Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Deacon, Ninnmey and McCallum.

 

Councillor Folley attended as substitute for Councillor Deacon.

Councillor Bennett declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 6 as he was ward member. He also stated that he had taken advice regarding pre-determination and was satisfied there was no issue.

Councillor Reeves declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 7 as he was the ward member.

Councillor Folley declared a Non-Registerable Interest in item 6 as the applicant had known her all her life, but she did not feel she was pre-determined.

There were no declarations of lobbying made.

On the proposal of Councillor Folley, seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2024 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2253. The Enforcement Officer explained there had been three updates since the report was published.

A.3 243 London Road South, Lowestoft – they had complied except for the advertising element, so a letter had been issued requesting full compliance by 20 February 2025.

D.1 Paddock 2, The Street, Lound – went to court yesterday and there was a guilty plea. They were fined £80, £32 victim surcharge and £1,955 costs awarded.

A new notice has been issued for 39 London Road North, Lowestoft for a breach for installing shutters in a conservation area. The notice was served on 14 January which would come into effect on 13 February with a compliance date of 13 August 2025.

Councillor Bennett asked about A.5 (Storage Land, Felixstowe Road, Levington) and if the Council expected the land to return to agricultural use.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that it needed to be returned to a natural state rather than put into agricultural use.

Councillor Bennett asked what was expected of the applicant in relation to C.1 (Portlight, The Ferry, Felixstowe). 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that this related to outbuildings being used as a hairdressing/beauty salon. In light of the enforcement notice and the dismissed appeal the use would have to cease by 27 May. He explained that the buildings could stay it was just the use that needed to cease. 

Councillor Bennett was struck by the detail and amount of time and resources involved with enforcement. He had some further questions which he would send to the officer directly.

On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor Reeves it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 25 November 2024 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2254 which related to Planning Application DC/24/2939/VOC. It was a variation to condition no.1 of planning permission C/06/1246 (Retention of decking and seating area & erection of fence) which sought to extend the hours of use by patrons of an external rear terrace seating area associated with an existing café/restaurant premises at 1 Bent Hill, Felixstowe.  It was considered to represent unsustainable development as it was contrary to the adopted Local Plan, including Policies SCLP 10.3 and SCLP 11.2, and to the National Planning Policy Framework, due to the high potential for harm to neighbouring amenity resulting from noise disturbance as a result of the proposed extended evening hours. 

The application was presented to Planning Committee South for determination at the request of the Referral Panel.

The Planning Officer explained there had been four letters of objection from neighbouring residents. The Planning Officer ran through a presentation showing the site location and photographs and pointed out that the café had an elevated position. He explained that the café had a licence to sell alcohol from 9am to 11pm daily.

He showed the views through the french doors to the terrace and views from the terrace to the adjacent property’s garden. He pointed out that the terrace was surrounded by a 1.57m fence, which was part of the planning permission granted in 2006 and would be retained.

He explained the main consideration was the increased potential for loss of amenity to neighbouring residents from noise and erosion of privacy during evening hours. The application was recommended for refusal as it was considered to be unsustainable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policies SCLP 10.3 and SCLP 11.2.

Councillor Folley stated that she knew the area well and asked the Planning Officer to confirm if the big grey building next to the café was the local nightclub. The Planning Officer confirmed that there was a nightclub on that road but he couldn’t confirm if it was still operating.

Councillor Hedgley appreciated that the neighbours were worried about noise but wondered if they were also worried about being overlooked. The Planning Officer said that residents did raise this issue but it didn’t warrant the recommendation for refusal. He reiterated that the refusal was due to concerns about noise.

Councillor Hedgley asked if music was played on the terrace during the current hours of operation. The Planning Officer explained that there were no current restrictions on the premises to prevent music being played or to keep windows closed during operational hours.

Councillor Hedgley asked if music past 6pm would be the problem. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management advised him to ask the applicant, but should the Committee be minded to approve the application they could impose conditions.

