Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 February 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2341. The Enforcement Officer explained that item A.5 – Storage land at Levington – should have included that a site visit had taken place.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about A.5 and compliance as the date was 19 February. The Enforcement Officer explained that there had not been full compliance when they visited on 25 February.

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

RESOLVED

 That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 20 February 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2327.  The application sought retrospective Planning Permission for the erection of a large building, surrounded by hardstanding, and associated works, for a plant hire company, located towards the western side of the Sinks Pit/Kesgrave Quarry Site. The area of proposed building and the existing operations within the former minerals extraction site were located within the parish of Little Bealings although the site entrance falls within Kesgrave.

The application was called in for determination by Planning Committee by the Head of Planning and Building Control, on the basis of the significance in terms of scale, effects and public interest. A site visit by Members of the Planning Committee took place prior to this application being considered and the notes were on the website.

The Principal Planner ran through maps of the site, pointing out key features and the Public Right of Way. She gave a brief overview of the extensive planning history of the site. Planning permission was previously granted on the same area of land for two buildings, hardstanding and associated works, for the same purpose (DC/19/2666/FUL). However, the developer did not discharge the pre-commencement conditions on that planning permission before starting works on site, and the works they have undertaken do not accord with the approved plans. Therefore, that consent had now lapsed. 

The Principal Planner showed photographs of the site highlighting the key elements of the site including the bund, HQ building, mineral and aggregates processing area, concrete plant, weigh station and the application site.

The Principal Planner shared plans of the building, highlighting the different areas and ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. The site was supported by paragraph 125 of the NPPF and SCLP 2.1. She pointed out the nearest residential properties to the application site. The bund and low-lying site meant there weren’t the usual concerns about shadowing and loss of privacy. The main concerns raised by third parties related to noise and vibration, working hours and light pollution, some of which related to existing operations on the site. There were ongoing issues but the existing authorised operations were the ones that created the noise. The Principal Planner pointed out that Members had to consider this application alone and not about controlling existing activities and uses elsewhere on the site. She pointed out that the conditions detailed in the report would control the hours of work, which would be the same as the HQ building.  There were also conditions relating to ventilation and there would be an alert system for the workshop doors relating to noise levels. If a preset noise level was breached it would alert those on site to close the doors. Lighting had been designed for ecological considerations and residential amenity and there were conditions relating to this. It was therefore considered that the scheme was acceptable in terms of residential amenity.

Third party comments raised concerns about Highway safety but there had been no objections or concerns raised by the Highways Authority. The scheme was acceptable in terms of surface water runoff, drainage, contamination and impacts upon the SSSI. She explained they were awaiting a drainage consultation report, which was a technical matter that could have been a condition, but the Applicant has chosen to clear it before final paperwork was issued.  Issues were identified regarding ground gases travelling below ground from the landfill site but investigations have been undertaken to ensure use of the application building and the HQ were not at risk of a build-up of gases. The Principal Planner explained there were elements of sustainable construction and holistic water management including solar panels and greywater reuse.

The Principal Planner finished by stating that the recommendation was to approve subject to conditions with the addition of the change shown in the update sheet, which would enable officers to resolve the technical issues relating to the drainage verification report.

Councillor McCallum asked about the opening times on p37 paragraph 3.4. The Principal Planner explained it had been included in the update sheet that Sunday was an error and should have been Saturday.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the increase in vehicles and was there any detail about the number of vehicles, times and if it would be a continuous flow of traffic. The Principal Planner explained it was an operational site and they would expect peaks at the start and end of the day. The Chair suggested that the applicant may be able to answer this question.

Councillor Hedgley asked for clarity that there were two applications before this which lapsed and so this was a new building that had no planning permission and therefore it was retrospective. The Principal Planner confirmed this. Councillor Hedgley asked for the site photo to be reshown and pointed out that the building was surrounded by many items of plant and it wasn’t an isolated building.

Councillor Deacon asked about the alarm system and if the doors closed automatically. The Principal Planner explained a light would show in the building and a message sent to the managers telling them to shut the doors. These incidents would be automatically recorded and East Suffolk would be able to access these records if there were reports of excessive noise to check compliance.

Councillor Byatt asked if there were records of complaints from residents about this site. The Principal Planner explained there were numerous complaints about the wider site, however action couldn’t be taken until they isolated where the noise came from and the noise came from areas that already had consent. She pointed out that they were seeking to control noise on this application through conditions.

Councillor Daly asked if any enforcement was undertaken when the building was constructed. The Principal Planner confirmed that the application was submitted as a result of enforcement action.

Councillor Hedgley commented that the complaints must be pushing a thousand.

The Chair invited Mr Thornborrow, a resident and representative of the Sinks Valley Environmental Protection Group, to make his representation. He said there had been well over 5,000 complaints against the Tru group about noise on the site and that residents of Little Bealings were long suffering and some had medical conditions as a result. He agreed that much had been done to mitigate noise nuisance and there was an agreed plan with the Environment Agency. He accepted that the building would help mitigate the noise, as work that used to be undertaken outside would now take place inside. However, it remained to be seen if noisy activity outside still remained and it would only benefit residents if it accords with the noise management plan. He requested that suitable conditions were included and technology, systems and processes were in place to ensure adherence to the management plan. 

