Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Deacon, Fisher, Parker and Smithson. Councillor Byatt substituted for Councillor Smithson.

There were no declarations of interest made.

On the proposal of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was unanimously

 

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2026  be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Daly introduced report ES/2768 and ran through a presentation giving an 
overview of the energy projects. He explained that East Suffolk Council is the planning authority and not the decision maker but we play an important role in the consenting process, the discharging of requirements and working with internal and external stakeholders. The team engages with Government and responds to consultations which are published on the website.

He showed an overview of all the energy projects and explained that Sea Link was at examination stage. There have been open floor hearings and Councillors Daly and Graham have spoken at them. Councillor Daly felt that the examining Authority has been listening. He explained that the team sends out monthly NSIP updates. 

Sizewell C was now in the 3rd year of a 9-12 year construction period, however as we know from Hinkley Point C that could be extended. Groups are meeting regularly and discharges are ongoing. They are working closely with stakeholders and sources of information are improving all the time. He pointed out that the works tracker is useful and showed a slide of how to stay informed about the project. He explained these were the quick ways to get information.

He concluded that there was far more detail in the report and invited questions from Members.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the predicted end date was from now or from when it started. Councillor Daly confirmed it was from the construction start date. He said the end date was anticipated but looking at Hinkley Point C this was questionable. However lessons learnt from Hinkley have been transferred to SZC so hopefully there won’t be the same delays and issues.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about Community Energy Projects and if the parishes will be informed about what form they can do it eg river, solar. He wanted to know what the options were and what funding there was and if there will be a help sheet put together. 

Councillor Daly said the hurdles around procurement and contracts have been solved. Partners are involved and they want to do a big launch but the upcoming election has scuppered this for now. He thought river energy was a good idea. They will be explicit on what can be done and information will be available soon.

Councillor Byatt asked if anything was planned at this end of the district in relation to SZC and will the harbour and port at Lowestoft see an increase in traffic as a result of it. He wanted the public to know what impact there will be on Lowestoft. Pakefield Pontins will be important but what are we going to gain here from SZC.

Councillor Daly said there should be gains. There is NSIP activity in Lowestoft separate to SZC. The Energy Projects Manager asked if it was Community Engagement he was looking for. Councillor Byatt said it was about what SZC was bringing in value to the community eg increased use of the port, and investment into the area. The Energy Projects Manager agreed to take this offline and report back to Councillor Byatt directly.

Councillor Gee supported the suggestion of river energy pointing out that Switzerland has had hydroelectricity since the early part of the 20th century and rely mostly on that. It was a very good system to produce electricity.

Members received report ES/2769 from Councillor Packard, Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management. He pointed out that the team had been really involved in Thorpeness in the past few months. Although this has settled for now there are issues all down the coast. The team was really stretched so now they are going to focus on other areas.

The Strategic Lead – Coastal Management and Adaptation said Thorpeness had been exceptional with effectively 27m of erosion in one location. This should have happened over the next 30 years. They had worked closely with the community, Building Control and Planning to deal with the emergency works and thanked the council for their support. This has bought them some time and they will be talking to the community about the next steps over the summer. They have engaged with stakeholders about the Lowestoft area and the challenges about the barrier. Had great internal conversations across the council looking at adaptation planning for Corton and Southwold in particular. An Adaptation Group has been set up in the council. The Coastal Management team needs to work with all service areas in the council because as soon as we have these challenges it impacts on a number of teams. 

 

There was a national announcement of £30m for adaptation funding through coastal adaptation pilots. East Suffolk has automatically been put forward for around £3m of funding to continue looking at adaptation and will be used for things like rollback and relocation.

 The summer will be a period of planning and moving forward. Pakefield, Southwold, Corton and Thorpeness will continue to be hotspots and the team is reviewing processes for the whole coast with our consultants so we have a good understanding of what the coast is doing now and helping to decide what we will collectively choose to do over the next 20 to 30 years. This will form a new coastal strategy that will align with the Local Plan.

Councillor Ashdown asked when they will start talking with the Corton parish. The Strategic Lead explained that if they go in as the Coastal Management team and talk about risks residents will ask who is doing what and there isn’t £20m for defence. They will be having conversations from June and start communications from the start of the summer.  They will establish which properties are residential and which are business/holiday properties. That will give the Housing and Economic Development and Regeneration teams an understanding of the scale and impact.

