Meeting Details

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

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 January 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2291. The Enforcement Officer said an additional enforcement had come into force since the report was written for land adjacent to 146 Kirton Road, Trimley St Martin for unauthorised change of use of land. The notice was served on 18 February and would come into effect on 20 March with a 3 month compliance period. The notice was to cease the unauthorised use and to remove certain items from the land.

Councillor McCallum expressed her thanks to the officer for his timely responses and assistance.

Councillor Ninnmey asked for further information about A.5 – Storage Land at Levington. He noted that the compliance should have been 19 February and he was very concerned about opportunistic use of land for containers in and around Felixstowe.

The Enforcement Officer explained there was planning permission in place but the use was not in line with what was granted. There had been various appeals. Officers had visited the site today and would look at the next steps because of the visit. There had been significant works but currently there was not full compliance.
 
Councillor Folley asked if the enforcement notice for land adjacent to 146 Kirton Road related to the same people on another property. The Enforcement Officer was not able to declare who the notice had been served to as that was redacted information.

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

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 28 January 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2292. It was a part retrospective application which sought to regularise works that were not undertaken in accordance with a previous planning permission, reference DC/21/4083/FUL (a demountable workshop, three containers and associated fencing and parking). The application also sought permission for the addition of a storage container and a self-contained lavatory unit. The site was on land within the Garrison Lane car park in Felixstowe. The application was brought before Members because the development was on land owned by East Suffolk Council and was therefore required to be determined by the Planning Committee. 

There had been no objections from statutory consultees or the Town Council.

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included site plans and photographs. Planning permission was granted in 2021 but the works carried out were not fully in compliance with the permission granted. The original permission was for 3 x 40 foot containers and workshop with parking to be enclosed by a fence. The Planning Officer showed the differences between the 2021 permission and the current application, pointing out that the size and orientation had changed and that the Applicant wished to install an additional container unit and a containerised toilet over a mounted cesspit. It was noted that the containers had been painted green to be less visible and there was some screening by trees. The Planners were happy that the visual impact was acceptable.

The Planning Officer showed elevations and information about the toilet. It was noted that the Applicant had reserved the right to install a different unit depending on what was available at the time of installation. The container may be a high cube container instead which was 1 foot higher than a standard container. The Planning Officer explained that they were recommending a condition to confirm exactly what would be installed before installation took place.

There were some concerns about the impact on the car park from the vehicle emptying the toilet. However, the toilet was unlikely to be heavily used and it would only need emptying once a year and the vehicle wouldn’t interfere with the parking bays. There was a condition asking for a management plan to be provided.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Councillors had no questions for the Planning Officer.  The Chair invited Graham Phelps from the Lions Club (Applicant) to make his representation.

Mr Phelps explained that the landlord, East Suffolk Council, objected to the development because they were unhappy with the toilet provision. The Lions Club originally thought that FACTs, who are located nearby, would allow them access to electricity, water and toilet facilities. However they withdrew access to the toilet which is why they had put in this application. He explained that they had received a £6k grant from East Suffolk for the works. They had kept their landlord informed about their application and reasons for it and they received an email yesterday from which they expected East Suffolk to withdraw their objection as the Lions Club had complied with all the legal requirements.

Councillor McCallum asked who their landlord was. Mr Phelps replied that it was East Suffolk Council Property and Places. Councillor McCallum expressed confusion as to why the Committee was approving subject to conditions.

Councillor Bennett explained that they were dealing with the planning matters and that the matter of the landlord shouldn’t impact how the committee assessed the planning merits of the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained the committee could grant or deny. It would then be up to the landowner to decide if it could go ahead.

Councillor Smithson asked about the orientation of the containers, why they had changed and for further information about the toilet.

Mr Phelps explained that their landlord gave permission for the 2021 planning application. He explained that the Lions Club couldn’t use the FACTS toilet due to gender issues and it was essential that they had a toilet on site.

The Planning Officer clarified that the layout size and shape had changed from the 2021 application.

Councillor Daly noted that the report said there were no objections. The Planning Officer explained that paragraph 6.27 referenced the objection from East Suffolk Council Property and Place. Councillor Daly asked if the issue would be resolved if planning permission was granted. The Planning Officer explained that it wouldn’t and the Applicant would still need consent from the landowner.

The Chair reminded members to stay focused on the planning merits.

