacies of each of the applications. If there was a different Officer doing Valley Farm, and then a different Officer doing Chapel Barn, then a different Officer doing Heveningham Hall and a different Officer doing something else, then they would have an absolute mishmash, where things drop through cracks. Whereas if you have continuity across the entire Wilderness Reserve, then that Officer understood the intricacies and can make sure that it works together as a whole. She concluded she didn’t like her Officers being spoken to like that. She didn’t have a question, but she had looked at the estate as she referred to earlier, and would urge anyone that had concerns to go and have a look at the estate.
The Chair thanked Councillor Topping for her comments and allowed her to not have a question as she could understand the importance of what she was saying. The Chair added that she thought all of them were a bit saddened by the comments about the planning team.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to the plan of the site and Councillor Ewart mentioning a figure of 5,000. He said it could be a mini-Glastonbury and asked if Councillor Ewart was thinking the site might well be able to accommodate a music festival and that number of people?
Councillor Ewart replied that Councillor Ninnmey may have better experience than her as she thought he had been on the Licensing Committee. She said that what was established was the property worked within its curtilage and when they came to get a licence, they literally took one off the shelf. She said that the problem was, given the abuse within a relationship, it was very likely that it was going to be used and therefore they would go from 270 to a mini-Latitude.
Councillor Topping asked if Councillor Ewart had been to the site and looked around. Two years ago, when the Administration changed, Members were invited to go on a tour, but Councillor Topping wasn’t sure who attended. Councillor Topping understood the ethos of the Wilderness Reserve to be tree planting that had gone on over 30 plus years, when she visited, she was shown examples of 5, 10, 15-year growth. She saw pictures of barn owls and ecology which had been reinstated and the lake that had been put in. She said the Wilderness Reserve was about ecology and making the environment a good place and understood that came at a price. They were a business, and the money had to be generated somewhere.
Councillor Ewart replied, as the Kelsale and Yoxford Ward Member, she took the opportunity right at the very beginning to go and look at her old house. She used to live at the back in the Clockhouse in Sibton park and she asked to go there. At that point, she had only been a Councillor for about 10 days, and she got warned off that she had to behave herself. That was from the then Head of Planning and Building Control. She took advice and did go and look. With regards to Blyth Barn, she wanted everyone to understand that nobody had been invited. She said that was strange as the Wilderness Reserve appear at every Parish Council, in the Parishes they are in and support. She said she had spoken to Mr Bostock endlessly and there had never been an invitation for her or her Parishes.
The Chair asked Councillor Ewart if any of them had ever asked to attend as that was sometimes all that was needed. Councillor Ewart replied that she had never been called backwards at coming forwards.
Councillor Byatt asked Councillor Ewart if the principal objection was about larger events. Councillor Ewart replied it was the high volume. She referred to Parish minutes 21/6/24 where someone specifically asked if it would be a party barn, the reply was no it would be a tranquil and peaceful retreat. That was then put on public access as that is what Huntingfield thought. She said they were feeling duped.
There were no further questions for Councillor Ewart. The Chair agreed that Councillor Ewart could reply to some questions that had arisen during the Committee.
Councillor Ewart referred to a question regarding the pre-application experience where Mr Bostock said it was July 2024. She said this was disappointing for the villages as they were not consulted, they heard via an application email that followed meetings held in October 2024. It was already decided that it could be a C1 building and the question from the Parish was why the change was made and why weren’t they consulted? She said they were very obliging, if the site could be moved, they would be in a better position, but it was local and that was very important, it was in the village.
Councillor Ewart concluded that she was happy to meet with Councillor Topping on another occasion to discuss her concerns.
The Chair invited the Committee to ask any final clarification questions.
Councillor Byatt asked if they were able to suggest restrictions regarding the number of larger events that could be held.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that it was within the gift of the Planning Committee to propose conditions and restrict them further than those that were suggested by the Officers. He added what was key with any condition was that it met the relevant tests of a condition, and it was deemed reasonable to impose such a condition. He said any condition on a planning permission could be subject to an appeal of its own. So, it would be possible to propose the number of dates and events. If that was maintained and there was a desire for flexibility or extension, then a condition could be subject to a variation.
Councillor Byatt asked about the need for 24-hour alcohol consumption and whether that could be restricted. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that alcohol restrictions were for Licensing and not Planning. Planning could control the hours of operation, but they wouldn’t go into the depths of alcohol controls.
Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarification of the C1 classification, moving from C3 and the figure of 5,000. The Senior Planner (Development Management) confirmed that the 5,000 related to licensing. The maximum figure this planning application was concerned with was 270. The C3 classification related to a dwelling house, and C1 related to things like hotels, boarding house, guest houses, bed and breakfast.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if they wished to do a particular event then that would be a licensing matter rather than a planning matter. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that they were dealing with the red line of the application site, as displayed. The building and the immediate area around the building is what would be controlled by any conditions. He noted that the applicant had significant other land ownership. Any landowner could come forward with a temporary events notice (TEN) and hold a temporary event. He gave the example of Latitude and why that didn’t need planning permission, and noted a TEN could exist elsewhere on the site, whether this planning permission was granted or not. The focus for the Committee was how the buildings were being used.
There were the following final clarification points from the Head of Planning and Building Control.
Traffic/transport movements – the baseline situation was confirmed as the agricultural use of the site. It was a former farmyard, with many buildings that would have been used for agricultural purposes. Those movements would have been off Brick Kiln Lane and then the lane that leads off into the site.
Responding to the comments from Councillor Ewart and for the public record, he stated that all decisions go out in his name, as the Head of Planning and Building Control. All applications are delegated to him unless there were other triggers that meant they have to come to Planning Committee, e.g. called in by a Chair or Vice Chair or they’ve been through the referral process or the Head of Planning and Building Control has determined to bring them to Planning Committee. He said that rightly, this application had reached the Planning Committee, allowing the opportunity for providing scrutiny and transparency of decision making. This was still his recommendation as Head of Planning and Building Control to members. What he was particularly concerned about was the comments made to specific Officers. He noted the incredibly hard-working team of Officers at East Suffolk Council and said if there were criticisms of Officers, they should be directed purely to himself, or if prior to June last year, directed to his predecessor. He reassured the Senior Planner (Development Management) that he had no concerns in respect of his judgement or actions in respect of this application and other applications. It was correct that there were trying to maintain consistency over decision making and interpretation of applications with a single Officer, something which was really important. In recent years they had brought in area teams to make sure they had a closer relationship of Officers with the communities and applicants to reach the best and most consistent decisions. He said there should be no criticism of having a consistent Officer in this application and ultimately the whole Wilderness reserve has had multiple Officers over the years, possibly 4 or 5. He concluded by reassuring members and the community in attendance that he had absolutely no concerns in respect of the way that the Officer had dealt with this application.
The Chair noted the amazing work going on with the planning department.
The Committee were invited to debate the application.
Councillor Ashdown thanked the Case Officer for an excellent presentation and thanked the applicants for coming in and working through all of the questions and answers. He said it was a unique application, there was nothing of this type across the district. It could be of great benefit. He couldn’t see many weddings where there would be more than 200 guests. He thought it to be a good application, looking at all the benefits, providing jobs, facilities, food, service from local businesses. He was very much of a mind to approve the application.
Councillor Ninnmey felt it was an application that had a complex history and felt that to progress it further it was necessary to defer for a site visit. He proposed a site visit.
Councillor Gee seconded the proposal, she felt it was essential due to the size of the development, they owed it to the residents of Huntingfield to view it themselves.
Councillor Pitchers agreed it should be deferred for a site visit and suggested that would give the applicant extra time to explore the additional entrance.
Councillor Byatt agreed that a site visit was essential. He welcomed the investment to the area but noted the volume of objections from the Parish Council. He suggested deferring it to discuss the possibility of restricting the number of events.
Councillor Ashton noted the procedural issue in place for determining when an application goes for a site visit, this was being looked at by the Constitutional Working Group as currently the process was that debate must occur prior to a member proposing a site visit. Having been a member of Planning Committee North for a while, he noted you could get a sense of the Committee, and he could sense that a likely outcome would be a site visit. Addressing Councillor Ewart, he said if she was encouraging members to take part in a site visit, which was not the way to ask them. Looking back, she may find that wasn’t a particularly helpful intervention, it was likely to happen anyway.
He referred to the 3 interlinked applications on the agenda and suggested that they should be treated as a whole and the proposal be modified to carry out a site visit for all 3 applications, deferring them to a future Committee meeting.
On the proposition of Councillor Ninnmey, seconded by Councillor Gee, it was
RESOLVED
That this application, and the linked applications DC/25/0374/FUL and DC/24/4216/FUL be deferred to a future meeting of Planning Committee North, following a site visit being carried out.