Meeting Details

The Chair announced there had been changes to the membership of Planning Committee North.  She thanked Councillor Ewart and Councillor Graham for their work on the Committee and welcomed Councillor Beavan and Councillor Hammond.

Apologies for Absence were received from Councillor Ashton and Councillor Hammond. Councillor Topping attended as Councillor Hammond's substitute.

Councillor Pitchers declared an interest in Agenda item 5 as Ward Member.

As Cabinet Member for Housing, Councillor Beavan declared an interest in Agenda item 5 and recused himself from the vote.

The Committee received report ES/2410 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement cases for East Suffolk Council where enforcement action had been sanctioned under delegated powers up until 22 May. At that time there were 29 such cases. The Enforcement Planner advised the Committee that since the report was published the land in Lound and 200 Bridge Road had been complied with and closed off.

Councillor Ashdown noted the compliance date of 8 April 2024 for the Southwold Flower Company and asked for an update on the case.  The Enforcement Planner advised that a variation of planning permission had been submitted and they were awaiting the outcome of that, as it could result in some of the matters on the enforcement notice no longer being required.

Councillors Ashdown and Plummer noted the length of time some of the enforcement matters were taking.  Councillor Plummer asked how much information was provided from the Planning Inspectorate regarding the progress of cases.  The Planning Manager advised that there was minimal information provided, they receive a timeline and await the outcome.  He noted that the challenge was with the limited resource of the Planning Inspectorate and enforcement matters were not prioritised.

Councillor Beavan asked if case A.3 -  Southwold Flower Company was a new or retrospective application.  It was confirmed that it was partly retrospective as it sought to vary the conditions.  Councillor Beavan expressed concern at a retrospective condition being submitted.  The Planning Manager reassured him that submitting a retrospective application did not change the fact that there was a live enforcement case, and agreed to provide Councillor Beavan with the detail outside of the Committee and ensure this was updated in the following month’s report.

Councillor Topping asked about case A.5 Hornbill Business Park, the enforcement notice was 30 November 2024, she queried whether they were engaging with the Council as erecting new business units with no planning permission was a serious oversight. The Planning Manager replied that this would be prioritised.  

The members requested that there was an update from the legal team at the next meeting.

The Chair thanked the Enforcement team for all of their work. On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Pitchers, it was

RESOLVED

 That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 22 May 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2411 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/0811/FUL.  The application was for partial change of use to the ground floor to form a ground floor rear flat (front retail space to be retained) and reconfiguration of first/second floor flats/space to provide three flats over the first/second floor (currently two). Four flats would be provided in total. The application was before Planning Committee North as East Suffolk Council were the landowner.

The Senior Planner (Development Management) presented the application to the Committee.

The site location plan was shared, showing the application site in context, noting its location in the South Lowestoft and Kirkley conservation area and proximity to surrounding amenities.

A series of photographs were shown of the front and rear of the building, views of the street and the relationship of the building to surrounding properties.  There were no amendments intended to the front of the building and the application would maintain the attractive former bank appearance. 

The proposed block plan and existing and proposed elevations and floor plans were shared

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Principle
• Conservation area impact 
• Amenity 
• Highways
• RAMS 

It was recommended to the Committee that the application be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The Chair invited questions to the Senior Planner.

Councillor Pitchers asked if the applicant would be maintaining the Barclays Bank signs on the side elevations. The Senior Planner replied that they hadn’t indicated that they would not be retained, and it was part of their proposal.  Councillor Pitchers said it was an important part of the Kirkley scene.

In response to Councillor Beavan it was confirmed there were currently 2 flats and this proposal would see an increase to 4.

Councillor Topping, as Heritage Champion for East Suffolk Council, said she would like to support Councillor Pitcher’s point about maintaining the signage.  She commented on the work that had been done in Kirkley to improve the main street and suggested there was a condition added to prevent the shop frontage from being changed.  She commended the retail element and encouraged the accommodation above. 

Councillor Plummer agreed that the Barclay’s Bank signs should be retained as part of a condition.

The Senior Planner confirmed that there could be an informative to say that any works would require planning permission, and that a condition requiring signage retention could be added if members were minded to approve.

Councillor Gee agreed it was important to retain the signage and shop frontage.

Councillor Beavan asked if an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) could be added as an informative if the flat was likely to be rented.  The Senior Planner confirmed that this could be added.

Councillor Plummer asked about the space for the flat in the roof space and the Senior Planner confirmed it was fully in accordance with national space standards. 

Councillor Topping noted that Lowestoft Town Council had responded to the application and recommended approval. 

The Chair asked the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Ashdown recommended approval of the application with the added suggested informatives.  Councillor Pitchers seconded the recommendation. 

Councillor Beavan, whilst saddened that the housing department hadn’t been offered the purchase of the building, welcomed the two additional residential units in the town centre.  As Cabinet Member for housing, he recused himself from the vote.

On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was 

RESOLVED 

That the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. 3 Year Time Limit

2. Approved Plans

3. Cycle Storage Details

4. Refuse Storage