Councillor Deacon asked if he would be satisfied with the noise control measures mentioned already. Mr Thornborrow did not know if the noise mitigation measures would work or not.

Councillor Hedgley asked Mr Thornborrow to elaborate about the medical issues residents were experiencing. Mr Thornborrow explained that the stress caused to residents from the noise had resulted in them requiring medication to alleviate the stress.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the bund. Mr Thornborrow said the bund was there before the Tru Group era and it was there to mitigate the noise from the previous occupants. However the bund had eroded over time and although they had continually asked for the agencies, namely Suffolk County Council, to raise the height of the bund this had been declined.

Councillor Byatt asked about the opening hours and working on Saturdays. Mr Thornborrow said the site was already operational on Saturday mornings but would not like the hours to be increased. He didn’t think a Sunday would be likely as generally the construction industry did not work on Sundays.

Ian Ransome from Little Bealings Parish Council was invited to make his representation. He stated that the Parish Council objected to the application on the grounds of concerns about surface water drainage, noise and development in the countryside. He pointed out that the Parish Council didn’t object to the previous application which was closer to the bund. The Parish Council was concerned that the concrete yard around the building would continue to cause noise as would other activities. He explained that the site had a Hollywood bowl effect on local residents with noise coming up over the bund. As all the activities on site generated noise the Council felt there should be a maximum dBA noise level not an average level and that you can not consider this application site in isolation. He also asked why Members didn’t visit places outside of the site to get an idea of the noise levels.

Councillor Deacon asked his views on noise mitigation measures. Mr Ransome hoped that the measures would mitigate the noise and that the doors would be shut when the noise was excessive. He was still concerned about noisy outside activities, such as the use of jackhammers.

Councillor Hedgley asked for clarity on max and average dBA levels. Mr Ransome explained the dBA was a graph/scale showing normal human hearing range. He said most testing by East Suffolk, Suffolk County Council and the Environment Agency looked at an average noise level which meant any sudden high peaks were levelled out. The Parish Council would like a maximum sound level imposed.

Councillor Hedgley asked how many complaints had been submitted. Mr Ransome believed there were 5.5k complaints.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the degree of erosion of the bund and what needed to be done to make it effective again. Mr Ransome  said the bund had eroded. He was aware that the Tru company did apply for an acoustic fence on top of the bund but that planning application had expired. He said they were also going to increase the bund but that didn’t protect properties higher up on Playford Road. He mentioned that when he was at Pine Hills, near the western side of the site, you could still hear the noise from the site even though they had triple glazing.

Councillor Byatt asked what results had come about because of the complaints and if any action had been taken. Mr Ransome said the company had undertaken work with its noise consultants and some of it had been successful. A noise abatement had been issued by East Suffolk. He said the sporadic and intense noise was very disturbing for residents. 

Councillor Bennett noted that air pollution levels were also a similar concept of averages. He took on board the comment about the site visit and agreed that they should have visited the wider area. He asked what time period the complaints covered. Mr Ransome said Tru Group operated from 2014 but up until 2019/20 the Parish Council couldn’t get all the agencies involved. The community liaison group had achieved a considerable amount and a lot of noise had been contained. They had concerns about the mineral area of the site and the plant storage and associated activities caused noise. He noted that not all days were the same with it being quiet today but Friday afternoon was horrendous.

Councillor McCallum asked about the washing of the concrete mixer drums and if the noise issue had been resolved. Mr Ransome confirmed that it was not as bad as it had been.

Alec Bird and Laura Thomas were invited to make their representation on behalf of the Applicant. Alec thanked Members for considering the application and was pleased the recommendation was to approve. He explained the business was part of the community and they contributed to it, not just because they were a large employer for the local area. Laura asked Members to guard against speculation over noise issues as these were linked but not determinative. She explained the Biodiversity enhancement strategy for the site was very positive and the company was keen to establish community engagement.

Councillor Daly asked about the planning history and why they were given planning permission twice but then erected a building without permission. Alec explained that the company grew very quickly but it was now being run differently. The building had been in process since 2019 and the owner thought he was acting in the spirit of the consent that was granted but that it was just a variation. The build had continued because of the time taken to reach this position of getting planning permission.

Councillor Deacon expressed his disappointed that this was a retrospective application. He also asked for an explanation about the noise mitigation. Alec apologised for the situation. He explained that when a noise complaint was made, if 10-20 residents made complaints about the event to all three agencies each one counted as an individual complaint, meaning the number of complaints looked higher than they really were. The company was actively seeking least noisy machinery, building walls to shield the noise, modifying machinery, implementing good HR practices and culture changes, training and policing the operating hours. They were trying to shroud vehicles and using white noise reversing bleepers on vehicles to reduce the noise. They were also looking at a digital AI system to remove bleepers completely. He explained that they operated in compliance with their licence and that the contention came from the legacy of what the company had inherited.

