6
The Committee received report ES/2377 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/4213/FUL. Planning permission was sought for the reconstruction of 4no. former agricultural buildings for use as a single guest house (Use Class C1), including associated leisure and recreation uses at Valley Farm, Laundry Lane, Huntingfield, Suffolk, IP19 0PY. The application was described as part retrospective as it had been substantially constructed but differed in some respects to the previously approved plans within planning permission DC/22/2572/FUL.
The application was called in directly to Planning Committee North at the request of the Vice Chair – Councillor Julia Ewart. This application was considered by Planning Committee North on 8 April 2005, where it was resolved to defer the application for a committee site visit, which took place on 30 April. Some updates had been made to the report since then based on questions previously raised and to best inform readers.
A clarification note was provided within the application process, identifying the associated leisure and tourism uses; these included weddings, spa retreats, corporate events, celebrations and educational visits.
The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planner (Development Management), who was the Case Officer for the application. Slides were shown as follows:
- The site location plan, highlighting the application site and access from Brick Kiln Lane.
- The route taken at the Site Visit.
- Location of the application site in the village of Huntingfield, noting that Ubbeston and Heveningham Parishes were adjacent to the site.
- Block plan – showing the application site, Blyth Barn, Blyth manor, car parks and management services building (subject to items 7 and 8 on the agenda)
- Potential areas for marquees (explained within the noise impact assessment)
- Changes in site – extent of the former range of outbuildings, comparing 2014 and now
- Former layout of the site, formerly agricultural use, with an overlay added showing buildings as they are currently – noting they were broadly on the same footprint, and of similar scale.
- Wider aerial views 2014 and 2024, comparing to now where the extensive landscape enhancements can be shown through the Heveningham Masterplan, including the lake.
- View of the site from Blyth Manor, where the extensive planting and lake created could be seen. It was noted that the enhancement was carried out ahead of the development (which isn’t always the case). The master plan approach had taken place across the Heveningham Estate, including Chapel Barn and Sibton and Cockfield Estates.
- Most relevant Local Plan Policy for new tourism accommodation - SCLP 6.5. Tourist accommodation comprising permanent buildings will only be permitted “where such development forms part of a comprehensive masterplan which supports wider landscape and ecological gain” which was the case with this application.
- Extract from Heveningham Hall Masterplan 2009 in relation to Valley Farm was shared, highlighting there was the proposal to create tourism accommodation from the complex with event space. In 2009, 8 cottages were suggested, this has lessened in numbers of units.
- Artist impression of building from 2009 masterplan compared with proposal as built.
- Photos of Valley Farmhouse (Blyth Manor) prior to works, showing the heritage benefits that have occurred leading to the building as it is today.
- Slide showing the relationship of the site to heritage assets in the area along with the comments from the Principal Design and Heritage Officer, a Chartered Architect and Planner with extensive experience of dealing with the Heveningham Estate.
- Proposal and as built elevations, showing the external and courtyard areas.
- Slides were introduced due to comments made that some of the as built design wasn’t as proposed originally. As built anomalies were highlighted, with each element shown alongside the originally proposed to highlight the exact changes made. Following discussion with the heritage team, the majority were considered to be minor in nature and overall improvements and not considered to have heritage impact.
- Plans of the widened inset dormer/balcony on south elevation. This change was not considered to be appropriate for the building. The balcony as approved has been agreed to be reinstated within 6 months should planning permission be granted.
- Internal layout – ground and first floor layout plans – area covered by site visit was pointed out to the Committee.
- Area to be used for wedding services was highlighted to the Committee.
- The main event area was shown with a layout plan for 270, noting that 270 was the maximum for the capacity of the venue, which could be controlled by condition.
- The applicant’s clarification note stated Sibton Park had, on average, 120 guests and Chapel Barn, 90. They ranged between 30 and 200 guests and in 2004 Chapel Barn had 9 weddings and in 2025 there were 8.
- To control the number of people at the events, and the number of events held, a condition had been suggested (included as part of the update sheet). The detail of the condition was shared with the Committee along with the proposed control methods to be implemented.
The planning history was shared with the Committee:
- 2020 approved elevations - noting that the proposal to increase the height was always part of original proposal.
- 2021 – variation of condition – sought conversion of buildings with some design amendments, regrettably the majority of buildings were demolished.
- 2022 – application to regularise the demolition, plans were shared showing similarities to these approved in 2021, in terms of the detail, design and scale
- 2022 approved elevations and as built were compared. It was similar in appearance, slight increase to left hand side of barn to include services, and wing of building brought forward to encompass storage elements. There were some changes to the floor plans in areas of the building.
- 2022 approved elevations and as built courtyard were compared, noting it was similar, with acknowledged design changes made.
- Internal courtyard elevation 2022 approval to as built, some amendment in terms of scale but very similar to approved. Showing 2022 (balcony) and as mentioned earlier which will be reinstated.
- Extension over time of basement element noted – original approved 2020 basement shown, 2021 variation of condition extended the included basement area, As built and proposed in current application, further areas have been built.
Photographs (as shown at previous committee) were shared. These included the building, internal main barn, basement level (visited on site visit), examples of directional speakers, limiter controls as detailed in noise impact assessment. Photographic evidence of the noise impact assessment from the site visit was shown, and an explanation of the noise impact assessment given.
The noise impact assessment and noise management plan would be subject to condition. Slides demonstrating the impact from the noise impact assessment from various locations was shared with the Committee. Photographs of the courtyard and the noise impact effect was explained, noting the assessment treated it as a level area, therefore the bowl area would further suppress the noise.
A series of photographs were shown:
- Photos from raised patio area looking back to Blyth Manor
- Photos showing the range of buildings and the former farmhouse
- Aerial image of the complex.
- Views of the complex in the landscape, comparing the 2011 Street View image and the as built development, showing the extensive planting that has taken place and is becoming established.
A slide showing the current access arrangements was shared. It was noted that Laundry Lane was temporarily being used, and that consideration could be given to a separate condition to restrict the access to Laundry Lane.
A new access route had been approved on to Halesworth Road, and a condition had been suggested that within 6 months, if approved, the majority of events traffic would use that access. Brick Kiln Lane would then only be used for those vehicles which exceeded the weight limits.
It was noted that Suffolk County Council were fully aware of the events application and had no objections to the proposed use of this access. It was consented in January 2025 and considered to be a safe access point. The applicant suggested that the use of this access would reduce vehicle movements from venue users through Heveningham and Huntingfield by 90-95%. The northern area of the access point was viewed at the site visit, where it could be seen work had commenced, with the applicant planning to complete asap.
The indicative parking area and shuttle bus route was shown to the Committee, this was taken from the Access Strategy document provided with the application. For events, guests would arrive at reception and be directed through the internal access track to avoid village disruption.
If approved, the Access Strategy would be a condition as part of the planning permission. A slide shared showed the former farm access being from Laundry Lane. Closing off the Laundry Lane access would result in less traffic movement along the lane.
