Meeting Details

Councillor Ashton declared an interest in Agenda item 9 as Cabinet Member for assets and recused himself from that item.

Councillor Beavan declared an interest in Agenda item 6, choosing to speak as Ward Member and recused himself from that item.

Councillor Beavan declared an interest in Agenda item 7 as Ward Member. 

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

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2470 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 24 July 2025. At that time there were 27 such cases.

There were 2 updates to the report since it had been published, these were:

ENF/22/0247/USE – Part Land East of Mariawood, Hulver Street, Hensted

ENF/23/0129/USE – 88 Bridge Road, Lowestoft

Both had Planning Inspectorate site visits booked for the following month, with a decision anticipated after that.

Questions were invited from the Committee.

Councillor Gee pointed out a typographical error in the compliance expected date for Blackheath Road, this would be corrected to 11/11/2025.

The Chair thanked the Enforcement Team for all of their hard work.  On the proposition of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Pitchers, it was

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 24 July 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2471 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/1242/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for a replacement dwelling at Herons, Church Field in Walberswick.  The application was originally submitted in April 2024 and considered at the February 2025 Planning Committee meeting, where it was deferred for a site visit.  Following the deferral, discussions led to the submission of an amended scheme which was Item 7 of the agenda.  A site visit for both applications was held on 23 July 2025.  Both applications were to be considered separately on their own merits.

The planning application was presented to the Committee with supporting slides, including aerial and site plans, various photographs of the site and comparisons with neighbouring properties. Key site features such as Public Rights of Way, the Walberswick Conservation Area, and the surrounding context were highlighted.

Photos illustrated the site's current condition and context with neighbouring properties, Shearwater and Brackenside, and were taken from within the site and from the nearby common. 

The existing bungalow was noted as having no particular architectural value.
The new proposal was for a reorientated, upside-down house (bedrooms on ground floor, living spaces above), with contemporary design using brick, black timber cladding, and a black metal roof.  The new design included the addition of a swimming pool and allowed for the retention of mature trees at the rear of the property.  Mitigations for light spill were glazing design and louvring. 

Material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Design
• Amenity and impact on neighbours
• Impact on National Landscape and Walberswick Common

It was recommended that the application be approved as outlined in the report.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Hammond sought clarification on the proposed lighting strategy, expressing concern that the upside-down design of the property could result in overlooking of the Common from the first-floor living areas. He specifically questioned the effectiveness and enforceability of mitigation measures such as low VLT glazing (condition 11) and automatic blackout blinds (condition 15). The Planner responded that blackout blinds were recommended in the National Landscape Team's lighting guidance and were included as part of the approval conditions.

Councillor Cawley asked whether the property would be a main residence or a holiday let and suggested that the landscaping should include more evergreen plants to ensure year-round privacy.

The Planner stated his understanding was that the property would be a single-family home, though this could be confirmed with the architect. He noted there was no specific condition on the type of landscaping, but an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan were required to protect existing trees and vegetation.

The Planning Manager noted that evergreen planting might not suit the character of the national landscape. The Principal Planner added that the existing boundaries already contained a mix of evergreen and deciduous plants, reflecting the era of the property.

Councillor Gee expressed concern that, on summer evenings, occupants would likely want to enjoy the views rather than use blackout blinds. She questioned whether the blinds would actually be used and how their use could be effectively enforced.

The Planner responded that they were unsure of the technical details of how the blackout blinds operate but assumed they would be triggered by dusk rather than a set time. This would be clarified by the architect.

Councillor Ashton, after reviewing the Tree Protection Plan and visiting the site, highlighted that some trees were crucial for screening and preventing overlooking. While the plan was set to be approved by officers, he felt the committee might prefer to formally condition the retention of certain trees, rather than leave it open and asked if this would be possible.

The Chair agreed it would be sensible to include tree retention conditions if the Committee approved the application, it could be difficult to specify individual trees, as doing so could effectively turn it into a tree preservation order.

The Planning Manager suggested if Members were minded to approve with conditions, it could be better to have a detailed landscaping strategy that was proposed as part of that recommendation to be submitted and approved.  He suggested this would be picked up in debate and to continue with questions at this point of the Committee.

There were no further questions, the Chair invited the objector to speak.

