Meeting Details

Councillor Smith-Lyte declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 10 as ward member. Because she wished to speak on that item she would excuse herself from that item and would not take part in the debate or vote.

Councillor Hedgley declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 8 as he was ward member.

 Councillor Bennett declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 9 as he was ward member.

The Chair asked if they had been contacted by James Harris of the Generator Group regarding item 9, Land north of Conway Close and Swallow Close, Felixstowe. Five Members had been contacted.

The Chair was contacted by Mrs Sparkes in relation to item 8, The Street, Witnesham. He forwarded the email to Democratic Services.

 Three Members had also received an email from Ian Buxton regarding item 9. Councillors confirmed they had made no response except for Councillor Deacon who acknowledged receipt.

On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Bennett it was

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 August 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2090. The Officer asked for any questions on the report and there were none. 

On the proposal of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 21 August 2024 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2091 which related to planning application DC/24/0633/OUT. The proposal sought outline planning permission to erect two new dwellings and widen Rose Lane which would provide access to the dwellings.

The application triggered the call-in process as Tunstall Parish Council and the Ward Member both objected to scheme and the officer ‘minded to’ recommendation was to approve the application.

Councillor Smithson was the first Planning Committee South member to respond to the call-in request, calling in the application to Planning Committee South, by-passing the need for consideration by the Referral Panel.

The Planning Officer ran through the presentation and referred to the site visit which took place on 18 September. Members were shown the route taken by the members and officers. The Planning Officer talked through the site plans and photographs of the site. It was pointed out that there were two applications for Tunstall but they would be considered independently of each other and that one was not conditioned by the other. The Planning Officer showed a previous application (DC/23/2156/OUT) that had been made in 2023 for this site. It was withdrawn before determination although officers were minded to refuse the application.

The Planning Officer showed photographs of the notices on the car park gate and along the boundary leading up to the Baptist chapel which seek to restrict access rights. It was considered however that the public do have a right of way to access the Baptist chapel as it is a community facility. There was no adopted designated Public Right Of Way on this site however the route was considered to be a highway even though it was unadopted.

The Planning Officer explained how it met the Cluster Policy SCLP 5.4, which allowed up to three dwellings, and that it aligned with criteria a, b, c and d. The associated properties that formed the cluster were pointed out.

The flood mapping was then shared and the Planning Officer stated that they believed the risks could be mitigated and included as reserved matters. He ran through the planning considerations that had been addressed within the officer’s report:

• Principle of Development - Housing in Clusters in the Countryside
• Precedent for further development
• No Required Need
• Sustainability of location
• Design, Landscape & Visual Impact 
• Residential Amenity – Noise and Light
• Biodiversity & Ecology
• Highways and Parking
• Surface Water Flooding and Foul Water Drainage
• Land Contamination
• Covenant would restrict development

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

The Chair asked about the issue of the highway status. The Planning Officer confirmed that they had sought legal advice and it was considered to be a highway. The Planning Officer explained there was further detail regarding this in the accompanying report. 

Councillors raised questions concerning:

• Access to the chapel by foot by a different route than Rose Lane
• Who has authority to close the gate
• Restricting properties from future extensions
• Bat protection
• Affordability

The Planning Officer stated that the chapel was only accessible via Rose Lane and that as the Planning Authority they cannot advise or determine who had the authority to close the gate. The Planning Officer pointed out that the Highway was included within the red line in the application and that the developer would need to get authority from the owner of the route to develop the road. It was believed that the consent would have to come from the Baptist chapel.

It was confirmed by the Planning Officer that any subsequent extensions upwards would require planning permission but it was unlikely that this would be supported. They also confirmed that no affordable houses were required due to the size of the development.

The bat report was fully reviewed by the Council’s Ecologist, who advised sympathetic lighting, bat boxes and care during construction. Condition 10 stipulated ecological enhancement and mitigation measures. The detailed design of the dwellings would be considered at reserved matters stage.

Ward Councillor Tim Wilson asked to speak earlier than scheduled in proceedings due to another commitment, which the Chair allowed. Members were given a presentation that stated the application was outside of policy SCLP 5.4 and he contested the highway status of Rose Lane, pointing out that it was a private driveway. He argued that the application did not conform to the Cluster Policy as all dwellings had to be adjacent to a highway. He pointed out that three of the dwellings in consideration were adjacent to a different highway and not Rose Lane. He reminded Councillors that they were not bound to follow recommendations of the Officers, reminding them of the Nolan Principles, and that the large number of residents from Tunstall sat in the public area was testament to democracy at work. He finished by stating that although the new application was for only two houses rather than four as per the original application this was still not acceptable.

Councillor Hedgley asked where people enter and exit their homes from.

Councillor Wilson confirmed that only Lucerne, the Baptist chapel and Rose Cottage used Rose Lane but pointed out that Rose Cottage had been abandoned.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that they were not in a position to determine if it had been abandoned.

Councillor Hedgley asked why he was objecting to two houses to which Councillor Wilson replied that he didn’t like houses being built in the countryside where they shouldn’t be. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked who had the authority to close the gate and keep it closed and if there was an alternative access to the Baptist chapel.

Councillor Wilson replied that the Baptist chapel could close the gate at any time and there was alternative pedestrian access.

Councillor Smithson asked how many cars accessed the Baptist chapel.

Councillor Wilson was unable to give a number.

There being no further questions, the Chair thanked Councillor Wilson and invited the Objector, Charlotte Morgan to speak.

Members were given a presentation. She disagreed that Rose Lane was a highway but that it was a private drive (citing paragraph 2.7 of the SPD), and stated that the gate had been closed at times. She claimed that there was no right of way and in the living memory of all the residents the chapel had objected to people using that road.  She disagreed with the legal advice that had been given to the Planning Officer, stating that they cited a charity case and not a land law case. 

Charlotte Morgan proceeded to show photographs of the signs and explaining what they meant, stating that no public right of way had previously arisen and there were easements in place for neighbouring properties.

At this point the Chair pointed out that the allotted three minutes had passed and asked Charlotte Morgan to finish. The Chair then invited questions from the Members.

Councillor Smith-Lyte asked how many more slides there were to which the objector answered four which covered the point about whether it was a highway or not.

Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarity about the number of easements on the lane.

Charlotte Morgan replied that there were only two and cited an incident where the chapel tried to stop an ambulance accessing Rose Lane to reach Rose Cottage. The resident of Rose Cottage had to file at Statutory Declaration to state he had used the lane for over 12 years.

Cllr Ninnmey asked which of the other houses in the cluster accessed Rose Lane in any way.

Charlotte Morgan responded that one of the houses did have a gate onto the lane but that the chapel insisted the gate was closed off, so they no longer have access. Another of the cottages had a gate with access. She explained that there had been a long dispute over access to this lane and that permissive rights had not been granted because the chapel had consistently objected. She expressed surprise that East Suffolk’s Legal Department had not requested information from residents or the chapel to form their view on the status of Rose Lane. 

Councillor Smithson pointed out that debating the highway status was academic as it would be for the chapel to grant access should planning permission be granted. 

Councillor Hedgley asked if she had ever met or spoken to the owners of the Baptist chapel. 

She confirmed that she had spoken to them and that they had not been consulted and no deal had been made. She added that the lane had a convenant to her and her husband in perpetuity which meant they could not take down the fence without her permission. She stated that they would never agree to the fence being removed so it meant the houses could never be built.

The Chair thanked Charlotte Morgan for her contribution and invited Councillor Oliver Morgan from Tunstall Parish Council to speak.

In his presentation, Councillor Morgan argued that there was no cluster of five houses. He stated that Rose Cottage was not used and that Smokey House and Rosemary Cottages were accessed via Mill Lane not Rose Lane. He also pointed out that no residents had expressed support for this application.
Councillor Bennett asked what the Parish Council’s view was on the larger developments in the nearby area.