Councillor Smithson said there were lots of charities in the area and there was a lack of storage. She felt a toilet was definitely needed.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if there was a public toilet nearby but that he was minded to agree with the Officer recommendation. Councillor Bennett explained there was a public toilet near Lidl but it was often closed due to ASB.

Councillor McCallum felt it was largely the same as the 2021 application so was minded to approve.

On the proposal of Councillor Ninnmey, seconded by Councillor McCallum, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the application should be approved subject to the conditions below.

Conditions:

1. Standard Time Limit

2. Approved Plans/Documents 

3. Full details of appearance of Storage Container to be provided prior to installation

4. Full details of appearance of Toilet Unit to be provided prior to installation

5. Management Plan to be provided to set out how the toilet will be emptied and maintained without detrimental impact to the public carpark. 

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. 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.

The Committee received report ES/2293. The proposed development sought permission to reposition the parking in front of the Pavilion to widen the pathway, enlarge the decking pathway leading onto the pier and to locate a children's carousel and ticket kiosk on the promenade. 

The application was presented to the committee because the land on which the development was proposed was owned by East Suffolk Council. Southwold Town council had also raised an objection to the proposal.  Despite being a North Area item, due to the high volume of cases in the area it was determined that the South Area Committee could determine the application in this case for there to be a timely decision.

The Senior Planner ran though a presentation and showed existing and proposed site plans, elevations and block plans. The proposed parking layout would give a larger and safer pedestrian area between the cars and the Pavilion together with a safe buffer between the end of the parking spaces and the highway boundary. 

Aerial photographs of the site were shared and the red line marked the highways boundary to demonstrate how the parking would be safe. Members were shown photographs of the decking area to be infilled and the site where the carousel and pay box would be located. The Senior Planner explained that the carousel and pay box would only be in situ from May to September and removed outside of those times. It was considered there was still sufficient space for emergency vehicles to manoeuvre in the area.

The Senior Planner ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. The proposal was not considered to add a great danger to highway safety, would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene or the Conservation Area, would provide public benefits, would not substantially impede the flow of pedestrian traffic along the promenade and would not harm the amenity of neighbours. It would comply with the relevant policies within the Local Plan therefore the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Folley asked if there had been a big reduction in accessible parking at the front. 

The Senior Planner explained there was a slight reduction but there were additional spaces in the adjacent car park. Highways and ESC were happy with the proposed levels of disabled parking and they had received no objections on this matter.

Councillor Bennett asked for specific numbers. The Senior Planner explained it was a reduction from 6 to 2 but there were 16 spaces in the car park.

Councillor Reeves asked if the parking was free or charged. The Senior Planner said it was currently free although he thought it was likely to be charged for in the future. However this was not part of the planning application.

Councillor Smithson asked about the Town Council objection to the booth. The Senior Planner said the Town Council didn’t feel a booth was needed. The Senior Planner explained that the booth was not a permanent installation so it could be removed at any time and would be removed each winter.

Councillor Simon Flunder from Southwold Town Council was invited to make his representation. The Town Council had no issues with infill and the parking changes and they supported the business of the pier. However, they felt the carousel would be better sited on the pier for security and access reasons. He was pleased to hear it was going to be seasonal only in which case the Town Council would support it. He explained that the Town Council felt the design and size of the paybooth was out of character. They would prefer a beach hut style, thought the height was too large and that the structure was not needed. They felt it was better to have someone walking around taking money. The Town Council was concerned that there would be reduced accessibility and it caused a safety concern as it blocked off one side of the promenade completely.

Councillor Daly asked if there had been conversations with the Applicant. Councillor Flunder said they hadn’t spoken to them directly as they were hard to contact. He reiterated that he was pleased to hear it was seasonal, in the same way as the lifeguard hut, but still thought it was the wrong building for this location.

Councillor McCallum appreciated they had to look at the application as a whole and not cherry pick elements. She understood the concerns they had about the booth, position and accessibility.

Councillor Ninnmey said that at a similar carousel in Felixstowe the operator just used a waist money bag. He wondered if the Applicant would use the booth for more than just the carousel. He stated that he was minded to go with the Officer recommendation.

Councillor Folley noted that the pay booth was quite far from the main building and it would be useful for the operative to put their belongings and have somewhere to sit down during their shift. From a  human rights perspective she felt it would be safer for them so she was minded to go with approval.

