Meeting Details

Councillor Ninnmey raised a query relating to the conditions for item 9, DC/21/2710/OUT - Land north of Conway Close and Swallow Close, Felixstowe. He asked for clarity relating to self- build and custom build plots and that this would only relate to developments over 100 properties.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed that he would supply an amendment to clarify this point although it would already have been reflected in the wording of the s106 agreement.

Subject to this amendment, on the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was

That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 September 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2133. The Officer explained that there was an update for case item A.6, Stoney Flat, Stoney Cottage, Grundisburgh. Even though the compliance date was set for 12 December 2024 they have already complied, and the fence has been lowered. This case will be closed and removed from the next Enforcement Report.

There were no questions from Members.

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

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 19 September 2024 be noted.

The Chair then invited the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management to give an update on a recent application which had gone to appeal.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management ran through a presentation relating to application DC/22/3746/FUL Land off Keightley Way, Tuddenham St Martin. The appeal reference was AP/24/0061/APP. This application was for 25 new houses on a site that was allocated in the Local Plan.

He gave a brief history of the application explaining that it had been to the Planning Committee twice before. The first time a decision was deferred until after a site visit and then subsequently it was agreed to defer to allow officers to seek third party advice on the safety, integration and connectivity of the proposed development with the existing community. The independent highway report had been received and the application was then due to return to Planning Committee for a decision. However, in the meantime the developer submitted an appeal due to non-determination. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management shared the process and timeline, explaining the appeal was submitted in September and registered at the start of October so it was now live. The Planning Department must complete the questionnaire and notify all consultees and those who made representations by 25 October. The Council had five weeks (until 22 November) to submit the statement of case. All parties, including the public, can submit any final comments by 6 December. The Planning Inspector sees all comments submitted during the application, but it was recommended that further comments were made to the Planning Inspector.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management shared images of the site location plan, site aerial photo and the proposed site layout plan. He explained that it was accepted as a well-designed proposal with the right mix of homes and met the policy requirements of this site. The main cause of contention related to the lack of footway between Keightley Way and No1, High Street. The pavement could not be implemented as part of the plan due to the steep bank on the north side of the High Street.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the Planners procured an independent highways consultant to review the application. This was sent to the highway authority (Suffolk County Council) and the Parish Council for comment. He then ran through the recommendations from the review report and the highway authority’s responses. He explained these would have been very material in their considerations when considering it again at Planning Committee for determination.

There were 14 recommendations made in the independent review. Those marked with a green cross were matters that didn’t significantly impact the appeal and those with a red R were material considerations which would influence how to defend the appeal.

He went through each recommendation in turn. Recommendations 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14 were marked with green crosses and not considered significant, 10 and 11 had some influence and 3, 4, 5 and 7 were marked with red Rs and were considered to be material and of relevance.

The highway authority stood by its original recommendations so was at odds with the independent consultant review.

The consultant’s review provided some concluding advice which relied upon paragraph 114 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated that there should be safe and suitable access to the site for all users. It was the lack of footway that concerned Members when reviewing the application before. Whilst it was accepted that the development was not likely to generate a significant volume of vehicle movements, access to and from the site by walking when accessing the local bus stops and facilities would be undertaken along a section of road that had no footway or minimal footway provision.

The consultant report also referenced the Manual for Streets guidance paragraph 7.2.14 where shared surface streets could be acceptable if there were less than 100 cars per hour at peak. If traffic data was provided by the applicant it would confirm the volume of traffic that used this route on a typical day and in turn advise the highway authority of the associated risk of impact on non-motorised movements.

Paragraph 116 of the NPPF stated that applications should give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas. Because the applicant has not provided traffic data in the assessment work it was considered that a safe route cannot be determined and therefore does not comply with the NPPF.

In addition, it was considered that the site has not demonstrated that it was able to conform to Suffolk Costal Local Plan, Policy SCLP7.1: Sustainable Transport. A planning condition could be provided that required a scheme of works to facilitate safe movement of pedestrians if the volume of movements exceeded 100 vehicles per hour (two-way) at peak hours. However, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management believed that the traffic survey should be at planning application stage and not at a discharge of conditions stage.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management concluded that the reason to defend dismissal of the appeal, or what would be the recommendation for refusal should it be presented to the committee for determination, was due to lack of conformity with the following policies and that he had specifically focused on pedestrians and not cyclists:

• Para 114 of the NPPF - no safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.
• Para 116 of the NPPF - does not give priority first to pedestrian movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
• Policy SCLP7.1: Sustainable Transport seeks that all available opportunities to enable and support travel on foot or public transport should be considered and taken; that sites should be located close to and provide safe pedestrian access to services and facilities; and, that development should reduce conflict between users of the transport network including pedestrians, cyclists, users of mobility vehicles and drivers and does not reduce road safety.