Councillor Morgan explained that the Parish Council had concerns about the impact of developments on the peninsula, the road network and GPs etc and that the increased load on the local area had led to a lot of scepticism. The Parish Council objected to a development until conditions were imposed. The Parish Council was supportive of a development of 33 units in the centre of the village as there was a need, it was within the village and it conformed with the Local Plan.

Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarification about Rose Cottage being part of the chapel and if they had applied for a change of use.

Councillor Morgan stated he had no knowledge if they had applied. He explained that the chapel’s activities had declined in recent years but they had open days in the past and the grounds of Rose Cottage were included in that. He stated there was play equipment in the grounds of the chapel and surrounding Rose Cottage.

Councillor Deacon was doubtful that anything happened inside Rose Cottage as it looked derelict so asked if the chapel was definitely using the interior. 

Councillor Morgan confirmed that they don’t use the building interior.

There being no further questions the Chair thanked Councillor Morgan and invited Steven Bainbridge, acting on behalf of the Applicant, to join via Zoom. 

The members were given a presentation and how it was assessed against the Local Plan and Policies. He explained that the proposal complied with the policies of statutory consultees and that this was a textbook Cluster proposal. He also mentioned that he had been approached by nearby residents looking to purchase the land for development. He finished by asking the Committee to grant permission.

Councillor Deacon asked if he had worked with the Baptist chapel.

Steven Bainbridge confirmed that he had worked with the pastor and representatives since the start and that was why they were gifting part of the land.

Councillor Smithson asked if there was any intention of turning Rose Cottage into a habitable house.

Steven Bainbridge agreed that it was a waste but couldn’t say what the Baptist chapel would do with it. He wondered if they would have more use for it if it had a larger garden.

Councillor Bennett asked him to clarify why he said, “if this isn’t a cluster I don’t know what is?”

Steven Bainbridge explained that it was not a large open space, the highway debate was not relevant and that he was content with the legal advice from East Suffolk Council. He said he had researched this closely and believed it conformed to the Cluster Policy.

Councillor Smith-Lyte asked if there was a made Neighbourhood Plan.

Steven Bainbridge stated that he wasn’t sure but if there was but regardless it would need to conform with the Local Plan. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed there wasn’t a made Neighbourhood Plan.

There were no further questions for Mr Bainbridge.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that planning was not determined by public will and referendum but by the Committee. It was for Members to decide if Rose Lane was a highway and if this was a cluster.

Councillor Deacon asked if anyone in the Planning Department had spoken to the Baptist chapel. 

It was confirmed that nothing had been received from them and that Baptist chapel was staying out of the planning process.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if Rose Cottage was occupied and if it was vacant if the the owners were paying a surcharge in council tax.

The Planning Officer did not feel this was relevant to determining the planning application. However they were not aware of the tax status of the property and it was not something they would check for the purpose of assessing this application. It was noted that it was a building in need of refurbishment but not at a state of abandonment. 

Councillor Hedgley expressed confusion that Mr Bainbridge says the Baptist chapel is fine about the application and yet the villagers say that would not be the case.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the chapel had been served with the correct notices and are therefore aware of the application, and that the Committee needed to determine this application on the basis of the policy and not in relation to the landowner.

Councillor Bennett stated that he felt it wasn’t a cluster because of the highway issue and the dispersed nature of the houses. He therefore stated he was against the proposal.

Councillor Deacon concurred with Councillor Bennett.

Councillor Packard stated that it could be approved but it may never be built due to the lane ownership issues. 

Councillor Bennett proposed refusal on the grounds that it didn’t meet the Cluster Policy.

Councillor Hedgley asked for clarity that if only the back gardens adjoined Rose Lane did that mean they were part of the cluster.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the policy says a cluster is a close group of dwellings adjacent to a highway. He stated that if members thought it wasn’t a highway and/or that this is not a cluster then it could be refused.

Councillor Hedgley asked for further clarity on the policy and if it stated that they had to adjoin the same highway or have access to the highway.

Councillor Smithson pointed out that adjacent didn’t mean access.

Councillor Ninnmey stated that he felt Rose Lane wasn’t a highway and on that basis it failed to meet the policy. 

Councillor Smithson pointed out that if the owner of the lane didn’t agree then the development won’t go ahead. 

Councillor Bennett said if the developer had been in touch with the owners of the lane then getting a definition of a highway from the owners would have been useful.

Councillor Bennett proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policy SCLP 5.4, Housing in Clusters in the Countryside. This was seconded by Councillor Deacon and on being put to the vote it was by a majority 

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED. 

The Chair proposed a ten-minute comfort break. At this point Councillor Bennett left the meeting.

 The meeting reconvened at 4.52pm. 

The Committee received report ES/2092 which related to planning application DC/24/0621/FUL. The proposed development was to the change of use of a part of a paddock to domestic garden associated with Rose Cottage, The Common, Tunstall. 

The application triggered the call-in process as Tunstall Parish Council and the Ward Member both objected to scheme and the officer ‘minded to’ recommendation was to approve the application.

Councillor Smithson was the first Planning Committee South member to respond to the call-in request, calling in the application to Planning Committee South, by-passing the need for consideration by the Referral Panel.

The Planning Officer ran through the presentation, showing site plans and photographs of the site. He stated that he believed it was in line with SCLP5.14 - Extensions to Residential Curtilages. He did not believe that Rose Cottage had been abandoned and that approving this application wouldn’t set a precedent for future development. He pointed out that conditions were in place relating to land contamination and materials. The recommendation to approve the application, as detailed in the report, was outlined to the Committee.

There were no questions from Members.

The Chair invited the Objector, Charlotte Morgan, to speak. After a false start due to the incorrect presentation being shown, she proceeded to run through the correct presentation. The Chair agreed to ensure she was given three minutes to speak.

She referenced the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 and confirmed that Pastor Dave Rushbrook of the Baptist chapel had confirmed that Rose Cottage was not being used as a dwelling and was non-residential. She stated that she didn’t believe it was suitable for residential use. She proceeded to explain that abandonment was a legal term and ran through the four criteria. She believed it was in Class D1 use and had been abandoned and therefore if it wasn’t in residential use the curtilage could not be extended.  She continued to state that when determining what constituted curtilage the planning authority had to identify the physical layout, the ownership past and present and the use or function past or present and that based on the facts she believed that the land was not curtilage and so the application should be rejected. She then went on to point out the original curtilage of Rose Cottage.

The Chair asked Charlotte Morgan to finish as she had used up her allocated three minutes.

Councillor Smithson expressed bafflement as to why the Committee was being asked to decide on a garden for a house and what exactly Charlotte Morgan was objecting to.

Charlotte Morgan explained that the objection was that it was part of a wider plan by the developer for future development. She also objected on grounds of planning policy and law too.

It was pointed out that the application must be judged on what has been submitted and not what any future plans might be.

Charlotte Morgan argued that if you looked at the curtilage it would give this property a much bigger garden than surrounding properties and that it didn’t reflect the scale of the associated dwelling.

Councillor Deacon felt that although the property is dilapidated it could be refurbished and put into use.

Charlotte Morgan explained that she had asked to purchase the property and agreed it could be refurbished into something nice. She believed that housing for local people was important and was concerned about the linkage with the previous application DC/24/0633/OUT.

The Chair invited Parish Councillor Oliver Morgan to speak.

Councillor Morgan ran through his presentation and explained that the Parish Council strongly objected. They felt that it was not an extension of curtilage but was really a change of use from agricultural to residential. The Parish Council requested that if this application was approved there should be conditions removing all permitted development rights. They did not feel that the current conditions went far enough.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the Parish Council would be supportive if Rose Cottage was refurbished and used as a residence.

Councillor Morgan explained he would have to ask the Parish Council but in principle he thought they would.

There were no further questions so Steven Bainbridge, on behalf of the Applicant, joined by Zoom. He referenced the earlier application (DC/24/0633/OUT) and how occupants of Lucerne and the Baptist chapel supported it. He explained that this application was made separately on the advice of the Planning Officer.