The Objector, lived in Brackenside, the neighbouring property. He noted his background in conservation appraisals and planning awards and emphasised that the proposal had received 54 objections and no support. He argued that the development was out of context with Church Field, which was characterised by modest, recessive architecture that blended with the protected landscape.  He raised concerns about significant overlooking from the proposed first-floor windows, currently there was no overlooking, this development proposed 20 windows, 9 on the first floor—which would face both his property and Commonside, impacting privacy and creating an overbearing presence. He stated that this level of impact on residential amenity contradicted Local Plan policies.

The Objector also criticised the reliance on national design code separation distances, saying they were not meant to override local context. He argued that doubling the size of the existing bungalow would be out of scale with Church Field and inconsistent with local design policies. Furthermore, he pointed out that the proposed materials did not reflect the character of Walberswick or Church Field.  To conclude he said the application failed key Local Plan policies, ignored local context, harmed residential amenity, and would negatively affect a protected landscape, urging the Committee to refuse it.

The Chair invited questions for the Objector.

Councillor Cawley asked how many objections came from within the village. 

The Objector didn’t know the exact percentage but confirmed that the vast majority were from full-time village residents.

Councillor Hammond asked whether the existing property was suitable for modern living. The Objector responded that it was a timber-framed, modular prefab house built by Colt and Co., a company still in operation, and therefore he believed the property was entirely reusable.

The Chair invited the representative from Walberswick Parish Council to speak. 

The Parish Council representative thanked the committee for attending the site visit, noting that many valued the rural tranquillity of this part of the village, where mature trees and hedging blended into the common land. She reminded the committee that 50 residents had objected to the application, many out of a desire to protect this special environment.  She pointed out that although the officer’s report listed numerous designations granted to the common land, it had dismissed these objections, as well as concerns raised by expert consultees—including the East Suffolk Landscape Team, Suffolk Preservation Society, East Suffolk Ecology, SCC Coast and Health Project, and the trustees of the Walberswick Common Lands Charity, who are both landowners and there to protect the conservation asset. These consultees were united in their concerns about the proposal’s increased visual impact due to the reorientation, the larger mass from an added storey, and the ecological effects of extensive high-level glazing.

The officer had acknowledged these concerns, at times describing the proposal as potentially monolithic. While the report mentioned a considerable gap between the Herons' boundary and the common, the Committee was told that only low vegetation and a footpath to the Common separated them. The adjacent heathland, rich in wildlife, had no nearby lighting, making it an active nocturnal habitat.

She highlighted that the officer identified the clearest view of the proposal as being from the northwest, which includes the elevation with extensive glazing—clearly visible from the common during the day, and likely to appear as a glaring beacon at night, disrupting the area’s nocturnal ecology. She said that mitigation limited to the north elevation was inadequate.  Despite recognising the development's impact on this sensitive landscape, the officer’s view, she said, required the committee to ignore expert objections, breaches in scale and prominence, and accept the design solely because it was considered "strong." However, she noted that no detail had been given about how the design enhanced or protected the area's special qualities.

She argued that good design could not be separated from its appropriateness to the setting, and that the proposal’s high visual and ecological impact made it harmful to its context. Therefore, she concluded, the proposal breached Policy 10.4 by failing to consider the sensitivity of the location, offering a scale and form that neither protected nor enhanced the landscape’s special features. In the officer’s own words, it was “prominent,” when it should seek to be subtle.

The Chair invited questions to the Parish Council representative.

Councillor Pitchers asked how far Herons was from the harbour and was told it was about 1 km away. In response to his question about cladding, the Parish Council representative explained that while black cladding was typical near the harbour, it was not characteristic of the smallholding area of the village where Herons is located.

She clarified for Councillor Cawley that there were 150 permanent residents, therefore the number of objections received amounted to over a third of them. 

The Chair invited the architect to speak.  He told the Committee that it was an application to replace the existing dwelling, Herons, in Walberswick. He explained that the current house was a large, single-storey, uninsulated 1960s building with a floor area of 214 square metres, which had not been renovated since its construction. The new owners wished to replace it with a modern, energy-efficient family home of 296 square metres for a couple and their two children.

He stated that the application included an extensive landscaping scheme with native planting and hedging to enhance the setting. He noted that they had worked closely with the Council’s planning and design teams, making several amendments throughout the pre-application and planning stages. These changes included reducing the height and length of the dwelling, decreasing the amount of glazing, and removing a proposed balcony on the west elevation.

To address concerns about light spill, the design incorporated low VT glazing, automatic blackout blinds, and additional louvres, as recommended by the National Landscape Team. The building had been shortened by 5 metres and moved southward to preserve an existing tree on the north boundary. It now sat 9 metres from the north boundary and 21 metres from the western boundary. The distances to nearby dwellings—32 and 23 metres—exceeded the national model design code recommendations of 15 and 20 metres.