Councillor Reeves referenced the Cork Bar on the seafront which was refused permission to use their balcony. He wondered if because that was refused would this not mean this one should also be refused.

The Planning Officer was not familiar with the other application and said it would have depended on whether the balcony was at the front or rear. Councillor Bennett questioned if this was relevant.

Councillor Daly focused on the night-time economy and that Felixstowe was a tourist town. He asked if there was weight in East Suffolk’s planning rules to encourage the night-time economy and if so, had it been applied adequately.

The Planning Officer explained there was a policy supporting the town centre and that most planning matters needed to balance economic reasons with the residents’ ability to enjoy their properties. In this case it was felt that the potential impact outweighed any benefit to the town centre night-time economy.

Councillor Smithson said there were very few residences around this café, and it wasn’t really a high-density living area but mainly businesses and shops. She pointed out that the balcony wasn’t very big so there wouldn’t be many people outside. She didn’t feel it was big enough for noise to be a consideration.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said noise was a consideration but it would be covered in debate.

Councillor Daly acknowledged there were four objections and asked if there were any responses in support. The Planning Officer stated that none had been received in support.

Councillor Folley asked when planning permission was granted for other premises in the area that created a lot of noise, including Bonds, Cork Bar and Bandbox. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said it was not possible to get the planning history up immediately but there were lengthy histories across all those properties mentioned.

Councillor Folley wanted to know how long these night-time entertainment businesses had been open. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management confirmed it went back to 2006.

The Chair invited Councillor Stuart Bird from Felixstowe Town Council’s Planning Committee to speak.

Councillor Bird explained that Felixstowe Town Council recommended approval and stressed that Felixstowe was a tourist town where the night-time economy was vital. He explained that businesses had been impacted by Covid, the cost of living crisis and rising costs so they needed support. He stated that although Policies SCLP 10.3 and 11.2 had been mentioned, policies SCLP 12.14 and 6.1 should have been given equal weighting. He pointed out there had been no objections to this application from the Environmental Protection Team and their response to the original application stated the outside decking area could be used to 10pm. He felt it was caveat emptor; if you live in a seaside town there would be businesses open at night-time. He pointed out that there was a takeaway next door and other nearby venues that were open until much later. He felt that only opening until 9.30pm seemed reasonable and asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Daly asked if the Town Council received representations from people who didn’t want this to happen.

Councillor Bird was unable to confirm, saying that as the Town Council had considered many applications since this one it was difficult to remember. He explained that they would have looked at what had been submitted on the planning portal at the time they assessed the application and they dealt with applications very robustly. The Town Council accepted there would be a degree of noise but as there were other nearby venues open later that would cause noise it seemed reasonable to allow this to also open later.

Councillor Hedgley asked if music was played at the venue and would it be heard outside.

Councillor Bird said this would have to be clarified with the owner. He assumed that when the doors were opened there may be some noise spillage but he didn’t believe that music would be played on the veranda. He mentioned the likely noise from neighbouring properties, including the takeaway, which was open until 22:40. He stressed it was important to think about the context. This wasn’t a café in the middle of a housing estate where there were no other takeways or bars, but it was just yards away from other venues that would create noise and were open considerably later.

Councillor Folley stated that she had googled The Grand opening times and it was open until 3am.

The Applicant Lisa Allen was invited to make her representation. She felt that the objections from the residents all read the same. She confirmed that there would be no smoking on the terrace or people looking over the fence. There had been no-smoking on the terrace for seven years and it would remain that way. She also said as the fence was quite tall it was very unlikely that anyone would look over the fence.

She explained there was a speaker in the conservatory and music was played during the day and possibly slightly louder in the evening. She pointed out that there were only 16 seats on the balcony and the customers the café attracted were of an age that wouldn’t cause problems. She felt 9.30pm was very sociable hours and the police certainly wouldn’t come out to complaints of noise at 9.30pm.