Due to the lack of footway between Keightley Way and No.1 High Street for approximately 71 metres the new occupants of this development would not have a safe pedestrian access into the village and to facilities to the east of the village. As no site-specific traffic data was included in the assessments submitted with the application it was considered that a safe and suitable route for all users to access local facilities cannot be determined and therefore this did not comply with the NPPF or Local Plan.

The above would form the response to the appeal from the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management. Although there is no objection from Suffolk County Council and this is an allocated site in the Local Plan, SCLP 7.1 expects matters like this to be addressed.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained it was a written representations process so there wouldn’t be a hearing or public enquiry and it would be determined based on the written submissions received. However, because of this the Planning Inspector has complete freedom as to what their decision will be. The Inspector must bear in mind all and every consideration previously presented, and they can make a decision for more reasons than just non-determination, for example the Inspector might not like the design or drainage. However, the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management expects the focus to be on highways.

The Chair thanked the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management for the comprehensive presentation and invited questions from Members.

Councillor Hedgley asked for a copy of the presentation and said he knew that the Parish Council and lead objector had already been contacted. He accepted that it was a difficult situation for the Planners as they recommended approval and now have to justify refusing it. He expressed his appreciation for all the work that had been done.

Councillor Ewart raised three points, the first regarding when the application timed out, the second if the planners were stymied and delayed by the responses received from Suffolk County Council and finally that she was concerned that Highways are not giving responses about how things really are, citing the Yoxford roundabout that was not being looked at in conjunction with a housing development 50 metres away. She asked if there was any way to support the planners further.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the application was quite old; it was originally submitted in 2022. It was progressed by the Principal Planner which ensured a good proposal came forward. However, there was a long lead time for it to reach the Planning Committee and obviously the recent tragic circumstances have added to the delay.  It also took some time for the Council to engage the independent consultant. He explained it was for the appellant to decide their own best interests and they knew the independent consultant report would probably support the Planning Committee’s view. They were faced with either waiting for it to go back to Committee or take it straight to appeal, which they probably would have done anyway had it been refused by Committee.

He explained that there was a conflict between Suffolk County Council Highways and the independent consultant and that it would be interesting to see what the Planning Inspector concluded. He was confident they have a sound position to take to the appeal though.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that the planners do work closely with the highway authority and there were a lot of projects going on across the District and County, including the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. He was confident that the highway authority did look at the planning applications thoroughly. He pointed out that highway impacts must be presented as severe and not just a slight impact, or demonstrate there isn’t the evidence presented to make a confident decision. He appreciated that this can be at odds with local opinion.

Councillor Ninnmey stated that although he didn’t make it to the site visit he was aware of the concerns about the lack of pavement. It was stated in the Local Plan that there were difficulties with this site and although it was a small development it was important to look at the accumulative effect on the existing community. If there was already a known difficulty surely the traffic assessment should be done.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management stated that there were instances where accumulative effects are considered, for example the land north of Conway Close and Swallow Close, Felixstowe. This current application could see some leniency and there could be a lower threshold required to undertake surveys.

Councillor Byatt stated that he knew the road well as it was a shortcut to Ipswich. He asked if the activities at the village hall and pedestrians travelling there had been considered as part of this application. He said that the stretch of road was never designed for that volume of traffic and the lack of footpath worried him immensely. He was concerned that Highways had not made a big deal about this. He also raised concerns about pedestrians walking to the pub at the bottom of the hill.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that Members did see the village hall as part of the site visit. He appreciated the concern of adding more people to the network and was aware of the pub and bus stop at the end of the village that didn’t have a footway.

The Chair pointed out that was one of the main discussion points. He thanked the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management and invited Councillor Fisher to take over the chair.

At this point Councillor Packard left the meeting briefly. He returned at 2.53pm and sat in the public gallery.

The Committee received report ES/2132 which related to Planning Application DC/24/24/2214/FUL. It was a retrospective application for continued use of an existing outbuilding as a holiday let, retention of alterations to the outbuilding and relocation of shed and to create an additional parking space.

The application went through the Referral Panel because Melton Parish Council objected, and the Referral Panel then referred it to Committee.

The Parish Council objected on the grounds that there was insufficient parking which contravened policy MEL6 and it did not comply with SCLP6.4 as the demand or need had not been clearly demonstrated. They were also concerned about the precedent it would set. They requested that a condition should be imposed preventing it from being sold off as a separate dwelling to the main property. There were no objections from the statutory consultees or the ward member.

