Meeting Details

Meeting Summary
Planning Committee South
27 May 2025 - 14:00 to 15:47
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Meeting Details
MeetingDetails

Members are invited to a Meeting of the Planning Committee South

to be held in the Deben Conference Room, East Suffolk House,

on Tuesday, 27 May 2025 at 2pm

 

This meeting will be broadcast to the public via the East Suffolk YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/live/qV7rWRw-SqI?si=RSPtGG7tclbG26x_

To register to speak at the Committee, please complete the online form

Open To The Public
1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
1
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors McCallum and Ninnmey. There were no substitutes.
2 Declarations of Interest

Members and Officers are invited to make any declarations of interests, and the nature of that interest, that they may have in relation to items on the Agenda and are also reminded to make any declarations at any stage during the Meeting if it becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

2
Councillors Deacon and Bennett declared a Non-Registerable Interest for item 6 as members of Felixstowe Town Council.
3 Declarations of Lobbying and Responses to Lobbying
To receive any Declarations of Lobbying in respect of any item on the agenda and also declarations of any response to that lobbying.  
3
There were no declarations of lobbying made.
4 pdf Minutes of Meeting (238Kb)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2025.
4

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

 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
5

The Committee received report ES/2395. The Enforcement Officer gave an update on A.4 Storage Land at Levington. A further site visit was carried out and the usage has ceased so the case had been closed. Councillor Hedgley asked when enforcement would happen for A.1 Highgate Lane Dallinghoo. The Enforcement Officer explained that a site visit would be arranged for after 27 June. Councillor Smithson asked about the status of the Queen at Brandeston. The Enforcement Officer stated that a compliance site visit would be undertaken shortly which would determine what action was required.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 24 April 2025 be noted.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
6

The Committee received report ES/2396 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2048/ARM. The Principal Planner (Major Sites) gave a presentation which included the background to the application site, explaining that consent was granted in 2021 in hybrid form under application reference DC/21/0541/FUL. This granted full planning permission for 65 dwellings and a community space with associated access, parking and landscaping. Outline permission was also granted under this permission for redevelopment of the existing sports hall to provide an indoor bowls facility and for a cricket pitch with pavilion on the old playing fields to the west, alongside parking, landscaping and associated works. Matters of access and scale were agreed under the outline permission but the remaining matters; layout, appearance and landscaping were reserved for later submission (referred to as the ‘Reserved Matters’).  Conditions relating to the full element of the consent were subsequently varied under applications DC/23/0539/VOC and DC/24/0773/VOC. Following this, the reserved matters for the outline portion of the site were now being submitted for consideration. She referred to the Update sheet on the website which included consultee responses, including from Highways.

 

The Principal Planner showed maps and photographs of the site, pointing out the properties surrounding the site and the public footpath. She also showed a photograph of the residential units that are currently being constructed.

 

 The Principal Planner explained that the principle for development had already been approved and now they were looking at the approved matters approval element. She explained that the sports hall was to be extended to create an indoor bowls facility and there would be a car park, retention of the scout hut, a new cricket pavilion, play area associated with the residential area, 3 cricket pitches and a container unit for storage. She also pointed out the ball mitigation netting.

 

 She ran through the equipment that would be included in the play area explaining that it would not be surrounded by a fence. She showed a floor plan and designs for the cricket pavilion which would have a pitched roof and small porch, would be clad and have a green roof. The building height was permitted as per outline planning permission. She moved onto the bowls club explaining that in response to comments from neighbours the parapet was removed from two sides and was replaced with a pitched roof and the height reduced to limit the impact on neighbouring residents. 

 

 The Principal Planner concluded by running through the material considerations and key issues. She explained that the conditions would limit the concerns raised by consultees and therefore the proposal was recommended for approval.

 

 Councillor Deacon raised concerns about the lack of fencing around the play area and referred to the comment from the cricket club. He was also disappointed that the planning description still referred to 16 parking spaces when it should be 61 and  he mentioned this every time the site was discussed. He also asked where the shipping container would be located.