The material planning considerations/key issues were summarised as
• Principle of development
• Neighbour amenity
• Landscape impact
• Heritage impact
• Design
• Access
It was recommended to approve the approve the application as outlined in the report and noting that the update sheet provided details of the various representations received and led to the following additional condition:
8). In any calendar year there shall be no more than 8 events held to comprising of over 180 persons (excluding employees) held within or served by the buildings and red line site area of this planning permission. There shall be no events within or served by the buildings and red line site area of this planning permission exceeding 270 persons (excluding employees). The operator shall maintain a Booking Log detailing the date, type, duration and number of attendees for each booking. This log shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority upon request.
Reason: In order to provide control over the number of large-scale events in the interests of the amenity of the area and to allow monitoring of the effects of larger events. Any subsequent removal or variation of this condition through a Section 73 process would require the submission of a Monitoring Report recording the number and scale of all events, based on the Booking Log, including those of above 180 persons along with a record of complaints received by the operator.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor Pitchers liked the idea of the extra condition and asked whether the marquees would be inside or outside of the red line area.
The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that although the two marquee locations were outside of the red line they would be served by the facilities within the red line area and be dependent on that area, so there would be a wider control from that sense.
Councillor Gee asked how the number of large-scale events and guest numbers could be supervised and controlled in the future. She had heard from a resident that events had already started and were noisy. It was a rural area, and officers could not go out every 5 minutes, she felt things were already being done behind their backs and didn’t have much trust for what they were being asked to control in the future.
There was clapping and cheering from the public gallery.
The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was important to ask about the enforceability of the conditions, it was one of the six tests that they had to apply when considering whether to include a condition. There was the requirement to maintain a log of events and it would be the applicant’s responsibility to know what they were booking in. He added any venue booking private events would want to know guest numbers for requirements. It would be critical that this log was provided, maintained and made accessible to officers at all times, should it be requested. Officers could also undertake spot checks and investigation. The condition contained controls and allowed Officers to take control.
The Head of Planning and Building Control acknowledged that events had taken place before gaining planning permission but stated if they were to grant planning permission then they would be in a position of maintaining control.
Councillor Ninnmey thanked the officers for organising the site visit, which was very informative, he was disappointed that the applicant didn’t allow those visiting on behalf of other to take photographs. As this was a retrospective application, he suggested the Planning Department could negotiate better ways for members to share information that they’re particularly interested in amongst themselves.
Councillor Ninnmey asked what the difference in square meterage was between the first application and the latest? Following on, he asked if this latest application would move it from a minor to a major application?
The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that this had always been a major application since it was submitted, a major application is based on floor area and site area or number of units, and this was registered as a major application. This had been clarified in the most recent report.
It was clarified that Councillor Ninnmey was looking for a comparison between 2020 and 2025 square meterage. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the previous agricultural building’s total development footprint was 1514 square metres and the current application’s footprint was 965 square metres.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if that was the whole site, as he was interested in living space and found the figures misleading, by saying this scheme was smaller than the previous.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed they had not said the current scheme was smaller than the previous, it was acknowledged in the report and the officer’s presentation that the scheme was larger. To clarify the floor plans were shown again to the Committee, with the Head of Planning and Building Control explaining the differences between what was previously approved and what is currently as built, giving a clear comparison of where the main changes in floor area were between what was approved and what was constructed.
Councillor Graham asked how the new application differed from the one before when it was 3 separate holiday units? The Suffolk Coastal Local Plan Principle of Development Policy SCLP4.5 was justifying the application, but what were the wider economic benefits to the community with this revised model, which depended on the events element to be viable? Councillor Graham could understand with the previous application of 3 units that guests would be encouraged to go out and spend in the local area, but adding events meant guests were enclosed in The Wilderness Reserve. Compounding that, the estate had tried to mitigate traffic impacts on the community by saying when there was a large-scale event guests stay in their other accommodation. It was not clear to see what the wider economic benefits would be to the Community with this new model.
There was clapping and cheering from the public gallery. The Head of Planning and Building Control addressed this and the Chair reminded those in the public gallery to remain quiet.
The Head of Planning and Building Control noted this was a very valid question. The overall masterplan of the Heveningham Estate encouraged landscaping, the wider estate investment, the restoration of the historic buildings, and the tourism element sought to sustain all that. He added it was not necessary to demonstrate that one previous proposal was more viable than another. Both proposals invested in tourism. Whilst guests would be contained within Wilderness accommodation for the larger events, this would not always be the case. The applicant could provide further clarity. The wider economic benefits would extend to employment, supply chain economy, therefore even if everything was contained within the Wilderness there would be further economic benefit that would come from that.
Councillor Gee asked how far the other sites, Chapel Barn and Sibton Park, were from their nearest villages. The Committee was shown the slide of Parish Boundaries and the sites were pointed out. It was acknowledged that they were all different. Councillor Gee stated that the situation was different with the Blyth Barn application due to the close proximity of the village to the site.
There were no further questions therefore the Chair invited Mark Mirams, Objector to make his representation.
Mark Mirams introduced himself as Chartered Planner, supporting Edward Watson and a number of other representatives. He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak, as outlined in his objection pack from Studio Charette, he objected as the application was wrong, misguided and unlawful. It was a retrospective application that should never have been brought to the Committee. Developments at Blyth Barn had occurred with minimal scrutiny, described as minor changes to an approved scheme. He said these were not minor changes, and it was a clear attempt mislead. The building footprint alone had increased by more than 53%. It was radically different from the original approved application which was a minor holiday let scheme for three C3 units. The Section 73 application for a variation of condition didn’t really have any structural implications or details on it, it talked about minor changes again that impacted on the building structural integrity and ended up in a retrospective application for a new application to rebuild something completely different. There was no detail as to why the changes were needed and key consultees provided incomplete responses due to being told that the changes were minor. He said there was an interesting EIA scoping opinion that appeared on the public portal after 9am that morning that was legally deficient and inadequate in comparison with the Council’s own ways in which they deal with scoping opinions that had been published on other applications. It was a sudden cursory attempt at an EIA assessment at the last moment – he questioned why had it appeared under this application only. What about all the other previous applications that were also possible major applications or considered as such. The screening description should cover all developments proposed, if it didn’t match the proposed development in all the other applications then it shouldn’t apply. How was such a brief assessment made lawfully. When were all the consultees advised on the correct details on the numbers of events each year, numbers of staff and customers using the facility – it was thought that they weren’t. The members update referred requiring additional event staff, what was an event, how many would take place in a year, what was the size of the buildings now, had anyone taken any measurement as he couldn’t see any measurements. Referring to the condition, he asked what was the wording, was it referring to a wedding or a corporate event, it had a heavy reliance on enforcement, how would that be done? Would they count the number of events and people coming and going. The applications had all been split into separate applications and split into smaller application, he said the whole thing was irregular and inconsistent.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Mirams.
Councillor Ashdown asked about the traffic movements referred to in their paperwork and how these were taken. It was confirmed that they were taken from a CCTV camera set up to monitor traffic movements.
