Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bennet, Fisher, Smithson, Wakeling and Hedgley. There were no substitutions.

There were none.

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

 

RESOLVED

 

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

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control gave a verbal update regarding the focus of Strategic Planning Committee meetings over the year. A timetable of the meetings with the subject area for each was presented to the Committee and it is available as a meeting document on CMIS.

Members received a presentation on energy projects within East Suffolk from the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Energy and Climate Change. He ran through a presentation giving an overview of the Energy Projects impacting the district. He noted that Sizewell C (SZC) was having a massive impact on the district. Most of the offshore wind schemes are at post decision phase. He explained that Lion Link was the interconnector that links to the Netherlands and Sea Link was an offshore reinforcement cable, that will impact Friston and Saxmundham. The examination of the application for Sea Link starts on 5 November and he requested Members to share topics they wish to raise in hearings, ahead of hearings, with the energy projects team. It was noted that parish councils are under resourced as they are mostly volunteers. National Grid has agreed to fund two webinars for parish councils. This was less than we would like to see but at least there were webinars.

With regards to SZC, officers continue to engage with stakeholders and regulators. There are some Town and Country Act Planning Applications outside of the NSIP process relating to SZC, including the use of Pakefield Holiday Village. They continue to attend the forums and he showed the schedule of meetings. The SZC Mitigation Funding was coming on stream and it was important that mitigations going above and beyond the requirements carried on. The final investment decision went through and all partners are in place ready to sign contracts for the construction period. He was concerned that the green spend on environmental mitigation could be cut, but SZC will deliver it. However SZC senior leadership invited Councillor Daly to talk to investors at an event. There was a social enterprise there who applauded the mitigation that was taking place and the event was very much a celebration of SZC’s approach to environment and community. He stressed the importance of ESC being in the middle of this.

There is a MHCLG Consultation – Streamlining Infrastructure Planning – looking at reforming the NSIP process. ESC will be feeding into the consultation. It was very important not to lose the green benefits that came out of the DCO for SZC.

He referenced the Transitional Regional Energy Strategic Planning (tRESP) consultation which ESC will be feeding into and invited Members to look at the details in the presentation slide.

He concluded that looking forward although ESC is not the decision maker we have an important role as an influencer at every stage of the NSIP process. 

Councillor Packard asked if the public will be paying for SZC through energy bills because the government has put a huge amount of money into SZC. Councillor Daly explained there was a nuclear levy. The funding model is based on the premise that the nuclear developments are a public good that needs to be paid for by the public now. 

Councillor Ninnmey thanked Councillor Daly for the update. He had recently attended a meeting regarding Sizewell A and was surprised and upset that the dismantling of Sizewell A would not be done until 2180 and there was no funding for it. He asked what assurance there was about the dismantling of SZC in the future and if we were leaving a massive bill for future generations. Sizewell A land should be coming back to the community. Councillor Daly attended the community forum looking at the decommissioning and said there was a government department dealing with this. There was rarely any definite answer to the questions about decommissioning and there are huge problems at Sellafield where the funding has just been cut. The country is about to produce more high-level waste and there needs to be a responsible, properly funded solution to high-level waste. No underground depositories are on stream. He was not sure where the decommissioning process was for Sizewell A and would have to look up the details. Councillor Ninnmey asked to be briefed on A, B and the future of C. Councillor Daly deferred to the Energy Projects Manager who said that SZC has a funded decommissioning programme and she would share a link later. She confirmed that the SZC financing model will put £1 on each customer's electricity bill. She believed Sizewell A did have a fully funded decommissioning programme and didn’t have any information on B to hand but would circulate the information after the meeting.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2523 and handed over to the Principal Planner to present. She asked Members to take the report largely as read but she had an update on the figures. Since the report was drafted another quarter had finished and it was the end of a two year monitoring period. 

