Meeting Details

The Democratic Services Officer opened the meeting and sought nominations for a Chair of the Committee for the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Hammond it was

RESOLVED 

That Councillor Plummer be elected Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee for the 2025/26 Municipal Year.

Apologies for absence were received from:

• Councillor Hedgley, Councillor Cawley substituted.
• Councillor Deacon, Councillor Folley substistuted.
• Councillor Wakeling.

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

RESOLVED 

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

The Committee received a presentation on energy projects in East Suffolk from Councillor Daly, the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change. A copy of the presentation was made available on the website.

The presentation started with a high-level overview of each of the projects, focusing in on key areas of interest and the status/stage of each project.

Details of the Sealink project was shared, with Councillor Daly advising the Committee that following a comprehensive review and consultation, the Council had submitted their relevant representation.  This would be followed up by a local impact report, which is a comprehensive document, identifying the needs of the environment and community, showing East Suffolk Council’s position on Sealink.  Councillor Daly said it was important to state that they maintained their objection to the project and remained fully committed to working with the applicant to secure the best possible outcomes.

An overview of Sizewell C was given, Councillor Daly confirmed that they continued to engage at all levels with Sizewell C to ensure that all peripheral works are carried out in the best way that they could be.  East Suffolk Councillors and Officers attend Sizewell C forums and are well represented at the DCO statutory meetings that must take place.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was outlined.  Councillor Daly directed the Committee to the change in the law regarding NSIPS Clause 4 which would remove Section 42 (duty to consult), Section 47 (duty to consult local community), Section 49 (duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity) from statute.  He added there was an expectation from Government that consultation and engagement would still take place.

The Committee were advised of the importance of viewing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. 

Details of current consultations were shared.  Councillor Daly highlighted the DEFRA consultation on Biodiversity Net Gain for NSIPs and the working paper – Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure, both of which ESC would be responding to.

Councillor Daly referred to the Clean Energy Industries Sector Plan which was published on 23 June 2025 and outlined the UK’s plan to create investment, growth and jobs in clean energy industries, as part of the UK’s Modern Industrial Strategy.

Councillor Daly told the Committee that he was pushing more at community energy, moving away from the focus on the national grid, every community could be empowered to be in control of their own energy, bringing their carbon footprint and bills down with the right technology. 

Noting the way that the energy landscape was moving, with onshore wind and solar, Councillor Daly highlighted the importance of East Suffolk Council being involved and pushing as hard as they could. 

The National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority published the 10-year Strategy for Infrastructure on 19 June 2025.  This sets out the governments long term plan for economic, housing and social infrastructure to drive growth. Councillor Daly noted the switch from sustainability to growth in the documentation. 

He drew the Committee’s attention to the value for money argument referenced in the strategy and what was meant by value for money.

The Infrastructure Planning (Offshore Wind and Solar Generation) order was referenced. This was a significant change with anything outside of that coming to planning via Town and Country Planning. The order comes into force on 31 December 2025.

Councillor Daly concluded by saying that ESC was not a decision maker for NSIPs, their role was to be involved working with developers and Government to make the outcomes as good as they possibly could be for their communities.

The Chair thanked Councillor Daly for his presentation and invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Cawley referred to the Strategic Planning Document and asked whether there was the intention to increase the megawattage to reduce the number of turbines required.  Councillor Daly responded that there was a tendency for them to get bigger and bigger over time, and this was confirmed at a meeting with the operators that week, but that granularity was not yet available within the document.  

Councillor Packard asked about coastal erosion and whether Sizewell was going to be protected from the sea for the next 200 years.  Councillor Daly confirmed that this featured heavily as part of the pre-application stage.  The Energy Projects Manager confirmed it was accepted by the Secretary of State and since then there had been a subsequent discharge of requirements 12 and 19 of the development consent order which secured a coastal monitoring and management plan and a design of the sea defences.  Ongoing engagement was occurring with the applicant and other regulatory stakeholders.

The Chair asked for an explanation to the previous question, he asked were they planning to invest in secure sea defences or was there a quirk of the geology of that area.  He noted much of the coast in that area was falling into the sea, so it seemed strange. 