 

Councillor Ashdown said they are aware that holiday accommodation is more residential than it should be and the team needs to be aware of this. Councillor Packard said he would like to see the businesses getting involved. As the coast erodes they need to move some of their caravans back.

The Strategic Lead said they need to understand the different types of businesses. Some caravan parks have invested in their own frontages. The new garden village and call for sites will bring opportunities. We don’t want to say there is a risk and not have solutions. They want options that can be discussed across the different council teams.

Councillor Ninnmey referenced the 1953 flood and that the risk came from the river Orwell rather than the sea. He asked how our coastal defences tie into our river defences. Councillor Packard did not know but they concentrated on the promenades but rivers are not really part of our remit.

The Strategic Lead explained that under the Coastal Protection Act of 1949 the Local Authority has responsibility for erosion risk eg seaside towns with cliffs behind them. But low lying areas and rivers are usually the responsibility of the Environment Agency. However the distinction for the tidal rivers here is that in the early 2000s community groups were set up to take forward estuary plans partly because the funding available for estuary defences was going down. Agriculture and marshland didn’t qualify for funding. The council is involved in discussions around those plans. We support the Alde and Ore and Deben with their plans and work with the Blyth around the mouth of the Southwold harbour. But as a council we don’t have responsibility and can’t access government funding. The Stour and Orwell have been put into the shoreline management plan for Essex but the majority of defences are still the responsibility of the Environment Agency. 

Councillor Plummer arrived at 11:05.

Councillor Byatt drew attention to the excellent work being taken at Benacre noting that ESC is not the lead on the project. As a resident of Pakefield he thanked the team for the comms that have been made to residents to reassure them. You can’t argue with water and can’t take your eye off it as it is a vulnerable coastline. Councillor Packard thanked him for his praise. He reassured Members that they have drones going up and down the coast all the time so you get a much better picture of what is going on.

The Strategic Lead explained there is a shoreline management plan that also covers the estuaries. We were now at a critical point. We are now in the 2nd epoch, and this is crunch time. The plan takes us to 2055 and will rely on adaptive solutions rather than defences. We have a challenging coast and it doesn’t always do what is expected so it isn't always easy to be able to warn and inform people in advance but they were in a better position to do that over the coming months and years.

The Head of Planning and Building Control thanked Councillor Byatt for picking up on Benacre flood defence project. Although we aren’t the lead on this we have invested £1m of CIL to ensure this project happened in a timely manner.

Councillor Byatt noted that the effect of what happens at Yarmouth and the impact on the Broads reinforces that we need a tidal barrier. Thinking back to the floods of 2013 what was a once in a lifetime event is now once in a decade/15 years. The town was cut off in a couple of hours in 2013 and it was very scary. But at least we will get plenty of warning.

Councillor Bennett asked about the shoreline management plan and the implications of the coastline not being under one unitary. Councillor Packard said it was an interesting question. He was sure there would be co-ordination but at this stage nothing can be said. The plan existed before there was one council in the East Suffolk area. Most shoreline management plans involve multiple authorities.  It was likely that the authority with most of the frontage will become the lead partner.

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

RESOLVED

That the Strategic Planning Committee notes the work undertaken by the Coastal Management and Adaptation team at ESC. 

That the Strategic Planning Committee provides any recommendations as to the content of future updates (if required).

At this point Councillor Plummer took over as Chair.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2770. He said Building Control goes largely unnoticed, but they are a team that makes money for the council. They compete against private enterprise and have won work from SZC. He said we have a very strong team.

He handed over to the Building Control Partnership Manager who gave a presentation. He explained they were the only team in the council that was in competition with commercial competitors. They had 89% of the market share in the last period and 85% annually. He explained that all their work was heavily moderated and scrutinised by external auditors. He mentioned reversion applications where private inspectors can disappear overnight and their work automatically reverts to the local authority. Luckily by keeping the market share high there are very few reversions. There were 145 inspections per inspector last year. He shared the financials with the Members.

