5
The Committee received report ES/0074 of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management. The application sought planning permission to provide a lake within the grounds of Bawdsey Manor Estate for use by the applicant (PGL) who run a children’s outdoor activity/educational centre on the site. The lake would provide opportunities for canoeing and raft building by guests. The material excavated for the lake was proposed be re-used on the estate. It was also proposed to re-position activity equipment previously consented within the grounds. The application was before the Committee because of the sensitive nature of the site, the finely balanced nature of the recommendation, and the level of public interest.
The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer. She referred to the visit to the site undertaken by the Committee on 15 July 2019 and drew Members' attention to the additional information provided within the update sheet, which had been circulated on 22 July 2019.
The site's location, and its relationship with Bawdsey village and Bawdsey Quay, was outlined. The site's proximity to Ferry Road was also demonstrated. Several parcels of land on the site, containing residential dwellings, existed on the site. These areas and buildings had once formed part of the Estate but were in separate ownership.
An aerial photo of the Bawdsey Manor Estate was displayed. It was highlighted that several features of the site, including parkland and buildings, were listed. The site consisted of a series of formal gardens at its front and more natural areas of parkland to its rear. The PGL site was predominantly accessed from the driveway at the front of the site, accessed from Bawdsey Quay. An access driveway also existed at the rear of the site which primarily served the residential properties.
The site was within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and to the south and west was the River Deben Estuary which was designated a Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A section of the coastline was also an SSSI (Bawdsey Cliff SSSI) designated for its geological interest.
The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer outlined the site's history; the site was originally created as a country estate in the late 1890s, before being occupied as an RAF site between 1930 and 1991. A number of military buildings from this period remained on the site and were of significant historical importance, due to the role Bawdsey had played in the development of radar technology. The site was sold by the Ministry of Defence in 1994 and was used as an international school until PGL purchased the site. Since taking on the site, PGL have been committed to its restoration and had undertaken works identified by the site's Conservation Management Plan (CMP), which had been completed in 2009 and funded by Historic England. One of the restorations identified in the plan and undertaken by PGL was the section of the River Jordan near to the Manor House, which had been observed by the Committee during its site visit.
It was noted that at its peak, the international school had accommodated 200 students, but this number had declined in the school's latter years.
2019 was the second year of PGL operating the site and the company had made use of a number of the listed buildings in an appropriate way, as part of the site's operation. The parkland areas were also being used for outdoor activities. The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer highlighted that PGL's ownership of the site prevented further piecemeal breaking up of the site through sales of parcels of land.
The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer outlined the application site and the lake's position within the estate. It was noted that raft building already took place on the restored section of the River Jordan. The applicant had stated that the ability to offer the activities the lake would provide was essential as it was expected at PGL sites and would allow the site to remain competitive. Excess water from the lake would discharge to wetlands at the rear of the application site and help improve that area, in line with the CMP. The works would also remove defunct car parking areas close to the application site which would be a positive development.
The Committee was provided with detailed plans of the proposal; the shape and design of the lake, including the addition of islands, would allow it to integrate into the local landscape. There would be 12 activity stations around the lake for the launch of boats/rafts and the storage of equipment. It was highlighted that the lake had been reduced in size and moved further away from neighbouring residential properties to mitigate its impact.
The activity stations would be linked by means of a footpath. Photographs were displayed, showing the view of the application site that had been demonstrated to Members during the site visit. Two shelters would also be included for young people not taking part in activities and for the storage of bags during activities. It was considered that the activity stations would be screened by existing planting on the site.
Further detail was provided regarding the planting of reed beds and the wet grassland that would be around the periphery of the lake, to mitigate the loss of the grazing marsh. Cross-sections of the lake were shown, demonstrating the level of the lake in relation to neighbouring properties. It was confirmed that the depth of the lake would be 1.5m.
A comparison photograph was shown, detailing the screening that existing vegetation would provide to the nearby residential dwellings in both summer and winter. The Committee was also in receipt of an image of the site with the proposed lake superimposed on to it, to demonstrate the relationship there would be between the lake, nearby houses, and Ferry Road.