The Energy Projects Manager confirmed that any development such as Sizewell C would be required to demonstrate and assess its impact and any mitigation/management that was needed.  The Sizewell C case was based on the particular geomorphology and bathymetry of that particular site of the coast and its coastal processes.  All of that was accounted for.  The Coastal Management and Adaptation Manager added this was a significant undertaking by the developer around its ability to respond to sea level rise, to the extent that they looked into Tsunami impact, and the substantial defence needed, there was additional mitigation for local impacts, shingle recycling etc, to keep it all working in a dynamic way. It was confirmed to the Chair that it was a combination of particular geology and investment in sea defences.

Councillor Ashton joined the meeting at 10.56am

The Chair asked Councillor Daly how communities could respond to the call for community energy projects.  Councillor Daly replied that they had procured a partner organisation to stimulate interest and support partner organisations with matching ideas to available funding for Community energy projects across the district.  There was interest in community energy at Parish meetings, and the partner organisation could help make it a reality. He referenced Charsfield which was a good example of a Community Energy projects.

The discussion continued regarding the opportunities available, examples included Leiston working with Sizewell C, a good urban example that could be rolled out to other areas.

Councillor Pitchers asked about the opportunities for onshore wind in East Suffolk and whether there were applications happening.  

Councillor Ninnmey suggested this was expanded upon at a future time as there was so much interest and information to be shared.

Councillor Ninnmey referred to the massive shortage of water in the region and the significant number of construction projects including Sizewell C.  He noted that Sizewell C had committed to building a desalination plant.  He asked if there was anyone looking at water resources available for build projects or other startups.  He was aware that some districts had refused projects at planning due to insufficiency of water in that region.

His second question was related to the local impact report, he asked if that covered how it impacted the whole community? He added that Clause 4 was very worrying regarding consultation being pushed back.  He asked Councillor Daley if he could confirm that 15% of funding was currently being actively engaged by Centrica for Sizewell C. 

Councillor Daly recently attended an event hosted by Essex & Suffolk Water, where the company was adamant that water supply would not be a constraint on future growth.  The event highlighted a wider conversation about responsible water use, considering crop types and how they align with local soil and water availability and the scale of poultry and livestock operations, and their environmental and animal welfare impacts.

The Head of Planning and Building Control added that East Suffolk was served by two water supply companies, Essex and Suffolk Water and Anglian Water. Both companies were prioritising efforts to improve water efficiency and address ongoing supply challenges.  The most significant water supply issues were occurring in the north of the district, although it did extend to Mid Suffolk and to the areas of Hartismere and Blyth.  Essex and Suffolk Water had plans to develop a new reservoir in the North of the district. The reservoir would be located to draw water from the River Waveney, supplemented by treated water from the Corton Sewage Treatment Plant.  This plan was part of their initiative to enhance water distribution across the region and increase supply capacity to meet future demand.

The Head of Planning and Building control concluded he had regular engagement with Essex and Suffolk Water and would bring updates to future meetings.

Councillor Daly had no further information regarding Councillor Ninnmey’s Centrica question. 

Regarding local consultation being pushed back, Councillor Daly confirmed they were opposed to that and had made a strong case that this was not a proper way forward, with the removal of consultation being wrong and undemocratic. 

Councillor Daly left the meeting at this point.

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the report concerning the performance of the Development Management Team in terms of the speed of determining planning applications, outcomes of appeal decisions and enforcement activity. 

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2421- Annual Review of the North, South and Strategic Planning Committees, the Referral Panel and the member call-in process 2024/2025.  He invited the Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) to present.

The Principal Planner (Development Management, Technical Lead) gave an overview of each aspect of the report.

Referral Panel – key facts and figures. Graphs were shown showing the percentage of items that were majors, minors and others at Referral Panel between 1/4/24 and 31/3/25.  More than 50% at Referral Panel were other applications, predominantly householder applications, with the majority of majors not going through that process.