 

 The Principal Planner explained that the cricket club was concerned that children in the play area would spill over onto the cricket pitch. She pointed out that the footpath around the pitch was also not enclosed so there would be people moving through the site that were not fenced off. This was already a risk for the cricket club to manage so it wasn’t felt that enclosing the play area would reduce the risk of public on the pitch. She explained that the guidance material they had consulted, including Make Space for Girls, suggested that enclosing play areas wasn’t inclusive and could be seen as a negative. Therefore it was felt it did not need to be enclosed although there was a condition included to look at boundary landscaping.

 

 The Principal Planner explained that the description which incorrectly stated 16 car parking spaces was there when the application was approved and unfortunately it could not be amended retrospectively. She confirmed that the container would be by the hut.

 

 Councillor Deacon said he would prefer to see the play area fenced off as he could see children running onto the cricket pitch.

 

 Councillor Smithson asked if the play area was protected by the ball mitigation netting. The Principal Planner explained that Sport England hadn’t asked for any further protection outside the ball mitigation netting but that the play area was partially behind the netting.

 

 Councillor Reeves was concerned that the play area looked very cramped. The Principal Planner said there was space between the equipment and it should be noted that the plan included the safety surface.

 

 Councillor Bennett asked how easy it would be to extend the ball mitigation fencing. The Principal Planner said it would require planning permission as it was not permitted development. The Planning Manager said the play area was further on the angle from the wicket which explained why the fencing only went a certain length. It was pointed out that Sport England was the expert who had provided the guidance and were aware of the play area when making their recommendations.

 

 The Chair invited Basil McClean to speak. He explained that he had lived on Valley Walk for 35 years and had objected to the residential element originally. He questioned why additional openings onto the field were being created and was not aware that any residents requested this. He voiced his fears about how this could lead to increased ASB, which they had already experienced, and cited incidents of county lines and drug dealing. He was also concerned about additional car parking on Valley Walk when the cricket pitch was in use which could cause access issues for emergency vehicles.

 

 Councillor Hedgley asked Mr McClean to point out on the map where his property was which he did.

 

 Councillor Smithson asked why the openings were essential. The Principal Planner explained that these were consented through outline planning.  The ambition was for the green area to be open outside of the cricket season and allow easier access by foot which would enhance the sustainability.  Councillor Smithson said that ASB and drug problems had got worse since 2021 when outline planning was granted so the concerns were real. She asked how much lighting there would be. The Principal Planner pointed out the blue dots on the plan that were lighting bollards. There was lighting around the entire footpath so there would be no dark spots. Because East Suffolk owned the land if there were issues then East Suffolk can take action.

 

 Councillor Bennett explained that this area would become a public space and therefore more public access was justified. Mr McClean said the benefit of not having those openings is that those living in Valley Walk could see who was coming in and out. By increasing the openings more people can get in and it would be harder to monitor.

 

 Dave Martin, the Planning Agent, was invited to speak. He explained the plan was to build a state of the art indoor bowls club on the site of the former sports hall. The building height had been lowered to reduce the visual impact and they had removed the parapet. The facility was designed with sustainability in mind and would provide an inclusive community hub. The new cricket pavilion would be built to ECB and Sport England standards. This was a significant investment in the town and would promote wellbeing and sustainability.

 

 Councillor Reeves asked about the usage of the bowls club as his understanding was that it would only be used for 6 months a year, as most members belonged to outdoor bowls clubs in the summer. East Suffolk Council’s Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that it would be used all year but there would be greater use in the winter. Councillor Bennett asked if they had any information that suggested with the change in climate if indoor facilities would be utilised more. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said he didn’t but he was arranging a site visit and would see if there was any research that could be shared.

 

 Councillor Smithson asked if they could guarantee that the play area would be safe for children. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained there were a number of wickets to prevent overuse and the senior teams would use the wickets furthest from the play area. He explained that research was done to establish where the ball mitigation netting should go.

 

 The Chair asked for further information about the site visit. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained it was for Cabinet Members and other Councillors to visit the current bowls club to establish the usage.