He added that the proposed house had been lowered by another half metre and was now 1.5 metres lower than the neighbour to the east and 2.4 metres lower than the neighbour to the south. The neighbouring house to the east was itself a recently built two-storey replacement dwelling.

According to the planning officer, the proposed materials were of high quality and, to varying extents, reflected materials found locally. The officer considered the design attractively detailed, using modern interpretations of traditional materials. The large plot could comfortably accommodate the proposed dwelling while maintaining sufficient amenity space. The landscape officer also supported the proposal, stating that the strong design and the fact that the dwelling remained within an existing residential plot—without extending into the countryside—made the principle of a two-storey dwelling acceptable.

He emphasised that the National Landscape Team had not objected to the application and that requested changes had been made. He concluded that the proposals complied with relevant national and local policies and were therefore acceptable. He urged the Committee to follow the officer’s recommendation and grant approval.

The Chair invited questions to the architect.

Councillor Pitchers noted that the most controversial aspect of the proposal was the change in orientation and asked why it had been considered. The architect explained that various designs were shared with the applicants, and the house was reoriented north-south to maximise sunlight. He added that nearby houses in Church Field all have different orientations.

He explained that the blackout blinds would operate on a dusk sensor.  He had seen this in other authorities where it had been an enforceable condition. This followed National Landscape Guidance.

Councillor Beavan, Ward Councillor, was invited to speak.

Councillor Beavan highlighted the importance of protecting Walberswick’s famous and much-loved views, particularly the magical view over the marshes at sunset, where currently only trees were visible in front of the church tower. He warned that the proposed house and its glazing would disrupt this view. While understanding the desire to enjoy such views, he argued that a bold, statement house would spoil them for everyone else.

Councillor Beavan raised concerns about the impact on the village itself, noting that with only around 150 residents, it’s vital to retain small family homes to keep the village alive. The village shop was struggling due to a lack of custom. He praised the parish council’s efforts on a neighbourhood plan, suggesting that if one were already in place, it would include a policy against converting single-storey or chalet bungalows into two-storey homes. This would protect not just the landscape and sensitive ecology of the common, but also the social fabric of the village, where local people were increasingly struggling to find homes.

He urged the Committee to reject the application to help preserve both the landscape and the vitality of Walberswick.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Pitchers noted Councillor Beavan’s point regarding retaining homes for local families but asked what the difference was as this house was going to be occupied by a family.   Councillor Beavan replied it was unlikely this would be their main residence, what they were looking to provide was homes for people who lived in Walberswick all the time, rather than second homes/holiday lets.

The Chair invited clarification from the Officers.

The Planning Manager acknowledged the concerns raised about the social fabric of coastal communities, including second home ownership and changes to local character. However, he clarified that there was no policy basis to object to the principle of replacing the existing dwelling, as there was nothing protecting its long-term retention. He noted that Walberswick did not currently have a neighbourhood plan with specific policies addressing such issues.

Regarding the concern with change from a single-storey to a 1.5-storey or taller building, he explained that this was not unacceptable under policy. Any concerns would need to relate to the design, appearance, or visual impact of the new building. While it was understood the current structure could potentially be restored, the key issue for the committee was whether the proposed replacement was acceptable.

The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.

Councillor Cawley told the Committee he could see both sides. There were revenue benefits for the village through having properties like this one. He also understood the desire to maintain the village atmosphere.  He felt the evergreen landscape did help give privacy and not over dominate the village. 

Councillor Pitchers said whilst he hadn’t made his mind up, he was inclined to refuse.  He felt it was out of character for the area it was in, noting the amount of glazing and needed to be convinced to change his views.

Councillor Gee said whilst there was undergrowth, it was mostly deciduous and in winter it would stick out and be very visible from footpath, its height would mean it would be visible from the common.  She felt it was out of character with the area and had concerns regarding overlooking. Walberswick’s charm should be preserved, if gardens are overlooked, it would be uncomfortable for people sitting in the garden.  In view of her strong feelings, she proposed it was should be refused.

The Chair continued with debate and asked Councillor Gee to hold her proposal currently. 

Councillor Hammond referred to Councillor Cawley comments re the importance of houses looking affluent to bring economic growth and noted that Walberswick already had celebrity residents and too many second homes.

