Meeting Details

Since the agenda for this meeting was published, the leader of the Council, Councillor Caroline Topping, has appointed Councillor Toby Hammond as Vice-Chair of Planning Committee North.

Councillor Sarah Plummer, Chair of Planning Committee North, was on leave, therefore Councillor Toby Hammond was the Chair for this meeting of Planning Committee North.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Plummer, Pitchers, Ashton and Wakeling.

Councillor Byatt attended as substitute for Councillor Pitchers.

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 May 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2436 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement cases for East Suffolk Council where enforcement action had been sanctioned under delegated Confirmed powers up until 23 June 2025. At that time there were 30 such cases.

The Enforcement Planner advised that a court hearing date for the land at Wrentham had been set for 23 July 2025, and after that date an update on the case would be provided.

The Planning Manager noted the request at the previous meeting regarding an update from the Legal Team on Enforcement Matters and advised that this would happen in a future meeting in August or September to provide a more substantive update.

The Chair invited questions to the Enforcement Planner.

Councillor Beavan asked for more detail regarding the Southwold Flower Company.  The Enforcement Planner advised that there had been a decision on the planning application which she would be checking to make sure it aligned with the requirements of the notice and that the work is carried out. The Enforcement Planner confirmed there would be a more substantial update next month.

Councillor Beavan commented that there was another application in the pipeline from Southwold Flower Company and asked if they would be required to comply with the current notice prior to any approval.  The Planning Manager could not see that another application had been received and said it would be difficult to say that something could not be approved for that reason. He shared Councillor Beavan's frustrations but noted that not complying with planning conditions was not a material planning consideration in a future application.  He added that the enforceability of a condition and if officers were confident that it could be complied with, would form part of the assessment carried out when considering any application.

Councillor Byatt noted that a number of items were awaiting Planning Inspectorate decision and asked for an estimated timeframe and whether there was any way to expedite the decisions.  The Planning Manager agreed this was frustrating as planning appeals were prioritised over enforcement notice appeals. It was a national problem that was causing frustration for local communities.  He added that the Head of Planning and Building Control had raised this with the Planning Inspectorate.

The Chair thanked the Enforcement team for all of their work. On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Gee, it was

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 23 June 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2348 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1805/FUL.  The application sought consent for the siting of a statue of local composer Benjamin Britten, as a boy, to be cast in bronze and set within an area known as Lord Kitchener's Garden. 

The Senior Planner presented the application to the Committee.  A series of slides were shared showing plans and photographs of the proposed location of the statue along with elevations of the final statue design.  The Senior Planner told the Committee that the statue was to be cast in bronze and was considered to be of high quality design, using high quality materials that would enhance the conservation area.  

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Design
• Heritage
• Amenity

It was recommended to the Committee that the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

The Chair invited questions to the Officer.  

Councillor Gee noted from the report that a previous site closer to the Composer's house had been suggested but discounted and wondered why that was.  The Senior Planner did not know and suggested they asked the applicant, adding this was not a material planning consideration. 

There were no further questions from the Committee.  The Chair invited the applicant to speak.

The applicant told the Committee that the statue project was about promoting aspirations for generations of young people from Lowestoft, encouraging them to dream big and follow their ambitions, just as young Benjamin Britten did 100 years ago.

The statue campaign had strong support from the community and local schools since it started. She thanked the community for their fundraising and ongoing schools and heritage project work. Its message of looking ahead had inspired many adults within the community including those recovering from domestic and substance abuse.  Support for the project had been received locally, it had also received national and international support in recognition of Benjamin Britten’s worldwide esteem as one of the 20th Century’s greatest composers.

The applicant referred to the maquette that she brought with her to the Committee and the quality of the statue, created by the Royal Sculptor Ian Rank Broadley, which would draw many thousands of tourists to Lowestoft.  This would have a positive impact on the local business and economy for decades.  The Britten as a Boy statue would enhance the Kirkley Heritage Action Zone.  A school resource pack and popular heritage walk was already in place.  A copy of the education pack was provided for Committee members, and the Visit Kirkley website was featuring the resources.

The statue was being placed in Lord Kitchener’s Garden, also known as the Twinning garden, and this would become a focal point for cultural activities, reinvigorating a much-underused site.  The applicant said it was also the site of Benjamin Britten’s primary school. The Lord Kitchener’s Memorial Holiday Centre were fully supportive of the project, and they had offered to host a ceremony for the unveiling of the statue. They were awaiting further news about a possible royal visit.

They had been told by the Britten family of the composer’s plans to host an annual music festival for Lowestoft children.  The planned to take the idea forward as part of the legacy of the statue project and were in talks with Norfolk and Suffolk Music Hub and others. Last month they recorded a special Britten as a Boy song with a local composer, Ben Perry, and a team of local children with the Music Hub. This would be sent out as part of the resource pack to every primary school in Norfolk and Suffolk in January to commemorate 50 years since Benjamin Britten’s death.  The applicant advised the Committee to view their website to see the backstory and creation of the statue.

There were no questions for the applicant.

The Chair invited Ward Member, Councillor Byatt, to speak.  Councillor Byatt thanked the applicant for their presentation about such an important project.  He read out to the Committee quotes of support from the local MP, the Leader of East Suffolk Council and the Chair of East Suffolk Council.

On behalf of himself and his fellow District Councillors, he told the Committee that having seen the outline project, they were delighted to provide seed funding from their Community Fund towards the production of the maquette. He congratulated them for what they had achieved with the project and said they were looking forward to seeing the statue of Benjamin Britten gazing out over the lovely beach.  

He wholeheartedly supported the project and recognised the work of the team in getting the project to fruition.  He was looking forward to seeing the statue in position.

The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Ashdown said it was a project that they all looked forward to, he fully supported the project and proposed that the application be accepted.  This was seconded by Councillor Beavon.  It was

RESOLVED

that planning permission be granted, subject to the below conditions.

Conditions: 

1. Time Limit
2. Approved Plans
3. Landscaping implementation

The Committee received report ES/2349 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1861/FUL. Planning permission was sought for a single storey rear extension, which was judged to be compliant with policy expectations.  It was before Planning Committee North as East Suffolk Council are the owner of the access road leading to the site.
 
The Planning Manager presented the application on behalf of the case officer.

Before starting the presentation, the Planning Manager told the Committee that the Case Officer, Debbi Wicks, would be retiring at the end of July after 36 years’ service for the local authority.  On behalf of the Officers and the Members he thanked her for all of her hard work and noted how incredibly grateful they were for all of her service.

The site location plan was shared, showing the application in context along with existing and proposed elevations and block plans.  The Planning Manager told the Committee that this was deemed to be an acceptable way to extend the home and it would cause no neighbour impact.

The material planning considerations were summarised as:

• Time limit
• Plans compliance
• Materials as stated

It was recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions in the report.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

It was confirmed to Councillor Byatt that there had been no objections from the local community and no response from the local parish.


There being no further questions, the Chair invited the Committee to debate the application. 

Councillor Ashdown saw nothing wrong with the application and was happy to recommend approval, wishing the applicants all the best with their new extension.  This was seconded by Councillor Gee.  It was 

RESOLVED

That the application be approved, subject to the conditions below:

Conditions: 

1. Time limit
2. Plans compliance
3. Materials and finishes as submitted