There were no questions from Members so it moved to debate.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that he had seen far more derelict properties that had been accepted as having a residential use and this property could be brought back into use. He explained that Members were not making a decision about abandonment and that they were taking a decision on the extension of a garden. It also related to this application only and not to DC/24/0633/OUT. He pointed out that there was no material impact on future development if the land was added to the garden.

Councillor Deacon asked about the Applicant, who wanted to extend the garden and if it was the Baptist chapel.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained there was a link between the two applications, but this application was acceptable on its own merits.

Councillor Ninnmey expressed the opinion that everything should be done to bring this residence back into use and provided the Council restricted future development rights he supported it.

The Planning Officer explained that the conditions removed permitted development rights for any outbuildings, walls and fences. If any dwelling were to be built in the garden it would require planning permission.

There being no further debate, the Chair sought a proposer and seconder for the recommendation to approve the application, as set out in the report. On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Smithson, it was by a unanimous vote

RESOLVED 

To APPROVE  subject to conditions below.

Conditions:

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with Location Plan received 19/02/2024 and A02-01B received 11/07/2024, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

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

3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

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

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), no building or structure permitted by Class E (buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of the house) of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Order shall be erected without the submission of a formal planning application and the granting of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the council may retain control over the size, scale and external appearance of such development in the interests of preserving the character of the countryside

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting the said Order) no walls or fences of any kind permitted by Class A (gates, fences, walls etc) of Schedule 2 Part 2 of the Order shall be erected without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order that the council may retain control over the external appearance of such development in the interests of preserving the character of the countryside

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 7 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.

9.  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.

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 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.

Informatives:

1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.

At the request of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management this item was taken out of order.

The Committee received report ES/2100 which related to planning application DC/21/4111/FUL. This application sought full planning permission for the erection of 20 dwellings on land at Street Farm, Witnesham. Part of the site is allocated for residential development under Local Plan Policy SCLP12.71: Land at Street Farm, Witnesham (Bridge).

The application was presented to Planning Committee South at the request of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management due to the level of public interest in the proposal and local environmental considerations, particularly flood risk.

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner. There was an update to the report paragraph 4.6 to correct an error that stated the drainage basin is part of the drainage strategy. The basin has been removed from the strategy. The Senior Planner explained there had been a site visit last Wednesday. She ran through the site location plan, pointing out the Grade II listed buildings and explained that the site is constrained by flood zones. One area of land in the application is part of an allocated site in the Local Plan and additional land has been included due to the restraints of the site. The Senior Planner referenced an additional application in 2018 that was withdrawn.

The Senior Planner explained that the application was for a mix of properties to be situated outside the flood zone, including three affordable units. A series of photographs of the site were shared by the Senior Planner, including a photograph showing flooding at the site access after Storm Babet in October 2023.

The Senior Planner showed the illustrations for each plot, showing a mix of single and two storey properties and stated that all plots came with garages. The Material Schedule was included in the presentation. The Senior Planner then showed the indicative street elevations, external levels and retaining walls and the access details.

The Senior Planner presented flood maps of the site and pointed out the extent of hardstanding that was already on site currently that had no or limited drainage. They also showed the drainage strategy map.

The trees have been surveyed and the items in red would be removed. One category B tree would need to be removed, which was close to the existing structure due to be demolished. No trees need to be removed on the western side. The Senior Planner then presented the Landscaping Strategy Plan.

The Material Planning Considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Principle of Development
• Design and Layout Considerations
• Highway Considerations
• Landscape and Visual Impact
• Heritage Considerations
• Flood Risk
• Ecology
• Public Benefits

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

The Chair invited questions from the Committee members to the Senior Planner.

Councillors raised questions concerning:

• Sustainable transport
• If the land was outside the parish settlement
• How the properties near the river will be floodproofed
• Access and egress to the site
• Any potential asbestos on the site in the existing buildings being demolished
• If there was a made Neighbourhood Plan
• What was meant by Affordable
• Tree removal and Tree Preservation Orders
• The gradient of the road and that the road would not be adopted by Highways 
• The equality of the properties in relation to the road and maintenance of the road

Regarding sustainable transport there were existing buses but there would be no additional services. There would be a new footway at the entrance to the site.

Regarding the parish settlement it was confirmed that the section of the site allocated in the Local Plan was within the boundary but the additional land was not.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that there was a Flood Risk Assessment accompanying the application. Control measures proposed include floor levels, penetrable fencing and there will be no structures in flood zone 3, only gardens. The Lead Local Flood Authority and Environment Agency have been consulted and have not objected. He stated that the Planning Officers were acutely aware of the flooding issues but were confident with the measures proposed in this application.

In relation to site access the Senior Planner explained that the access to the site would be improved, including visibility splays although the hedge would not be part of the development once constructed. The new footpath link would be constructed to Highways standards.

With regards to asbestos if any was discovered this would be covered by the contamination report.

It was confirmed that there wasn’t a made Neighbourhood Plan.

The Senior Planner confirmed that in relation to affordability, one was a 1st home and two were for affordable rent. It was confirmed that the rental figure was not known. A viability report was submitted which stated that only three affordable units were viable due to the constraints of the site.

With regards to trees there was no Tree Preservation Order on the site. The specimens identified for removal included hazel, silver birch, elder, hawthorn and crack willow. All of the ones identified for removal were classed as low quality and the removal was justified. Additional planting was proposed to mitigate the loss.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that the road would not be adopted but Highways have not objected to the design. It was believed there would be different arrangements for paying into the Management Company for each property. 

There being no further questions the Chair invited those registered to speak to address the Committee.

Jerry Hindle, on behalf of Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council, expressed his thanks to the Committee for bringing this application forward and visiting the site. He stated that because half of the site was outside the allocated plan and settlement boundary it was contrary to planning policies. They also have concerns that a development on high ground would be visually detrimental.

It was pointed out that the application failed to meet the criteria for affordable homes and the proposal did not provide safe access across the B1077. 

There were also serious concerns about the flood risk and he asked that any planning decision should be deferred until they received the Section 19 report from Suffolk County Council. The Parish Council was concerned that the steep site will lead to flooding of the lower areas.

Mr Hindle stated they are concerned that the only way required dwelling targets would be met is by building in the countryside. He asked that the development should be reduced and constrained to within the original site allocation.

The Chair invited questions from Committee Members.

Councillor Ninnmey thanked Mr Hindle for his presentation. He asked how many affordable houses are in the village already and what difference seven more houses would make? He asked if the allocation was ever viable on such an expensive site.

Mr Hindle stated there was a poor record of affordable homes in Witnesham. He referenced recent developments of 15 houses with no affordable units, six with two affordable, six with no affordable and 32 with 10 affordable. Most of the housing being built was expensive three/four bedroom houses. 

He explained that the Parish Council did have doubts about the viability of the site but that the additional high costs are really for development outside of the allocated area. He stressed that the Parish Council did not object to housing being built in the allocated area and suggested a more modest development of ten houses, three of which affordable, would be appropriate.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that he would address the figures stated at a later point.

The Chair thanked Mr Hindle and invited Paul Boswell who was acting for the Applicant.

Paul Boswell explained that the application has been very highly scrutinized. He went on to explain that there had been three years of hard work and this was the second attempt to deliver the allocation of 20 dwellings. The Local Authority had identified this site as appropriate and the complaints raised by the Parish Council had already been assessed.

He spoke about the flood risk and drainage and the objectors’ concerns about another development resulting in flooding. He stated that it could not be assumed that this development would have the same impact. He reiterated that there were no objections from the Flood Authority/SCC and that this proposal had been fully considered and addressed the issues.

Mr Boswell explained that the reduction of affordable units to three had been explained. He stated that it was not viable and had been subject to an independent viability assessment. He believed that the application had a variety of dwellings to appeal to a wide range of people and that the proposal approved in 2019 was very similar to this one.

The Chair then asked Mr Boswell to finish as three minutes had passed.