In terms of proportions from North and South, the North had a higher proportion at Referral Panel, this was also reflected in Planning Committee data. Regarding wards, it was not split evenly, some wards had more items at Referral Panel and some had none.

The predominant reason for triggering referral panel was Town/Parish Council comment – 92%.

Ward member comments and referral panel attendance was looked at.  Only 22% of members attended a referral panel during the past year.  Determination routes after referral panel were 88% delegated and 12% went to Committee.

The North had a higher proportion of applications at Referral Panel, and higher number of referrals to Committee.

Member Call in process – key facts and figures (data from 1/4/24). Proportion going through member call in process is similar to those that at Committee, 2/ 3 North and 1/3 South.  Central team had the largest number of applications, which indicated the wards in the middle of the district were those triggering the call-in process. A breakdown by ward was shared, Southwold Ward had most items, followed by the Aldeburgh and Leiston Ward.  In terms of outcomes through call-in process – majority go straight to committee, 3 were back to referral.

Planning Committee items reflect the same trend of 2/3 north, 1/3 south. Ward breakdown similar to member call in and referral.

Reasons for applications at planning committee were shared, a proportion were referral or member call-in but still more than 50% triggered by other reason, Head of Service call in or owner/applicant or staff member connection.

The member call-in and referral process were triggering a significant number of public speakers at committee meetings. A breakdown of this was shared with the Committee.

A comparison of the impact of the application determination route against the timeliness of decision making was shared with the Committee.  Planning Committee applications where the applicant or landowner was ESC were the only ones that were determined within the 8- or 13-week deadline.  Rationale being it was known that it was going to Committee at the outset.  The importance of having all of the different determination routes was recognised as part of the democratic process.

Start times

The report proposed changing the start time for Planning Committee North and South, supported by data on meeting lengths to assist members in their decision-making. The Senior Planner noted that after evaluating the pros and cons, they concluded the advantages of an earlier start time outweighed the disadvantages and recommended implementing an earlier start time of 9.30am.

Site visit

The final item in the report proposed the introduction of a member-led process for site visits, meaning it could take place before planning committees. However, the referral panel would still need to confirm the site visit and the reasons for it taking place or not.

The Chair invited questions to the Committee.

Councillor Folley asked if one of the recommendations could be included about giving more notice of referral panel if they were trying to encourage more members to be there.  The Senior Planner confirmed they aimed to give notice as early as possible on a Friday via Teams for the following Tuesday, this enables there to be time to check the reports.

The Chair confirmed that the referral panel was scheduled every Tuesday at 9.30am, therefore members needed to check Friday afternoon/Monday morning to see if they were required.  Action was agreed to remind members of the process and deadline.

Different meeting notification methods were discussed such as regular diary entry for all members, Councillor Ashdown noted that previously all ward members were encouraged to attend to sit and listen. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the notification on a Friday always included the Teams invitation, and he was happy to emphasise that members joined and watched, even if they didn’t have an item in their ward. 

Councillor Ninnmey highlighted that site visits are informative and provide a better understanding of applications. He asked about the proportion of Committee members attending. Councillor Packard replied that members are invited and should attend, noting better attendance at controversial site visits, and emphasised the importance of Ward Members being diligent.

Councillor McCallum emphasised that members who propose, second, and vote for site visits should be committed to attending. It was also noted that since site visit dates are set after the Committee meeting, some members may be unable to attend.

Councillor Ashton supported the proposed change to the site visit process, suggesting it would prevent members from deciding on site visits after lengthy discussions at Committee, which is not ideal for applicants or officers. He also asked if Committee Members could have more influence on determining when a site visit is needed for an application.

Councillor Packard suggested that Committee Members could raise site visit concerns informally with the Chair once papers are published. Councillor Ashton sought a more robust process to prevent applications from going to Committee when a site visit is needed.

Councillor McCallum mentioned previous discussions on how applications were handled, they had viewed different authorities’ processes, and it varied, some did site visits for all, some used technology such as drones for site visits. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that some Councils had a much more regular schedule of site visits.  That was a big resource expectation which wasn’t always essential.  He agreed more Councils were using innovative technologies to present applications.