She got on well with the lady whose balcony was right behind the cafe and had informed her that she was submitting a planning application, although she had then submitted an objection. She pointed out that none of the objectors had turned up today and generally felt the complaints were unfair. She said 9.30pm was not late and because there was no cover outside it would be lucky if it was used for 150 evenings a year. It had not been open since October last year because of the weather and it wasn’t in use all the time. She pointed out that there were similar objections when she got the premises licence seven years ago, but they had received no complaints in the seven years they had operated.

Councillor Hedgley asked if music would be heard by neighbouring properties when people went outside and could they control the sound.

The Applicant explained that there were no speakers outside and only one small speaker in the conservatory. She didn’t think any of the houses nearby would hear it from inside their houses.

Councillor Bennett asked how long she had run this café.

The Applicant said it was seven years.

The Planning Officer felt it would be useful to touch on the reference to the Environmental Protection Team. They did not object to this application and no formal complaints had been received whilst the café had been operating.

Councillor Smithson felt that the opening of this café for longer added to the night-time economy. It offered an alternative and added a lot of value. She had never seen poor behaviour there so was minded to approve.

Councillor Daly was in accord with Councillor Smithson and stressed it was important that no complaints had been received to date. The Council should be supporting the night-time activity and keep Felixstowe a thriving destination so he was minded to go against the recommendation.

Councillor Hedgley had visited the venue years ago and couldn’t find any reason to object to this variation.

Councillor Reeves was inclined to go against the Officer recommendation but thought the residents had accumulative effect. The Soundbox was well soundproofed so sound didn’t travel. Having open french doors meant sound would travel.

Councillor Folley had read the objections but felt they really needed to boost the night-time economy. She said lots of places were varying their structure of business post Covid and as a result of the cost of living crisis. The Council should be supporting them and so she would go against the Officer recommendation.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management reminded Members that because it was likely to be an overturn it required a reason for going against the officer's recommendation.

Councillor Smithson moved that they went against the Officer recommendation on the point that Councillor Bird made about supporting the night-time economy and that this was not a quiet residential street and referenced policies SCLP 12.14 and 6.1.

On the proposal of Councillor Smithson, seconded by Councillor Daly it was by majority vote

RESOLVED

That approval be given to allow the variation of consent to extend the hours of use of an external rear terrace seating area to 9.30pm.

The Committee received report ES/2255 which related to Planning Application DC/24/2810/VOC. The application sought a variation of condition (VOC) of a previously approved reserved matters application at Brightwell Lakes. The VOC related to both the outline consent (DC/20/1234/VOC amended scheme to that approved under Outline DC/17/1435/OUT)) and permitted reserved matters for Phase W1 only, reference DC/21/4002/ARM. The variation sought to amend the approved plans, to allow for changes to the layout and proposed house types to better accommodate a suitable mix of affordable housing that correlated with the requirements of registered providers to take forward and acquire the affordable homes on this phase of the site.

The proposals sought to amend the number of approved homes on this parcel from 195, as approved under both W1 and W1a, to 174. The Section 106 agreement on the Outline planning permission secured a 25% affordable housing allocation across the entire site. Each phase may deliver a varied percentage of affordable housing so long as 25% is achieved overall. 

Of the 195 originally approved on this phase, in December 2022 for W1 and March 2023 for W1a, 80 (41%) were proposed as affordable housing. This greater provision in this early phase was based upon Registered Provider ambitions at that time. The replan of this area was necessary because of a low level of Registered Provider interest and specific desires for fewer flats. It resulted in the loss of 21 dwellings in this parcel only and proposed a total of 44 units of affordable housing, amounting to 25%. This proposal met the obligation in terms of secured affordable homes as consented at outline stage and it would not reduce the amount of affordable homes to be delivered across the site overall. The amended layout was acceptable and met the character banding requirements secured within the outline consent. 

It was delegated to Planning Committee South at the request of the Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management due to the public interest in affordable housing on this strategic site and to recognise the current challenging position many home builders faced in securing Registered Provider investment in s106 affordable homes.

The Principal Planner (Major Sites) ran through a presentation showing aerial photographs and the site location plan. She explained that the site lay to the southeast of the development near the A12 entrance. She explained it would be a new condition for W1 and only two perimeter blocks would be affected. W1a had begun to be built out and this was the area under consideration.