He moved on to talk about staffing and explained he was trying to stay positive but was struggling. He has maintained and kept a strong team but three fully qualified team members have left to go to private companies or other LAs in the last 6 months. They are offering things we cannot offer. There are currently 9 vacancies and the interest from qualified individuals is not great but there is a high level of interest for the training roles. The issue is that someone is trained for 4-5 years and then they move on. Hard to deliver and train at the same time. Some team members have gone part time rather than retire and leave the team short. 

The Building Control Partnership Manager explained that they had recently had an HSE Audit. They were audited in December and it was a very intense process of 5, 2-hour examinations, but there was very good feedback. The team has an operational standards co-ordinator who acts like our own auditor. The Auditor said what ESC had created should be done on a national basis. Unfortunately the report just highlights the staffing contravention rather than the positives. He expected to be audited again in 4 years’ time.

The Building Control Team Leader explained about Dangerous Structures. Building Control can get called out at any time and it happens every month. He mentioned the incident in Beccles in December where a drunk driver crashed into New Look and the cash machine ram raid in Beccles in March. They couldn’t let forensics in until the building was made safe and the structural integrity of the building was undermined. A builder was on site by 4am and by 5am the building was made safe whereas the Nationwide builders didn’t turn up until after 9am. A drunk driver drove into a row of terraced houses in Kessingland, damaging 5 properties. The driver went through a gas mains so Cadent and UKPN had to come out to make repairs. He explained that this was a statutory function that the team fulfils and we do it for free. He noted that there was never any mention of Building Control in the media reporting.

Councillor Ashdown thanked the team for the work they have done at the almshouses. 

Councillor Byatt thanked the team for the enlightening presentation and asked if there was anything that could be done to prevent staff from leaving for the private sector and if there were apprenticeships.

The Building Control Partnership Manager said they do. They are looking at hosting trainees but have to be specific about the recruitment. He has many ideas for packages and has talked to the Head of Planning and Building Control. Need to be considerate about fellow planning colleagues though.

Councillor Byatt asked if the risk should be taken to Audit and Governance.

Councillor Plummer asked if the training package included a commitment to stay. The Building Control Partnership Manager explained that because the market is so competitive that even with retention to recoup training costs in contracts any company that wants them would just pay the penalty.

A Building Inspector explained he was a builder for 20 years and dropped his pay by half to join ESC and become a Building Inspector. He was now doing a degree apprenticeship and had been here for 3.5 years and was now one of the most senior team members. 

The Building Control Partnership Manager said there were more people like this interested in joining. However he’d spent so much time on Thorpeness recently he couldn’t focus on his team so much.

Councillor Daly commented on what a great job the team does. He asked if the auditing intensity also applied to the private sector and if companies were penalised if they disappeared before a job was finished. The Building Control Partnership Manager hoped that the audits were consistent between private companies and local authorities. He said there were no penalties and often the companies just set up in a different name.

Councillor Gee congratulated the team on their service and said it seemed unfair to lose staff after training them up. She asked if they could build into the agreement that there is a period that they must commit to the council for. The Building Control Partnership Manager said this has been explored but this limited applicants.

The Head of Planning and Building Control thanked the team for their work and contribution. He stressed the importance of the culture in the department and would keep Members updated about the acute issue around staffing.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about completion certificates and how extensive they were. The Building Control Partnership Manager said they were very comprehensive and varied on each project. Each project was priced individually. Items on a snagging list are often aesthetic and not related to Building Control. Focus of the certificate and visits is on Fire Safety, thermal efficiency, accessibility and structure.

The Chair thanked the team on behalf of the Strategic Planning Committee.

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 team.

The Cabinet Member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management.  Members received report ES/2771. The Head of Building and Planning Control said the report should be taken as noted and a further update would be given at future meetings.

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

RESOLVED

That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2772 and  handed over to the Senior Design and Heritage Officer. She explained that she came to Strategic Planning Committee in January to get authority to make the Directions. They then went to consultation and were now back for confirmation. She explained that the consultation ran for 6 weeks although the statutory requirement is 21 days. Letters were sent out and there were press notices as part of the consultation. They held a drop in session on 25 February in Bungay that was attended by about 20 people. They received very few responses. Wrentham Parish Council was supportive of the changes and there were no clear objections. Bungay Town Council did not object and questions from residents were just clarification points. There was some concern about the removal of some properties. The next stage in the process is to get confirmation from Strategic Planning after which the team will serve local adverts, site notices and write to residents. A photographic survey will be carried out on 22 April which will be used as an archive. The Broads Authority has an Article 4 Direction being done in conjunction so the date of 22 April will coincide. If confirmed the existing articles would be cancelled and superseded by the new ones.