Councillor Smithson asked if the village wanted affordable houses rather than private detached dwellings and if there was any way more affordable housing could be provided.

Mr Boswell explained that the current mix met the requirements and was a good mix of houses with only two large detached properties and a number of bungalows. 

Councillor Smithson asked why there was no terraced housing.

Mr Boswell explained that the topography of site prevented this.

Councillor Ninnmey said that it appeared only seven units can be included on the allocated site. He asked why that was and if it was due to flooding risks.

Mr Boswell explained that the application was for up to 20 units but because a large area of the site was in a flood zone it was not suitable for building on. He also stated there were access issues with the allocated site. 

Councillor Ninnmey then asked if the 20 figure was unrealistic and the applicant replied it probably was.

Councillor Smith-Lyte asked what solar PV, water saving features, heat pumps and wildlife mitigations were proposed.

Mr Boswell stated that all housing would be subject to the latest housing regulations and all would have heat pumps however there was no solar PV provision.

The Chair thanked Mr Boswell.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management addressed the earlier queries raised about the poor delivery of affordable housing. He stated that the Denbury Homes development was providing the required amount of housing mix. The two smaller developments in the last decade were before 2014 when the thresholds were different. Before that anything with less than ten dwellings didn’t have to have any affordable housing. The Fairways development at Fynn Valley golfclub was subject to a viability report which showed it could not deliver the affordable housing. Therefore, there has been no breach of policy and efforts are being made by East Suffolk Council to ensure the provision of affordable housing. It was also pointed out that the Council seeks independent reviews of the viability reports.

The Chair invited Members to debate the application.

Councillor Hedgley commended the report and the site visit. He was pleased to see entrance improvements but was still concerned about the hedge on the right-hand side. Having read and re-read the flooding report he was still concerned by the 1 in 20 years and 1 in 100 years chances of flooding. Building in Flood zone 3 should be avoided and this was what he voted for when supporting the Local Plan and he specifically referenced SCLP12.71h. Therefore, he stated that he would not be supporting the application for approval.

Councillor Smithson expressed concerns about flooding, the maintenance of the drainage system and the impact it would have on houses downstream.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management invited Benjamin Locksmith, a Flood and Water Engineer from the Lead Local Flood Authority, to speak. Benjamin Locksmith explained that the surface water and river mapping were similar. The current hardstanding and minimal drainage meant there was a lot of run off from the site at the moment. The crate system proposed would provide a better option than open attenuation basins in a flood zone area. He explained that the crate system should be good for 100 years and there was no elevated maintenance expected for this site and the proposed system.

The Chair asked about nearby flooding outside of the site.

The Flood and Water Engineer stated this was from Storm Babet. He stated that the new system was designed to attenuate a large storm event. He reiterated that comparing what was there now and what was proposed meant there would be less flow off in the future with this development than there was now.

Councillor Smithson asked if the lower green area would help to prevent flooding.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that the proposal would bring in a managed system and that the current site had very little drainage. He stated that it would be in the Management Company’s interest to maintain the system. He also pointed out on the site layout where the basin would be located and it was in the lower section of the site near to the entrance.

Councillor Ninnmey commented on how many planning committees in Bedfordshire would have made similar approvals and are now facing residents’ wrath in light of the flooding. He stated that the Council needed to be aware of global warming and the impact. He believed there was an issue that the allocated site had no-one living on it at the moment. He stated that as the allocated site was only capable of supporting seven dwellings he believed the Local Plan was incorrect allocating it for 20 units. Due to these reasons he stated that he could not support the application.

Councillor Deacon stated he had concerns about the lack of affordable homes and about further building in the countryside. He believed the Council needs to preserve the countryside. The flooding issues also concerned him and as a result he stated that he would not be supporting the application.

The Chair invited the Committee to put this application to the vote and asked for a proposer to recommend approving the application. No proposer came forward so the Chair asked for an alternative motion.

Councillor Smithson suggested recommended a reduction in the number of units. However, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that was not possible as they could only consider the application before the Committee. He also asked Members to state the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Hedgley proposed that the Committee refused this application because it contravened SCLP12.71h which states there should be no building in flood zone 3.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reiterated that the Committee needed to have a robust reason for refusal as it needed to withstand any appeal. He also pointed out that there was no development in flood zone 3, only gardens.

Councillor Bennett asked if building outside the village settlement was a reason for refusal. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed it was although needed the specific policy.

Councillor Bennett asked about the flood risk and for clarity on what would be in flood zone 3. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that elements of the site were in flood zone 3 but no houses would be built within that zone.

Councillor Deacon stated that it contravened the policy SCLP10.4 relating to development outside the parish boundary and in the countryside. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the section 19 report which was yet to be received and if a decision could be deferred until this was received. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said there was no justification to wait for the section 19 investigation as it wouldn’t necessarily determine how this site would be developed. However, a reason for refusal relating to flood risk could be considered.

Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarity that it was always the community benefits that are lost if a developer takes on a complex site, as it would be expensive to develop. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that if a development was not viable there was usually a reduction in affordable housing. He pointed out that this was an expensive site, both the allocated site and the additional area, and there were high Community Infrastructure Levy rates too.

It was confirmed that the policies to be considered when determining the refusal were:

• Building outside of Settlement Boundary – SCLP 3.3 and SCLP 5.3
• Flood Risk – SCLP 9.5 - Concerned that the development would increase flood risk elsewhere and the potential flooding at the access to the site

Policy SCLP 5.10 relating to Affordable Housing was not relevant as grounds for refusal because due procedure had been followed.

Councillor Bennett pointed out that climate change needed to be taken into consideration as it was a dynamic situation and there could be another Storm Babet event.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that modelling was carried out in light of climate change. 

Councillor Fisher asked for clarity on which flood zone the site entrance fell into and if there was a policy relating to this. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management agreed to include access and egress flooding issues as a reason for refusal. It was agreed that the lack of a signed section 106 agreement would also be included as a reason for refusal.

Councillor Hedgley proposed that the application be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to policies SCLP 3.3, 5.3 and 9.5 of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan, and there was no signed section 106 agreement. This was seconded by Councillor Ninnmey and on being put to the vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED

The Committee received report ES/2101 which related to planning application DC/21/2710/OUT. This application sought outline planning permission to create up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure and open space. Details of the access into the site had been submitted for approval whilst appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved matters for future determination. 

The application was presented to Planning Committee South for determination at the request of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management due to its public interest from members of the public and the Town Council and the significance of the site in its relevance to the wider North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood allocation.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management ran through the presentation, showing site plans and aerial photographs. He showed the relationship between the nearby Persimmon site currently under construction and this site. He pointed out that this application site was allocated in the Felixstowe Peninsula Area Action Plan in 2017 (FPP5). He highlighted the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood and explained how it fitted into the bigger picture but pointed out that this application was separate to the Garden Neighbourhood.

This allocated site was SCLP12.4 which had several conditions attached. Importantly the Council had secured a parameter plan, which set out the limitations of land use under Reserved Matters. Residential development could only take place in the central area of the site (marked in red on the Parameter Plan). He showed the Indicative Concept Plan which shows there would be a lower number of units in reality, of around 50 to 75 homes, rather than 150.

This application returned to the Planning Committee as when it was last seen in May there were concerns about the impact of traffic and sustainable connections. An Independent Highways Review had since been provided. There were two recommendations for junction improvements for pedestrians and conditions had been imposed relating to these recommendations. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that a small amount of hedgerow removal (20m) would be required to facilitate the pedestrian route behind the trees. 

He ran through the Material Planning Considerations and Key Issues as listed in the presentation:

• Principle of Development
• Design and Layout Considerations
• Highway Considerations
• Landscape and Visual Impact
• Heritage Considerations
• Flood Risk
• Ecology
• Public Benefits 

He explained that the concerns raised by Highways had been independently assessed and addressed. The drainage would be through attenuation and at green field run-off rates.