For the recently completed quarter July - Sept 25:
• Majors = 84% (target 60%) - This was total of 19 apps, 16 within time
• Non-Majors = 82.6% (target 70%) - This was a total of 420 apps, 347 within time

For the 2-year monitoring period 1 Oct 23 to 30 Sept 25:
• Majors = 84.2% (target 60%) = This was a total of 115 apps, 98 within time
• Non-Majors = 74.95% (target 70%) = This was a total of 3,221 apps, 2,414 within time

Thresholds were met for the most recent 2-year monitoring period and over the past three two-year periods ESC’s performance has been improving.

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

 

RESOLVED

 

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.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2524 and handed over to the Planning Manager. She asked Members to take the report as read and said there were three updates.

1. The Otley Neighbourhood Plan was made by Full Council on 24 September, bringing the total number of 'made' Neighbourhood Plans in East Suffolk to 29. The Decision Statement was issued at the end of September for Lowestoft so it will move to referendum in late November.
2. The questionnaire asking for community feedback on the planning policy consultation process, and the methods used to reach and collect views had 772 responses. A high level response of the summaries has been published on the website - How to involve you in planning policy - results
3. The call for sites will begin on 20 October and run to 9 January 2026. There will be a wide range of communications in the lead up and during the consultation. All Members have been invited to a briefing on 16 October and they are organising a Town and Parish Council briefing too.

Councillor Daly asked if there were qualifiers on the types of sites. The Planning Manager said there will be a list of the sorts of sites ESC would invite submissions for. There will also be an OTHER box. ESC wants to know availability and intention to build up the evidence base of land available for allocation.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about the housing delivery and supply saying that at Overview and Scrutiny they were told that 2,358 dwellings were under construction but 7,313 dwellings had full planning consent. This equated to nearly 8 years of delivery for our previous 916 dwellings per year. He asked how long these consents have existed. The Planning Manager explained that permissions granted but not completed was included in the Housing Action plan published in July and information would be sent after the meeting. The figure of total dwellings with consent will include those with outline consent and there would always be dwellings with consent that hadn’t yet been constructed. Through work on the Housing Action Plan, Planners look at sites and how long ago the permission was granted and check if there are issues. Larger sites do need time to complete and this was monitored through the Action Plan. The Head of Planning and Building Control quoted from the Housing Action Plan saying the biggest numbers in the Waveney area was the Kirkley Waterfront where there are challenges around brownfield development. The Suffolk Coastal area has 2,000 homes at Brightwell Lakes but this is being built out over a long period of time which will be the case for all our strategic sites. Having a supply of consent was a good thing and doesn’t suggest developers were sitting on sites. Councillor Ninnmey asked if they were full planning consents or work in progress as there was a difference between those that are ready to go and others that need work on them, citing North Felixstowe where part of the site has full planning permission but the rest doesn’t. The Planning Manager quoted from the Housing Action Plan that as at 31 March 2024 there were 6,744 houses with permission, and of those 2,871 had outline permission. Councillor Packard advised Councillor Ninnmey to raise questions with officers outside of the meeting. Councillor Ninnmey felt it was an important issue to raise with both committees. The Chair said it was good news that we aren’t sitting on planning applications and advised Members to ask Officers questions at any time.

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

RESOLVED

 

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.

This item was heard out of order and taken as the last item on the agenda. At this point Councillor Ashton briefly left the room.

 

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/252. He handed over to the Coastal Management and Adaptation Manager who was in Thorpeness talking to residents in light of coming storms and high tides. They would continue to work with residents in the coming weeks and months. She explained there had been a very positive board meeting in relation to the Resilient Coasts project. They have 12 months left on the project working with communities of Pakefield, Lowestoft and Thorpeness to develop plans for the future. Going into the winter with plans for our R&M and capital budgets for next year which they are working up with the Finance team. From a national perspective they are responding to a call for evidence of impacts on coastal communities from erosion and landslips.

 

Councillor Ashton returned to the room.