Councillor Gee noted that Bungay residents are worried about losing their Article 4 status and asked if they had any grounds for this. Is there a risk of their buildings being compromised. The Senior Design and Heritage Officer said the areas of concern were central ones where the streets are almost entirely listed and the properties don’t have permitted development rights and need planning permission anyway. The survey has shown that there has been a loss of features in the areas that Article 4s can control so they cannot justify keeping the Article 4 Direction in those areas. Any changes that could be made without planning permission would have very little impact given that they already don't have the features that can be controlled with an Article 4 Direction.

 

Councillor Gee asked if it was necessary to remove the Article 4 where there are buildings of particular concern for residents or were they protected because they are in a conservation area.  It was explained that they were removing the Article 4 as it was largely a duplicate protection as the area was mostly listed. Changes to listed buildings will require planning permission and listed building consent in the historic core of the town.

Councillor Ashton had concerns about including properties that didn’t have heritage value such as 39 High Street in Wrentham. He asked them to check as he didn’t think anything should be included that doesn’t have heritage value. He questioned if damage had already been caused to windows and doors was this a valid reason to remove a property from an Article 4, as other permitted development could deteriorate the heritage value even further. 

The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was about practicality and trying to establish the smallest geographic area possible for Article 4 Directions and they don’t want ones that are property specific or else it makes it overly complex. It needs a tidy map for officers to use when dealing with enquiries from residents.

Councillor Ashton said that strictly speaking it was a list of properties in an area so you could remove properties from it if they don’t have heritage value. He had raised concerns before that we are forcing residents to pay for planning applications that in other places would be allowed under permitted development, and in many cases are for relatively small changes.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said it was a fair point. They could visit this and see what other approach could be taken for future Article 4 Directions. It would need a wider decision at a future Strategic Planning meeting or Local Plan Working Group.

Councillor Ashton was fine with this and an offline discussion would be appreciated. He would like to look at the fees charged for some of these planning applications that would otherwise be permitted development. It feels an expensive imposition for people. Finally he raised that he wasn’t notified about Wrentham as Ward member and asked the team to check that Members were notified and are included in future consultations.

Councillor Packard agreed that this would be looked at. Councillor Ashton said it would be worth reviewing that Article 4s are only in the old Waveney area and not Suffolk Coastal.

Councillor Byatt said it was a three-year project to review all Article 4 Directions and asked if Members can bring properties to the team if they notice something untoward.

The Chair asked that it was taken to Enforcement. The Head of Planning and Building Control said they could raise it with the Heritage Team or it can be raised through the mapping system that was demonstrated at the recent Design Workshop. In response to Councillor Ashton he explained there was a consultation about local planning fees at the moment and there could be an opportunity to set smaller local fees in some cases.

Councillor Bennett said there are two conservation areas in Felixstowe, one of which is of particular concern due to HMOs. He noted there was an Article 4 in Felixstowe that was put in as an emergency on Landguard Lodge. He asked that Felixstowe was looked at as a priority as there are concerns locally. Councillor Packard agreed this should be looked at.

The Senior Design and Heritage Officer explained there was a difference between conservation areas and Article 4 Directions and this was something for the Planning Policy team. The Chair said this was something to be discussed at a future meeting.

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

RESOLVED
 
That Strategic Planning Committee 

Agreed to confirm the new Article 4 directions in the Bungay and Wrentham Conservation Areas, to take effect on 22 April 2026, on which date the existing Article 4 directions are cancelled and superseded. 

Agreed that the Head of Planning and Building Control, in consultation with the Cabinet member with responsibility for Planning and Coastal Management, is authorised to make any presentational or typographical amendments to the Article 4 directions and accompanying maps, prior to the new directions taking effect.

There was a brief adjournment and the meeting resumed at 12:34pm.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2773. He said the team had considered the review and made some minor adjustments already and they were good adjustments. He handed over to the Planning Manager to explain further.