Councillor Deacon explained he was asking about noise mitigation measures for the application building. Alec explained that staff would be pre-emptive and shut doors before noisy activity took place and that the detectors were a backup if activity exceeded the noise threshold and then the doors would be shut. Councillor Deacon felt that the action would be retrospective like the planning application. Alec confirmed that they intended to shut the doors first.

Councillor Hedgley felt it was a good tour last Thursday and that it was a professional organisation that was part of the community. He asked how much had been given to the communities of Kesgrave and Little Bealings. Councillor McCallum felt this was irrelevant and not a planning matter. The Chair allowed it but said they could choose not to answer. Alec explained he would not give explicit facts and figures but that the company wanted to be part of the community. It was owned and led by a family who had lived in East Suffolk for three generations and they employed 150 people from the local area. He said they supported the community and Laura said they had already reached out to the local primary school about taking plant to the school for an educational visit.

The Head of Planning and Building Control pointed out that investment into a community was not a planning matter and it should not influence the decision by the Members.

Councillor McCallum stated that she did not want to see an application determined on how much a community did and didn’t get and that the decision should be based on planning matters. The Chair explained he allowed the question for contextual reasons.

Councillor Ninnmey expressed surprised that the application was retrospective. He asked how many of the complaints were since they took over the site and why they were not using noise level measuring to automatically close the doors. He noted that the bund had eroded and there was reference to an acoustic barrier. He asked if there were any intentions to improve the bund. Alec noted the dissatisfaction regarding the retrospective nature of the application. He explained that the last consent was given in 2019 and the process from then to here in 2025 had included ongoing engagement with the planners. He said it was a very complicated site under modern rules and there was never any intention to side step the process. With regards to the bund the area in their ownership was generally high and they had been able to maintain it as it didn’t back onto the landfill site. Where the bund was lower, outside of the application site, they had looked at a noise barrier. However the increase in weight and pressure on the bund would put pressure on the landfill site and Suffolk County Council has raised concerns. They have been unable to find a consultant who would sign off building up the bund and putting in a fence. Because the bund was full of waste on the eastern side it was not technically and financially viable to increase the height or put in the acoustic barrier. He explained that the dB levels were regulated by Suffolk County Council, East Suffolk and the Environment Agency and their last three audits from the Environment Agency were clean and were facing no enforcement action from County. They were working with one resident and the liaison group to resolve a vibration issue at one property. He stated that they were compliant with BS 4142 in relation to noise emissions. Laura  explained that auto closing doors were a hazard that could cause more issues than they solved so this proposal was considered the safest for those working on the site.

Councillor Ninnmey felt the position of the building worsened the impact on the residents as it was further from the bund and nothing could be done to improve the bund or add an acoustic barrier. He was concerned that the problems for the community wouldn’t be mitigated. He asked why they moved the location of the building. Alec felt that was not a fair assessment. He explained that the location was chosen to support the flow of traffic and ensure safety of the operatives. The siting would minimise the movement of heavy traffic and therefore reduce the noise.

Councillor Reeves asked about Health and Safety. Laura explained that closed doors raised questions about ventilation but there would be risk assessments for use of PPE. The way the building was designed reduced vehicle movements, especially reversing movements, and so reduced the interface between vehicles and pedestrians. She pointed out that there would be continuous reviews and assessments.

Councillor Reeves asked about air conditioning. Alec explained there was underfloor heating in the workshop powered by an air source heat pump and also air con. There was an extraction system when the doors were closed. However because access and egress was constant air con wasn’t entirely practical but the system would have a cooling effect and workers would be given breaks.

Councillor McCallum asked if it was correct that two thirds of their power requirements would be produced onsite through solar panels. Alec confirmed it was correct and stated that unfortunately battery storage was not possible.

Councillor Byatt asked about bat boxes and other ecological offerings and if they were the right things. Laura explained they had a biodiversity strategy plan which included thinning and coppicing of woodland together with bird and bat boxes.

Councillor Bennett asked about the community liaison group and if the application could have been discussed more robustly by the group. Alec said it had been discussed and they attended the quarterly meetings. He felt that sometimes the meetings were not very productive as there was a lot of technical information being presented to people who were not technical. He acknowledged that the site was contentious but stressed that a lot of the issues were inherited. However they had made progress in forming a better dialogue between residents and the company so they could now communicate independently of the liaison group and the site was less contentious now than it used to be.

Councillor Byatt asked about wet areas and if the ecological work would extend to those areas. Alec said they were doing positive things within the boundary of the land they owned. The ponds from the old quarry were sown as wild meadow and they have maintained beehives. They purchased land to the east of the drive two years ago and have an emerging ambition to provide forest schooling in that area.