There was discussion about the different ways that site visits could be identified, including identifying at referral panel stage or for Ward Members to identify it an early stage. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control agreed to explore the suggestions but emphasised the need for them to be manageable. The Chair concurred, noting that they didn’t want to create an unmanageable situation.

Councillor Parker left the meeting temporarily and therefore could not take place in vote.

There were no further questions, so the Chair invited the Committee to debate.

There was a discussion regarding the proposed start times, Councillor Reeves felt that 9.30 was too early and 10.00 or 10.30 would be better, particularly if you were required to substitute in the North.  Councillor Pitchers agreed that 10.30 would be better due to travel time.

Councillor Pitchers emphasised the importance of Committee members having the opportunity to raise the need for a site visit and agreed that a mechanism should be in place. He noted that there had been occasions where the need for a site visit was clear, but it was still debated at length before being agreed on.

Councillor McCallum agreed that a 10:30 start time would be better, expressing concern that late meetings affected decision-making quality. She added that members who vote for site visits should attend and suggested considering new technologies like drones. Regarding Referral panels, she felt they were valuable learning tools, helping to review how policies work in different areas.

Councillor Ninnmey preferred afternoon meetings and noted that public speaking often highlighted the need for site visits. Councillor Ashton emphasised the need to balance early start times with adequate breaks and suggested considering extraordinary meetings instead of long sessions that could impact decision-making quality. Councillor Folley felt a later start would make it easier to arrange substitutes.

The Head of Planning and Building Control shared that discussions had been ongoing about start times, with a 5–6-hour morning meeting requiring breaks, this would result in a split session potentially. He also clarified that the new site visit process wouldn't remove the ability for Committee Members to request site visits but would allow for more influence through referral panels and ward members.

In response to potential long meetings, Councillor Bennett suggested a 1pm start, which Councillor Smithson supported as it wouldn't require a split session. Councillor Ashton also backed a 1pm start and was open to officers investigating a mechanism for Committee Members to influence site visits.

On the proposition of Councillor Ninnmey, seconded by Councillor Gee it was  

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee notes this report and that no changes are proposed of the trigger reasons related to three Planning Committees, Planning Referral Panel or Member ‘Call-in’ process. 

That Strategic Planning Committee recommends to Full Council that when considering the calendar of meetings for Municipal Year 2026/27, the start time for Planning Committee North and Planning Committee South be moved from 14:00 to 13:00. 

It is also recommended that Strategic Planning Committee endorse the recommendation of the introduction of a new process which would enable Planning Committee Site Visits to be undertaken prior to the application being presented at a meeting (this will need to be put to the Constitution Review Working Group). 

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2422 – Major Sites and Infrastructure Update.  He invited the Major Sites and Infrastructure Manager to present a series of slides, which gave a high-level overview of each of the major sites.

North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood - Two public consultations have been held on the site with strong public engagement. Interim pre-application advice has been provided, giving the Council guidance on how to proceed. A series of workshops will follow, with a planning submission targeted for late 2025.

An overview of the status of Brightwell Lakes was shared, detailing the stage each parcel of land was at, and the opening of the various stages of development.

The South Saxmundham Garden Neighbourhood held a public consultation in 2021. Initially considered as an employment-led proposal, it will now proceed as a residential development with an employment element. Additional land south of the current employment site remains included. Engagement increased since December, with a design and review panel completed and feedback pending. Significant technical work remains, including highways, rail, and connectivity. Agents are targeting a late 2025 submission, which appears achievable.

The Beccles and Worlingham Garden Neighbourhood has had two public consultations and is now focusing on parameters and governing factors for the upcoming application. A clear line in the sand for their pre-application response has been provided. The eastern part of the site is progressing faster than the western, so applications may be submitted at different times. Work is ongoing to address how this would affect the S106 agreement and infrastructure delivery. Significant behind-the-scenes work continues.