The Principal Planner gave an overview of the development of the site since outline planning permission was granted in 2018. Although there had been variations over the course of development the master plan had remained as consented. Taylor Wimpey was well underway with development and delivery of the first phase of 600 new homes, public open space, primary school and sports pitches expected by 2028. The second phase from 2029 to 2033 would deliver 650 homes, public open space and primary and secondary schools. The final phase was due to be delivered from 2034 to 2040. The Principal Planner showed a selection of photographs of the site showing the progress so far.

She explained that the variation was required because there was no longer the interest in one-bedroom flats for social housing from the Registered Providers, unlike when outline consent was granted. Taylor Wimpey had worked with East Suffolk’s Housing team and providers to look at alternative proposals.

The Principal Planner showed the housing mix, comparing what was approved with what was now proposed. She explained that the s106 agreement allowed the site to be looked at as a whole, as long as the overall percentage of affordable housing met the 25% requirement.

She explained that although this parcel had a reduction of affordable homes it had been considered very carefully. It was recognised that developers needed to engage with Registered Providers and the housing team earlier. It was also pointed out that East Suffolk’s Housing Team didn’t have the ability to take on additional housing due to their current commitments.

The Principal Planner shared several boulevard street scenes and explained there was a good mix of 2, 2.5 and 3 storey properties in the parcel and townhouses had replaced the flats to keep the same 3-storey look. By reducing the number of flats there were now fewer parking spaces, so there was more garden space. There were still good links between the site and the boulevard and it would still be an attractive walking area for pedestrians. 

Objections had been received in relation to landscaping from Woodbridge Town Council and Waldringfield Parish Council. A strip of planting had been lost because of the changes to the parking courts. However, the Landscaping Officer was happy with the proposed changes and had suggested tree pits as a condition to allow enough space for the trees to fully mature.

The Principal Planner showed the key planning considerations. It didn’t change the principle of development or the established design principles. She reiterated that although it was a reduction in affordable homes it still met the 25% requirement as per the s106 agreement and the Council’s Design, Landscape and Ecology officers were all satisfied with the variation.

The Principal Planner concluded that the changes proposed reflected Taylor Wimpey’s commitment to delivering a sustainable and viable housing mix that met market and social demands. 

The recommendation was to approve subject to conditions and informative being agreed. The conditions had not been included in the report as officers needed to look at the outline conditions and the reserved matters, which was a lengthy process. They would be working with Taylor Wimpey to ensure the conditions were accurate and where the outline permission had a few that hadn’t been met yet, they would ensure that triggers of these conditions could effectively be met so they didn’t issue an already breached consent.

Councillor Daly referred to paragraphs 6.19 and 6.20 from the report which related to responses to landscaping concerns from the parish and town councils. Taylor Wimpey agreed that some areas of landscaping would be increased and they would look at the planting mix. He asked if the planners would be making Taylor Wimpey do this.

The Principal Planner explained that the condition would look to ensure that the mix was appropriate. Taylor Wimpey couldn’t change all the planting areas because parking spaces and drives need to be a certain size. Taylor Wimpey worked closely with the Planning and Landscaping officers to ensure compliance.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said there was a constant process of reserved matters applications and discharge of conditions coming through. There was constant interaction and any planting failures would be picked up and addressed as they went along.

Councillor Fisher asked if by reducing affordable housing but still meeting 25% did that mean the developer was going to deliver more than 25%.

The Principal Planner explained that this parcel originally had a higher percentage than 25% and some had less, but overall the whole site would meet the agreed 25%.

Councillor Reeves explained that he had pushed for this to come to the planning committee as he felt it shouldn’t have been an officer decision. He was very pleased with the work that Jordan at Taylor Wimpey had done with Waldringfield Parish Council. 

Councillor Bennett reminded Members this was the time for questions, not debate.

Councillor Smithson asked if there was a ten-year maintenance schedule and if anything that died would be replaced.