Councillor Ninnmey noted the Head of Planning and Building Control said this application was always treated as a major application. He asked if Mr Mirams was suggesting there were steps that weren’t followed? Mr Mirams replied he was questioning the way it was dealt with, as if it was a major application from the start, why was the scoping only uploaded that morning, why were the other applications not major and why had it been broken down into separate little applications.
Councillor Ninnmey asked Edward Watson for his views of the site visit and whether they saw enough of how it impacted the village itself. Edward Watson concurred with Councillor Ninnmey’s views, saying the time spent on the areas the objectors had raised was minimal compared to the time spent in the inside of the buildings. He said all of the concerns of the objectors were ignored on that visit.
The Chair responded that it was a bit unfair to say that things were ignored during the site visit. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed he would be referring to the site visit in his officer clarification following all public speaking.
Councillor Ninnmey told the Objector that following the site visit he had driven around the village; he found the signposting to be inadequate. There was a discussion following that once the bridge was built vehicles would not be travelling through the village. The objector confirmed that large vehicles would not be able to use the bridge and would therefore still access via the village.
Councillor Graham asked Mr Mirams to explain why he felt the EIA assessment was deficient. Mr Mirams responded it was legislation, a major application should have a scoping opinion when submitted to determine environmental impacts and their assessment. He asked why it was done at 9am that morning, particularly as it was retrospective and most of the work had been done. The Chair noted this would be addressed by the Head of Planning and Building Control in the Officer Clarification.
Councillor Gee asked Mr Watson how the recorded vehicle usage compared to the usual traffic movements over the same period. Mr Watson gave the details.
The Chair invited David Blackmore of Huntingfield Parish Council to make his representation.
Mr David Blackmore said he was speaking again on the application, this time backed by planning and legal expertise, who found this development to be unlawful. He told the Committee that they had seen it now and it was a monster, a huge 18-bedroom hotel, 270-person wedding venue built in the middle of their tiny peaceful village with no planning permission. He asked how that could happen. As a Parish Council they had supported the development of the site as tourist use for tranquil rural retreats, they wanted Wilderness to run a successful business there, they were not anti-development just anti-the wrong development. A huge wedding venue and party space had no place in their small village. As monstrous as the building is, it was the actual use that they objected to, they were happy with the existing C3 designation. The C1 designation brought problems for the local community, increased traffic, noise, light pollution. People leaving the venue late at night, doors slamming, cars driving. There were over 100 car parking spaces. The marquees would create noise and light pollution. There was no limit to what time of days they could be used and no limit to the number of people allowed. The marquees were less than 200 metres from the Millenium Green and the village quiet spaces and would directly impact the quiet enjoyment of the communal spaces. There was much made of the sophisticated sound system and its suppression, but it was the noise of hundreds of people partying all day and night on the pool terrace that was their concern. Wilderness are currently promoting pool parties. There has not been one piece of evidence to prove the need for corporate event space or a huge wedding venue in the middle of village. A C3 designation rejecting this application and sticking with original approval is a perfect and legal solution, Wilderness could run a successful business without that business having a hugely adverse effect on Huntingfield and the surrounding villages. He concluded next the Committee would hear from Heveningham and Ubbeston about how the traffic affects them and then how the development breaches a number of points in the local plan. His final point was it demonstrated the developer’s total lack of respect and concern, that in their haste to complete the project, they had not yet built the bridge, the one thing that would have a huge benefit on Huntingfield.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if there had been any events at the site since the last meeting. David Blackmore confirmed there were some, he wasn’t clear exactly how many. It wasn’t their concern to monitor it, they were concerned how it would be monitored.
Councillor Ninnmey said at the last meeting, Mr Bostock of Wilderness Reserve had said if it wasn’t approved there was a backup option. Mr Blackmore couldn’t comment on that.
Councillor Gee asked if he and members of the village had been affected by noise and traffic since the events had taken place. He didn’t live in the centre of the village so wasn’t impacted by noise, traffic was a different issue.
Councillor Ashdown asked where the CCTV was located. The location could not be disclosed as the person would prefer not to say. It was a single camera in a single position.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to the reference to ongoing communications with the Parish Councils from the Wilderness and asked Mr Blackmore if he was aware of how the plans were evolving and if he engaged with the Planning department for help. Mr Blackmore responded they didn’t think they needed it as they believed what they were being told, that it was going to be a peaceful tourist retreat, and they supported the application based on that. Since then, they had a different view and had objected to everything associated with it. They had no engagement with the Planning department except attendance at Committee meetings.
The Chair invited Jenny Feeney, Heveningham Parish Council to make her representation. She told the Committee that she too objected to the application. There had been a large uptake in traffic volume since the developer started to build the hotel and many feared that when the venue was fully open this would only get worse. All the roads around Valley Farm were narrow, many don’t have passing places and they get treacherous in the cold months and are not easy to navigate in the dark. The local plan is clear at SCLP 6.5 Part F, new tourist accommodation is breached as the volume of traffic is not able to accommodate the volume of traffic generated without having an adverse effect impact on the free flow of traffic and highway safety in and around the village. Events for up to 900 guests had been advertised including helicopter landings and late night music under a 24 hour alcohol licence. This was intolerable and unmitigated. The noise solution was inadequate and misleading, cannot contain sound when guest moved freely at large events such as weddings, it is misleading to say that they won’t. The parking space application had increased from 27 to 103 spaces as a separate submission. It wasn’t separate it’s clearly linked to the main application. All of them should have been dealt with in one go. She had three questions for the Planning Officers:
- When the change of use from agricultural land to large commercial wedding venue was?
- Masterplan 2009 – it is now 16 years old, what legal standing does this have.
- How do guests contribute to local economy when applicant’s barrister at the licensing hearing stated they would not be leaving the site.
There was clapping from the public gallery.
There were no questions from the Committee. The Chair invited Joel Pike from Ubbeston Parish Council to speak.
Councillor Joel Pike told the Committee that he had lived in Ubbeston for 50 years, with his parents living there for many generations, therefore he was able to speak as a local. As a teenager he worked carting grain from home farm to home farm from the rich agricultural land that once surrounded Valley Farm. He rode his moped and learned to drive on the quiet back roads like Laundry Lane. He had been involved in community events his whole life, enjoying them as a child and setting them up as an adult. He had grown up being very proud of the community life that was now under threat. He was now a builder specialising in the renovation of heritage properties and barn conversions. He sat on the Parish Council and had followed the Blyth Barn plans closely. He set out how they clashed with key Suffolk Coastal Local Plan Policies:
- Policy SCLP 11.3 - 2 curtilage listed barns at Valley Farm were demolished without clear justification or proper significance assessment – see Hebton Bridge case law.
- No adequate study or impacts on Heveningham Hall Grade I or its capability brown landscape - NPPF Paragraph215 less than substantial harm must be outweighed by public benefit – none is shown.
- Section 66, the duty to give special regard to preserving a listed setting has been ignored.
- Policy SCLP 6.5 there is no evidence that their rural area needs a large commercial events venue, the scale and size simply don’t fit.
- SCLP 6.1 – 6.4 true sustainable tourism supports local shops, restaurants and transport. This plan keeps guests on site with private chefs, chauffeurs and helicopter arrivals, bypassing the local economy entirely.