He referred to the importance of the contextual setting of both the neighbouring houses and the protected landscape of the common and its protected wildlife. He saw it as a supersizing of a functional dwelling. Referring to the material consideration of the protected landscape, he would not be supporting.

Councillor Ashton had three main issues; firstly light, although he was convinced by the blackout blinds as mitigation.  He added it was objective as to whether they were working and therefore evidence could be gathered, and they could be enforced. Secondly, he was concerned about the orientation, the north/south brought it closer to the common than it was currently. He said it was difficult to defend not having a two storey build as there were already two storey properties adjacent to the common.  Finally, the overlooking, he had no doubt this was substantial, and he could not accept that.  The site visit made that really clear, and this was the only grounds he could support refusal on. 

Councillor Wakeling was minded to refuse, he agreed with colleagues.  He didn’t dislike the building itself but felt it didn’t work in that setting.

Councillor Parker felt the property was not in keeping with the area and strongly rejected it.

Councillor Plummer was minded to agree with Councillor Ashton on the overlooking aspects, particularly to the adjacent gardens.

The Planning Manager reminded the Committee if they were heading towards refusal, needed policy guidance quoted to support the proposal.

On the proposal of Councillor Gee, seconded by Councillor Pitchers to refuse the application on the grounds that it was:

1) The application site lies directly to the south of Walberswick Common, being a designated SPA/SAC/RAMSAR site and forming part of the Suffolk and Essex Coast and Heaths National Landscape and Heritage Coast. The proposed replacement dwelling would neither protect nor enhance the special qualities, features and distinctive landscape elements of this sensitive area, due to the increase in height and proximity to the Common leading to a significantly more visually prominent dwelling as seen from the Common and the National Landscape. The extensive glazing to the first floor would erode the tranquillity and dark skies of the National Landscape through increased light spill, as the proposal has not been designed sensitively to protect the intrinsic darkness of the National Landscape. This is in conflict with Local Plan Policy SCLP10.4 as well as National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 187, 189, 191 and 198.

2) The proposed replacement dwelling would replace a single-storey dwelling with a two-storey dwelling with living areas at first floor level. The significant levels of east and west facing glazing will overlook neighbouring properties in both directions in a manner and to an extent that would be harmful to their residential amenity. There would be an unacceptable loss of privacy to both garden areas and internal living spaces, in conflict with Local Plan Policy SCLP11.2.


It was by majority

RESOLVED 

That the application be REFUSED.

There were 3 abstentions, these were from Councillors Ashton and Cawley on the grounds that they only agreed with SCLP 11.2 and Councillor Parker who was not happy with the property design, but understood the need to move forward, therefore was unable to vote for or against. 

The Committee received report ES/2472 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1401/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for a replacement dwelling at Herons, Church Field in Walberswick.  The application comprised an alternative scheme to DC/24/1242/, which was originally submitted in April 2024 and considered at the February 2025 Planning Committee meeting, where it was deferred for a site visit.  Following the deferral, discussions led to the submission of this amended scheme to be considered concurrently with DC/24/1242/FUL.


The proposal retained the east-west orientation with a staggered layout of two linked elements. The ground floor would contain bedrooms, with living areas upstairs. There was a reduction in the amount east-west glazing in the revised design. The east facing glazing would overlook a parking area of Commonside. The north and south-facing living areas were reduced compared to the original submission.
 
Plans included parking, an integrated garage, and a swimming pool to the northwest part of the garden. The proposed elevations of the new design were shared with the committee.  The materials were to be red brick to the ground floor, and wood cladding to the first floor.  The elevations showed the property in context to the surrounding area.

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

Design
Amenity impact
National landscape/impact on Walberswick common

It was recommended that the proposal be approved as outlined in the report.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee

Councillor Pitchers asked if the black cladding had been replaced with natural wood colour. The planner confirmed this was correct and noted that the architect could provide further details.

Councillor Cawley questioned whether such properties would strain the energy grid or affect council tax. The Planner replied that energy use should be similar to the existing home due to sustainable construction. The Planning Manager noted that council tax impact is not a material planning consideration.

Councillor Ashton asked about the view of Shearwaters, particularly from the first floor – this was pointed out on plans.  The areas of overlooking were considered less sensitive than areas further to the south which were more likely to be used as amenity space.

Councillor Hammond asked about the impact of the revised house orientation and windows facing the common on dark skies and nightingales.