Kirkley Waterfront - there has been no recent update on the Brook Marine portion. The Jeld Wen site has an application for 500 dwellings, currently undergoing active consultation following revisions to address consultee feedback and viability concerns. Progress is possible within the next three months, depending on responses. A pre-application is underway for the Sanyo site, with a formal application expected in late July. The focus there is on remediation and creating a development platform for future proposals. Work is ongoing around contamination and ecology. The Scenic site has already come forward and is under construction. Indicative layouts and parameters for Jeld Wen were shared with the Committee.

The North Lowestoft Garden Village has held several public consultations and revised its site-wide masterplan, which remains confidential as discussions continue. Phase 1, in the southern part with access via Corton Long Lane, will be a full application, while the northern section will be submitted in outline. Workshops are ongoing to align the evolving design with the original vision, focusing on maintaining design quality and connectivity. Submission is still targeted for autumn 2025.

The Head of Planning and Building Control thanked the Major Sites and Infrastructure Manager for her presentation and confirmed that this will become a regular Strategic Planning update, including Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) updates, to ensure the whole service is covered.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashdown asked about the Beccles and Worlingham Garden Neighbourhood, specifically asking for an update on the proposed country park that was included in the original plans.

Councillor Ashdown reported that Corton Parish Council received a presentation from SCC and Lovells on the garden village but faced significant objections due to ongoing odour issues from the sewage works in the north. They questioned why people would want to buy homes in such conditions and asked that this concern be raised in

consultations, with Anglian Water needing to provide a response.

Councillor Packard agreed to take note of Councillor Ashdown’s comments to follow up.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said that for the Beccles site, it was noted that while the Local Plan emphasises country park provision, this predates the current, more explicit requirement for Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG). Officers are now focusing on delivering SANG rather than traditional country parks. Referring to Corton, he said there was very regular discussion with Suffolk County Council regarding the odour and how that is best dealt with in the future application.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the Head of Agreement between the three landowners for the North Felixstowe Garden Neighbourhood had been signed yet.  It was confirmed it hadn’t been finalised, progress was being made, and the situation was being monitored.

Councillor Folley asked if any revisions involved reducing social housing. The response was Brightwell saw adjustments but no overall reduction. North Felixstowe is considering a different affordable housing tenure distribution, but there are no known overall reductions in affordable housing to date.

Councillor Cawley raised concerns about the impact of development on agricultural land, particularly in the context of climate change and food security. He asked whether the council was tracking how much land in use is active farmland, noting many farmers are facing crop failures. The Head of Planning and Building Control acknowledged the importance of the issue and explained that all development sites were allocated in the local plan, which already considers the protection of the best and most versatile agricultural land. While there is a clear need for food security, housing and infrastructure were also essential, and the plan aims to balance these demands. Future local plans will continue to assess land use needs—including for housing and renewable energy—recognising that some greenfield development was unavoidable to support necessary growth.

Councillor Folley raised concerns about infrastructure capacity, specifically asking if there were discussions with those involved in the Northern Bypass project. She highlighted that journey times to Felixstowe were already long, and the addition of 4,000 more cars would worsen the situation.

The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that the idea of a northern bypass would need to be pursued by various groups and MPs, but there had been no engagement with East Suffolk Council on the matter at that time. Suffolk County Council had investigated it in the past. While it wasn’t relevant to any current major development sites, it might need to be considered in the next local plan as a potential strategic factor in deciding future growth locations.

In response to the Chair, it was confirmed that the two employment allocations were located at Orwell Logistics Park and Seven Hills roundabout.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if housing associations were facing difficulties securing funding for their share of social housing. He questioned whether the issue was local, regional, or national, and whether any funding was available to support local residents in accessing housing.

The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that funding wasn’t a significant issue for major development sites, but challenges were being experienced on smaller sites with Section 106 housing allocations. He referred to the Housing Action Plan, which tackles housing challenges, and noted that the Housing Team was increasing outreach to registered providers to encourage greater investment in the district.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2423 – Major Sites and Infrastructure Planning Policy and Delivery Update. He invited the Planning Manager (Policy and Delivery) to present. 