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

The Chair invited questions from Members. Councillors raised questions concerning:

• The strength of the Parameter Plan
• Traffic Surveys, volumes and the impact on Gulpher Road (which is a Quiet Lane)
• Traffic transiting site to reach the Garden Neighbourhood 
• Affordable Housing
• Play provision and local amenities
• How to make this development sit better in the countryside

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that Parameter Plans are incredibly important. Where applications had been submitted without them previously, it made it very difficult at the Reserved Matters stage. He believed that this Parameter Plan was very strong and that the number of dwellings would be as per the plan and not 150. He referred to Brightwell Lakes that had been shaped by a Parameter Plan and it has worked well. He believed that what he presented is what would be seen at the Reserved Matters stage.

In relation to traffic, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that a detailed process had been followed. They sought an independent review which had been secured and reviewed by Highways. He believed that it had been given considerable scrutiny and was confident with the results. None of the consultees identified that changes should be made to Gulpher Road and he pointed out that the report was relevant because it overestimated the volume of traffic from the development as it was modelled on 150 units when the number of units built would be significantly lower.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management appreciated that this application was from the same applicant as Laureate Fields but pointed out that it could be developed by a different developer. He also pointed out that it was a very different application to Laureate Fields and that East Suffolk Council was investing in their design principles. There would be a lot of scrutiny at Reserved Matters to make sure good quality was delivered. He also reminded Members that this application must be considered on its own merits.

As the application preceded the Garden Neighbourhood it was not possible to predict what volume of traffic would transit this site to reach the Garden Neighbourhood. However, when the Garden Neighbourhood application was submitted it would be looked at in relation to this site.

In answer to the questions about play and amenity provision, a development of this scale didn’t require a shop but it was within walking/cycling distance of local amenities. Also, if the Garden Neighbourhood was developed amenities would be provided there. There was a designated area for a LEAP (play area) for this site though. He explained they would ensure there was a mix of equipment for all ages.

There being no further questions, the Chair invited Edward Orr for the Applicant to speak.

Edward Orr, Group Development Director for the Applicant, Generator Group, explained that they delivered high quality schemes at a lower volume than other developers. He stated that they aimed to deliver schemes that fostered a strong sense of community and homes that stood apart in terms of quality.  He said they had received many compliments about their Laureate Fields development, which had won three awards, including an East Suffolk Council Quality of Place Award. He explained the principal of development was established through the designation in the Local Plan and they had worked through the concerns that were raised at the previous planning meeting in May.

He pointed out that all the reports and studies carried out were based on the upper limit of 150 units, even though the site would only accommodate far fewer units due to the constraints of the site. Therefore, a robust approach had been taken with regard to all the assessments and reports and the impacts from a smaller scheme have been sufficiently accounted for. He pointed out that this was only outline planning permission, and that there would be further scrutiny by the Council at the Reserved Matters stage relating to the size, design, layout and landscaping. He looked forward to working with planners at this stage.

He stated that the independent Highways Report supported the applicant’s and Suffolk Highway’s findings and would not unduly impact on the nature and character of Gulpher Road. They had agreed to adopt the recommendations for improvements to pedestrian access to local schools. He explained that the application was originally submitted in May 2021 and after three years, including a robust environmental impact assessment, he hoped that Members would concur with the Officer’s recommendation to grant Outline Planning Permission. He wished to deliver a scheme that everyone could be proud of.

The Chair thanked Mr Orr and invited questions from Members.

Councillor Deacon asked if he could confirm that there wouldn’t be buildings of more than two storeys.

Edward Orr confirmed that this is a condition that could not be breached so there wouldn’t be buildings of more than two storeys.

Councillor Smith-Lyte asked how many units they were looking to build now.

Edward Orr estimated between 50-65 units but that the number would be confirmed at Detailed Design stage.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the sense of the design and if the housing would be sympathetic to each other and the landscape, unlike Laureate Fields.

Mr Orr explained that design was very subjective but the company was open to working with local authorities and communities. He pointed out that there would be further consultation at Detailed Design stage.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that this was a much greener development than Laureate Fields. 

The Chair invited closing comments from each Councillor.

Councillor Smithson commented that this application was much improved than the last time it was presented. 

Councillor Deacon stated that he objected to the scheme as it was on agricultural land.

Councillor Smith-Lyte echoed Councillor Deacon’s concerns and was worried that there wouldn’t be the teachers and doctors to fill the schools and surgeries. 

Councillor Fisher stated that he was not happy that it was on agricultural land but could see that it would become a cluster with the Garden Neighbourhood.

Councillor Ninnmey expressed concern at the loss of agricultural land. He also felt that they had missed the concern about what would happen to Gulpher Road. He stated that it needed to be looked at as it was certainly not a Quiet Lane.

Councillor Hedgley shared the concerns of his fellow Members but felt that this was going to happen anyway and fighting it now would be a waste of effort.

Councillor Dean said seeing this was a real shock. She felt it was too big and too crowded and over developed.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management appreciated the concerns expressed by the Felixstowe Members. However he pointed out that it was an allocated site in the Local Plan and that if East Suffolk Council couldn’t deliver on their planned sites there would be applications from unplanned sites. He explained that the Council needed to adhere to the Local Plan and that East Suffolk Council was investing heavily in infrastructure funding. Although the Council couldn’t create the doctors and teachers they were delivering the infrastructure to support these developments. He also pointed out that there was a lot of development in the Trimleys and Felixstowe area currently as they were playing catch up. There were years when very little new development was delivered in this area. 

Councillor Ninnmey accepted that the Local Plan was what it was, however regarding the lack of building in Felixstowe this was because of the departure of the American Airforce which meant demand dropped. He stated that the Council needed to minimise the harm.

Councillor Packard proposed that the application should be approved. This was seconded by Councillor Hedgley and on being put to the vote it was by majority

RESOLVED

To APPROVE with conditions subject to the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement to secure obligations including:

• Provision of affordable housing
• 5% of the residential development as self build or custom build plots (only if the development exceeds 99 dwellings)
• Per dwelling contribution to the Suffolk RAMS
• Provision and long term management of public open space
• Financial contribution towards primary school new build
• Financial contribution towards early years new build

Conditions (also awaiting Highways conditions):

1. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.  

The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.  

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

2. Details of the layout, design and external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping of the site (herein called the "reserved matters"), shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Sections 91 and 92 of the 1990 Act.

3. The submission of a reserved matters application pursuant to this outline application shall demonstrate substantial compliance with the Parameter Plan (Drwg. No. GN003-PH2-PP-01 Rev B). 

Reason: To ensure an attractive and high quality design of the development.

4. The submission of a reserved matters application pursuant to this outline application shall be broadly in accordance with the Concept Layout (Drwg. No. GN003-CPT-01 Rev H). 

Reason: To ensure an attractive and high quality design of the development.

5. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters application, a site-wide phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. 

Reason: To ensure that the works are completed in an appropriate order, and for the purposes of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) collection requirements.

6. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters application, a housing mix strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, in order to demonstrate how the proposed development will deliver an appropriate mix of dwellings across the development.

Reason: To ensure the development provides a mix of housing in accordance with policy SCLP5.8 (Housing Mix) of the East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020).

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

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

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

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

11. All noisy construction activities (i.e. those audible beyond the site boundary) should be restricted to the following hours to minimise the potential for noise disturbance:
Monday - Friday: 08:00 - 18:00hrs
Saturday: 08:00 - 13:00hrs
Sundays/Bank Holidays: No noisy working

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

12. A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This should contain information on how noise will be controlled so as to avoid annoyance to occupiers of neighbouring properties. Examples of measures to be included are:
a) Good practice procedures as set out in BS5228:2014,
b) Best Practicable Means (BPM) as defined in Section 72, of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (COPA),
c) Careful location of plant to ensure any potentially noisy plant is kept away from the site boundary as far as possible,
d) Careful selection of construction plant, ensuring equipment with the minimum power rating possible is used, and that all engine driven equipment is fitted with a suitable silencer,
e) Regular maintenance of plant and equipment to ensure optimal efficiency and quietness,
f) Training of construction staff where appropriate to ensure that plant and equipment is used effectively for minimum periods,
g) If identified as necessary, the use of localised hoarding or enclosures around specific items of plant or machinery to limit noise breakout especially when working close to the boundary.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity.