The Planner responded that each scheme had to be assessed on its merits, with new orientation it would be mainly north viewed, there would be less light spill and the required VLT glazing would be lower. From the initial submission of this proposal, the glazing had been reduced. It was now further back from the Common and black out blinds would be conditioned.  The Chair clarified that it was for all windows facing the common and it formed part of conditions 11 and 15.

Councillor Beavan asked whether the mature trees west of the proposed swimming pool would be retained. It was confirmed that the arboricultural assessment identifies three trees and some shrubs for removal in that area. However, an arboricultural method statement and Tree Preservation Order (TPO) controls would help manage and limit impact on remaining trees.

The Chair invited the Objector to speak.

The Objector told the Committee that the report stated that there was no ESC policy prohibiting the replacement of a smaller property with a larger one. However, local plan policy 5.3 required that replacement dwellings should not be more visually intrusive than the original building. It was acknowledged that a two-storey dwelling would be more visually intrusive than a single-storey one, with the report noting a height increase of approximately 2.3m resulting in a significant increase in visual bulk. Therefore, the scale of the proposal was not supported by ESC policy 5.3.

The proposed east-west alignment followed the established build line but presented a two-storey, 27-metre-long backdrop to the common footpath, failing to protect and enhance the area's special qualities, as required under policy 10.4. This policy also stated that development would not be permitted if it significantly impacted estuaries, heathland, or other sensitive landscapes. The report confirmed that the proposal would be more visually intrusive.

Policy 11.1 required that proposals respond to local context, with height and massing relating to surroundings. The proposal was found to challenge the form and scale along Church Field and near the common. While the committee report correctly stated that no trees were proposed for removal, the arboricultural impact assessment highlighted potential removals, which could create sight lines between Herons' ground floor west glazing and a neighbouring bedroom window.

The committee report acknowledged that there would be amenity impacts from light spill, disturbance, and overlooking caused by the west-facing glazing, decking, firepit, outdoor dining area, and pool with associated plant, particularly when combined with vegetation removal. These effects would be particularly noticeable in this dark skies area, where even a security light had an impact.

The proposal did not safeguard residents’ quality of life, as required under policy 11.2. The national landscape team raised concerns about the location of the pool and hard landscaping and emphasized the need to maintain a soft transition between the dwelling and the common—an issue that had not been addressed. Overall, the proposal was of a challenging scale, negatively impacting the protected landscape, and was detrimental to residential amenity. It was contrary to multiple local plan policies and, therefore, should have been refused.

There were no questions for the objector.

The Chair invited the Parish Council representative to speak.

The Parish Council representative informed the Committee that the area in question was a tranquil part of the village, which residents valued. Although the application attempted to address some previous issues by retaining a similar orientation and reducing glazing, it still proposed a significantly larger building with increased visual bulk.

The proposed development was located next to Walberswick Common, a conservation asset owned and protected by the Walberswick Common Lands Charity. The charity had not been consulted on the application, which should be reviewed and was seen as a serious oversight, disregarding the site’s importance and the charity’s role in safeguarding it.

The charity opposed the development in both its original and revised forms, stating that any substantial construction on this side of the common was highly likely to cause harm to the protected area. Natural England had recently visited and praised the charity’s efforts in supporting local flora and fauna. The charity believed the proposed development would significantly harm the sensitive ecology through increased noise and light pollution.

Section 7.16 of the officer’s report acknowledged the special character of the common land, yet in section 8.19, the officer—despite not seeking input from the charity—claimed the larger development would have no significant impact on the common. This claim lacked any supporting evidence. The officer also repeatedly acknowledged the larger footprint, height, and visual bulk of the new property, calling it a substantial development. The only mitigation offered appeared to be its staggered form.

The charity maintained that any substantial development would negatively impact the common’s ecology. They also pointed out that VT glazing could actually increase light spill, and that the proposed blackout blinds were unenforceable and insufficient as mitigation, especially given the sensitivity of the area.

The Parish Council argued that the application breached local policy 10.4, as its scale and form failed to protect or enhance the special qualities of the surrounding landscape and would instead cause damage. To conclude there was no point in the protected areas if the policies were not enforced that protected them.