The Planning Officer showed the site location plan and explained the site. Permission was granted in 2021 for a first-floor extension to the garage to be used as a playroom. Work carried out was not in line with the approved planning application and it has since been used as a holiday let.

The Planning Officer took Members through the approved floor plans and elevations and then showed the as built plans and elevations. She explained that the creation of a patio area had necessitated the relocation of the shed. She showed the additional planned parking so it now met the minimum requirements of MEL6.

Members were shown photographs of the building, seating area and the site of the proposed additional parking space and views from the surrounding area. Photographs from inside the building showed that there were no views of neighbouring gardens and properties.

The Planning Officer ran through material planning considerations which were addressed in the report:

Principle/compliance with policy
Design and Appearance
Impact upon residential amenity
Parking
Ecology/Biodiversity

Regarding the Parish Council’s objection that no need or demand has been demonstrated, the planning officer referred to the rural development supplementary planning document which demonstrated that there was an increasing need for holiday accommodation in the District. Because this was a small-scale unit within the settlement boundary, there were tourist attractions nearby, no adverse impacts had been identified, nor any oversaturation of small scale lets in the area it was felt that there was no need for the applicant to demonstrate the need.

The design and appearance was considered appropriate with no adverse impact on residential amenity and there was sufficient parking. Highways reviewed the application and made some recommendations and there were no objections from the Council’s ecology officer.

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

The Vice Chair thanked the officer for the presentation and invited questions from members.

Councillor Smithson asked if RAMs had been secured and if it would be subject to council tax as it was a separate dwelling. The Planning Officer confirmed that the RAMS payment was relevant and had been secured. She explained that it was just a holiday let and not a separate dwelling so not subject to separate council tax. The Principal Planner explained council tax status was not something they could confirm and it was not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the original application showed toilets and washing facilities. He found it odd that what was built was different to what was approved.

The Planning Officer explained that the 2021 application was for a sitting area and playroom above which showed a shower and toilet facilities at first floor level. 

Councillor Hedgley asked when the building was completed but the Planning Officer didn’t have the dates to hand.

Councillor Ewart asked for clarity that what was built was not as planned but planners were unable to say if it was signed off.

The Principal Planner explained that the Planning Officer had gone through the differences between what was approved and what was built but the completion date would be known by Building Control.

Councillor Ewart asked if there was enough parking considering all the submissions from the public. The Planning Officer confirmed that it conformed with policy MEL6 and Highways had reviewed the proposals and had no objection. The applicant had stated they were happy to comply with providing four parking spaces within three months of the date of decision.

Councillor Ewart asked why it was acceptable that accommodation should be here in a domestic environment full of homes that was away from the tourist area.

The Planning Officer explained that it had been assessed against policy SCLP6.5 and were confident that it met the criteria.

Councillor Ewart referenced the request from the Parish Council that there should be a condition preventing it being sold as a separate property. She was concerned that it could be sold as a separate dwelling and that the Council should be working with the Parish Council.

The Planning Officer explained that in accordance with paragraph 56 of the NPPF they would only impose conditions where necessary and to a minimum. The planners didn’t feel that this condition was relevant and that the holiday let condition should be sufficient.

Councillor Byatt asked how the Council monitored that it wasn’t used by one person for more than 56 days and what influence the Council had in making sure that the safety elements were there and better than in a private property eg smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management answered that any reputable owner should be keeping clear records, should the Council check the 56 day rule. This is an area that the Council would need to explore more closely in the coming years, especially with Sizewell C.  He believed that holiday lets did have a greater level of Building Regulations as they were treated like a commercial property.

There were no further questions so the Vice Chair invited Councillor Nigel Brown from Melton Parish Council to speak.

Councillor Brown explained that this was the third application in the area for a holiday let and that residents were concerned that this trend could change the nature of the area. Although there was demand in the District this was not a tourist destination like Aldeburgh or Southwold, but a former garage in the middle of a suburban housing estate, and was not convinced a need for this type of accommodation in this area had been clearly demonstrated. He also pointed out that there was no provision for those with disabilities. He concluded by asking the Council to look at its guidance for new holiday accommodation in residential areas when reformulating the Local Plan.

The Vice Chair thanked Councillor Brown and invited questions from Members.

Councillor Ninnmey asked how the Parish Council responded to the original application. Councillor Brown responded that he believed they didn’t object.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the response would be the same if the original application was for a separate living space.

Councillor Brown believed the response would be the same as to this retrospective application. The Parish Council was concerned that anyone could turn an annexe into accommodation and justify it by saying that East Suffolk is a tourist area.

Councillor Ewart asked about the demand for holidays in Melton and if there were children on the estate.