The Principal Planner said the condition was for five years. The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management said this was where they had been very proactive on several sites recently and had employed a Natural Environment Advisor. There was at least weekly engagement from the team to check on the site.

Councillor Folley asked if there was a restriction in place that meant the developer couldn’t reduce affordable housing on any further parcels of land. She feared that they would end up with the last parcel not being able to deliver the agreed percentage and pointed out there were 5,000 on East Suffolk’s waiting list for social housing.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management didn’t think this was the case. He explained that some parcels coming forward were the denser elements around the centre as well as the lowest density area. They were constantly tracking the proportion of affordable homes and accepted that there would be parcels that would have to revert to over 25%. He hoped there would be improvements nationally with housing providers taking on s106 properties.

Councillor Hedgley agreed with Councillor Folley and felt very cynical.

Christine Fisher Kay, the Tree Warden for Waldringfield Parish Council, was invited to make her representation. She was pleased to see an increase in the number of trees to be planted that included native birch and hornbeam but she expressed concern that they all had narrow canopies and they would need irrigated pits. She felt that this area should have maximum tree canopy for shade and moisture so a spreading form would be better. She would also like to see oaks, sweet chestnut, holly, hazel, hawthorn and cherry included. She had not seen a management and maintenance plan but as the soil was free draining and the area experienced droughts, sometimes lasting for weeks, the trees would all need irrigation. There would also have to be protection for the areas underneath the hard work construction so there was space for the plants to grow.

She expressed concern at the use of ornamental, non-native shrubs that supported little wildlife and were poisonous and irritants. She would prefer more native plants in place of these exotics. She asked who would maintain the hedging. She appreciated there were hedgehog holes and bat boxes, but they needed insects to eat and suggested a climber or trellises in every garden as there were no bushes for birds to nest and roost in.

The Chair thanked Christine for her knowledgeable contribution but asked her to finish as she had exceeded her three-minute allocation.

Councillor Smitson asked if she thought five years was long enough to check a tree was viable. Christine believed ten years would be better and there should be replacement planting for any that died.

Councillor Folley referred to East Suffolk’s ambition to restore ecosystems and biodiversity and felt that the use of exotics was replacing not restoring ecosystems. She asked if the use of natives would be better. Christine said the more natives used the better.

Councillor Daly asked if she or the Parish Council had approached the applicant. Christine explained she had contributed with feedback to the phases but not had any response personally.

Councillor Bennett asked about native species and if there was a difference in growth with the natives to what was proposed. Christine said oak wasn’t that slow but silver birch was very fast growing. She explained that small trees grew quicker than the big root-ball trees that were proposed.

Jordan Last from Taylor Wimpey, the Applicant, was invited to speak. He explained that he had worked closely with East Suffolk on this application and the proposal complied with the s106 agreement and outline planning permission. They had reworked this parcel in response to feedback from registered providers and it complied with design guidelines and Nationally Described Space Standards. There was also a reduction in parking spaces which was received positively by the Planning officers. He had worked with the Landscaping officer with regards to planting and was happy with the condition. He was willing to look at the planting mix further to ensure the landscaping was suitable and that it enhanced the biodiversity and supported place making. He concluded that this application was a practical set of amendments that remained in full compliance with the planning permission and s106 agreement.

Councillor Smithson asked that because of the long build out would it be possible to extend maintenance from five to ten years. Jordan said he wouldn’t object to it and confirmed that on completion of each parcel they conducted a landscape audit.

Councillor Daly was pleased to hear consideration was being given to the planting as a result of what had been heard. He asked if they would be looking for guidance from the Officers to do this.

Jordan explained they were reviewing trigger points within the conditions so they could capture the landscaping timetable as part of that. He would need to take advice from the Planning Officers.

Councillor Folley raised concerns about the lack of social housing providers. She asked if they would end up with an old school social housing estate on the final parcel if this situation kept happening.