 

 Councillor Reeves said he had visited the site and asked if the sports hall would be demolished and rebuilt. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said an L shape would be retained, the roof would be removed and then the hall extended. The pitched roof would be much lower and would have solar panels. The removal of the walls improved the car parking provision.

 

 The Planning Manager gave some reassurance about the ball mitigation netting, explaining that a study on ball strikes had been undertaken. The netting went from 10m to 8m high and any changes would be quite significant. He stressed it was important to note that it was experts who had advised on the technical details of the netting. In response to residents’ concerns about ASB the new residential blocks would mean there were more people overlooking the site than before.

 

 The Principal Planner reminded Members that the footpath and access points had already been determined by the outline planning permission and so these were not up for determination today.

 

 Councillor Deacon said this would be a huge asset, resolving the issue with the bowls club and provide new facilities. He was very relieved that the hall roof was lower but he still had concerns about the lack of fencing around the play area. He didn’t accept that children wouldn’t wander out into a cricket match and would like it to be fenced off. He also asked if the mitigation netting could be increased in height. He took onboard the seriousness of the residents’ concerns.

 

 The Principal Planner explained that the fencing by the play area was 8m so if it was increased it would have to be given planning permission. Councillor Bennett asked for clarity on the safety fencing and it was explained that the fence tapered down to 8m from 10m. 


The Planning Manager said they had taken on board public safety and concerns about crime but they had tried to design out crime. Any ASB would be a police matter and he reminded Members that the footpath permission can’t be revisited. He said the ball mitigation fencing should be considered as proposed but if members wanted the play area enclosed this could be added as a planning condition. He explained that the Supplementary Planning Document did state that some fencing can be acceptable if it decreases risk.

 

Councillor Hedgley thought that if someone managed to hit a ball into the play area it would hit the headlines! He noted the concerns of the resident and looked to the Felixstowe Councillors for their knowledge of the area and the problems.

Councillor Daly felt it was a very good project to support and agreed with Councillor Hedgley. He pointed out that a study had been done by experts and they should be reassured by it. Cricket was normally a rural activity and they should only have fencing where there was strong evidence to support it. He was minded to support the application.

Councillor Reeves agreed with Councillor Deacon that it would be good to fence off the playground as this would also help prevent dog fouling. Councillor Smithson agreed with Councillor Reeves. She was concerned about children running out into a cricket match and children in the play area may not always be supervised.

 

Councillor Fisher was invited to speak but he had no comments.

The Principal Planner recommended that the landscaping condition could also include fencing around the play area with accessible gates. 


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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the committee resolves the Reserved Matters consent to be APPROVED subject to the below conditions and a  condition to be added to secure fencing around play area

Conditions (summarised)

1. Compliance with approved plans
2. Material samples to be submitted. Buildings to be finished with green roofs in accordance with surface water drainage strategy. 
3. Car parking to be provided prior to first use
4. Cycle storage details to be submitted and agreed and provided prior to first use
5. Demolition and construction management strategy
6. Hours of use – bowls club (Monday through Sunday 9:00 to 22:30)
7. Hours of use – cricket club (Monday through Sunday 12:00 to 23:00)
8. Senior cricket teams to only play on wickets 1-8
9. Development to be carried out in accordance with arboricultural method statement 
10. Landscaping plan including planting plan and method, boundary treatments and car park surface materials 
11. Footpath to be delivered prior to first occupation  
12. Play equipment to be delivered prior to first occupation of the residential 
13. Cricket pitch maintenance and landscape management strategy 
14. Car park lighting details including hours of use.
15. Bowls club external lighting details, only to be lit when in use. 
16. Infiltration testing and technical design work for drainage strategy 

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
7

The Committee received report ES/2398 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/4080/FUL. Planning permission was sought for the construction of a new vehicular access and an electric charging point. The proposed development was judged to be in accordance with the Development Plan and was recommended for approval. The application was referred to the Planning Committee South by the Referral Panel due to the objection from Melton Parish Council.