Councillor Brown replied that he didn’t feel that Melton itself was a tourist destination. He didn’t have exact figures regarding children but there were children living on the estate and a lot of children walked through the estate to the local schools.

There were no further questions so the Vice Chair invited the applicant Mr David Cannon to speak.

Mr Cannon explained that in 2021 planning permission was granted for a playroom and it was envisaged as a place for his in-laws to stay when visiting. Circumstances changed for his in-laws, so it was then decided to use the annexe as a holiday let. He stated that they had received very positive feedback and reviews from all those who stayed and would no longer be parking the minibus in the nearby layby as he was changing jobs.

Councillor Hedgley asked when the build was completed and if the applicant really thought he didn’t need planning permission for this type of building.

Mr Cannon said it was completed on 15 April 2023 and that he didn’t think you needed planning permission.

Councillor Ninnmey asked where the children played now as the original application was for a playroom.

Mr Cannon explained that it was originally for the older children, for playing games like darts but that they still used the space when friends come over.

Councillor Byatt asked how the business was doing.

Mr Cannon said they had taken 80 bookings since 1 December and there had been only one weekend without a booking.  He stated that guests come for 2/3/4 nights and bring their dogs. Guests were given recommendations for local pubs and attractions, often walking into Woodbridge and were spending their disposable income in the local area. They have also had some guests travel by train and he felt the impact mentioned by local residents had been over exaggerated.

Councillor Ewart queried about the minibus and how there was a contradiction between what the applicant was trying to achieve and what local residents expected living in that area.

Mr Cannon explained that his current employment had a club minibus which he sometimes parked in the nearby layby. However this employment was ending this month so the bus would no longer be parked there. He felt that by providing four parking spaces and removing the minibus it would reduce the impact on neighbours.

There were no further questions so the Vice Chair invited Members to debate.

Councillor Hedgley expressed concern about retrospective applications. He felt it put pressure on councillors, could lead to appeals and he wanted to support people who did abide by the rules. However, he acknowledged that it needed to be looked at as a normal application so it was his opinion to approve but with a heavy heart.

Councillor Smithson said it was frustrating when rules weren’t followed. Morally she found it unpleasant but could see no planning reason to refuse.

Councillor Ninnmey stated that he’d seen this happening since the 1970s having lived in the West Country. He agreed with Councillor Brown and the Parish Council that the Local Plan needed to address this issue. He was minded to support, but the retrospective nature was of concern. He liked people to be upfront at the time of application.

Councillor Byatt shared the concerns about retrospective applications but he felt they should support a local business. He was satisfied with the conditions and therefore would vote to approve.

Councillor Ewart believed there should be a condition not to sell separately and agreed that this matter should be considered with the review of the Local Plan as otherwise this will keep going unless there was a moratorium. She felt that new estates should have criteria that you can’t make holiday lets. Therefore, she would be abstaining.

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

RESOLVED

Approve subject to the draft 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 carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the following approved documents:

- Application Form received on 17 June 2024.
- Drawing no. 6508 Survey rev D (Survey Drawing), received on 19 August 2024.

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

3. The premises herein referred to shall be used for holiday letting accommodation or business tourism and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987). The duration of occupation by any one person, or persons shall not exceed a period of 56 days in total in any calendar year.

The owners/operators of the unit hereby referred to shall maintain an up-to-date Register of all lettings, which shall include the names and addresses of all those persons occupying the unit during each individual letting.  The said Register shall be made available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To ensure that the development is occupied only as bona-fide holiday accommodation, having regard to the tourism objectives of the Local Plan.

4. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, the areas within the site shown on Drawing No. 6508 Rev. D for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure, shall be provided in their entirety, and thereafter shall be retained and used for no other purposes.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient space for the on-site parking of vehicles is provided and maintained where on-street parking and manoeuvring would be detrimental to highway safety to users of the highway; and promote sustainable modes of travel.

5. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, the areas within the site shown on Drawing No. 6508 Rev. D for the purposes of secure cycle storage shall be provided in their entirety, and thereafter the areas shall be retained, maintained, and used for no other purposes. 

Reason: To ensure that sufficient areas for secure cycle storage are provided in accordance with Suffolk Guidance for Parking (2023) to promote sustainable travel.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended, or any Order revoking or re-enacting the said Order with or without modification, no new windows or openings shall be inserted/added into the holiday let at first floor level. 
 
Reason: To avoid the possibility of unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

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. Certain species, including bats and nesting birds, receive legal protection, primarily under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) (as amended) and the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended). Should a protected species be encountered during development work must stop immediately and advice on how to proceed be sought from a suitably qualified ecologist.

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.