Councillor Daly asked how we are going forward with the erosion issues at Felixstowe Ferry/Bawdsey. The Coastal Management and Adaptation Manager said there was the Deben Estuary Strategy that covered this area. There was a flood risk on Felixstowe Ferry but the Environment Agency (EA) was responsible for the flood walls there. They regularly undertake emergency works and continue to monitor the situation. Estuary plan may be up for review so might be an opportunity to revisit it. Holding the line around the coast everywhere was a challenge for the district and the EA would lead on this in Felixstowe.

Councillor Pitchers asked about the damage to the glass balustrade in Lowestoft and if it would be replaced with something more robust. The Coastal Management and Adaptation Manager said it will be replaced but it will still be glass as that was part of the design. They have been talking to the designers about a stronger design as the panels have been subject to vandalism.

Councillor Daly felt the answer was uncertainty. He attended a conference and the area he was looking at was how we adapt in this new world with climate change. What will coastal erosion mean in reality. Councillor Packard explained this is what the coastal management team was doing with the EA. They have the big money and we have the small money. The Deben is the EA’s responsibility but it affects us so we have to work together. The Government needs to look at the whole situation. We have £8m to spend on examining the coast and seeing what we can do but there is no easy solution. Councillor Daly said we need to adapt quickly to what is happening and have strategies in place. The Chair said we need to be the nimble part of this. Councillor Packard referenced the Kirkley Waterfront which had seen the price of remedial work increase significantly as the work wasn’t done early. He was satisfied that as a District Council there was a good team looking at this.

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

 

RESOLVED

 

That this report is provided to raise awareness and understanding of the above areas. 

To provide any comments and recommendations from the Strategic Planning Committee for inclusion in this update going forward.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2526. The Building Control Partnership Manager was unable to attend so the Head of Planning and Building Control was happy to take questions in his absence. 

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

RESOLVED 

That Building Control would continue evolution of marketing, using the strength of expertise and trust to retain market share. 

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced the item. Members received a verbal update from The Head of Planning and Building Control. There was genuine Master Planning taking place on all sites. The process was a long one that should not be rushed and there was ongoing engagement with stakeholders and communities and the County Council. Members should expect to see planning applications early next year and the Jeld Wen application will be coming to SPC shortly. He explained that all strategic planning applications are brought to SPC for approval.  He said there would be a more thorough update in the January meeting and there would also be a report on CIL spending.

Councillor Ashdown asked if there had been any communications from Anglian Water regarding the North Lowestoft Garden Village. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the sewage treatment plant would require a cordon sanitaire to reduce the effect of odour on properties. County Council and Anglian Water are having negotiations about this and the transport of tankers through the site. As planners they were making sure this was taken into account with the designs.  Councillor Ashdown said it was exceptionally bad again last week. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was useful to have these reports. The Chair asked if the local community was aware how to report issues. Councillor Ashdown said they were, but he still gets informed.

Councillor Ninnmey asked what progress had been made with North Felixstowe and landowners. He knew all were signed up to master planning but have the three agreed to land use within them. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained this would come under the regeneration team at ESC. He knew that the landowners were collaborating on the master plan and was keen to make sure that over the next months there were joint meetings with landowners so there was continuity on how the application was submitted.

Councillor Daly asked if master planning took everything into account eg Health, education, environment, BNG etc. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the plan was an overall drawing but it was made of lots of components. It was an extended pre-application process and Brightwell Lakes was a good example. Having the Environmental Impact Assessment and all the components makes the reserved matters process much easier. They are achieving positive and powerful outcomes but it was a slow process. He noted that going forward, with our 5 year housing supply, there will be some very large sites coming forward. It was important that developers respected the master planning process and the time it takes. Councillor Daly was reassured and was pleased that the document has proved useful. He said to keep in touch if there was anything needed from members politically.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2530 and invited the Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer to speak. He gave Members a presentation, explaining that the team had grown and now had 22 members covering a wide range of disciplines. It was originally just conservation and there were now 4 teams over 7 disciplines of design, heritage, landscape, arboriculture, Rights of Way (not county PROW), Ecology (unusual at district level) and RAMS (wildlife wise). He showed the structure of the Specialist Services team and explained there was a Specialist Services brochure that can be downloaded from the website (Specialist Services Prospectus). He explained how the team feeds into the wider council working with regeneration, housing, assets, environment and climate change, building control and coastal management.