- There is no plan for renewables or low carbon transport it’s neither green nor sustainable, in fact it’s the opposite with more people arriving by helicopter than bicycle to the weddings and events.
To conclude he said the development ignored both local character and legal protections of their heritage, it didn’t meet policy requirements for need, sustainability or preserving their historic setting. He urged the Committee to refuse permission and protect their community and landscape that they all cherish.
The Chair invited questions to Joel Pike.
Councillor Ninnmey had viewed pictures of the original barns and farmhouse, at the site visit he was saddened to see new bricks being used and asked if it was set up as a modern farm? Mr Pike replied the whole estate was farmed by a local farmer and a large amount of what was now parkland was grade 1 agricultural land. Councillor Ninnmey commented that with the new design the historic connection had been completely lost, Mr Pike agreed there was a complete disconnect. The Chair moved the conversation on.
There was laughter and jeering from the public gallery, followed by applause for Mr Pike.
The Chair invited Matt Bostock, applicant to speak.
It was clarified that as part of the Public Speaking Procedure rules, there is the automatic right for public speaking from the parish council where the application is cited. It is at the Chair’s discretion as to whether neighbouring parish councils could speak also. In this case this discretion had been granted, with objector, host parish council and the two neighbouring councils having the opportunity to speak. Therefore, Mr Bostock would be given time outside of his 3 minutes for points of clarification already raised by public speakers previously, this would not be an extension of the 3 minutes or further elaboration.
Matt Bostock presented as follows:
He thanked those that were able to visit the site on 30 April, including the members of the Parish Councils in attendance. He told the Committee that they had engaged consistently with the local community over the past 12 months and following notification of their intended changed to Blyth Barn last July, they had been present at a large number of meetings to answer questions. This included the community event held at the local pub last September addressing the operation of the property.
Internal design changes had led to external amendments to the fenestration of the buildings which had been considered favourably by the design and conservation officer.
A slide was shown of the key areas of the basement, and the increase of the extant permission. Changes related to a furniture store room, larger plant room and secondary staircase required by the Fire Officer.
The final slide showed the original massing of the farmstead compared to what it was now built, showing the difference above ground. The built form was 1,600 square feet smaller than was originally built within the red line area, but with the removal of the surrounding barns was actually 6,000 square feet less than what was previously on site.
They have extant planning permission for the site to operate as 3 holiday lets, which included a shared basement area and a shared landscape courtyard. Renting all 3 as one booking was permissible and the use of the building for occasional events was also permissible under its extant permission, which is backed up by case law. None of the statutory consultees had objected to the planning application, nor did they with the premises licence which also involved consultation with emergency services. They have a track record of operating comparable properties which have included a premises licence and wedding licence without any registered complaints to Environmental Health, Licensing or Planning departments over the past 5 years. The events are not the primary use, this is a C1 use guest house.
Public benefits to the Blyth Estate development were employment of 180 people, including 55 with very local postcodes. They had delivered over £300k of CIL monies including nearly £50k of local CIL, supporting improvements such as the bus station, village hall. They had created substantial new environmental benefits through wildlife habitat, creation of 800 metre lake, wetland areas, 20,000 trees planted, new bird and bat boxes.
They were aware of an objection lodged yesterday by Studio Charette, whilst there was not much time to review, they had highlighted a number of misunderstandings including incorrect references to Committee reports, application documents, reference to 103 space car park, incorrect statement on guest numbers and failure to consider relevant planning policies in the local plan, as such this should not be given the same material weight as the Officer’s professional assessments. It is inaccurate, confused and largely anecdotal.
The Chair noted that was the 3 minutes covered for public speaking and asked Mr Bostock to address any points of clarification raised so far in the Committee. He told the Committee:
- Marquees would be serviced by the commercial basement kitchen. They will not be there permanently and were included within the noise impact assessment to ensure it was robust.
- Economic gain - 55 employees are from IP17, 1P19 postcodes which is in the immediately circumference of the estate.
- Guests - There has been a lot of focus on events, but the properties are leisure properties and guests do visit local towns and villages
- Referring to the Parish Council comments regarding CCTV camera points and statistics – the figures haven’t been verified, there were road closures and diversions over that weekend which would have led to an increase in numbers. The Easter weekend was an odd weekend to use as it didn’t represent usual use.
- The venue was referenced as a huge monster, the square footage changes had been addressed and it is a C1 guest house, not a C1 leisure events venue.
- 100 car parking spaces are not provided, there are 53 proposed within the application.
- The noise management plan is in place to stop people partying all night.
- Attendance at meetings by the Wilderness is because they do care and intend to be there for the foreseeable future
- The bridge is not yet built, work has commenced with good progress. Steel arriving on site 6 June, licenses applied for etc.
The Chair said there were no questions allowed from the Public Gallery.
The Chair invited questions to Mr Bostock.
Councillor Ashton was interested in the operation of marquees, particularly within the two sites outside of the barn courtyard area. He asked how they expected the marquees to operate and how that would impact the noise. Mr Bostock replied that the use of the marquees had been tested in various locations through the acoustic impact assessment. Guests would need to be inside the basement before 11pm, usually by 9pm. Music during the day would be limited to 80 decibels, it would be accompanying background music, consistent with the limits on external area and courtyard. The marquees are further away with more noise mitigation than the main barn itself, working within the lower limits of the Environmental Protection standards.
Councillor Ninnmey said that last time Mr Bostock was at the Planning Committee he stated to Councillor Ashdown that there were events planned, but they had back up options, he asked him what they were. Mr Bostock replied it included the use of other properties but as they related to specific guests requirements he could not share the detail. He added they weren’t able to be executed but they did have extant planning permission which allowed occasional use within the permitted use. They also had a premises licence in place. Full building control approval is in place with sign off by Suffolk Fire and Rescue, they have had no complaints from Environmental Protection or Licensing or to themselves directly, from either of the 2 events held. Mr Bostock said they were used as a sensible trial with external monitoring and sound engineers present and no complaints would suggest they were managed correctly in terms of noise.
Councillor Ninnmey commented that the planned events went ahead despite what was said to the previous Committee. Mr Bostock reiterated that the backup plans weren’t able to be undertaken and therefore they made use of the extant permission and the various consents that they had with that.
Councillor Pitchers commented that the traffic movements looked horrendous and asked if they would change once the bridge was constructed. Mr Bostock said he couldn’t verify the figures provided. He had not seen them before and road closures were in place which would impact the figures provided. There were a number of people staying at Sibton and Blyth who made use of the shuttle buses. He said the bridge would alleviate traffic movement.
Councillor Ashdown asked how many helicopter arrivals and departures there were over the weekend. Mr Bostock replied he was not aware of any helicopter movements throughout the events. Councillor Ashdown asked if all commercial traffic would still go through the village once the bridge was built. Mr Bostock replied that approximately 95% of all traffic movements would go over the bridge, the weight limit was 13 tonnes.