The report was taken as read with the following updates provided:

Paragraph 2.7 was highlighted, this related to engagement between Registered Providers and the planning and housing teams to better understand the challenges registered providers faced in taking on S106 affordable properties. This was an issue they had been actively working on, with plan to provide further guidance.

Since the report had been written, the Ufford Neighbourhood Plan had been passed with 93% of those who voted voting in favour. It is scheduled to go to July Full Council to be made.

There were no further updates or questions.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor Ashdown it was

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2424 – Building Control Update. He invited the Building Control Partnership Manager to present. The report was taken as read, with the following highlighted:

Recruitment – the service demand was high, and the team were making efforts to recruit more staff, though finding registered building inspectors remained particularly challenging.

Despite strong competition, the service remained the top choice for building control in East Suffolk, with a continued focus on securing work and opportunities.

A recent success was securing building control work at Sizewell C, following significant effort to become the chosen provider. The team had begun working on-site one day per week, with their involvement expected to increase. However, it was noted that this project should not overshadow the rest of the service’s work.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ninnmey acknowledged the team’s recruitment challenges and inquired about the role of building control in inspecting sites to ensure what is built matches approved plans. He asked whether this was within their remit and if they liaise with planning to address any deviations that might require further consent.

The Building Control Partnership Manager replied that the team had been working closely with planning colleagues.  Maintaining a strong on-site presence was important, allowing building control to report deviations from approved plans, which in turn helps to improve the overall service delivery.  He continued it could be a challenge if the council is not chosen as the building inspector, as it becomes harder to enforce compliance. Significant effort is made to secure building control work, as it benefits the district.

The Building Control Partnership Manager confirmed that inspections are carried out using approved plans. The team has improved its processes through technology, ensuring access to the most up-to-date plans and enabling quick feedback to planning.

Councillor Smithson highlighted concerns on page 194 of the report about the shortage of building inspectors and its potential impact on build quality. She described the situation as worrying and noted that personal liability for inspections likely affects recruitment.

The Building Control Partnership Manager agreed, and said the key challenge was building a resilient team, with personal liability being a major concern for inspectors. The service was proud of its highly qualified team, one of the best in the country, which was not the case everywhere. Competition from the private sector could weaken the industry rather than strengthen it. The focus needed to be on growing talent internally and improving staff retention, as suitable candidates were scarce.

Councillor McCallum asked what prevents staff retention, suggesting pay might be a factor. It was explained that pay was a factor—staff shortages drive up wages, and private sector employers could offer more. Government emphasis on high building standards and strict regulations (post-Grenfell) is necessary, but lack of clarity and issues like devolution could be discouraging people from applying.

The Head of Planning and Building Control noted that recruitment struggles affect many council areas, linked to past recession and austerity that reduced graduate intake, creating current staffing gaps. A recent concern is the removal of Level 7 apprenticeships (master’s level) for under-21s.  As a Council they have recruited 22 apprentices at this level since 2019. Without this, recruitment challenges will persist, highlighting the need to continue developing their own pool of talent.  The Building Control Partnership Manager agreed but noted with a “grow your own” model you need the pool of experienced people to support and train, and currently a lot of their time was spent being out on site inspecting.

Councillor McCallum asked if devolution was affecting all sectors of the Council. The Head of Planning and Building Control replied that while LGR offered benefits like resource sharing and larger teams, it also created uncertainty, making staff less likely to change jobs. The usual “merry-go-round” of planners and building control staff moving between councils and advancing their careers might have slowed down for the time being.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor Hammond it was

 RESOLVED

 That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2425 – Specialist Services Update. He invited the Head of Planning and Building Control to present on behalf of the Design and Specialist Services Manager. The report was taken as read, with the following highlighted:

The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that the Design and Specialist Services Manager now reported directly to him. He emphasized the team's vital role in planning, building control, energy planning, and coastal management, particularly in handling complex issues related to landscape, heritage, design, and ecology. He noted they were one of the best-resourced ecology teams in the country.