The Head of Planning and Building Control reminded members that they needed to consider this site and not the issues across the wider site. He explained that the Community Liaison group had attendance from East Suffolk’s Strategic Director, County and District Councillors and the Principal Planner and it was useful for resolving issues.  

Councillor McCallum acknowledged that no-one liked retrospective applications, but they had to look at the application no differently from any other application. She noted that the footprint was smaller than the previous application. Lots of consideration had gone into how the building was built and the health and safety. Noise complaints would be dealt with by the Environmental Protection team and issues have been and still are dealt with. She had stood in a resident’s garden and heard the noise so was aware of the issues. She hoped that residents would report any noise so conditions were adhered to. Kesgrave Town Council supported the application and so did she. She pointed out that the road was kept clean and immaculate, the company was a strong employer and this was sustainable. Kesgrave benefitted from this business and Little Bealings could also benefit. She would be proposing approval.

Councillor Daly noted there had been a big, wide discussion. In terms of noise it would be an improvement and he was encouraged by the ecology side so on balance he would support this application.

Councillor Hedgley explained the membership of the Liaison group. There was a worry about retrospective applications and if the Westerfield Quarry went ahead traffic and noise would increase. He asked that the condition about noise was changed so that the noise mitigation plan was statutory.

Councillor Byatt concurred and asked if there could be random checks on noise and pollution. He mentioned the northern relief road and how that would impact residents so it was important to monitor noise. He noted it was a strong local company and was pleased about the solar panels so he would support the application.

Councillor Deacon stated that he didn’t like retrospective applications but would support as long as the door monitoring system was beefed up.

Councillors Reeves wanted to see something in the conditions that addressed the employees in the space and protected them against noise. He also stated that he was against retrospective planning applications.

The Planning Principal explained that employee safety would be covered by H&S legislation so they shouldn’t duplicate in conditions. The Head of Planning and Building Control would seek reassurance from the Applicant but was sure they didn’t want the safety of employees to be compromised.

The Principal Planner explained that the noise management plan covered the whole site but these conditions were only related to the application site. The issue was trying to identify which consent has been breached. She explained that they could only put in conditions that could be enforced.

Councillor Hedgley wanted condition 9 beefed up with a noise management plan for this building and wanted monitoring outside the building. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that there should be a proactive enforcement approach and although they couldn’t monitor all the time they would have access to data.

The Chair stated that if the company breached the conditions they would suffer and future applications would note this.

Councillor Ninnmey suggested a monitor on each site to have a means of determining location of noise. He also felt that it had not been clear if the complaints were recent or if the number of complaints had fallen in recent years. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was not practical to refine dB measuring and Councillor McCallum felt residents needed to inform the council if there were noise issues. 

On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Daly it was 

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the consideration of comments from statutory consultees in relation to the technical details of the drainage verification report (and/or additional/revised drainage details), and

1.1. Subject to the statutory consultees being satisfied with the technical details within the recently submitted drainage verification report, this scheme should be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

1.2. Whilst many of the conditions will need to have similarities those conditions included on the previous consent for two buildings, as this scheme is retrospective, they will need to be worded differently and require the implementation and retention of a number of details that have been submitted as part of this application rather than the submission of details prior to implementation (i.e. those elements that were previously the subject of pre-commencement conditions). 

1.3. There is no need to include the usual standard time limit for implementation as the building has already been constructed, so the consent will have been implemented prior to the decision notice being issued. 

1.4. There is no need for a Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) condition because the application was submitted prior to the introduction of BNG and therefore exempt from those requirements. 

1.5. Therefore the recommendation is one of authority to approve subject to the statutory consultees being satisfied with the technical details of the drainage verification report, and subject to the conditions relating to be matters outlined below. 

Conditions

1) Approved documents and drawings

2) Use limited to that proposed 

3) Machinery and vehicle repairs within building only

4) Vehicle washing in designated areas

5) Operational hours 

6) Hours of use of ventilation and similar equipment

7) Ventilation equipment approved/to be installed

8) Any further ventilation equipment will require approval 

9) Workspace noise/doors monitoring system

10) Vehicular movements within the site

11) Parking/turning areas

12) Electric vehicle charging points and cycle storage/parking

13) Strategy for the disposal of surface water 

14) Drainage verification report /implementation of final elements of drainage

15) External lighting scheme 

16) No further external lighting on site or on building without prior approval 

17) Implementation of the biodiversity enhancement strategy

18) Unexpected contamination

Informatives

1) Highlighting which conditions are to be complied with prior to first use

2) Reasons for approval 

3) Conditions and requirements of other planning consents still apply

4) Future on site works are likely to require planning permission:

5) Building regulations and impacts upon this planning permission:

6) Other legislation and consents/permits:

7) Contamination, Ground Gas and developer/landowner responsibility

8) Proximity to site of special scientific interest (SSSI)

9) Protected trees along access

10) Works in highway

11) Public rights of way:

12) Surface water and water courses

13) Future advertisements and signage

14) Naming/numbering of new buildings

15) Sprinkler systems

16) Biodiversity net gain exempt

The Committee received report ES/2328. The application sought planning permission for the development of eight dwellings on land allocated in the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan under Policy SCLP12.45 in Campsea Ashe.  The site was for up to 12 dwellings. The Principal Planner explained that the original allocated site was smaller than the current application but it had been increased to allow for SUDs features to serve the site. The proposed dwellings would be a mix of detached and terraced properties arranged around a small cul-de-sac. 