Councillor Graham said as Committee members they were being asked to consider the economic or tourism benefits from the development, weighed up against the impact on the local community. She noted that Wilderness needed to change their commercial model to remain viable, but her understanding was the luxury tourism business was thriving. She felt the difference with the Blyth Barn Development was that it was so close to the community, compared to the other Wilderness venues. She asked Mr Bostock if they did any modelling to expand or change this site, rather than expanding their other sites. Mr Bostock replied that they hadn’t really expanded the site, the changes were limited to below ground changes. Councillor Graham referred to the expansion to include weddings and corporate events and asked why not more at the other locations which were not as close to the village. Mr Bostock replied all submitted documents had assessed the full impact and deemed it to be acceptable.
In response to Councillor Ashdown, Mr Bostock confirmed he was happy with the revised recommended conditions.
Mr Bostock confirmed to Councillor Ashton that the maximum number of guests would be 270 across the entire venue. Councillor Ashton asked if adding a condition for no amplified music after 9pm would that be a problem. Mr Bostock replied that they could work with that.
Councillor Graham asked if there had been noise assessments on Millenium Green and Mr Bostock confirmed that it had been included in the robust noise assessments.
Councillor Gee said the noise assessment was based on a maximum number of 270 guests, yet there had been marketing of the site for weddings of up to 366 guests. Mr Bostock confirmed that was an error, and the website was now correct. This had also been covered in the clarification note provided to allay assumptions regarding numbers of guests.
Councillor Gee said there were also claims that the noise assessment was based on an estimate rather than an actual reading. She asked how the noise could be controlled when people were coming in and out. Mr Bostock replied the volume of the music at the site visit was to demonstrate worst case scenario. The acoustic limiter on the doors ensured the volume dropped to 85 decibels when doors were opened. The noise management plan was in place and they had a successful track record. There was no noise heard from the two trial events from the music, as confirmed by the Parish Council. They had suitable staff to manage the events, making sure guests use the designated smoking areas etc.
The Chair invited Councillor Julia Ewart, Ward Councillor, to speak.
Councillor Ewart began by thanking the Chair for allowing the surrounding villages to speak and thanking Democratic Services for their diligence. Following her comments at the previous Committee, she apologised to the Case Officer. Referencing the documents being handed out in person, she explained that there were technical difficulties in sending the document electronically, and then having discovered another event was happening at Blyth Barn, it was her responsibility as District Councillor to notify the public. She had spoken to Gateway to establish whether or not building control had been completed as Mr Bostock had stated, and she didn’t believe that to be the case. She checked with colleagues whether fire had been covered to the extent that it was and that all licenses were either in or in progress, she also checked with the environmental health department as that was important too. She apologised that they were hand delivered, but they needed to be delivered on time.
She asked the Committee could they recall how they felt when they first found out about the post office horizon scandal, that deep sense of injustice, of people being failed by a system put in place to protect them. That was the very same feeling she had and why she stepped in to help the residents here and expose what was going on. This was a vast unauthorised commercial construction, destined to devastate village life and curiously hidden behind bales of straw. After the last meeting she was determined the Committee wouldn’t be led into further error by the lack of real facts, facts that would force Huntingfield to tolerate all the enormity that this would bring and thanks to their decision, they granted themselves more time and that time was enough for her to seek independent professional advice. Five minutes could not reflect the time spent this past month with planning experts and legal experts reviewing this site, setting the scale and vital heritage. There are rules, policies and laws committee, and this scheme has tried to hurdle many of them, they just weren’t supposed to be made aware of them. She said now in the public domain there was a full objection report from planning consultant, Mark Mirrams and position statement from their solicitor Richard Smith. These documents made stark reading, evidence-based grounds to dismantle this application, these were not minor breaches, these were major unauthorised changes and what was presented as a C3 tourist retreat had morphed into a large hotel, no guest house, permissions shuffled through under the radar, using minor retrospective applications to get it there. She said today the applicant would try to justify using the ever shifting non publicly authorised master plan, a document that never discussed the oversized commercial plan that they have here. They may also hear from colleagues talking about SCLP 6.5 tourist accommodation, but this was a narrow strand and could not justify the totally unlawful build and nor should anyone be distracted by arguments about boasting about the rural economy concepts that aim to provide false comfort when policy and processes have been so clearly side stepped. She was asking the committee to think about those key issues that would force a rejection, breach of their countryside policy, lack of sustainability, heritage harm, each one was fully defendable at appeal and she was sure now that they had the planning consultant’s very concise and important document, that almost every facet of this application fell short and some elements were unlawful. Until recently the site was strongly classed as a minor development yet based on scale alone this should be classed as a major application.
The Chair interjected and confirmed that the 5 minutes was up.
There was applause from the public gallery.
The Chair invited questions to Councillor Ewart.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to the document pack provided by Councillor Ewart and noted that the County Councillor was also concerned about the applications, particularly traffic movement and the Environmental Impact Statements. He asked if the County Councillor was satisfied with what the application had to date. Councillor Ewart replied every application had to have an Environmental Impact Statement and this one had been loaded at 9.21 that morning. She asked why it hadn’t been done and how the application could have been passed previously without it. She had been chasing for information.
Councillor Ewart queried the time of her public speaking; it was confirmed it was timed and it was just over 5 minutes.
The Committee adjourned for a comfort break.
The Chair invited the Head of Planning and Building Control to make any points of clarification following the public speaking.
- Point raised around major status of planning applications. This referred to how the application was categorised. Minor applications have 8 weeks to determine them and major applications have 13 weeks to determine them. This application was major from the outset. The previous applications were minor as they were materially different. Nothing had changed and it was clarified in the report.
- Environment impact assessment, there are stages to that process. Mr Mirrams mentioned the EIA scoping, that takes place after the screening process if it is determined that an EIA had to be submitted with an application. That was not the position with this application. This application was at the stage where EIA Screening has been carried out, screening is where you assess the category in which the application sits and look through the process to see if the thresholds are met to require a statement and be an EIA development. Officers can carry out a straightforward appraisal of this, which is what has been done and provided. An EIA screening can be done at any time within an application process. There is a process that can take place before a planning application comes in, which is EIA screening request, seeking an opinion of the Council. This has not been done in this instance; it is not mandatory and screening can occur when the application is under consideration. That is what has been done. This application was also accompanied by a range of technical and environmental reports.
- Heritage – Curtilage Listed Status. There were a number of applications previously determined, none of which have had listed building consent accompanying them. Throughout the process there has been Heritage team involvement, from 2 experienced heritage officers within that time. The professional position is these are not deemed to be curtilage listed. There have been no objections previously raised in respect of the non-listed status. The Principal Design and Heritage Officer has been involved with these applications going back to 2007 with very close engagement with Historic England and has raised no concern and identified that the scale and nature of the development doesn’t require the assessment of Heveningham Hall and the listed parkland.
- Acoustic testing. As a retrospective application, these were carried out during the building stage, usually these are modelled. The slides shared showed how the assessment was modelled. Noise levels had been appraised along with the mitigation required, and the noise management plan developed accordingly. The Millenium Green was included as part of the range of areas tested. The Environmental Protection team had been consulted with and responded with no objections.