13. A construction phase Dust Management Plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details for an adequate water supply to be available, dust suppression equipment and methods to be employed, and controls to prevent vehicles tracking out dust and material from site.

Reason: In the interests of local amenity

14. 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. 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 BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and the Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM)) 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.

15. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of hard and soft landscaping works for the site, which shall include any proposed changes in ground levels and also accurately identify spread, girth and species of all existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows on the site and indicate any to be retained, together with measures for their protection which shall comply with the recommendations set out in the British Standards Institute recommendation "BS5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations"

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

16. The approved landscaping scheme (as approved by Condition 15) shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of five years.  Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained.

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

17. As part of any reserved matters application for appearance, details of all external facing and roofing materials for all buildings shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

18. The hereby approved development shall include a provision for 50% of all dwellings to meet the requirements of M4(2) (or M4(3)) of the Building Regulations. Concurrent with each reserved matters application, details shall be provided specifying which dwelling(s) are M4(2) (or M4(3)) compliant and thereafter constructed in accordance with regulation requirements. 

Reason: To ensure the development provides accessible and adaptable dwellings in accordance with Policy SCLP5.8 of the East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020).

19. Concurrent with any reserved matters application, a sustainability statement which demonstrates that sustainable construction methods have been incorporated into the development proposal, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority. 

Reason: In accordance with sustainable construction objectives of Policy SCLP9.2 of the East Suffolk Council - Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020).

20. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Biodiversity and Ecology chapter (Chapter 8) of the Environmental Statement 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

21. Commensurate with the first Reserved Matters application, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" for the development 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. 

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

a. Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. 
b. Identification of "biodiversity protection zones". 
c. Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). 
d. The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. 
e. The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. 
f. Responsible persons and lines of communication. 
g. The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. 
h. Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
 
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 

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

23. Commensurate with the first Reserved Matters application, a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following: 

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

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

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

24. Commensurate with the first Reserved Matters application, an Ecological Enhancement Strategy, including a Biodiversity Net Gain assessment in accordance with paragraph 8.226 of the Environmental Statement, and addressing how ecological enhancements will be achieved on site, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Ecological enhancement measures will be delivered and retained in accordance with the approved Strategy. 

Reason: To ensure that the development delivers ecological enhancements.

25. If the first Reserved Matters application is not submitted or approved development does not commence (or, having commenced, is suspended for more than 12 months) within 2 years from the date of the Outline planning consent, the approved ecological measures secured through Condition 20 shall be reviewed and, where necessary, amended and updated. The review shall be informed by further ecological surveys commissioned to i) establish if there have been any changes in the presence and/or abundance of protected species or UK Priority species or habitats and ii) identify any likely new ecological impacts that might arise from any changes. 

Where the survey results indicate that changes have occurred that will result in ecological impacts not previously addressed in the approved scheme, the original approved ecological measures will be revised and new or amended measures, and a timetable for their implementation, will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority as either part of a Reserved Matters application or prior to the commencement of development. Works will then be carried out in accordance with the proposed new approved ecological measures and timetable. 

Reason: To ensure that ecological mitigation measures are appropriately delivered based on up-to-date evidence.

26. Commensurate with the first Reserved Matters application, a plan detailing how the recreational disturbance mitigation measures identified in the Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment (sHRA) (Sweco UK Ltd, October 2022) and the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) (East Suffolk Council, February 2024) will be implemented shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The identified measures will be implemented in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning. 

Reason: To ensure that measures necessary to mitigate adverse effects on the integrity of European designated sites are adequately implemented as part of this development.

27. Concurrent with the submission of the first reserved matters application, details of all walls (including retaining walls), fences, gates or other means of enclosure to be erected in or around the development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Thereafter, no occupation or use of the development shall take place until the walls (including retaining walls), fences, gates or other means of enclosure shall be erected as approved and shall thereafter be permanently retained and maintained.

Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development will enhance the character and visual amenities of the area, and to satisfactorily protect the residential amenities of nearby/future occupiers.

28. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in its entirety prior to the occupation of the building. It shall thereafter be retained and maintained in its improved form. 

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

29. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of off-site highway improvements of a pedestrian crossing point north of the Colneis Road/ Ferry Road Junction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to occupation. 

Reason: To ensure a safe and suitable route to school is delivered and that the necessary highway improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and sustainable travel.  This is a pre-commencement condition because the required details relate to off-site works that need to be agreed before the development can be said to be acceptable in terms of highway capacity/safety

30. No part of the development shall be commenced until details of off-site highway improvements of an improved pedestrian crossing facility across the bellmouth of the Upperfield Drive / Ferry Road Junction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to occupation. 

Reason: To ensure that the necessary highway improvements are designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and sustainable travel.  This is a pre-commencement condition because the required details relate to off site works that need to be agreed before the development can be said to be acceptable in terms of highway capacity/safety


Informatives:

1. The submitted scheme of archaeological investigation shall be in accordance with a brief procured beforehand by the developer from Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service.

2. Any works to lay new surface water drainage pipes underneath the public highway will need a licence under section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act.

3. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.

4. East Suffolk Council is a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Authority. 

The proposed development referred to in this planning permission may be chargeable development liable to pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) under Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended).

If your development is for the erection of a new building, annex or extension or the change of use of a building over 100sqm in internal area or the creation of a new dwelling, holiday let of any size or convenience retail , your development may be liable to pay CIL and you must submit a CIL Form 2 (Assumption of Liability) and CIL Form 1 (CIL Questions) form as soon as possible to CIL@eastsuffolk.gov.uk

A CIL commencement Notice (CIL Form 6) must be submitted at least 24 hours prior to the commencement date.  The consequences of not submitting CIL Forms can result in the loss of payment by instalments, surcharges and other CIL enforcement action.

CIL forms can be downloaded direct from the planning portal:

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200136/policy_and_legislation/70/community_infrastructure_levy/5

Guidance is viewable at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy


5. Any reserved matters application is required to be substantially in accordance with the approved Parameter Plan which sets out key infrastructure requirements for the site, including surface water drainage and vehicle and pedestrian connections into the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood . In view of these requirements therefore, notwithstanding the description of the application for up to 150 dwellings, the likely capacity of the site is expected to be between 50 - 75 dwellings.  

The Chair asked if everyone was happy to continue with the final application after a short break and all agreed.

The meeting reconvened at 6.22pm.

The Committee received report ES/2102 which related to planning application DC/23/2365/FUL. Full planning permission was sought for the demolition of an existing workshop building, the extension of an existing two-storey assembly building, the retention of an existing single storey workshop building extension, and associated works to formalise vehicle parking at Bye Engineering Ltd, Brick Kiln Lane, Melton.

Due to objections from both the Parish Council and Ward Member, the Council’s ‘Call-in’ process was triggered, notice of which was sent to the appropriate members on Monday 5 August. No response was received from members before 5pm on Tuesday 13 August and therefore the application was presented to the referral panel on Tuesday 20 August 2024, where members determined that the merits of the application warranted further discussion and debate at Planning Committee.

Councillor Smith-Lyte moved to the public area of the meeting. 

The Planning Officer ran through the presentation. He pointed out the site location, access and adjacent neighbours. He explained that the company had been on site for at least 30 years. He continued to show a series of photographs of the site and buildings, including the existing building to be extended to double the size, and also the unlawful building. He explained that regardless of the result of this application this building must be removed as it was subject to enforcement. He believed that the Applicant had already taken steps to remove the building.

The block plan site showed the proposed extension, existing buildings and the building to be demolished together with the proposed parking area. The extension would be a mirror image of what was currently there. 