 

The Planning Manager gave a presentation which included site location plans, proposed block plans and a selection of photographs. He pointed out adjacent properties with parking in front of their properties and the unmade track and public right of way leading to the rectory. He showed a photograph which indicated there was cross over onto the land by vehicles already. He then ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. He pointed out that the Parish Council was concerned about the impact on bus stops and access. However Highways had no objections after receiving amended plans and so it was deemed acceptable and that it would benefit the area by providing off road parking. 

 

Councillor Hedgley pointed out that it didn’t face St Andrew’s Place but was facing Station Road so that would be the road impacted.  It was pointed out that if it faced St Andrew’s place it probably wouldn’t need permission but because it faced a classified road it did need permission. He asked if Suffolk Highways gave permission for a dropped kerb. The Planning Manager explained that you had to apply separately to Highways for a dropped kerb, and in this case they needed to have planning permission before applying to drop the kerb.

 

Councillor Smithson asked why the Parish Council said neighbours weren’t consulted. The Planning Manager explained they had fulfilled all their requirements on consultation but the Parish Council had expected a wider range of consultation to have taken place. They had not received any objections from neighbours.

 

Councillor Daly asked how the plans had been amended. The Planning Manager said the amended plans showed visibility splays in more detail.

 

Councillor Hedgley felt that by dropping the kerb it would smarten up the area and it would be a good thing. There was general agreement from all other Members.

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved with the conditions below:

Conditions: 

 1. Time limit 

 2. Approved plans 

 3. Parking area to be bound permeable material or if bound impermeable drainage to be provided.

Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
8

The Committee received report ES/2399 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/3854/FUL. Planning permission was sought for the erection of part two-storey and part first floor extension, and detached garage.  The proposal was in accordance with the Development Plan and was recommended for approval. The application was referred to committee by the Referral Panel because Woodbridge Town Council objected when it was recommended by officers for approval.

 

The Planning Manager gave a presentation and explained it was a large dwelling in a large plot and there was a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO). He showed photographs of the site and explained that trees T1-T5 would be removed to facilitate the new cart lodge, which fell within the group TPO. It was the tree removal that concerned the Town Council. The Planning Manager showed photographs of the site, highlighting that there were no nearby neighbouring properties and that it was a modest property in terms of height. He ran through the existing and proposed block plans. The Planning Team consulted with the arboricultural officer and asked for an Arboricultural Inspection (AIA). The Planning Manager explained that not all trees within a group TPO contribute to public amenity and removal of these trees would have a limited impact.  One tree was being removed irrespective of the development due to its poor state. The tree protection plan would protect and preserve T6. 

 

The Planning Manager continued to run through the extension plans showing existing and proposed floor plans and elevations. He also showed proposed elevations, roof and floor plans of the cart lodge. He went through the key issues and material planning considerations and said it was recommended for approval subject to conditions, including tree protection fencing.

 

Councillor Smithson asked that given it was such a large plot why did they chose to position the cart lodge where there were trees and not locate it somewhere else. She questioned why we had TPOs if they could be ignored at will. The Planning Manager agreed, and explained that they had held this discussion with the applicant. It made sense logistically because of the location of the drive and the arboriculturist had agreed that the trees could be removed. There was not a planning reason here to justify refusal but he did understand Councillor Smithson’s concerns. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that a TPO was not a measure introduced to preserve trees in perpetuity. It was a form of planning control that allowed them to make a decision where trees may be affected or may need to be removed.

 

Councillor Daly asked to see photographs of the trees being removed as he wanted to know if they were small or if they were significant. The Planning Manager showed photos of the trees which looked like low growing conifers. He pulled up the AIA to show the specific details. T1 to T5 were C category (low value) fir trees. The cedar tree (T6) was of a higher category and needed to be retained.

 

Councillor Hedgley asked about the 3rd party representations and that the next-door neighbour had concerns. The Planning Manager explained that a covenant was a civil matter and not something for planning. There was a perception that the additional floor could mean the neighbour would be overlooked but what was proposed was not considered impactful enough to recommend refusal.