The Planning Manager was conscious that the report was commissioned in September 2025 and was published at the end of the year. The PAS review of the planning committees was undertaken due to some challenging applications. It related largely to one site of particular significance to the local community and Ward Member. There was a thorough review by PAS who interviewed a number of stakeholders. It endorsed the work of the planning committees and the decisions they reached. The planning process was considered to be sound and there were 9 recommendations. A Task and Finish Group was set up in January, with 4 meetings in total, comprised of officers from Planning, Legal and Democratic Services together with Chairs, Vice Chairs and Councillor Packard. The group worked through the recommendations and implemented some of those. A minor change to the order of speaking has been implemented to give more balance which has worked well and condensed questions. Early notification of items to be considered is being sent out to Members and it was pleasing to see how this has worked. Members have reached out to officers in advance as a result. The role of Strategic Planning Committee is to have oversight of how we conduct business at planning.

 

The Planning Manager explained that these were recommendations that they wanted to implement and feedback on. They are always looking for feedback and changes are up for discussion. Further improvements could be made, for example there is no opportunity for a supporter to speak on an application. That is something we can look to implement through the Constitution Review Working Group. A minor typo correction to make it clearer that the officer point of clarification includes questions to officers could also be added.  The site visit protocol was being looked at as a priority after this meeting and the O&S meeting. He was very pleased with the collaborative work and the PAS review was positive of the work of the planning committees. 

It was noted that the Government consultation about the scheme of delegation could result in major changes in the Autumn with far fewer applications coming to planning committees for determination. The Planning Manager was happy to discuss about how we respond to the consultation.

Councillor Ashdown thanked the Planning Manager however he had an issue that clarification is required between the officer’s report and what Members see on the screen. Getting this clarity prior to public speaking is something Members should be able to do. 

Councillor Plummer said this was discussed at length. By having early notification this opens up the discussion for Members to contact Officers for clarification before the meeting. 

Councillor Ashdown was asking for clarification about what was on the report and presentation and without that opportunity he could not support the recommendation.

Councillor Bennett said the group did consider this and the point of clarification is still included. The issue is that often it isn’t only clarification and it becomes debate that isn’t so balanced. He advised that Members could note any points of clarification and ask them after the public speakers.

Councillor Hedgley referred to recommendation 6 and visual presentations. He would have supported an increase from the speakers from 3 minutes to 4 minutes. An extra minute would be helpful. He was happy with recommendation 7 that we involve people. Councillor Packard said they didn’t look closely at the 3 minute rule as generally it is ok. If public speakers want something shown they should send it through beforehand and 3 minutes was adequate.

Councillor Hedgley said it looked like we are taking things away and not giving them anything back. An extra minute would make us look good and we're not taking things away from them. Councillor Packard understood the point but the reason for the removal was that people were coming to the meeting with things that had never been seen before. Councillor Hedgley said that without the images they would have been shortchanged on the Otley application.

Councillor Bennett said they looked at the 3 minutes and compared themselves with other local authorities and East Suffolk was on a par or better than others. The intention was to make it a level playing field for all speakers. If you come in as a company you can be very slick in comparison to the next door neighbour who could be intimidated. He didn’t see it as taking things away. As Chair he was flexible on allowing additional time.

The Planning Manager said the point is made well. It isn’t taking away from those who are opposing. He is also concerned about developers turning up with some new information that hasn’t been verified and tested and also AI concerns. PAS was blunt saying this was not common and that it was making things difficult. Officers ask for any evidence to be sent through.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said PAS also noted that Members are invited to ask questions of public speakers. There is ample opportunity to get their point across. They were not stopping information being sent through – just needs to be controlled by the officers and managed properly. The AI policy addresses this. We are seeing things being submitted that are AI generated which is a risk to decision-taking.

Councillor Pitchers referred to recommendation 4 and agreed with Councillor Ashdown. You need clarity between the presentation before moving to public speakers. The Chair said there would need to be careful guidance on what could be asked.

Councillor Packard noted that the Chair has a very important role to play. If you feel that something needs to be clarified you could ask the Chair on that point. But to put it into the whole procedure would be too much. 