- Information provided on traffic movements – this related to an event taking place at the weekend. The figures could not be verified as they were provided that day. When looking at traffic assessments using a traffic count approach, a baseline would be established and then added to that would be the traffic movements from the proposed development. The figures provided are 772 movements in 41 hours and 10 between midnight and 2am. The ‘Quiet Lanes Suffolk’ website defines them as a nationally recognised designation, single track road, with typically less than 1000 vehicles per day, the idea is not to restrict but encourage considerate use by all. These figures are below that. The application has been consulted on by SCC Highways with no objections. He accepted this was a quiet community and acknowledged the increased anxiety surrounding traffic.
- Parish engagement from East Suffolk Council. East Suffolk Council has to consult with Parish Councils through the normal process, which had been carried out consistently for past and current applications. Town and Parish Councils are engaged with via the ESC forum which happens twice a year.
- Change of use from agriculture land to the wedding use. Past applications have consented a change from an agricultural barn use to a residential type use. This application sought to consent a hotel, guest house and events/wedding use. The surrounding land remained in agricultural land status. A large part of the estate has transferred from arable land to pasture to parkland as part of wider master plan. There is not a reason to object or refuse planning permission for the loss of agricultural buildings.
- Masterplan status – this is formalised as part of this planning applications and previously related applications to show what the intentions are.
- Site visit – feedback had already been given regarding the Parish Council comments on the site visit. It was a 2hr 15 min site visit, which was long and comprehensive. It was thorough, taking in buildings and around the buildings which was important to see and set out. Plans were available to members and shown on the board throughout the visit. Members walked down Laundry Lane, looked at noise receptor properties and officers checked whether members wished to go further down the lane. A vehicle tour covered the wider area. All 3 applications were covered.
Finally, the Head of Planning and Building Control addressed how the Committee approached the retrospective nature of the planning application. Applicants were entitled to apply retrospectively for planning permission, he accepted that it was frustrating for the Committee and the Community and could be seen that the applicant was trying to get a foot in the door and have an easier time through the planning process. However, it could not be penalised and the application needed to be judged on its own merits as if it was any other planning proposal.
The Chair invited the Committee to ask questions.
Councillor Ashdown noted there was a new condition recommended which the applicant was happy with, but he asked if there was the officer capability to monitor it? The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that planning enforcement was reactive and very much relied on the eyes and ears of the communities, and where complaints are received, they are acted on. The planning permission provided the opportunity to regularise what was occurring at Blyth Barn, with a condition that sets out there would be no more than 8 events which exceeded 180 persons. If the community started to feel that there were multiple events beyond 8 which exceed the 180 persons then this would be raised. The critical part was maintaining a log that could be investigated and spot checked. It was not unusual; they had other venues with the same/similar conditions and it was enforceable in his view.
Following questioning around it being a private property, the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that every property was a private property. This site was visible and its movements would be visible. The condition would be worded that a log should be maintained and made available on request.
The Chair said that the Community would get a feel as to whether there were bigger events, or lesser events occurring and if there was no difference felt, then the condition may not need to be there. The condition is in place to mitigate the problems with the traffic.
Councillor Graham asked how the condition would be reviewed and whether that would be at officer or committee level. The Head of Planning confirmed that the full email trail as to how the condition was arrived at was uploaded. Should there be a need to revisit in the future then it would need to be a section 73 variation of condition application, this would be like a new planning permission, consulted on and considered in full. There would be the security of having monitoring and governance.
Councillor Ninnmey asked whether the officers could confirm the 53% increase in size that the applicant had quoted. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was important to focus on the plans, where you could see the building had increased to facilitate the proposed uses. Whilst there had previously been planning permission, the Committee was tasked with reviewing the application that was before them.
The Chair asked the Committee to debate the application.
Councillor Ashdown thanked the officers for the site visit and the report. At the site visit they had seen everything they wished to see. They have all the details and the bridge is being constructed shortly. The applicant had done everything they could, it is a business and businesses are there to be sustainable. Other venues such as Heveningham Hall had significant events and travelling there had not been particularly difficult. The bridge would improve it. He was thinking favourably of the application and would make a final decision when he had heard from colleagues.
Councillor Ashton, on behalf of the whole committee expressed dissatisfaction for retrospective applications. It was frustrating that they were not able to give a different determination, but the law stated that the application had to be dealt with as if it was a new application.
Councillor Ashton proposed that an additional condition was added which would say that there should be no amplified music in the marquees outside of the barn area, after 9.00pm.
Councillor Pitchers seconded Cllr Ashton’s proposal for an additional condition.
Councillor Pitchers disagreed with the idea that it didn’t contribute to the economy. He gave the example of having recently been to a wedding elsewhere and the economic contributions that were made to the area by people staying outside of the venue, using taxis etc. He was keen to hear what other committee members had to say but was minded in favour of the application.
Councillor Graham noted they were judging the current application but highlighted for context that the previous scheme was embraced by the community. She agreed with the Community that the new scheme was not acceptable. She was not convinced that the tourism and economic benefits were balanced against the harms for the community, and didn’t see the justification for the need of the site to be used in that way. There was an undeniable impact on the village of this size and rural nature. Whilst they were being assured commercial events were not the main focus, all the infrastructure pointed towards that. It would change the quality of the village. The Community should come before the business and she didn’t interpret Huntingfield as an appropriate site for the enterprise. She acknowledged there would be jobs, but these were already in place with the previous scheme. Whilst local businesses may benefit, it would be outweighed by the impact on the community. There were ecological and heritage enhancements but the new application placed too much burden on the hosting community. She felt the manner it had ended up at Committee had eroded trust. She reiterated comments that she had total confidence in the officers and whilst the process had been unsatisfactory and unpleasant to go through, she did not believe it was in anyway corrupt or illegal. The Council had gone to great lengths to increase trust with the Communities, eg East Suffolk Planning alliance, Town/Parish Council forums. She recommended refusal, with the best policy reason being paragraphs 6.30 and 6.31.
There was applause from the public gallery.
Councillor Ninnmey, endorsed everything Councillor Graham said. He added what started off as a scheme which was totally acceptable and encouraged by 3 parishes, seems to have turned into a massive structure which gives no regard to its historic relevance. He noted the number of villagers in attendance expressing concern and had the feeling it was the wrong proposal in the wrong place. He couldn’t see it delivering a lot of benefit as a large corporate provider, he could see it becoming a festival. He was minded to refuse the application.
There was applause from the public gallery.
The Head of Planning and Building Control interjected and reminded the Committee that they could not determine an application on what it could be, they had to judge it on what they had before them. The Chair added that there was the safeguard of the wording of the condition with the maximum number of guests.
A member of the public interrupted stating that they felt the Chair had been completely biased throughout this. There was applause from the public gallery.
The Chair stated that she was looking at what the planning matters were within the application and listening and taking in all views as a member of the Committee herself.
Councillor Gee, having visited the site, felt that the roads were not suitable for heavy traffic she couldn’t understand why Suffolk County Council approved it and wondered whether they had ever carried out a traffic assessment. She felt strongly that stating that the development was of a scale that reflected the surrounding area was clearly untrue. It was not small in scale, it was immense, grandiose, luxurious and soulless, with a devastating impact on the village which was so close to it. For those reasons and for the sake of the local community she was not prepared to support the application.