The architect told the Committee that this was the second application for the replacement of Herons in Walberswick.  The existing dwelling was a large single storey, uninsulated 1960s house with 214 m squared of floor area.  Referring to the suggestion of intensification of use and noise, he said this was a 1 for 1 replacement dwelling. It could be used by a family now and would be used by a family should permission be granted; occupied solely for their use and not a holiday let.  What was proposed was an energy efficient new dwelling. He confirmed that the roof would be a product called roofit solar, a dark metal roof that would generate electricity. There would be extensive landscaping.  A landscaping condition would address retention of trees along the boundary and extra planting for privacy for the neighbours and public space. He had worked closely with council’s planning and design team, making amendments to the scheme. The proposal had taken account of initial comments and redesigned on east west access as far away as possible from the north boundary to limit the house massing facing neighbours on east and west and to limit its impact upon the common.  The proposal now sat almost identically on its existing footprint, in terms of its position, width and north south location. The national landscape team did note that the replacement dwelling would be visually more prominent as it was taller, however the choice of materials and their muted colours would offset that. Aside from the Parish, there were no objections from statutory consultees. The proposal was in accordance with relevant local and national policies and guidance listed above and therefore was acceptable.  He had, with the applicants, tried to consider views of residents and parish, this resulted in north gable being removed, house being orientated east west.  It was now a smaller house, softer wood cladding, reduced glazing, that sat much further south, no east west glazing, removing the risk of overlooking. There had been a lot of effort to try and accommodate everyone’s views in this application, he urged the Committee to follow the officer’s recommendation and grant approval.

The Chair invited questions to the applicant.

Councillor Beavan acknowledged that moving the house further from the common was a positive change but remained concerned about tree loss west of the proposed swimming pool and the impact on screening for the neighbouring property. It was confirmed that native species would be planted along the boundaries to restore screening, and the applicant was open to relocating the pool further east to retain more existing vegetation, this could be conditioned if the planning officers deemed suitable.

Councillor Plummer raised concerns about the swimming pool potentially being located over drainage linked to Church Field and asked the architect whether relocating the pool would help. The architect confirmed there was a recorded easement and drainage in the southern part of the site, though no exploratory work had yet been done.

Councillor Pitchers welcomed the changes in cladding and orientation but expressed concern about the pool and firepit, especially their use after dark and potential light pollution. The architect responded that while the firepit doesn’t require planning permission, the applicant would remove it if strongly requested. He also noted that the pool was unlikely to be used at night.

Councillor Beavan raised a concern that the dotted line on the plans might represent the main sewer from Southwold to Walberswick. The architect responded that they understood it to be part of the existing house’s drainage system, not a main sewer, and it runs beneath the current building. He added that no adopted sewer was shown in the records or deeds they received, but agreed that further information could be reviewed and that the pool’s size and location could be adjusted under the landscaping condition if necessary.

There were no more questions, therefore the Chair invited the Officers to make clarifications.

The Planning Manager clarified that the objector had incorrectly referenced Policy SCLP 5.3, which applies to housing in the countryside. Since the site is within the Walberswick settlement boundary, this policy is not relevant to the decision. Instead, key relevant policies are outlined in Section 7 of the Officer’s report.

Regarding the pool, the Planning Manager clarified that the committee must assess the proposal as submitted and cannot redesign the scheme. While a landscaping condition could address planting and surrounding surfaces, relocating the pool would not be encouraged. If approval is granted, a soft and hard landscaping strategy could manage certain aspects of the design.

The Planning Manager confirmed there was no further information available about the sewer. Its location is not a key planning consideration and would be addressed at the building regulations stage. While the pool’s placement may affect neighbour amenity, sewer-related issues are more appropriate for later, detailed stages of the development process.

Councillor Ashton noted that if there were an issue with the sewer, planning permission could still be granted, but the development might ultimately not be buildable due to constraints identified later.

Councillor Hammond asked the Planning Manager to clarify whether the objector's claims about policy non-compliance had any merit. The Planning Manager confirmed that SCLP 5.3 (housing in the countryside) was not relevant, as the site was within the settlement boundary. The key applicable policies were SCLP 10.4, 11.1, and 11.2, which address design, landscape impact, and residential amenity. While the planning team believes the proposal complies with these and can be supported, the objections raised, particularly regarding visual impact, light spill, and the sensitive landscape, are acknowledged as valid planning concerns.

Councillor Cawley asked whether the proposal contravened any of the relevant planning policies. The Planning Manager responded that in their view, the scheme is in accordance with the policies, but it was ultimately up to the committee members to decide if it meets the policy requirements.

The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.

The chair reiterated the 3 policies that had been identified from the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan; these were:

SCLP – 10.4 – Landscape character
SCLP – 11.1 – Design quality
SCLP – 11.2 – residential amenity

The Chair advised that there were elements of each of those that had been asserted as having elements of contravention and could be picked up during debate.