The Planning Officer ran through the landscaping scheme which would bolster the vegetated boundaries of the site which would mitigate against the impact of the site.

He ran through the main considerations:

• Residential amenity impacts (i.e. noise and light pollution)
• Visual impact on landscape
• Transport and access
• Biodiversity

He explained that Highways raised no objections to the intensification of the site and there were no plans by the Applicant to increase the number of employees employed at the site. The Applicant had agreed to a condition survey of Brick Kiln Lane for improvements to be made which would also benefit residents using this shared lane. Biodiversity was another consideration considering the site’s location. The Council’s Ecologist had been consulted and they found no issues with the ecology information that was provided. A subsequent condition required the Applicant to submit landscape and ecology enhancement plans. 

The Planning Officer then listed the conditions should approval be given. He explained that because of the concerns from neighbouring properties about noise due to the intensification of the site, restrictions would be in place to limit daily activity. He stated that an extensive noise survey was undertaken and the Council’s Environmental Protection team accepted this and have made recommendations based on this which were in the officer report. The Applicant would be required to submit a noise management plan to ensure the site’s operation remained acceptable in terms of noise impact on nearby residents.

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

The Chair thanked the Planning Officer and invited questions from Members which covered:

• Possibility of the site becoming a larger employment site and employment numbers
• Noise monitoring
• Proximity of neighbours
• Conditions restricting cutting work to inside the building
• Compliance

The Planning Officer was not aware of the applicant’s long term aspirations for the site and if that included growth, however Condition 12 would restrict operations to general industrial use only (Class E(g)iii). Any other use of the site would require a further planning application.

The Planning Officer explained that Condition 10, the Noise Management Plan, included noise control measures such as working hours, complaints policy, the management of outdoor working and closing of external doors. Any monitoring would be done by the Environmental Protection Team which would come to Enforcement if they breached the condition.

In relation to neighbouring properties, the Planning Officer showed the aerial photograph and showed the closest dwellings.

With regards to a condition restricting cutting work to inside buildings only, condition 11 stated that no outdoor working would take place without agreement from the Council.

In relation to compliance there was a complaint in 2022 and generally these would be dealt with by Environmental Protection. The Chair pointed out that this had come come up on the Enforcement Reports previously.

The Chair then called Councillor Darby from Melton Parish Council to speak. 

Councillor Darby explained that the focus of the business had changed from agricultural equipment to the repurposing of shipping containers which involved intensive periods of noise and nuisance. Activity has routinely happened outside of agreed hours and with workshop doors open. 

She felt that page 6 of the noise report of August 2023 appeared to criticise some of the planning conditions and questioned whether the conditions would be enough, especially considering the company’s track record of non-compliance. They had also been subject to enforcement action over many years. 

The Parish Council feared that the expansion so close to an AONB would negatively impact wildlife. There was also no mention of the colony of great crested newts nearby which was identified in a planning application at Decoy Farm nor was there any reference to the outline planning permission granted for 55 houses only 100 metres away and how the issue of noise will potentially impact many more houses in the future.

She continued to say that the proposals for tree screening were inadequate to compensate the noise and visual disturbance. The comments from Highways report did not adequately reflect the situation on the ground as it was a well-used Public Right of Way. Massive trailers and their loads were using the small unadopted lane for access and parking and there had been several unreported accidents at the junction with Wilford Bridge Road. Councillor Darby concluded that compliance would be an issue and for all of those reasons she asked that this application was refused.

The Chair invited members to ask questions and there were none so he invited the Applicant’s Agent, Jeremy Hancock, to speak.

Mr Hancock explained that it was an established industrial activity that had been there for many years and that the nature of the business had changed but it still dealt with agricultural equipment so there was some work outside. The second activity was dealing with containers and the first building given permission 9 years ago provided an internal space in which to carry out this work. The intention was to extend that building to allow the containers to be built indoors, because at the moment some work was undertaken in the unauthorized building. He stated that this building had been removed.

He stated that they have done everything that the Planning Authority have requested. He mentioned the nearest houses were 150 and 165m away and the noise recordings have been examined and accepted. He argued that there had been no valid enforcement case relating to noise on the site and there was just one objection about noise and the enforcement notice on the building which had now been removed. 

He explained that the company had a duty of care to its employees and needed to bring them indoors. 

At this point the Chair interjected and stated that the three minutes was up and Mr Hancock had to finish speaking. He invited questions from Members.

Councillor Hedgley asked how many people were employed.

Mr Hancock said there were 20 directly associated with the site but there were many more employed in peripheral activities off-site.

Councillor Hedgley was concerned about compliance with health and safety and noise. He asked what would happen when it got hot and if the doors would be opened.

Jeremy Hancock answered that it was a matter of management, and they will produce a management plan. He presumed that the Council would be in a position to test that if it wasn’t in operation and it would be covered by the Conditions.

Councillor Hedgley asked if he was aware of any sound insultation that could go on the inside of the building to cut down the noise.

Mr Hancock said there could be measures for doing this but wasn’t sure if it was appropriate. He believed that once the doors were shut it would be insulated to a reasonable extent but they could explore if there was anything else that could be installed to minimise noise though.

Councillor Hedgley suggested sound screens outside the building.

There were no further questions so the Chair invited Councillor Smith-Lyte invited to speak as Ward Member. 

She stated that she was concerned about newts at Decoy Farm and despite officer reassurance she was concerned about the lack of enforcement of planning conditions.

Regarding Brick Kiln Lane she was concerned about the poor state and the lack of maintenance. She referred to her objection from July 2023 that it wasn’t a great place for an industrial unit and that an industrial site with better access would be more appropriate when trying to expand the business. 

She had concerns about the height of the buildings and the sensitive habitat, especially the salt marshes. She was very worried about access for HGVs onto Wilford Bridge Road and concerned about the impact and disturbance on the proposed 55 homes off St Andrew’s nearby. She was concerned at the lack of compliance in relation to sound, dust, hours of work and the level of disturbance from light and noise pollution outside of core hours. She felt that the company had taken a cavalier attitude and that they should have liaised with residents more proactively.

The Chair commented that he had been down that road and it was in a bad state. He expressed concern that if residents were paying for the upkeep then the maintenance should be undertaken especially with so many heavy vehicles using the lane.

There being no further questions it moved to debate.

Councillor Hedgley pointed out that this was a place of employment which is important. However the Council could stipulate the hours of work and he suggested that the firm liaised with the Parish Council/residents to meet regularly and talk things through. If they didn’t adhere then Environment Protection would be involved. As Environment Protection haven’t so far found anything outstandingly wrong, if the company acts responsibly then it should be ok. He stated that if the firm was responsible for the road then they needed to sort it soon. He said it was important that the Council didn’t stop people working.

Councillor Deacon took on board the comments from Councillor Hedgley. He would like the site to be monitored regularly and for the working hours to be limited and enforced. He liked the idea of a liaison group between the company and the residents/Parish Council. If there was a breach of the conditions then swift action should be taken. 

Councillor Smithson concurred with what had been said and stressed that the road needed to be sorted and monitored.

Councillor Fisher concurred with the other Councillor comments.

Councillor Ninnmey pointed out that with the increased traffic the road needed to be maintained and soundproofing aspects should be looked at both retrospectively and on the new one. He agreed with the conditions and if they didn’t conform this should be addressed.

Councillor Dean was confident that if the company was investing money they were likely to comply and the company had heard what was expected of them.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management suggested that the proposed noise management condition (10) should also include the establishment of a liaison group with the parish council with agreed frequency to address any concerns in the future. He explained there was a risk that it might fail but the District Council may be able to help facilitate and mediate. 

Councillor Deacon suggested that the District Councillor could help with this liaison group.

Councillor Ninnmey said that the state of road should be included. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management referenced condition 19 which stated that a condition survey should be done but was missing a follow on action. Therefore, it was agreed that it should include that the survey shall set out what improvements are required and when. The improvements might not happen before construction in case construction traffic damages the road.