There was applause from the public gallery.
Councillor Ashton queried the procedure, as there had been a proposal for a second condition, which was seconded by Councillor Pitchers.
There was a discussion regarding whether what was being motioned was a proposal to approve with an additional condition. Councillor Ashton confirmed he was intending to get the condition added and was seeking the views on that from fellow Committee members.
Councillor Ninnmey proposed that there was a move to a vote to reject the proposal.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reminded members that there needed to be a reason for refusal set out by Planning Committee Members. To be clear for the public in attendance, he confirmed that if the Planning Committee voted to refuse, it was up to them to decide the reason for refusal, which needed to be full and thorough, based on planning policy, and robust enough to stand up to appeal.
Councillor Ninnmey said he concurred with the policy reasons that Councillor Graham had set out in debate earlier.
Councillor Graham said that her reasons for refusal were based on Suffolk Coastal Local Plan – Paragraph 6.31, particularly
- Supports tourism opportunities in the rural area which respect the character of the area – she did not feel the application supported that.
- Rural parts of the planned area provide a valuable economic and social contribution through increased spend in the local area.” – she did not feel the application supported that
- Provision of jobs – there were not enough in her view.
- Associated employment.
The Head of Planning and Building Control asked Councillor Graham for the Policy number that she was referring to.
Councillor Graham confirmed it was Suffolk Coastal Local Plan Policy 6.4. The Head of Planning and Building Control read out the relevant paragraphs from the Policy and confirmed that was a permissive policy which also had other policies that sat alongside it and asked Councillor Graham to confirm the letters of that Policy that she felt the application went against.
Councillor Graham confirmed that it was more appropriately related to Suffolk Coastal Local Plan Policy 6.5 for new tourist accommodation, particularly paragraphs:
• A – The demand or need for tourist accommodation is clearly demonstrated.
• C - They are of a scale appropriate to the nature of the site and its setting.
The Head of Planning and Building Control displayed the Policy Points A – H from 6.5 for the Committee to review, asking for the key parts of that policy to be addressed in the reason for refusal.
Councillor Graham reviewed the policy and referred to SCLP 6.5 - Points A & C, stating:
A - Not convinced a need has been demonstrated for the kind of tourism provision that the applicant was proposing, no modelling to show the need for a wedding venue or mass party hirings.
C – It is not of a scale appropriate to the nature of the village.
The Head of Planning and Building Control outlined the procedure for receiving a motion to refuse and checked if Councillor Graham wished to add anything else.
Councillor Ninnmey noted that some members of the Committee were very concerned about the inadequacy of the road network for servicing the venue, and suggested policy SCLP 6.5 Point F should be added.
He also reviewed SCLP 6.4, where Point B referred to whether the application site was well related to existing settlements. He stated it wasn’t; it was far too close and far too big as was evidenced by the Community’s attendance at Committee.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referred back to SCLP 6.5 Point F and emphasised that there had been no objection from Highways, and should there be an appeal, they would be entering into that without the Highways supporting the Council’s position. He was not guiding the decision based on the likelihood of appeal but emphasised that as a retrospective application an appeal would be likely. There was calling out from the public gallery.
Councillor Graham stated that she did not wish to expose the Council to unnecessary appeal. She added that Policy 5.5 could also be relevant. It was established that this policy was aimed at barn conversions and this application was a rebuild, therefore SCLP 6.5 was the reliant policy to inform the recommendation.
Councillor Graham asked about SCLP 4.6 and 4.7 and that extract of the Plan was displayed for the Committee to review. It was noted that SCLP 4.6 related to employment use, although it was generally aimed at business employment uses rather and there were specific policies for tourism uses.
The Chair acknowledged the difficulties in coming to the recommendation and asked if the reason for refusal had been formulated, noting there was someone likely to second.
Councillor Graham said it was difficult; councils didn’t have much money and she didn’t want to expose them, but she didn’t feel it was right. She referred back to the first policy she invoked and the demonstrated need in that particular part of the district in that particular area. She asked does that have to take into the needs of the community or whether the noise assessment overrode that appeal?
It was confirmed that they had to rely on evidence based assessment when reaching a decision. SCLP 6.4 - (d) scale and nature of setting – if their concern was that there was noise impact because of the proximity to the village. That is a residential amenity matter, there are policies relating to residential amenity that can be referred to. In an appeal, the evidence supplied with the application would be provided. Inspectors could look at response from a statutory body with no objection and decide that there was a problem. Inspectors do go against professional assessments at times. The Head of Planning and Building Control was not saying a decision should be guided by the public purse, however, a robust reason for refusal needed to be in place as it would be interrogated.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if the policy reasons for refusals could be added later. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed this was not possible, it had to be decided and agreed on at the Committee and minuted accordingly.
Councillor Gee told the Committee about her personal experience of the road network surrounding the site, reiterating her concerns, that despite the Highway’s assessment, they were unsuitable, she asked whether this had been included in the reasons for refusal. Councillor Gee could not understand why Suffolk County Council had approved it and wondered whether they had carried out an on site officer meeting. She referred to a situation in her own ward in 1979, when a new school was placed on the edge of marshland as they had thought the marshes were solid ground and would therefore be built on, she said that was an example of an officer meeting not occurring. The Chair reminded Councillor Gee to focus on the current application. Councillor Gee felt this was a significant issue that had occurred before. She did not agree that the development was of a scale that reflected the surrounding area as it was 53% larger than the plans indicated and far in excess of the original farm building footprint. She felt it would have a devastating effect on the village and would not be supporting the application. The Head of Planning and Building Control responded to Councillor Gee’s reference regarding Suffolk County Council, and that decision making had moved on since then. Highways assessments were carried out by professional highways engineers, there had been thorough scrutiny of the current highway network throughout the application process along with the condition that there should be an access off a B road. The Head of Planning and Building Control directed the Committee to Paragraph 116 of the NPPF regarding refusal on highways grounds, specifically the NPPF test that impacts must be deemed ‘severe’.
Councillor Gee asked about the Quiet Lanes status. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was not valid in planning terms. In terms of paragraph 116 of the NPPF there was no professional opinion backing the belief that the impact would be severe. Councillor Wakeling said they should look at the road network as it was now as the bridge had not been built.
Councillor Ashton asked that they discussed the merits of each item in turn as he had concerns but they weren’t necessarily these ones, which he didn’t think were defendable. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that they normally voted on the recommendation in the report first, but they could take this motion first.
Councillor Ashton pointed out that there was a lack of 5* accommodation in the area and the need had been demonstrated through the bookings. He did not feel this was a defendable position.
Councillor Pitchers felt there was no strong argument to refuse in relation to scale. The footprint of the building was the same size as the previously approved scheme, so if the previous scale was ok then this one couldn’t be wrong. Councillor Plummer agreed.