 

Councillor Reeves asked if T5 was the one that needed to be removed due to disease as it was outside of the scope of the cart lodge. He wondered if it could be preserved.

 

Councillor Bennett asked where cars were currently parked now, and the Planning Manager confirmed it was outside the property.

 

Councillor Fisher asked that given it was a group TPO were the trees there when the order was enacted. The Planning Manager did not know the answer but accepted it could be possible. He said it wouldn’t matter though as even if they were not there when it was designated, if they had a high value they would be protected and would want to be retained. 

 

Councillor Bennett agreed with Councillor Smithson. He lived near an area that had a group TPO and some trees were removed for safety reasons. This was the sort of removal under a group TPO that was understandable. Councillor Deacon asked for clarity on that statement and if he would rather leave the trees. Councillor Bennett said that now he knew the category of the trees he would be interested in member views. Councillor Daly felt that having seen the pictures he didn’t see the removal as a huge loss. Councillor Hedgley agreed and didn’t see any huge problems. 

 

For clarity the Planning Manager went through the AIA and said that trees T1-3 were Category C (low value), T4 category U (very poor condition), T5 category B (moderate value). T6, the cedar, was category C but was being retained. Councillor Bennett asked why T5 needed to be removed and if it was due to the roots. The Planning Manager said it was likely due to the proximity to the cart lodge. Councillor Reeves felt that T5 could remain and that would reflect Woodbridge Town Council’s desire. Councillor Deacon stated that he didn’t like to see any tree removed unnecessarily and so it would be good to be able to keep T5. The Planning Manager asked if Members were happy to delegate to officers the ability to discuss with the applicant about possibly moving the building to be able to keep the tree. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it looked like the tree root protection was the issue and suggested that members could give authority to approve subject to an amended AIA to retain T5. The amended AIA might say it was not possible to construct the cart lodge and retain the tree and so there could be a decision to shift the building’s location slightly.


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

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be approved subject to an amended AIA to support the preservation of T5.

Conditions: 

 1. Time limit.

 2. Approved documents 

 3. Tree protection fencing to be implemented as approved


Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
9

The Committee received report ES/2402 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/0050/FUL. Planning permission was sought for a replacement window at 3 St Mary's Flats, Beccles. The proposal was considered to accord with local and national policy. The application was being presented to Planning Committee South as East Suffolk Council was the applicant and landowner. 

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Trainee Planner. He showed photographs of the site, existing and proposed elevations, existing floor plans and ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 Councillor Reeves asked about the use of these buildings and the Trainee Planner confirmed they were social housing. 

 

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

Conditions (summarised):

1. Time limit
2. Plans compliance

 
Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
10

The Committee received report ES/2403 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2970/LBC. Listed building consent was sought for a replacement window at 3 St Mary's Flats, Beccles. The proposal was considered to preserve the significance of the listed building in accordance with local and national policy. The application was presented to Planning Committee South as East Suffolk Council was both the applicant and landowner.

 

On the proposal of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Fisher it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That listed building consent is granted subject to conditions.

Conditions (summarised):

1. Time limit
2. Plans compliance
3. Replacement window in timber and in accordance with approved details

 
Exempt/Confidential

Attendance

Attended - Other Members
Name
No other member attendance information has been recorded for the meeting.
Apologies
NameReason for Sending ApologySubstituted By
Councillor Debbie McCallum  
Councillor Mike Ninnmey  
Absent
NameReason for AbsenceSubstituted By
No absentee information has been recorded for the meeting.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Officers present: Pip Alder (Democratic Services Officer), Daniel Bailes (Trainee Planner), Matthew Beale (Assistant Planner (Development Management)), Joe Blackmore (Planning Manager (Development Management)), Katie Fowler (Principal Planner (Major Sites)), Agnes Ogundiran (Conservative Political Group Support Officer), Tim Snook (Leisure Development Partnership Manager), Dominic Starkey (Assistant Enforcement Officer (Development Management)), Ben Woolnough (Head of Planning and Building Control)