The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer detailed the amendments to the layout of the some of the activity structures, previously consented but not yet been installed. To address some concerns raised by neighbouring residents in close proximity of these structures, it was proposed to re-position some of those structures increasing the distance from adjacent properties. The application also sought retrospective consent for the zip wire that was installed in the opposite direction to that consented. This had resulted in the descent being angled further from a neighbouring property.
The key issues were summarised as the impact on designated heritage assets, the impact on the landscape the AONB and the Heritage Coast, the ecological impact and the impact on protected species, the impact on residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk, and contamination.
The applicant had acknowledged that nearby organisations used the River Deben for waterborne training, however had stated that this was not suitable for the activities proposed as the majority of guests would be primary school age and have limited experience on the water in a vessel, and would need safe and controlled water conditions. It was also stated that off-site activities would have a significant impact on both activity time, cost to guests, and traffic in the local area.
The Committee was directed to the update sheet, in regard to the updates to paragraph 8.17 of the report on the amended Landscape Strategy and the comments of Historic England on the document.
The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer reiterated that the lake had been designed to look as natural as possible within the AONB and have a minimal impact. It was noted that the area of the AONB related to Bawdsey Quay was not defined as a tranquil area and attracted visitors. The Committee was also advised that Suffolk Wildlife Trust had objected to the application as it felt insufficient evidence had been provided by the applicant; PGL had subsequently undertaken a Habitats Regulation Assessment which had provided enough detail to determine that there would be no negative impact to the SSSI or Ramsar sites. It was noted that an Ecology and Habitat Management Plan would be put in place.
The objections to the application on the grounds of noise were referenced. The Committee was informed that PGL had taken into account these objections and would implement restrictions on the number of children on the lake at any one time, and the operating times of the lake. The applicant had also produced an assessment that suggested noise levels would be broadly the same as the levels measured at the River Jordan site when raft-building takes place. The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer noted the comments of Environmental Health regarding the subjective factors that should be taken into consideration.
The recommendation to delegate authority to approve, as detailed within the report, was outlined to the Committee.
The Chairman invited questions to the Officer.
It was confirmed that the Council's Economic Development Team had not been formally consulted on the application as the application was for an additional facility within an existing business. In response to a request from the Chairman during the site visit, the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer had approached Economic Development who stated it recognised PGL's occupation of the site as significant investment in the economy of the area which provided employment. The Chairman expressed her disappointment that no-one from Economic Development was present at the meeting given the nature of the application.
The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer assured the Committee that restoration works were conditioned within the recommendation.
In response to a question on the existing grazing land, the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer was unable to give a precise length of time for its disuse but considered it was at least ten years.
A member of the Committee queried the lack of noise level assessment information in the report. The work undertaken by the applicant to measure the sound of raft-building at the River Jordan site was reiterated as were the comments of Environmental Health regarding the subjective factors of any noise made by the activities. The Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer noted that the applicant had agreed to controlling factors to minimise the noise produced.
It was confirmed that ponds would be created from the lake as part of wildlife habitats. The proposed islands would also function as wildlife habitats.
The Committee was advised that there would only be two shelters, and that there would be 12 activity stations. Equipment would only be stored at the latter during the summer months.
In response to a request from a member of the Committee, a picture of the proposed shelters was displayed.
The Chairman invited Mr Block, Chairman of Bawdsey Parish Council, to address the Committee.
Mr Block said that the Parish Council had looked at the application in detail and that he would concentrate on three key issues; the impact on residents, the impact on the grassland, and the consideration of an alternative location for the lake.
Mr Block noted the concerns raised by local residents who had bought homes that had previously been part of the estate. He considered that the concern regarding loss of amenity was supported by the comments of Environmental Health and that the noise would be continuous, irregular, difficult to control and monitor, and would be every day. Mr Block said that tranquillity was an important part of the Deben Estuary; he agreed that Bawdsey Quay was not a tranquil area but considered that the area abutting the application site was. He referred to the NPPF supporting this factor for an AONB.