Councillor Graham said her interpretation of the new application use was that the number of people at this tourism site could overpopulate the number of full-time residents in the village. That would be inappropriate and was not the case when it was previously just three units. The Head of Planning and Building Control said when referring to scale if Members felt there would be more people on the site than living in the village then what would be the harm on residents. It would have to be pinned down to issue of scale of buildings or scale of people and the associated effect of the people on the site.
Councillor Pitchers argued that the number of people accommodated on the site would not exceed the number of people in the village as there was only a limited number of rooms and those not staying would be visiting temporarily. He said he did not like the scheme but they did not have any strong arguments to refuse it. Councillor Plummer agreed.
Councillor Gee conceded that there may be a need for 5* but questioned that it had to be located on the edge of the village and why it couldn’t be further into part of the parkland. The village was only 160 people and the impact on them would be really high. Councillor Ashton felt this wasn’t the appropriate policy to cite in refusal, but they should be looking at the impact of noise and traffic on the residents instead.
Councillor Gee had concerns about the traffic and the type of cars which she believed were likely to be very large. Councillor Ashton pointed out that most traffic would come from the A12, onto the A1120 and then join the B1117, or alternatively on the A144 and then join the B1117 from the northeast. Therefore, there were routes, with one exception, that were not a problem. He knew it felt bad, but we could not defend that access to the site on these roads was problematic. The Chair agreed that accommodation here was only 18 rooms/36 people and the proposed condition and further conditioning of events would help to limit the impact.
Councillor Pitchers pointed out that there was a very strong noise impact assessment and a witness from the parish council who said he heard no noise from the site during the recent event.
Councillor Ninnmey proposed moving to a vote on the recommendation.
On the proposal of Councillor Graham, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey the recommendation that the application be refused as it was in contravention of policies SCLP 6.4, 6.5 and Paragraph 116 of the NPPF failed. (4 against, 4 support – chair had casting vote).
The Head of Planning and Building Control then explained that they should move to take a vote on the recommendation in the report unless anyone else came forward with another motion.
At this point Councillor Ashdown proposed that they vote on approval with the extra condition that Councillor Ashton recommended for a 9pm finish in the marquees. Councillor Ashton asked for a moment to think about the condition and suggested there should be no amplified music beyond 9pm. The Head of Planning and Building Control brought up the slide showing the proposed additional recommendation from the report.
At this point Councillor Ninnmey requested to leave the room. It was explained to him that the meeting needed to be adjourned as otherwise he would not be allowed to return and continue participating in the debate and further votes. The meeting was adjourned for a brief period.
When the meeting reconvened the Chair announced that they would like to complete the three Wilderness applications this evening and they would talk again at the end of this first application to see if this was possible. Clarity was sought on what stage they had reached and if there was a motion proposed. Although Councillor Ashdown had made a proposal it had not been formally seconded.
Councillor Ashton had concerns about the impact of noise on the village but the concerns about traffic impacts on Huntingfield would be mitigated by the construction of the bridge. At this point people in the public gallery disturbed the meeting and Councillor Ashton pointed out to them that their purpose here was not to comment on Members. The Chair reminded the public gallery that she could clear the room if they continued to disrupt proceedings.
Councillor Ashton reminded Members that they had to make decisions based on planning policy and it was a difficult situation they were in. He understood the emotions that the residents were feeling but planning was not about emotions. It was about planning policies and adherence to those policies which meant they had tough choices. He explained it was not an easy role for them and sometimes he wondered why they did it. He reiterated that he thought the traffic impacts would be mitigated by the bridge and they could put in a condition on the timing of the construction of the bridge. However, he was concerned about the impact of noise. The nature of the design of the buildings meant that sound didn’t leave that area regularly and the automatic door was demonstrated on the site visit. There was little noise when they stood outside the barn and when they stood by the noise receptor, and he accepted it was during the day, you could not hear any amplified music. He was concerned that the marquees were not as shielded as the barn, and they could generate a lot of noise. He was still in two minds but that was the only reason he could see for refusal and to be able to defend that decision at appeal. He suggested that there could be more stringent conditions such as no amplified music in the marquees. He did not know whether to second the motion. The Chair wondered if there could be further conditions on the number of events between 120 to 180 people.
Councillor Pitchers explained he had been on the planning committee for decades. He didn’t like this application but could see no proper grounds for refusal therefore he would be voting in favour and was prepared to second it.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers the recommendation to approve with the amended conditions (as per the report and no amplified music in the marquees after 9pm) failed. (2 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention).
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that there needed to be an alternative motion now that one motion to refuse had failed and the motion to approve had also failed. He reiterated that it had already been to committee, deferred for a site visit and had been brought back for determination.
At this point Councillor Ewart approached the Monitoring Officer and addressed the room asking why there was no support for members, causing the meeting to be disrupted. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained this was a challenging process and very difficult for members. There was a professional recommendation which was set out in the report. They could not switch their professional judgement and tell the committee that they could refuse on various reasons. He reminded the Committee that if they chose to refuse the application it was their responsibility to determine the reasons for refusal. He explained that with two failed motions Members had to decide if there was an alternative reason for refusal or an alternative approval with other conditions and restrictions.
Councillor Ninnmey suggested deferring to get further planning and legal advice in order to respond to the way Members were feeling.
Councillor Ashton proposed to include a condition for no marquees. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that although the marquees were outside of the red line it would be acceptable to include a condition that no marquees could serve this building and use could be limited to the confines of the barns and buildings. Councillor Ashton suggested a condition should be included that ruled out the use of marquees outside of the barn complex but a marquee would be allowed in the courtyard.
The Head of Planning and Building Control displayed maps showing proposed three marquee locations.
The Chair suggested that a condition on the number of events or the number attending events could be included.
Councillor Ashdown supported the motion. Councillor Ashton pointed out that they should take note of the alcohol licence. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that Planning trumped Licensing.
Councillor Graham asked for a condition for no helicopter landings within the site. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the red line area (application site) was quite limited and the blue line area (land owned by the applicant) was bigger and it would be easy for helicopters to land within the larger estate and be transported to the application site. The Planning Manager explained they could state no helicopter arrivals on the site but that was only within the red line area. Extending this to the blue line area was not a condition that could be justified or enforced. It was also pointed out that they had not heard a lot of debate about the impact of helicopters specifically, just general traffic use of the site. As this was a very precise condition it would need supporting evidence and therefore he would not recommend including it. The Head of Planning and Building Control said there was an established runway behind Heveningham Hall, which he could not confirm the lawful status of at that point, but knew it was used for the country fair. However, it could be included in the proposal if desired. Councillor Graham confirmed she wished for it to be included. Councillor Ashton declined to include the condition. The Chair clarified the vote that was about to be taken. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained to Councillor Ashton that they had to vote on his motion and if that failed they could consider including the helicopter condition.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Ashdown it was
RESOLVED
That the application was approved subject to the conditions below, with the inclusion of two additional conditions (no marquees outside of the building area and limits on the number of events)
1. Approved plans
2. Tourism occupancy restriction
3. Permitted uses
4. In accordance with the ecological assessment
5. Operated in accordance with the Noise Impact Assessment and the Noise Management Plan