The Principal Planner shared photos of the site, highlighting the ash tree that would be removed. A new vehicular access would be created from Station Road with the existing access being closed and replaced with planting. Existing trees and hedges around the boundaries would be retained apart from the section for the new access.
 
The Principal Planner showed street views of the site and the village and pointed out the grade 2 and grade 2* listed Old Rectory and church adjacent to the site. He demonstrated with the proposed block plan that most of the dwellings were within the allocated part of the site. He explained that two plots had moved further back from the road and away from the trees that will be retained. He pointed out the pond that would be restored and additional hedgerow and trees that would be planted along the southern boundary. He pointed out the swale that would feed into a SUDs feature that would be planted for ecological value and part of the Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) for the site.

He explained that the house types were of Suffolk vernacular design and used a mix of brick, render, boarding and tiles. The Parish Council had raised concerns about the design but there was no particular style within the Parish that could be followed easily.

The Principal Planner explained that due to the objections received from the Parish Council and Ward Member, the Planning Committee Member Call-In process was triggered and it was referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

The Principal Planner explained the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions listed in the report and that a landscape maintenance and management plan was required. He stated that the scheme nearly fulfilled the allocation and felt it was an appropriate balance. 

Councillor Deacon stated that when it was 12 houses there would have been affordable housing but now it was only 8 there was none. He asked if it was possible for more houses to be included to allow affordable housing. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained the site was extended for drainage and BNG reasons and they had avoided an excessively dense development. He said the Local Plan site allocations were estimates and some allocations had fewer homes when they came to planning. He said it was regrettable that it was below the 10 housing threshold for securing affordable housing.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the mix of housing and if it addressed the local need.  The Principal Planner confirmed there were 2 x 2 bed, 2 x 2/3 bed, 1 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed properties. The Local Plan mix for the settlement was 12% 1 bed, 29% 2 bed, 25% 3 bed and 33% 4 bed.

Councillor Byatt asked why the conditions could not demand solar tiles rather than solar panels. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that would be redesigning the scheme which wasn’t in their remit but he could address this to the Applicant.

The Chair asked if allocations in the Local Plan could stipulate a minimum number of units. The Head of Planning and Building Control said this could be considered for the next Local Plan.

Councillor Reeves asked if 22 parking spaces was the normal allocation for 8 houses. The Principal Planner confirmed the allocation was based on the Suffolk guidance, depending on the size of the properties. It was noted that some parking spaces were also within garages.

Councillor Byatt asked about drainage and the disposal of sewage and if the applicant would have to apply to the Environment Agency and would East Suffolk have any say in that application for the siting of the sewage disposal plant. The Principal Planner believed it would be in the curtilage of each property and it would be subject to Building Control. Councillor Byatt was advised to ask the Applicant for further details.

Klaus Fortmann representing Campsea Ashe Parish Council was invited to make his representation. He started by giving Councillor Noble’s apologies but that she remained opposed to the development. He explained that the Parish Council objected and that this unique greenfield site should never have been included in the Local Plan. He said it was a key feature of an old Suffolk village. He felt that the photos in the presentation showed the more modern properties in Campsea Ashe rather than the old houses. The Parish Council saw this as an urban development that should not be on a key rural heritage site and it would create a negative visual impact. He stated that this was a duplicate of a development at Reydon and not designed specifically for this site. He questioned the BNG as bats, barn owls and other species would be impacted by this development. He was aware of the local need and was aggrieved that the affordable housing element had been removed.

Councillor Deacon asked if the Parish Council would support the development if it included affordable homes. Klaus said yes if they were a different style that wasn’t as imposing. The Parish Council had contacted East Suffolk about trying to increase affordable housing and they would love to have a Neighbourhood Plan but they don’t have the resources to do it.

Councillor Daly empathised as it was a beautiful site but acknowledged that pressure for development was enormous and because this was in the Local Plan it was a problem. He understood that it could be better but the reality was that affordable homes came in after everything else. He asked if he would like the committee to reject this plan with the threat that something worse would come behind it.

Klaus explained he was just the Clerk but a denser and larger development would not be desired. They would not oppose a development with affordable housing. 

Councillor Byatt asked if there was a regular bus service in the village as affordable housing occupants couldn’t always afford a car. Klaus explained there were trains and the Katch and CATS bus services. They were in talks with Sizewell C about more regular services and they were talking to other parishes such as Rendlesham to make it more connectable for cycling.