It was acknowledged that the grassland was not a spectacular piece of countryside, but a lack of recent human intervention had given it a special quality. Mr Block said that it was an important habitat for local species and was a large part of the AONB. Mr Block considered that once this was gone, it was gone forever, and that no matter how carefully the site was managed, it would be a place of lively human activity.
Mr Block was of the opinion that the suggestion that the lake be located on the western lawn had been dismissed too readily. He noted that a small lake had existed on the north-west of the site when it was a country estate, so the proposal was not without precedent. Mr Block added that unlike the application site, this alternative location could be successfully restored in the future.
There being no questions to Mr Block, the Chairman invited Ms Cass, agent for the applicant, to address the Committee.
Ms Cass stated that the application represented an important part of PGL's use of the estate. She considered that PGL's acquisition of the site ensured that it remained in a single ownership and prevented further piecemeal sales breaking up the estate.
It was noted that the site was at risk when acquired and that PGL had recognised that significant investment and restoration was required; Ms Cass said that this had informed PGL's long-terms plan for the site and that the installation of the lake was integral to its objectives. She advised that waterborne activities were an important part of PGL's history and key to it being competitive in the market.
Ms Cass considered that material planning considerations had been addressed by the current application and that the lake would support the long-term management of the estate, and support habitats drying out.
It was appreciated by Ms Cass that noise remained a concern. She highlighted that PGL had made changes to the application in response to comments including changing the position of the lake and the positions of the launch stations around it. Ms Cass said that this demonstrated PGL quickly responding to concerns and that the company had kept the Council up to date at all times. She considered that the noise management plan in place and the site manager's approach to concerns had addressed concerns raised to date.
Ms Cass said that PGL promoted the local economy by increasing jobs in the area and offered valuable experiences for young people. She stressed that PGL worked with the neighbours at all its sites and asked the Committee to support the application.
The Chairman invited questions to Ms Cass. Ms Cass was joined by Mr Jones, General Manager of the site, to answer any questions.
The Chairman asked for detail on how noise levels across the site would be controlled. Mr Jones explained that singing is used when transporting young people between locations on the site and this would be restricted in areas near to residential dwellings. He added that the sessions on the lake would be designed to be fun but educational and would concentrate on these aspects rather than games or races.
It was confirmed that young people on the site were supervised for the vast majority of the time on the site, given the profile of the type of young people who commonly visited the site. Mr Jones noted that the only unsupervised activity was orienteering, but this took place well away from the application site.
The Chairman invited Mr Zinns, who objected to the application, to address the Committee.
Mr Zinns invited the Committee to ask him questions regarding noise concerns, as he considered that there had been significant misrepresentation on the issue. He was representing neighbouring residents who objected to the application and had concerns regarding it. He noted that the CMP had suggested the sell-off of buildings to support the restoration of the estate.
Mr Zinns explained that most residents were retirees or individuals that worked from home. He was of the opinion that a lake would reduce residential amenity and also property value. He highlighted the comments of Environmental Health regarding noise and said that a noise management plan would not resolve the issue.
Mr Zinns said that should the lake be approved he and other residents would pursue private claims against the applicant and considered that this would then cause the lake to be abandoned. He was also concerned regarding the impact of the lake on the drainage of the site and stated that the harm to the parkland would not be realised until it was too late. He outlined the recent profits of PGL and weighed this against its statement that the lake was vital in order to fund restoration works.
The Chairman invited questions to Mr Zinns. She reminded the Committee that its determination of the application must be based on material planning considerations and that the impact on house prices should not be taken into account.
A member of the Committee asked Mr Zinns if he and other objectors, when they had purchased properties, had taken into consideration that they were not buying properties within a conventional residential setting. Mr Zinns noted that the properties had been bought from the international school, which had not created a nuisance for residents.
The Chairman invited Councillor Mallinder, Ward Member for Bawdsey, to address the Committee.
Councillor Mallinder said that he wanted to concentrate on two key issues; noise and the impact of the development on the environment. He considered the proposed mitigation for noise to be poor and was concerned about the negative impact it would have on both residents and local wildlife, as sound would travel better in such a rural setting. He described the areas as calm and tranquil and said that it attracted humans and wildlife.