The Head of Planning and Building Control highlighted several key initiatives: the Specialist Service Prospectus, which showcased the team's work and engagement; the East Suffolk Place Review Report, praised locally and nationally as best practice in evaluating development over the past 10–15 years; and the Suffolk Design works, a county-wide collaboration that concluded with a successful design festival at the University of Suffolk. He congratulated the team on their positive work.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the removal of the term “beauty” from planning design. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed it had been removed from the NPPF, replaced by a focus on good design and how it was assessed. Councils are now expected to develop design codes. The Design and Heritage Team will support planners, and collaboration with the Major Sites and Infrastructure Team will ensure design input at the masterplan stage. Design will be a key focus in the next local plan, with strong policy guidance for allocations within it.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if Martello T was on the buildings at risk register and whether the Golf Club development would fund its repairs. The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that Martello T was not on the local risk register and said he would look into the Golf Club development application.

The Head of Planning and Building Control highlighted Trimley railway station and the George Pub in Wickham Market as positive examples of design and heritage.

Councillor Packard remarked that the council was nationally leading in planning, building control, and design, handling high volumes of applications efficiently and performing above expectations. He said this was something to be proud of.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor McCallum it was

RESOLVED

 That Strategic Planning Committee:

 • Notes the update on the Specialist Services team.

• Recognises the critical and growing strategic contribution of the team to East Suffolk's place-shaping ambitions.

Councillor McCallum left the meeting.

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2426 – Confirmation of New Article 4 directions in Holton, Wissett and Walberswick.  He invited Design and Heritage Officer to present the report. 

Following the making of the new Article 4 directions in Holton, Wissett, Beccles, Walberswick and Thorpeness on 7 April 2025, a public consultation period ran from14 April to 23 May (30 May for Thorpeness).

The consultation for Thorpeness was extended by a week due to resident confusion about whether they were included in the Article 4 direction.

Responses were received as follows:

• Holton: Parish Council had no objections and supported the amended Article 4 direction; no public responses received.
• Wissett: Parish Council supported removal of neutral buildings but raised some concerns, which were shared with the Committee.
• Walberswick: Parish Council did not object but requested clarification on the geographical area; public response was low.
• Beccles: Town Council supported reviewing the existing Article 4 direction but had concerns about reducing the geographical area; public responses were summarised to the Committee.
• Thorpeness: Parish Council supported the proposal; 15 public objections were received and summarised to the Committee.

The officer recommendation and next steps were outlined to the Committee.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Gee sought clarification on whether the policy restricting year-round occupation of holiday homes was being removed and questioned the reason for changing a long-standing policy.

The Design and Heritage Officer clarified they were not referring to planning regulations on occupancy but to residents’ concerns that many holiday homes were difficult to maintain due to their original construction standards. Restricting permitted development rights could make it harder for residents to manage their properties.

Councillor Ninnmey noted that Thorpeness was a standalone estate with significant historic value, it could lose its unity and unique protection as a seaside resort if an Article 4 was removed.

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that Thorpeness currently had no Article 4 direction, so residents retain permitted development rights, though limited by conservation and landscape protections. Introducing an Article 4 direction would impose more restrictions, but some community members are opposed to this control. Councillor Ashton recognised there was a need to consult and consider public feedback. He added planning fees make implementing Article 4 directions challenging and asked whether fee changes could be made for Article 4 areas.

Councillor Bennett was concerned about the low number of responses.  The Design and Heritage Officer said this was usual, and they had also held a public drop in event.

Councillor Ashton asked if there was evidence that heritage value had declined due to there being no Article 4. The Design and Heritage Officer explained that a survey identified features controlled by Article 4 and showed a slight decline in historic windows. This could be monitored, with the option to propose Article 4 again if deterioration increases.

The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that Aldringham cum Thorpe had recently consulted on the submission stage of their neighbourhood plan, which includes strong heritage and design elements. The plan now needs to progress to being formally adopted.  Councillor Packard agreed that the local plan work should be progressed and then visit the Article 4 following that.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about future planning protections for Thorpeness. The Head of Planning and Building Control responded that the area was largely self-governed and well-managed, and he did not see the absence of Article 4 as a significant risk.