Councillor Pitchers said he was not as opposed to this scheme as the previous one, and had no objection to the design quality. He was sure about the light implications, particularly around using the pool after dark. He was not opposed or in favour, would need convincing, but was more favourable than before.

Councillor Beavan acknowledged the architect’s efforts to address objections to the first application, including moving the house away from the common. However, he remained concerned about the two-storey design, especially on the more exposed western side, and believed it could impact the common. He expressed doubt over drainage details, stating it was likely a main sewer and should have been clarified before planning.  His primary objection related to Policy 11.2 – Residential Amenity, focusing on the potential loss of tree screening near the proposed swimming pool. He warned that replacing mature trees with smaller vegetation would not adequately protect neighbour privacy. He asked for the application to be refused so the architect could revise the plans.

Councillor Ashton disagreed that the two-storey design alone was a valid reason for objection but shared concerns about the pool’s location. He noted that if the sewer issue was accurate, it could make the point academic. He believed there was a path to an approvable application, but this version was not it.

Councillor Cawley noted that the architect had expressed willingness to move the pool if needed. However, the Chair reminded the committee that they must assess the application as it currently stands.

The Planning Manager agreed that if the only concern was the pool, the committee could consider approving the application without it, allowing the pool to be applied for separately. He noted that under Permitted Development Rights, the pool might not require planning permission once the house is built. However, the committee needed to clearly identify any harm the pool might cause to residential amenity and clarify their concerns within the relevant policy context.

Councillor Pitchers expressed concern that the pool’s lighting would impact the dark skies over the common, noting that the pool would likely be used after dark and require safety lighting.

Councillor Gee acknowledged the current design was more acceptable than the previous one and asked if a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) could be placed on the three trees identified for removal, so that the pool construction would be conditional on them being retained.  As it was, she would be reluctant to approve and felt they could get a better plan.

The Planning Manager confirmed that the Arboricultural team would have identified any trees suitable for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and would have proposed and secured such protection if appropriate.

Referring to his earlier comment, the Planning Manager clarified that the swimming pool, as currently planned in relation to the existing building, would be considered permitted development and could be installed without needing planning permission. This was the key material consideration, rather than the possibility of the pool being added at a later date.

Councillor Hammond asked if the committee could modify or remove permitted development rights to control future building works. The Planning Manager confirmed this was possible in exceptional cases, such as in sensitive landscapes like this, allowing permitted development rights to be restricted.

The Planning Manager confirmed if minded to approve, there could be a condition added which removed permitted development rights in relation to the development within the curtilage of the dwelling house; meaning a planning application would have to be sought for future development.

Councillor Hammond asked if the swimming pool could be removed from permission and permitted development rights condition be applied to prevent it from being put back in later.

The Planning Manager confirmed that would mean if the applicant wanted that in the future they would have to make a planning application for that, and if there were objections, it could end up back in front of the Committee.

The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that the committee couldn’t directly remove the swimming pool from the plans. Instead, the committee could grant officers authority to negotiate with the applicant to remove the pool. If the applicant agreed, planning permission would be granted; if not, the application would be refused based on the pool’s impacts.

Councillor Cawley felt that the noise from the pool would be more of an issue than the lighting as pools generally had down lighting.  He would be happy to approve subject to the conditions regarding the pool.

Councillor Ashton didn’t want to refuse the property but did think the pool was an issue. He too agreed that it could be approved with the condition that it is a discussion with officers afterwards regarding the citing of the pool and was happy to support a proposal with those conditions.

Councillor Beavan remained concerned about the proposal’s impact on residential amenity, especially due to the two-storey design, and believed the application should be refused with the applicants asked to submit a revised plan. He also noted that issuing Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) would be ineffective if pool construction damaged the protected trees’ roots.

The Chair acknowledged that there was a suggestion of refusal from Councillor Beavan alongside a suggestion of approval with amendments. 

The Planning Manager summarised the suggest grounds for approval as - Potential recommendation of granting authority to approve and grant planning permission, subject to officers seeking an amended plan that removes the swimming pool from the scheme and with the inclusion of an additional planning condition in respect of removal of a suite of permitted development rights with respect to the development of the curtilage of dwelling house and also works to the dwelling house itself.

If that was not to happen then would need to understand views from members in terms of what the refusal would be based on in respect of the pool remaining within the scheme. So say that we had those negotiations with the applicants agent, they never came forward with an amended plan to remove the plan, what are those concerns in respect of impacts arising from the pool and which policies are relevant to support that refusal.