Councillor Mallinder added that the area was a special one that needed to be protected. He welcomed PGL's efforts and described the company as welcome residents but stated that the application was too big for what it was trying to achieve. He said it would be a permanent alteration of the grassland which was a sensitive wildlife area. He said that he could not support the application.
The Chairman invited questions to Councillor Mallinder.
Councillor Mallinder said that the sound travel from the lake would differ from other activities on the site as two sides of the application site bordered residential dwellings and the highways, whilst other activities were situated further into the site.
The Chairman invited the Committee to debate the application that was before it.
Several members of the Committee noted that they had concerns about the application, particularly in regard to noise and the impact on the ecology of the application site. It was suggested by one Member that the noise issue had not been tackled adequately and that clear statements regarding the impact of noise from the lake were required.
Another member of the Committee, who was Ward Member for Western Felixstowe, gave an example of a reserve constructed in his Ward to mitigate the expansion of the Port of Felixstowe. He said that, at the time, had held concerns that the proximity of the reserve to the Port would cause disturbance to wildlife but that this had not been the case. He noted the assurances of the applicant regarding the mitigation proposed in the application and understood both the applicant's reasons for the application and the objectors' concerns. He was unsure how he would vote on the application.
Other members of the Committee spoke positively on the application, noting the significant change that had occurred across the estate during its lifetime and commended the efforts of PGL to mitigate impact on wildlife and its commitment to restore the Estate, highlighting the continued employment opportunities that the site brought. One Member considered that the lake itself would encourage wildlife and noted that similar lakes were encouraged as mitigation on other developments. These Members indicated that they would vote in favour of the proposal.
The site visit was described by one member of the Committee as having been informative. She remained concerned about the impact of noise on residential amenity and was undecided on how to vote on the application.
At this point of the debate, Councillor Cooper declared a Local Non-Pecuniary Interest in the application, as he had accessed the site under its previous ownership. He noted that children on the site would be engaged in physical activity and take part in positive experiences. He was in support of the application.
Another member of the Committee suggested that more detailed facts and figures relating to noise would have been helpful. He spoke about his experience of working on similar sites and considered that the impact of noise on residential amenity would not be significant. However, he was concerned about the impact of the lake's construction on wildlife and disagreed with comments made by other Members on this subject. He acknowledged that some wildlife would return, but not all of what would be disturbed would. He noted the importance of the lake for the development of young people accessing the site and said that, on balance, he supported the proposal.
The Chairman acknowledged that the site had been occupied since the late 1890s for various uses. She reminded the Committee that planning applications, where the recommendation was against policy, needed to be determined on the balance of the benefit outweighing the harm. She believed that, on this occasion, the benefit outweighed the harm. She noted the concerns of the objectors but considered the continuation of the restoration of the Estate to be very important. She was also of the opinion that the development of young people was important and that the lake would provide activities that would contribute to such development. The Chairman noted the employment that was brought to the local area by PGL and considered the mitigation for the impact on wildlife to be sufficient. She was in favour of the application.
A member of the Committee noted that the report detailed that no noise complaints had been received in 2019 and that complaints in 2018 had not been substantiated. He said that there was clear evidence that PGL was taking onboard suggestions from local residents and attempting to be a good neighbour.
There being no further debate, the Chairman invited the Committee to determine the application. On the proposition of Councillor Cooper, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was unanimously
RESOLVED
AUTHORITY TO APPROVE subject to the consideration by the Head of Planning and Coastal Management of any comments by Natural England and SWT on the additional ecological reports, clarification from Historic England on the wording of the condition to secure the landscape improvements identified in the revised Landscape Strategy and subject to the following controlling 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 (list of documents to be inserted here, final documents yet to be agreed) received (dates of receipt to be inserted), 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. Not more than 80 participants shall use the lake at any one time, reduced to 60 participants on Saturdays and 50 participants on Sundays.
Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of nearby residents
4. The lake shall not be used between 14th November and 10th February the following year, with all equipment removed from the edge of the lake during this time. At all other times of the year the lake shall not be used for activities before 9am and after 5.30pm.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
5. Prior to works commencing on the excavation to create or the construction of the shelters, the lake, detailed construction drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The details shall include the level changes and grading of land around the lake, details of the activity stations, the exact locations of the timber shelters and their appearance and materials, details of materials for all hard surfaced areas. Only the approved details shall be implemented.
Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity and the preservation of the historic parkland.
6. None of the existing woodlands, tree belts, groups of trees and individual trees shown to be retained on the approved drawings shall be uprooted, felled, wilfully damaged or in any other way destroyed or removed without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. Any trees or hedgerow removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of the completion of the development shall be replaced during the first available planting season with trees and/or shrubs of a size and species which have previously been agreed by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenity provided by the trees and hedgerows and to safeguard the character of the Historic Park and Garden.
7. Prior to work commencing on the excavation to create the lake, a materials management plan providing details of how the material excavated will be distributed, deposited and managed across the site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall proceed only in accordance with the submitted details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and the protection of the local environment.
8. Within 3 month(s) of commencement of development, satisfactory precise details of a full planting schedule (which shall include species, size and numbers of plants to be planted) shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-laid out scheme of landscaping in the interest of visual amenity and improving the biodiversity of the site.
9. The following ecological mitigation and enhancement measures, recommended by the Council's ecologist, shall be implemented in full:
- provision and approval of a Construction and
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This should detail all required
ecological mitigation measures (including for protected species and species for
which nearby sites are designated). It should also include a Materials
Management Plan in relation to spoil transport and disposal/spreading. Works
must be undertaken in accordance with the agreed CEMP.
- provision and approval of a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP). This
should include details of the long term habitat management measures to be
implemented both on the lake and spoil disposal/spreading area, and across the
wider estate. These measures should seek to maintain and enhance the
biodiversity value of the whole estate in the long term. Management of the
estate should be in accordance with the agreed plan.
Reason: To protect and enhance the biodiversity and geodiversity value of the site.
10. The works listed in the hereby approved Landscape Strategy shall be implemented in full within the timeframes stated unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority. (This condition may make specific reference to particular works once the final Landscape Strategy is agreed)
Reason: In the interest of securing the maintenance/restoration of designated heritage assets.
11. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
- Finished water levels for the lake are set no higher than -0.1 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD)
The mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to first use in accordance with timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the local planning authority.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding.
12. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal and the following measures detailed within the appraisal:
- The 24,260 cubic metres of excavated substrate must not be deposited within either Flood Zone 3 or Flood Zone 2.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding
13. Prior to the commencement of the excavation works to create the lake, details of the proposed temporary access (including the position of any gates to be erected and visibility splays provided) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved access shall be laid out and constructed in its entirety prior to construction of the lake commencing. Thereafter the access shall be retained in its approved form until construction is complete, where upon it shall be removed within 1 month, and the highway verge restored in accordance with details previously agreed with the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that the access is designed and constructed to an appropriate specification and made available for use at an appropriate time in the interests of highway safety and the highway verge is satisfactorily re-instated.
14. All HGV movements to and from the site during construction shall be subject to a Deliveries Management Plan which shall be submitted for approval a minimum of 28 days before any deliveries of materials commence. No HGV movements shall be permitted to and from the site other than in accordance with the routes defined in the plan. The Plan shall include measures to deal with complaints.
Reason: To reduce the effect of HGV movements in the interests of residential amenity and the protection of the local environment.
15. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, on completion of the lake or in accordance with a programme agreed with the Local Planning Authority; and any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation; all works shall be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice.
Reason: In the interest of securing the maintenance/restoration of designated heritage assets, visual amenity and the protection of the local environment.
16. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
17. The development shall take place in compliance with the implementation of a programme of archaeological investigation, as described in the approved Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted as part of the application to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Strategic Policies SP1 and SP 15 of Suffolk Coastal District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
18. There shall be no use of any form of loud speakers, megaphones, sirens, or any other equipment providing amplified sound, at the lake.
19. The submitted Noise Management Plan shall be implemented and its annual review be submitted to the Council.
Following the conclusion of this item, the Chairman adjourned the meeting for a short break at 4.10pm. The meeting was reconvened at 4.19pm.