He gave a brief update on each team. The Design team was working closely with the Major Sites team, working hard to get a design philosophy. The East Suffolk Design Code Project was out for tender. They don’t want cookie cutter developments but want a local distinctness. The Suffolk Design Festival would be taking place soon. The Heritage team had seen a 39% increase in consultations compared to the previous year and had expanded their team to meet the increased workload.  The Ecology team- had seen a 38% increase in consultations compared to the previous year and they provided support to Babergh Mid Suffolk council which was a source of income generation. The Landscape team had seen a 33% increase in consultations compared to the previous year. A contributory factor was their statutory requirement to keep conservation areas under review. Recent reviews had seen the conservation areas of Aldeburgh and Southwold increase which then has a knock on impact on their workload. They are working on the energy projects and looking at the EDF estate once construction has finished. Not just looking at reversion back to agricultural use but also back to semi-acid grassland. This will see a major uplift in wildlife value and landscape character value.

 

 They are in the process of digitising the Landscape Character Assessment which used to only be available as a PDF or on paper. The Rights of Way team were dealing with NSIPs and big developments. 

 

He recommended Members to visit Staverton Park and The Thicks if they had the opportunity as it is one of the most important areas of woodland in the country, with over 400 trees that are over a thousand years old.

 

He gave a brief update on Wildlife Wise and the team of Rangers and finished by saying there had been some great recruitments to the team recently. It was a team who utterly loved what they do and are very grateful that they have a team structure that allows them to do what they do.

Councillor Ashdown asked if the Rights of Way team had anything to do with the King’s Path as it would be good to move it in some places as it is on cliffs that are eroding. The Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer explained that this should be directed to the County Council Rights of Way team.

Councillor Daly suggested that the Council needed to advertise the team’s work and make it explicit to residents what the team is achieving for the countryside and the district. The Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer agreed that it was a great suggestion and the 4 team leaders need to speak to the comms team and be more vocal. They were constantly looking for ways to interact more widely.

Councillor Ninnmey felt it was very encouraging. He was aware of a programme by Kelsale parish council that had a biodiversity action plan which took 7 years. A group in Martlesham/Brightwell was looking to do something similar on the Deben so their surveying time could be reduced as a result of the work by the Specialist Services team. He asked if they had any ideas on how it will help parishes doing biodiversity action plans.  The Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer explained that James Mayer was the contact for the parish councils. He had worked with County ecologists and there had been a larger review of the county. He also mentioned Suffolk Biodiversity and the surveying of ancient woodlands (woodland in existence prior to 1600). This had resulted in a 30% uplift in identified ancient woodland across the county. Now had a greater understanding of what we have even from 3-4 years ago. Councillor Ninnmey thought this could really help reduce the time spent and thanked the team for their work.

Councillor Packard thanked the Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer for his presentation and the valuable work. He recommended that their work should be publicised more widely. He had met some of the new Rangers and felt they should be celebrated. Councillor Ninnmey said with the decommissioning of Sizewell A, could we utilise the team’s skills on what we could be done with the land that comes free at A and B to help improve biodiversity on the coast. The Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer explained that when they left the old council offices on Melton Hill they found the files for Sizewell A and they barely filled the surface of a desk. He was sure that discussions would happen.

Councillor Gee asked given the long timescales of this development how will the plans that we have envisaged be impacted by Devolution. The Chair said officers would be doing the same work in the new councils. The Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer said that one of the benefits of the strong team was they were in a more robust position than neighbouring councils. They already held Council-wide meetings so were already informally working together and sharing knowledge.


On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was unanimously

RESOLVED

 

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.