Councillor Hedgley asked to see pictures of the booth again. On seeing them he could  see no difficulties so would approve.

Councillor Smithson felt the improvements on the front made perfect sense and didn’t find the booth bothersome. The operative would need somewhere to put their belongings and it could be for security of the money. She was minded to approve.

Councillor Reeves agreed with the safety benefits. He felt the booth was too high but was minded to approve.

Councillor Bennett said it was important to have shade in the hot summer and the other improvements made sense so was minded to approve. 

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions.

Conditions: 

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with 

163001 Rev C received 20/12/2024
163009 Rev A received 12/12/2024
163010 Rev A received 11/12/2024
163006 Rev B received 11/12/2024
163007 received 08/11/2024
Site Plan received 22/10/2024

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 use shall not commence until the area(s) within the site shown on Drawing No. 163001 REV C 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 (2023) where on-street parking and or loading, unloading and manoeuvring would be detrimental to the safe use of the highway.

4. Prior to use of the relocated car parking spaces, details of the proposed bollards will be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. They shall then be installed and retained prior to use of the parking spaces.

Reason: To provide safety to pedestrians.

5. Prior to use of the parking area, a white line shall be painted on the ground to delineate the boundary with the Highway as shown on drawing 163001 Rev C. 

Reason: To improve Highway safety.


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. 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.

The Committee received report ES/2294. The proposed development sought permission to retain an external walk-in freezer and roof covering. The application was referred to Planning Committee for determination due to the site falling within land owned by East Suffolk. Despite being a North Area item, due to the high volume of cases in the area it was determined that the South Area Committee could determine the application in this case for there to be a timely decision.

The Senior Planner ran through a presentation. He explained that there had been a fire on this site. He ran through site layout plans and elevations, explaining that it was mainly screened by a black weatherboard fence. He showed photographs of the site, demonstrating how well screened the freezer units were. He also pointed out that there was no public right of way at the rear of the site.

The Senior Planner ran through material planning considerations and key issues. He explained there were no objections from Southwold Town Council and the application was considered to comply with policies within the East Suffolk (Waveney) Local Plan, supporting a local business and the historic appearance of the area. Therefore, it was recommended for approval.

There were no questions from members and no public speakers and Members did not feel there was a need to debate.

On the proposal of Councillor Bennett, seconded by Councillor Smithson, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions:


Conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be retained in all respects strictly in accordance with:

3086.23.8 received 20/01/2025
3086.23.9 received 03/12/2024

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.



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. 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.

The Committee received report ES/2295. The application was for a first-floor rear extension to 37 Common Lane. The extension was not considered to have any adverse effect on the character of the building or of the surrounding area, nor any adverse effect on neighbour amenity. 

The application was referred to Planning Committee for determination due to the property being in East Suffolk Council ownership. Despite being a North Area item, due to the high volume of cases in the area it was determined that the South Area Committee could determine the application in this case for there to be a timely decision.

The Interim Planning Manager ran through a presentation which included aerial photographs and site plans. There was a 3m gap between the extension and the neighbouring property. It was explained that an additional bedroom and bathroom was required for the family. There was an application in 2024 and there were no concerns but the Applicants chose to withdraw and resubmit.

The Interim Planning Manager showed photos of the property from various angles and explained there would be some screening of the extension from trees in the spring/summer.

The Town Council had raised no objection to the proposed scheme. It was considered to adhere to all relevant local, and national policies and therefore was recommended for approval.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the previous extension had consent or was it under permitted development rights. He asked if this was an extension on an extension and could you keep doing this and still stay within the 1/7th development rights.

The Interim Planning Manager explained that the single storey was permitted in 2019 although it was probably within permitted development rights. He explained that each application was treated on their own merits. There could be scope for more development but it would be treated on its own merits.

Councillor Hedgley asked if there was a business operating here and if there had been any objections. The Interim Planning Manager explained that the previous application had objections. The Housing Team was aware of the proposals and there was a specific need for this occupier and their familial needs.

There were no further questions or debate.

On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions:

Conditions: 

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

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the following plans:-

Site Location Plan
530-4 - Proposed Floor plans
530-5 - Proposed Elevations
530-6 - Proposed Section drawing
530-7 - Proposed Block Plan

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

3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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