On the proposal of the Chair that the application is approved subject to the inclusion of the amended conditions 10 and 19, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was unanimously 

RESOLVED

To APPROVE subject to no objections being raised by Natural England and subject to the draft conditions set out below. 

Conditions:

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

Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 2. The hereby permitted development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the following approved drawing(s) and document(s):
- 4287-04A (Measures survey);
- 4287-06 (Scheme design - plan and elevations);
- 4287-02 (As existing plans and elevations);
- 4287-01D (Location plan and site plan - as proposed);
- LSDP 11009.01 Rev B (Landscape proposal);
- Flood risk assessment and drainage strategy (April 2023);
- Ecology Report (MHE Consulting, July 2023, Rev 1.2).

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

 3. The materials and finishes shall be as indicated within the submitted application and thereafter retained as such, unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 5. The tree/shrub planting scheme as shown on approved drawing no. 'LSDP 11009.01 Rev B (Landscape proposal)' shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following commencement of the two-storey extension development (or within such extended period as the local planning authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for a period of 5 years.  Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the first available planting season and shall be retained and maintained.

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

 6. The use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on drawing no. '4287-01D' for the purposes of loading, unloading, manoeuvring and parking of vehicles 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 (2019) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to the safe use of the highway.

 7. Before the hereby permitted development is commenced, including demolition, a Construction Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

The Construction Management Plan shall include the following matters:
a) parking and turning for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
b) loading and unloading of plant and materials
c) piling techniques (if applicable)
d) storage of plant and materials
e) a programme of site and all associated works such as utilities including details of traffic management necessary to undertake these works
f) a communications plan to inform local residents of the program of works
g) provision of boundary hoarding and lighting
h) details of proposed means of dust suppression
i) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction including provision and use of wheel washing facilities
j) haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network and
k) monitoring and review mechanisms
l) measures for controlling noise and light

Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway and to ensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase. This is a pre-commencement condition because an approved Construction Management Plan must be in place at the outset of the development.

 8. The hours of working (Including deliveries) during the demolition and construction phases shall be:
- Monday to Friday: 08:00 to 18:00 hours;
- Saturday: 08:00 to 13:00 hours;
- None on Sunday and Bank Holidays.
Unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity and protection of the environmental receptors. 

9. At no time shall there be any burning of waste on site.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity and protection of the environmental receptors.

10. (Amended) Prior to commencement of the development, a Noise Management Plan (NMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The NMP shall include noise control measures such as; soundproofing, working hours for noisy activities, a noise complaints policy, management and control of outdoor working including closing external doors to buildings when conducting noisy activities within. The NMP shall also set out measures to enable periodic meeting of a liaison group comprising the site operators, local residents and the Parish Council in order to build relations and discuss matters of concern. The approved NMP shall be complied with at all times during the site’s operational hours with any proposed changes first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity and protection of the environmental receptors.

11. No activities or processes shall be undertaken outside the buildings other than the loading and unloading of goods unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.

12. The buildings subject to this consent shall be used for Class E(g)iii (Industrial processes) Use purposes only and for no other purpose (including any other use class of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning [Use Classes] Order 1987) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting the said Order).

Reasons: In order that the local planning authority may retain control over this development/site in the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.

13. Prior to the installation of any external lighting at the site, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved 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 thereafter 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.  

Reason: To ensure that impacts on ecological receptors from external lighting are prevented and the protection of the local rural environment.

14. No floodlighting or other means of external lighting, other than that approved under condition 13, shall be installed at the site unless details are first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include position, operating times, details of luminaires, aiming angles and vertical and horizontal illuminance on areas outside the site. Thereafter the lighting scheme shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.  

Reason: To ensure that impacts on ecological receptors from external lighting are prevented and the protection of the local rural environment.

15. Prior to the installation of any fixed plant or machinery (e.g., heat pumps, compressors, extractor systems, air conditioning plant or refrigeration plant etc) a noise assessment shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and include all proposed plant and machinery and be based on BS4142:2014+A1:2019).

A noise rating level (LAr) of at least 5dB below the typical background sound level (LA90,T) should be achieved at the nearest noise sensitive receptor. Where the noise rating level cannot be achieved, the noise mitigation measures considered should be explained and the achievable noise level should be identified and justified. 

Thereafter, only fixed plant and machinery assessed within the Noise Assessment and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be installed at the site.

Reason:  In the interests of amenity, and protection of the local rural environment.

16. The development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecology Report (MHE Consulting, July 2023, Rev 1.2) as submitted with the planning application and hereby approved by the local planning authority. 

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

17. Prior to any works above ground level a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:

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

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery.

The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. Thereafter the approved LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the timescale included therein.

The plan shall thereafter be implemented fully in accordance with the approved details including the within the timescale set out within the LEMP. 

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

18. Prior to first use of the hereby approved development a flood risk emergency and evacuation plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Thereafter, the approved plan shall be adhered to for the lifetime of the development and a copy of the plan shall be made available upon request from staff and customers during the site's opening hours.

Reason: In the interest of public safety and protection of the local environment.

19. (Amended) Prior to first use of the hereby approved two-storey assembly building extension, a photographic condition survey report showing the condition of the access track known as Brick Kiln Lane shall be carried out and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.  

 
The condition survey report shall include a record of the surface of the carriageway between the junction with Wilford Bridge Road and the entrance to the site operated by Bye Engineering, along with the condition of any other access points/junctions, passing places and verges along the same section of Brick Kiln Lane. It shall identify areas of excessive ware and/or damage, as well as proposed works and methodology for rectifying identified areas concern. 



Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the amenity of residents that share the Brick Kiln Lane to access properties.

20. Within three months of the date of this planning permission, the building identified for demolition on approved drawing no. ‘4287-01D’ (Location plan and site plan - as proposed) shall be demolished in its entirety with all building materials responsibly removed from site, unless otherwise agreed in by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the existing unlawful building is removed within a reasonable timeframe. 

21. (Amended) Within three months of the hereby approved two storey assembly building extension being occupied, the surface of Brick Kiln Lane including any passing points, junction/access points and verges, between the junction with Wilford Bridge Road and the entrance to the site operated by Bye Engineering, shall be repaired/resurfaced, and made good to a state in accordance with the works and methodology previously submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority under condition 19 of this consent.  

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the amenity of residents that share the Brick Kiln Lane to access properties.

22.     No activities shall be carried out on the site other than between the following hours daily, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority:
• Monday to Friday - 07:30 to 19:00
• Saturday - 08:00 to 13:00
• Sundays and Bank Holidays – None

Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.

Informatives:

1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.

2. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs, brambles, ivy and other climbing plants, or works to or demolition of buildings or structures that may be used by breeding shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds' nests immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site. Any such written confirmation should be submitted to the local planning authority. Nesting birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981).

3. Biodiversity Net Gain

The effect of paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is that planning permission granted for development of land in England is deemed to have been granted subject to the condition (biodiversity gain condition) that development may not begin until a Biodiversity Gain Plan has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority, unless a statutory exemption or transitional arrangement applies (under paragraph 17 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024).

Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because one or more of the statutory exemptions or transitional arrangements is considered to apply.

4. Note: It is an OFFENCE to carry out works within the public highway, which includes a Public Right of Way (i.e. the access track which is a Bridleway), without the permission of the Highway Authority.

Any conditions which involve work within the limits of the public highway do not give the applicant permission to carry them out. Unless otherwise agreed in writing all works within the public highway shall be carried out by the County Council or its agents at the applicant's expense. The County Council must be contacted on Tel: 0345 606 6171.

For further information go to:
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/parking/apply-and-pay-for-a-dropped-kerb/  or:
https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/planning-waste-and-environment/planning-and-development-advice/application-for-works-licence/ 

A fee is payable to the Highway Authority for the assessment and inspection of both new vehicular crossing access works and improvements deemed necessary to existing vehicular crossings due to proposed development.