Councillor Gee was concerned over the loss of heritage features in Thorpeness. The Chair shared these concerns and asked about the status of the neighbourhood plan. The Planning Manager (Policy and Delivery) estimated it would take around nine months from now to progress through the latter stages and be formally adopted.

The discussion on Thorpeness continued, with the Head of Planning and Building Control stating that many proposed changes were appropriate and well-designed. Councillor Ashton added that several residents were actively restoring heritage properties.

On the proposition of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Ashton, it was 

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee:
1. Agrees to confirm the new Article 4 directions in the Holton and Wissett Conservation Areas, to take effect on 4th August 2025, on which date the existing Article 4 directions are cancelled and superseded.
2. Agrees to confirm the new Article 4 direction in the Walberswick Conservation Area, to take effect on 4th August 2025.
3. Does not confirm the new Article 4 directions in the Beccles Conservation Area and the Thorpeness Conservation Area, which will result in the Article 4 directions expiring on 4th August 2025. The existing Article 4 direction in the Beccles Conservation Area will remain in place.

In a change to the published agenda, this agenda item was not an exempt or confidential item, therefore the meeting continued in public session.

Councillor Packard introduced report ES/2430 – Coastal Management Update and invited the Strategic Coastal Manager and Head of Energy Planning and Coastal Management to present and answer questions.

A dedicated coastal management team had been set up, and a slide was presented to the Committee outlining their work plans and how these aligned with East Suffolk Council priorities and Environment Agency strategies.

The team is actively engaging with at-risk communities, collecting data, assessing costs, and working to ensure a safe coastline, while managing several ongoing erosion risks.

The Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) has moved beyond its initial 10-year phase, with the Suffolk plan now focusing on the next 25–50 years. Coastal erosion is happening faster than expected, they are working closely with other council departments, especially planning on adaptation. Identifying resources and accelerating progress will be challenging, but there is strong commitment to finding new solutions.

An opportunity was highlighted through an EA and DEFRA consultation on the current funding calculator and potential changes. However, early discussions suggested uncertainty about whether the coast would benefit from any revised funding.  There is a big shift towards surface water flooding, more people at flood risk than erosion risk, 8 million flood risk vs 300,000 at erosion risk, this is dictating how funding might be shared.

They aim to align with the local plan this year, and make sure all work is aligned with ESC objectives.  They are working with building control, housing, communities, as everything they are doing on the coast can impact on other teams.

The key outputs and priorities for 2025 to 2027 were shared with the Committee.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashdown raised concerns about the Kings Path in Corton being at risk due to erosion. The team confirmed involvement in national Coastal Path discussions and noted that some areas allow for path rollback as needed. The Strategic Coastal Manager agreed to follow up and report back.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about river defences, noting 53 flood deaths related to river defence failure rather than erosion, and requested an update on Orwell and Deben. The Strategic Coastal Manager explained that the Orwell fell under the Essex Shoreline Management Plan led by the Environment Agency, with community estuary plans integrated. East Suffolk Council oversees the shoreline plan but was not responsible for all aspects, so partners have to be encouraged to take action. She added one of the biggest challenges was that in some cases the Environmental Agency had already passed over responsibility via community strategies.  The Coastal Management team were invited to meetings and were trying to find funding to support estuary projects.  She agreed to provide more detail.

Councillor Smithson noted that the Deben plan was 10 years old and needed updating due to erosion affecting rights of way. She asked if the Council would be involved in creating the new plan, and it was confirmed they would be involved but it would be the Environment Agency leading the process.

The Strategic Coastal Manager replied it was unusual but brilliant to have community led plans.  The Deben Estuary Plan, led by a partnership including the Environment Agency, is due for review, and council officers would be involved if a review proceeds.  If asked to lead, the Council would decide whether to take on that role; so far, leadership has been with the community group—the Deben Estuary Partnership.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard seconded by Councillor Bennett it was

RESOLVED

 To raise awareness and understanding of the above it is recommended to read Appendix A. To provide any comments and recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee for inclusion in this update going forward.