Councillor Ninnmey supported both Councillors who have spoken. He took the committee back to the first meeting in the south where the protocol was in place. The presentation didn’t make it clear if it was a truck stop or a storage area. 4 or 5 Members tried to get it from the applicant what it was and wasted time trying to get clarification. On that occasion the members went against the officer recommendation and it was at that time that Members need separate advice and the suggestion that there should be legal representation available was very important and should be something that could be provided.

 (Clerk's Note: it was noted after the meeting that the new protocol was not in place at this meeting Councillor Ninnmey referred to). 

 

He was also concerned about the fear of meeting the public. He has been in packed halls listening to the residents and limiting public attendance was of concern. There was an overspill in the restaurant area. He concluded that he looked forward to whatever training was provided.

Councillor Packard said these were interesting points but one of the things the PAS review said was that we have to keep our meetings open, but quicker than we are at the moment. The Task and Finish group looked at how they could be more efficient. This is the problem for the people presenting. If they can’t answer the question that isn’t the officer's problem.

The Planning Manager replied about uncertainty saying that Councillor Packard was right. One of the flaws in that application was because the agent/developer was unclear about what they were applying for. He would have had to defer to the agent anyway. He felt the process worked well due to the early notification. Questions that would normally come up after the presentation are now included in the presentation or answered in advance. It allows officers to arrive at the meeting with the information that is needed.

The Planning Manager explained that with the old process there was a strong perception that Officer clarification after the presentation meant this could be 45 minutes given to Officers speaking. This could be seen to be dominating proceedings.

The Head of Planning and Building Control covered overturns and public attendance. Recommendation 3 was about committee member engagement. Reading the reports and coming prepared and asking questions in advance of the meeting is the best way to go. Overturns and giving advice was about being sure of the relevant policies and being prepared before the meeting. Alternative outcomes and recommendations are the responsibility of the members, not the officers. who just guide on process. A Legal rep just to guide you through the process would be a duplication of officer time.

Public attendance  was a  concern raised by PAS. They interviewed a wide range of people. The meetings are held in public and it is important to have involvement and we do broadcast on YouTube. We’ve had councillors approached by members of the public and threatened. We need to ensure there is a safe environment and need to manage the health and safety. 

Councillor Packard said the meeting rooms are not designed to hold a lot of members of the public.

Councillor Ninnmey said we should set up an overflow space with a camera. Personal safety is a consideration but we are elected to represent a community and we expect to engage with our public. Need to keep it transparent.

Councillor Packard said we are and we do try to accommodate people who turn up.

The Chair suggested that we need to put in a max capacity for a meeting and lay out how we will manage attendance. 

Councillor Ninnmey said we need to manage an overflow room and the cafeteria had been used at Riverside. 

The Chair said it wasn't set up but it was where people who weren't in the room at the time went. Suggesting there is YouTube set up in another room would need manning and becomes a whole other level of complication. We need to start from this is what we can accommodate and let people know.

Councillor Bennett agreed. He said we are open to the public and we are transparent. There is nothing in the recommendations that suggests we are not transparent. There are always limits. These are logistical matters that do not compromise transparency.

 

Councillor Ninnmey refuted this and said if you went to Parliament and the public gallery was full you can watch all the proceedings from the Great Hall and you are part of the debate.

The Chair said this building does not have that capacity and nor does East Suffolk House.

Councillor Byatt was worried about the public perception. Need to make sure that we encourage objectors to lobby us. We have succinctness. Our officers can take our questions in advance. Part of the training is to be told to ask questions. Do bother to read the papers before the meeting. Make sure we feedback. All our meetings are in public and we are transparent. None of these recommendations are unreasonable and the change of speaking is very good. He noted the 10.2 comment and that we are over worrying and concerned about the public. We can suspend a decision to get further advice if necessary. Our responsibility is to make sure we are well informed before a meeting. He was grilled by PAS for an hour. We have to accept that our role is to make sure we ask the right questions.

Councillor Packard agreed. He said we have looked in detail and made adjustments. He concurred that we run a good planning system and we are open to the public. Our referral panel does work well and is democratic.

Councillor Ashdown said we have excellent officer reports and excellent presentations. He was asking for clarification before we hear from anyone else. He has spoken to case officers and continues to do so.

Councillor Packard said there was no reason not to ask the Chair for a point of clarity on a case by case basis.