Councillor Ninnmey asked to see the site plan and asked if this was meant to be railway cottage style housing which would be more acceptable and provide more affordable housing. He also asked about the road that went through the estate to the meadow and if it was for future development. The Chair said it was speculative and not relevant. Klaus confirmed that a railway cottage style development would be more acceptable.

Councillor Byatt asked what plot 9 was. The Principal Planner confirmed that was a garage.

Councillor Daly left at 4.37pm.

Councillor McCallum asked why it was called in by Councillor Smithson who was not the ward member. The Head of Planning and Building Control said this was the process and it triggered referral because the Parish Council and Ward Councillor objected. Councillor Smithson was the first member to respond to that call-in process.

The Applicant was invited to make their representation. He explained that the site was allocated before their involvement but they were looking to deliver the best possible outcome. The listed buildings, pond and trees limited the space available and the site was too small for 12 units.  He explained that they had held discussions with the planners and changed the design in response to feedback. He pointed out that it was a very sustainable rural location and the allocation was considered by the Planning Inspector who agreed. They had carried out additional surveys and the drainage solution would improve the flooding that currently occurred on the road. He was confident that they would increase the BNG and exceed the 10% target. He believed the mix of housing would meet the local needs and that the removal of affordable housing was agreed with East Suffolk before design began. He said they had consulted with the Parish Council and local residents, however the site had been allocated and it was recognised that rural areas needed new homes.  

Councillor Ninnmey asked for the site plan to be shown and asked about the road going into a parcel of land outside of the village settlement. The Applicant explained he only had control of the application site but the landowner of the remaining land needed access. It would also provide access to the SUDs for maintenance.

Councillor Reeves asked about the plan for waste collection and if bin lorries would go onto the site. The Applicant said lorries would go onsite and highlighted the turning head in the centre of the site for these vehicles.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if it was true that this was a copy of the Reydon site and if there were any solar panels. The Applicant said the site at Reydon was very different and the only similarity was they both contained 8 properties. The road at Reydon was L shaped, here it was S shaped. They adhered to and went above building reg standards so they had air source heat pumps and overdid the insulation.

The Chair asked if the style of housing at Reydon was different or if this design was bespoke for Campsea Ashe. The Applicant explained they used similar render and brick and similar house types and developers tended to have their own style. He explained they were a Suffolk company and they knew the properties looked good and it’s what the buyers wanted.

Councillor Byatt asked about recycling water. The Applicant said there was no greywater collection or recycling but that foul water goes through a digester weeper system with clean water taken to the back of the site through the swale and SUDs system.

Councillor Reeves asked if the pond and BNG would benefit the whole village and if they would have access to the pond. The Applicant explained that the pond was at the back of two residential dwellings and they were reinstating it as it was currently silted and overgrown, but there would be no public access to it. The rear attenuation basin would have planting within it but it would not be accessible to the public or residents.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said the site was sustainable and a well-designed development.

Councillor Ninnmey questioned the lack of solar panels which would be beneficial to householders. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was not something they could stipulate at this time.

Councillor Byatt acknowledged that the district had a target to meet and this allocation was in the Local Plan but it was a shame at the lack of affordable housing. He agreed with 8 properties on this site and recommended approval especially with the list of conditions.

Councillor Hedgley concurred. It was in the Local Plan and thinks the plans look good. He felt they were nice houses and a good company so would approve.

Councillor Deacon agreed with all of this but was concerned that the village wouldn’t benefit from affordable housing. He questioned if it was the best use of the land and couldn’t they increase the size of the site to include affordable homes.

Councillor Ninnmey acknowledged that villages in his ward were disinclined to get involved with Neighbourhood Plans. He felt it was a shame that additional land was available for SUDs but not affordable homes and was torn how to vote.

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

RESOLVED

That Planning permission is granted subject to conditions listed below.

Conditions:  
 
 1. Three year time limit 
 2. Approved plans compliance 
 3. Action in the event of unexpected contamination 
 4. Submission of Construction Management Plan 
 5. Archaeological investigation and post excavation reporting 
 6. Tree Protection Plan to be submitted 
 7. Natural England licence in regard to protection of Great Crested Newts 
 8. Method statement for amphibians, reptiles, and notable mammals 
 9. Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the Biodiversity Gain Plan 
10. Details of areas for presentation and storage of refuse and recycling bins 
11. Details of the areas to be provided for secure, covered, and lit cycle storage 
12. Details of electric vehicle charging infrastructure  
13. Details of the estate roads and footpaths, (including layout, levels, gradients, surfacing, lighting, traffic calming and means of surface water drainage) 
14. New vehicular access to be laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. DWA/CAM 101 Rev. G with an entrance width of 5 metres and driveway width of 5 metres.  
15. Areas within the site for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles to be provided and maintained. 
16. Details of external materials (including, but not limited to bricks, windows, doors, soffits, eaves, rainwater goods and chimney stacks) 
17. Landscaping strategy 
18. Visibility splays to be provided and retained 
19. No dwelling shall be occupied until the carriageways and footways serving that dwelling have been constructed to at least Binder course level 
20. Landscape maintenance and management plan 
21. Internal and external noise levels to be limited to specified maximums, informed by a Noise Assessment  
22. A noise assessment to be submitted to include all proposed plant and machinery  
23. The hours of working (Including deliveries) during the construction phase shall be: Monday to Friday 08:00 to 18:00 hours, Saturday 08:00 to 13:00 hours, and Sunday and Bank Holidays none. 
24. During the Construction work shall be no burning of wastes on site. 
25. Post excavation archaeological reporting to be submitted for approval 
26. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal 
27. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs shall take place between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless otherwise approved 
28. The Biodiversity Gain Plan to be in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain Calculation   
29. Drainage strategy – implementation as approved 
30. Standard water efficiency condition
31. Biodiversity Net Gain Plan Required 