Jordan explained there was an over subscription of affordable homes on this parcel. The housing providers would accept apartments but not in a cluster. They were still aiming to achieve broadly 25% on each parcel.  He noted that early engagement with registered providers was a good point and they needed to bring discussions forward so they had a much more robust delivery.

Councillor Folley asked if they engaged with providers before they started building.

Jordan explained that they didn’t engage until preparing the reserved matters application which is why there were now in this situation. However in the future the discussions would be brought further forward.

Councillor Reeves thanked Jordan for meeting with Waldringfield Parish Council, himself and Councillor Beaven. He asked how the government’s removal of the first home element of affordable homes would affect their plans and how did he see the mix changing. Jordan said it should be replaced with something else but he didn’t know what at the moment. They were looking at the tenures in the s106 to get better flexibility.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained that market conditions were very different now to how it was when the outline planning permission was granted. A report from December 2024 said 17,000 homes across the country were stalled due to a lack of registered providers taking them on. He explained that in December’s NPPF the expectation to achieve 25% first homes was removed, however this applied to new applications so wouldn’t impact this development.

The Planning Officer explained that non-native species was not a dirty word. Resilient species were now required and they did provide biodiversity. Landscaping Officer Ruth Chittock joined via Zoom at this point. She explained that improving biodiversity and open spaces where there was habitat recreation was right. This was a tight planting area so planting an oak in a 1m square bed was not viable. She had worked with Jordan to get in as many trees as possible, with the right trees in the right place but she could work with Jordan further to get the right mix. The Landscaping Officer explained that native wasn’t always the right choice and they looked at planting plans in great detail. They planted natives in large open spaces where there was room for them to grow and where they weren’t close to houses. These were tight urban streets so they would get the best balance that they could.

Councillor Reeves asked if the poisonous and irritant plants should be avoided.

The Landscape Officer said it was unlikely that people would eat poisonous items and she was not aware of any poisonous plants on this site. She didn’t feel it was a huge concern.

Councillor Smithson asked about the maintenance of hedges, if it would be by a management company and how much it would add to the housing costs.

The Landscape Officer explained they were small ornamental hedges in front gardens and so it would be the residents’ responsibility to maintain these. Open spaces would be the responsibility of the management company, there would be management regimes and a charge for the residents.

Councillor Folley asked if this site was farmland and trees. She had concerns about non-native planting and not meeting the directive of restoring biodiversity.

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management explained the site was originally lowland heathland that went to agricultural use and then a quarry. Most of the habitat loss predated the Brightwell Lakes permissions. However, there was lowland heath re-creation and significant biodiversity net gains across the site.

Councillor Smithson expressed disappointment about the reduction of affordable housing. She could accept this variation but was concerned that by the end of the site’s development the percentage of affordable housing would shrink. 

The Head of Planning, Building Control and Coastal Management pointed out that the s106 legal agreement stated 25% must be affordable so if the overall proportion changed it would need an application. Most builders saw the value in bringing forward the affordable housing element. It was important to adapt to market conditions but hopefully things would improve in the coming years and he encouraged people to stay optimistic.

Councillor Hedgley shared the same concerns of fellow councillors and feared they would end up with less than 25% in the end which would be awful.

Councillor Reeves said the meetings he’d had with Taylor Wimpey were reassuring. He didn’t have any objection to this variation to the affordable element on this parcel.

Councillor Fisher was concerned about the loss but he felt the design looked better and he preferred houses to flats. It was a shame the flats couldn’t be replaced with smaller houses to keep the numbers up.

Councillor Bennett concurred. With the reluctance of providers and current market conditions it meant they had to be pragmatic. He was reassured that there was good communication going on with regards to the landscaping aspect.

On the proposal of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was by majority vote

 

RESOLVED

 

That approval be given subject to agreement of conditions below.

Conditions:

• All Outline Conditions relating to DC/20/1234/VOC; as amended to reflect all discharge of condition applications; and reserved matters and any trigger points to allow for an accurate consent to be issued.

• All Reserved matters conditions as applied to DC/21/4002/ARM and DC/21/4003/ARM as amended to reflect current layout and any previous technical consents.