The Head of Planning and Building Control pointed out that the recommendation is to note the report. It is going to O&S and they could make some suggestions for changes. This would go back to T&F and SPC and Cabinet for approval. Any changes to make a change to the recommendation need to be put forward.

Councillor Ashton said the report was trying to address the integrity of our planning process. There was an accusation that the planners were not independent. He had no strong opinions on the recommendations. Need to get across the integrity of the planning process. There are people out there trying to undermine the integrity. He works with his parish councils to explain the process. There is good stuff in this report. The experience of the committee not going with the officer recommendation is difficult. We should not be scrabbling around for a reason to go against the recommendation. Training and access to officers in advance will help. 

The Chair said that if officers have doubts they will consider and give you clues as to what is in the balance.

In response to Councillor Ashton, Councillor Bennett said by inviting in the body to review the process and present it in public, together with bringing it to SPC and to O&S, was the way to evident the integrity of the process. That is more than most do. 

The Chair pointed out that there are always people who will disagree with the Council.

Councillor Byatt said if you don’t have clarity you can adjourn or defer to get information. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is good. We are worrying when our committees are getting on with the job. This was an ongoing, self-assessing situation.

Councillor Daly shared an experience about feedback from a resident who thought the planning committee system was good and thorough. He was happy to vote for the recommendation.

Councillor Pitchers said there was a further report about how successful we are on appeals.

Councillor Packard said we can change things if we need to. But today we are looking at the report and agreeing in general terms.

Councillor Ninnmey wanted an addition of ‘can ask the Chair for a point of clarity’ after the presentation. It was agreed that the point of clarity should be asked through the Chair, who asks the Officer and it must be specific to a point in the report or in the presentation. The Head of Planning and Building Control made a suggestion that you just change the first item in public speaking so it is not a whole new item.

On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Byatt it was by majority 

RESOLVED

• That Strategic Planning Committee notes the report updating on progress in response to the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Review of East Suffolk Council’s Planning Committees.
• That the first line in the public speaking is amended to say 
Introduction by the Planning or Rights of Way Officer including, through the Chair, any points of clarification on the content of the report or slides presented.

Ninnmey abstained from voting as he was on Overview and Scrutiny.


Members resolved unanimously to continue the meeting past 3 hours.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Coastal Management introduce report ES/2774 and handed over to the Principal Planner who explained that during the last quarter 100% of major planning applications were determined in time and 85% of non-majors were determined in time. Both are significantly over the national threshold of 60 and 70%. During the same period they served one enforcement notice and had 11 appeal decisions which were summarised in the appendix and paragraph 2.43 of the report.

The Chair thanked the Principal Planner, saying it was all very positive and asked if there were any questions.

 

Councillor Bennett asked if the 100% figure was a first. The Principal Planner said they had achieved this before but as they don't determine many major planning applications it's easier to get 100% but just missing one can have a major impact on the figures.

 

Councillor Byatt noted the benefit and value of the SPD which was used in the Humber Doucy Lane application. It reinforces the toolbox we have when determining applications. The Head of Planning and Building Control said this was a decision to be celebrated and recognised. This was an allocated site and it wasn't an easy decision but it showed that we were willing to refuse on the basis of quality. 

On the proposal of Councillor Packard, seconded by Councillor Pitchers 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 for Planning and Coastal Management introduced report ES/2775. The Planning Manager said there was a small update to 2.6. They made a submission of interest to the Local Plan Implementation Fund and have received £108k of funding.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if this was additional money that could help parishes with their plans or is it just for the district. The Planning Manager said it was just for the local authority working on their local plan. It recognises the challenges of the timescales and ensuring local authorities are resourced to deliver.

Councillor Bennett asked if we were adding capacity to what we have got rather than innovation to consultation methods.

The Planning Manager said they had not ringfenced it to specific activities but the funding will primarily go towards the evidence base. Will consider what activities we want to undertake as part of the scoping consultation and will look at the resource we have as part of that.

The Head of Planning and Building Control said the extra funds will help us go above and beyond. The recent call for sites had a high quality interactive map and the extra funds allow us to do this sort of thing. We can work collectively with the other authorities in Suffolk to be as transparent and helpful as possible.

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

RESOLVED


That Strategic Planning Committee notes the contents of the report.