If that was not to happen, we would need to understand views from member in terms on what the refusal would be based on if the pool remained in the scheme and relevant policies.

Councillor Ashton said it would be the same as Councillor Beavan’s reason for refusal which would be SCLP 11.2 – residential amenity.

The Planning Manager confirmed that there would need to be clarity on what the impact arising from that would be, the policy referenced needed to be specific.

The Chair read out the detail from policy SCLP 11.2 for the Committee, noting that not all applied to the application.

There was a discussion amongst the Committee regarding which of those impacts related.  Councillor Gee suggested the fire pit could cause pollution, the Chair reminded that the use of the fire pit was not a planning consideration. Councillor Ashton noted the danger of straying beyond planning, people were entitled to use their gardens.

Councillor Hammond noted the following from SCLP 11.2

Noise and disturbance
light spillage
physical relationship with other properties.

Councillor Ashton added the relationship with the Common itself, which fell more within SCLP 10.4.

The Chair asked for the proposal.

It was clarified there were two; one subject to approval with the amendments regarding the pool and one for refusal.

Councillor Ashton raised a point of order, stating that Councillor Beavan was the only one who had proposed a motion, and a seconder should be sought. Ashton said he had offered a view on what he was inclined but did not propose a motion, and he did not believe anyone else had.

Councillor Gee said she was happy to second Councillor Beavan’s proposal and asked if there was still any risk of the neighbours being overlooked, if it remained two storey. The Planner shared the plans and described them for clarity for the committee. 

The Chair advised it was a judgement call for the Committee to consider.

The proposal for refusal was summarised as:

Refuse against SCLP 11.2 – physical location of building impacting on Light spill, noise and disturbance, physical relationship with other properties, the hard landscaped area proposed in what is currently a soft and rural and vegetated community. Views from common impacted (National Landscape objection) by light spillage.

Councillor Beavan added it was unusual to have 2 applications in one committee, if we refuse 1st then people might feel 2nd should be accepted – do accept that effort has been made to get this right, but it is not right yet.  Find other ways that maybe work round it. Much better if architect went back and reviewed all concerns and come back with a different proposal.

Councillor Cawley asked if a vote needed to be made today, and the Planning Manager noted that the application had already been deferred for a site visit, it was for members to make a decision on it today.

On the proposition of Councillor Beavan, seconded by Councillor Gee, that the application be refused because the proposed replacement dwelling would, due to its siting, scale, internal layout, and relationship with neighbouring properties, result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity and character of the area, in conflict with Local Plan Policies SCLP11.1 and SCLP11.2. The two-storey height and significant bulk of the dwelling combined with living areas being situated on the first floor would result in increased levels of light spill and noise into a location currently defined by its rural tranquillity. The extensive glazing to the first floor would erode the tranquillity and dark skies of the National Landscape through increased light spill, as the proposal has not been designed sensitively to protect the intrinsic darkness of the National Landscape, in conflict with SCLP10.4. The introduction of hard landscaped areas close to the site boundaries would erode the soft, rural and green qualities that form important characteristics of the area and would create an uncomfortable physical relationship with neighbouring properties it was by a majority

 RESOLVED

that the application be REFUSED

The Committee received report ES/2473 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1740/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for a side extension and associated internal alterations to Ormonde House in Westleton. The application was before Planning Committee North as the applicant was a member of East Suffolk Council staff.

The Assistant Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee, using slides to show the site location plan, aerial view, site photographs, and both existing and proposed block plans, elevations, and floor plans.

It was recommended that the application be approved as outlined in the report.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Planning Officer for her presentation.  There were no questions or debate. 

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

RESOLVED

That the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Conditions: 

 1. Standard 3 Year Condition

 2. Approved Plans

The Committee received report ES/2474 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/2058/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for the siting of temporary modular buildings to provide mobile toilets on site at Leiston Town Athletics Association.  The application was before Planning Committee North as East Suffolk Council were the landowners.

The Assistant Planning Officer presented the application to the Committee, using slides to show the site location plan, aerial view, site photographs, and both existing and proposed elevations.

It was recommended that the application be approved as outlined in the report.

The Chair thanked the Assistant Planning Officer for her presentation.  

Councillor Cawley asked if they would be locked at night and the planner confirmed that the whole site would be locked.

On the proposal of Councillor Plummer, seconded by Councillor Hammond it was

RESOLVED

That the Application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

Conditions

 1. Standard 3 Year Time Limit.

 2. Approved Plans