The Committee received report ES/2329. This application sought the redevelopment of a brownfield site to create 58 retirement living apartments including communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping at 39 Mill Lane, Felixstowe, IP11 2NL. 

This application was presented to the Planning Committee at the request of the Head of Planning and Building Control due to its significance in the locality and importance for delivery of housing for older living needs in the District and due to the Town Council’s objection.

The Head of Planning and Building Control presented the application. He drew attention to the update sheet with an amendment that the final wording of conditions to be agreed and that the authority to approve was subject to a s106 agreement.

He showed a site map of Felixstowe identifying key areas of the town and infrastructure in relation to the application site. The site was predominantly residential. He showed photos of the site prior to demolition which was previously a British Legion building that was demolished in 2022. This was a brownfield site available for development and he pointed out existing traffic calming elements in place around the site. He showed site photographs and the proposed block plan. The development was a mix of 1 and 2 bed apartments and a communal lounge space. They were self-contained apartments for independent living. First and second floor had balconies and ground floor had patios. The roof plan showed solar panels. The Head of Planning and Building Control showed proposed elevations and site visualisations.

He showed the access layout with extended traffic calming feature and a tactile pavement crossing, and the car parking and mobility scooter storage areas. He explained that sunlight analysis and shadowing effect of the building had been conducted but the shading was predominantly from the trees rather than the building. There was noise mitigation from the railway line and he showed the  interaction of the building with neighbouring bungalows.

The application was recommended for approval subject to s106 and conditions. He said it was a good use of a brownfield site, a well-designed site and it provided an important housing provision for the aging population. All policies support the application and there had been no objections from key consultees. They were looking at how to address Primary Healthcare and ambulance service requirements. As the development was zero CIL rated they would prefer to have a s106 agreement. 

Councillor Deacon didn’t understand the tables in the Integrated Care Board (ICB) report on p123 and asked for clarity. Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarity about the funding that Haven Health has already received for its expansion. The Head of Planning and Building Control thought it predated the added capacity as a result of CIL funding. It was likely that existing residents would move into these apartments. East Suffolk held a meeting at the Grove surgery recently and were working closely with the ICB. They were looking at using CIL and hopefully the s106 and would continue to look at mitigation.

Councillor McCallum asked about parking on the roads outside of the site and what the overspill situation would be. The Head of Planning and Building Control didn’t have immediate knowledge but the Town Council objected on parking grounds. There had been discussions about parking and Highways have not raised any objections. It is a sustainable location and so hopefully the workforce would be within walking distance or use public transport. Councillor McCallum asked how many employees there would be and the Head of Planning and Building Control advised asking applicant.

Councillor Reeves shared the same concerns about parking on site as there was no adjacent parking on Mill Lane. It was near the narrow railway bridge and mobility scooters would meet cyclists on the pavement. He asked what was being proposed to mitigate the risk. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained there were pavements on either side and no concerns had been raised by Highways. It would therefore be disproportionate to ask the development to enhance the pavement. The Chair said this could be part of East Suffolk/Suffolk County Council plans to improve connectivity.

Councillor Hedgley asked about the CIL zero rating. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the CIL rates were set in 2023 but sheltered housing and residential care homes were zero rated as they were more expensive types of buildings to develop. They collect CIL from all developments and where there were mitigation needs they would invest.

Councillor Ninnmey was concerned about provision of parking for residents and staff. The Chair advised him to formulate a question to ask the Applicant.

Councillor Byatt asked about the charging area for mobility scooters. The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified where it was and that it was for 11 scooters.

The Applicant’s Agent made her representation. She explained that the proposal had been done in consultation. It was an opportunity for people to downsize and release family homes. 50% of residents of Churchill developments move from within 5 miles of the site. She explained that it was a safe and secure site and it provided a friendly environment that reduced the risk of social isolation. All the trees would be retained around the boundary. She concluded that the proposal made a meaningful contribution to East Suffolk’s housing supply.

Councillor McCallum asked about parking and the number of staff and for data on visitors. The Applicant’s Agent said there would be one lodge manager and contractors would clean communal areas but residents were responsible for cleaning their own accommodation. She explained that Churchill had over 200 sites. Residents moved there because of a needs basis rather than aspirational so they wanted to move somewhere central where they could give up their car. They had found that often residents moved in with a car and realised that they no longer needed one. She did not have any data on visitors with her but the parking surveys carried out by Churchill indicate there are no problems. Because Churchill kept ownership of the site it was in their best interests not to have issues with parking or else they wouldn’t be able to resell units.

Councillor Reeves was astounded to hear there would only be one employee and asked who would do the gardening. He also had concerns about the parking. The Applicant’s Agent explained there was a lodge manager on site and area managers who helped them. She explained that the Churchill Estates Management office was based in Ringwood.

The Chair pointed out that this was not a care home but housing for people who were living independently.

Councillor Ninnmey stated he was approaching the age of the target audience. He was concerned there was no parking allocation for people servicing the site and there was no on street parking. In general terms he supported the application but felt this site location was different to other Churchill sites. The Applicant’s Agent said it was half a mile from the centre which was like all their sites. They had worked closely with Highways and acknowledged the narrow road by the railway bridge. She explained they usually had a lower ratio of parking on their sites of 0.3 per unit but here it had been increased to 0.43 spaces. They had also increased buggy and cycle parking and would be giving contributions to buses and real time information boards at bus stops.

Councillor Byatt had concerns that they were very tight units and was it enough space for retired people to enjoy their retirement and bring their possessions. The Applicant’s Agent said the units met the requirement standards and were based on existing lodges.

Councillor McCallum said Churchill’s website stated that each development had a first come first served basis for parking and visitors were not encouraged to park onsite. The Applicant’s Agent said the spaces were all unallocated. If you gave allocated spaces people kept a car but if they didn’t have a space then it was unlikely they would keep a car.

The Head of Planning and Building Control pointed out that it was a very sustainable site. There were buses and it was walkable and easy to live car free. He pointed out that Highways had not stated there was an unsafe situation here with on street parking and the application had been through a couple of rounds of consultation with Highways.

Councillor Byatt was really concerned about over development and thought they should reduce the number of apartments. He did not feel there was enough space for mobility scooters and parking. He was concerned about the size of apartments but acknowledged it was the approved minimum. He could see no mention of EV charging points. He could not agree with this and wanted to see a reduction in the number of units so would not support it. The Applicant’s Agent said there were EV charging points at every space.

Councillor Deacon knew the site well and this type of accommodation would be welcomed but he questioned the size and the parking. He said 25 parking spaces was inadequate and he was concerned about traffic issues around the site so was against it.

Councillor Ninnmey shared their concerns. There was an entrance and exit on the old British Legion site. This was not a care home but people would need visitors to help look after them. He was concerned about the over development and was inclined not to support it.

Councillor Hedgley supported the development. He thought Churchill was experienced and knew what they were talking about. He believed people would find somewhere to park nearby.

Councillor McCallum didn’t share the concerns about the size of apartments but did have concerns about parking. She referenced the Martlesham care home planning permission that had caused huge parking issues and so had concerns about safety. Not totally against the application but was not convinced about the parking.

Councillor Reeves was opposed to the development. People would need their cars and the supermarket was too far away.

Councillor Bennett said the site needed to be used and it was a great use of a defunct site, providing a type of accommodation that was not available. He felt it was a great opportunity to live independently but still be sociable and part of the community. He was reassured that Churchill ran 200 sites around the country so they knew what they were talking about. He took on board the parking issues but it was important to think about how people wanted to live. Those who wanted a parking space might choose not to move there. He noted that the parking ratio had increased from 0.3 to 0.43 and although the road crossing near the bridge was tricky a new one was going in. The highway should adapt to how people were living, so if it became dangerous it would have to be adapted. He also noted that the site was served by buses. He supported the application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the applicant provided an appeal decision as part of the application process where lack of parking was a reason for refusal. The Inspector gave examples of sites from Churchill with lower provision of spaces. The Inspector sided with the appellant so a precedent had been set. A lower proportion of parking for this demographic was seen as acceptable so he wanted to point out how defendable a decision would be if they refused the application on parking grounds. 

Councillor Ninnmey didn’t want the Chair to sway members and mentioned Harbour Manor, the over 55s building, on the Persimmon development. He felt there was already this type of housing provision in Felixstowe. The Chair responded that it was a care home and so different to this application.

Councillor Deacon felt the concept was a great idea and with some tweaking it could be perfect. He felt the parking issue really caused issues.

Councillor Hedgley felt that if people didn’t like the units or the limited parking they didn’t have to live there. Councillor Fisher agreed with Councillor Hedgley.

On the proposal of Councillor Bennett, seconded by Councillor Hedgley the recommendation to approve failed.

The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested considering deferral to seek further clarity on the parking issue. He reiterated that they would not have a defendable position at appeal. 

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

RESOLVED

That the decision would be deferred to seek further clarification on parking provision including comparison to other Churchill schemes.