Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2494 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 20 August 2025. The Enforcement Planner explained there was one update to the report. The appeal regarding Land at North Cove (B.2) was rejected so the 6-month compliance period started on 18 August 2025.

The Chair extended her thanks to everyone who had worked on that case and stated that it was good news that there was movement on a number of cases.

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

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 20th August 2025 be noted.

Councillor Hammond moved to the public gallery.

The Committee received report ES/2495 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/19/2195/FUL. The application sought planning permission for a poultry production unit with capacity to house 100,335 broiler chickens. The Senior Planner gave a presentation detailing the planning history, explaining that the original application approval was issued on 13 October 2020 but after receipt of a pre-action protocol letter for judicial review (Richard Buxton Solicitors ref: (KEA1/1)MM/RS, dated 13 November 2020) was submitted to East Suffolk Council (LPA), East Suffolk Council accepted Ground 1: that the Defendant failed to adequately consider the direct and indirect environmental effects of the poultry manure produced by the Permitted Development and the odour arising from its removal and spreading, contrary to the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU, as amended by EIA Directive 2014/52/EU and the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017/571 (EIA Regulations). Therefore, the permission was quashed on 8 March 2021 so the application remained live, and required redetermination. Several requests for additional information under Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 were made with addendums in April 2021, July 2022 and May 2024; further consultation took place on each occasion in accordance with Regulation 19.

The presentation contained aerial photos of the site and elevations of the proposal and heat exchangers, photographs of the site and of the access point into the site on Mill Lane. Members were shown a map of the public footpaths in the area which had been referenced in the objections.

Officers consider that the proposed development would have significant effects on Heritage Assets and Ancient Woodland, of which the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and therefore the recommendation was for refusal.

Members were shown a map of the Heritage Assets in relation to the site, photos of Moat Farmhouse and a table showing the harm impact level on the assets. There was a difference of opinion between Historic England and East Suffolk's Heritage Officer but Historic England had commented as a statutory consultee on buildings and monuments whilst the East Suffolk Heritage Team just commented on listed buildings. The report contained further detail  but Historic England were of the view that it would bring an industrial style of development to the landscape. It was explained that officers had taken a different stance to their original recommendation when it was first considered in 2020. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and, the more significant the asset, the greater the weight should be. There would need to be a clear justification for allowing any harm and it was important to weigh up the balance of harm against public benefit. Public benefits need to be significant to outweigh the harm. Over the past 5 years the Planning Team had reflected on all the information available. 

The second principal reason for refusal related to the impact of ammonia and nitrates on Ancient Woodland and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). He showed a map of the nearby ancient woodland and SSSI areas. The Senior Planner explained that paragraph 193(c) of the NPPF states that approval should be given only if there are exceptional reasons and explained that the footnote to this paragraph defined them as infrastructure projects, such as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which this application wasn’t. The Woodland Trust advocates a 1% threshold but the Applicant and Natural England a 4% threshold. Regardless of which threshold is used as a benchmark for assessing significant impacts, the baseline levels were considered to be in excess of the upper levels considered acceptable at these Ancient Woodland sites. The resultant pollutant levels would cause the further degradation of these areas of Ancient Woodland.  The Applicant had highlighted an error in the report in relation to surveys of Titsal Wood. It was surveyed in 2022 so the phrase ‘meaningful survey’ would have been more appropriate in that paragraph. Officers had reached the same conclusion as the Planning Inspector on an appeal for a similar application at Footbridge Farm in Shropshire and although the report had been de-published due to an error in relation to peak odour, the decision still stands, and it is a material planning consideration in their view. 

The Senior Planner moved onto other matters of consideration. He said that Highways matters had been discussed at great length. He showed photos of the access point from Mill Lane. He pointed out that since this application had been submitted the parish now had a Neighbourhood Plan. Policy BEP1 states that new business developments that generate significant and regular HGV traffic should have direct access to an A or B road demonstrated by sweep path analysis. The Parish Council says this information has not been provided. Highways did request this information. Although HGVs will not be able to access Mill Lane without crossing the central white line, due to the low level of HGV traffic and mitigation in terms of passing places and the delivery management plan it’s accepted that the proposal wouldn’t have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. It was noted that the reduction of capacity from 141,000 birds to just over 100,000 had reduced the vehicle movements and most of them were short journeys from West End Farm. Regarding the number of vehicles onto the main road, which was the concern, there would be 388 vehicles and 776 movements in total. There was an error in the report in paragraph 7.164 regarding peak vehicle flows and it should be 16 per day rather than 168. The Senior Planner said there was a relatively low number of HGV movements associated with the development.

The Senior Planner showed plans of the concrete apron and turning movements onto the site. He presented a map that showed two proposed passing places.

The issue of odour was then addressed and the Senior Planner referred to the Wind Rose diagram. This had been referred to by objectors but it was felt this could have been misinterpreted. The diagram showed how often and at what speed the wind blew from each direction and it was not showing an odour plume. The Senior Planner showed the odour impact table which demonstrated there was a negligible impact on properties except on Moat Farm. For the majority of time there would be little impact from odour on surrounding properties. It was during the clear out phase that there would be the most impact but even then it was not considered to be intrusive.

There were concerns about noise but it was considered that the mitigation measures would mean there was not an adverse noise impact on the nearest dwellings.

The Senior Planner then moved on to consider the visual impact and showed wireframes of the proposed site from a number of directions. The landscaping plan had been submitted but further detail would be required if the application was approved.

The Senior Planner concluded by running through the material planning considerations and key issues, stating that the application was recommended for refusal due to the impact on Heritage Assets and Ancient Woodlands.

The Chair invited questions from Members.

Councillor Beavan asked for a map showing where HGVs went to access the site which the Senior Planner provided. Councillor Ashdown asked what changes had taken place in the NPPF since they first heard the application. He also asked if Moat Farm had been restored as when it was viewed on the site visit it wasn’t in a particularly good condition. The Senior Planner explained that the NPPF had been updated several times but the wording hadn’t changed significantly, but there was a lot of case law since the initial decision. There had been numerous appeals since the initial decision which added weight to their decision. He had visited the site recently and Moat Farm was not in a great condition but they have received Listed Building Consent applications and the Parish Council has confirmed it is inhabited but restoration has not been completed.

Councillor Ashton asked how East Suffolk would defend an appeal as the NPPF hadn’t changed but the planner’s assessment had and there were two expert views that were in conflict. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that it came down to a balancing position of harm against public benefits. Officer understanding of public benefit had grown in recent years and they need to give significant weight to Historic England’s response. They did not feel that the public benefit outweighed the harm.

Councillor Cally Ellis from Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham and Ellough Joint Parish Council was invited to speak. She explained that the planning officer had summarised their objections submitted over the past 6 years. She stated that if Members were minded to approve against the recommendation of the officer and the objections from the parish, they had the resources and appetite to challenge this decision. It cost them, or rather the tax payer £12,000 last time and who knows how much it would cost this time. However they would use every legal means to bring the application to the attention of higher governmental authorities and the media if it was approved. She urged members to follow the officer recommendation and refuse this application.

The Chair invited the Applicant to speak. He explained the national and local need for this development and that farmers have been told to expand or diversify to survive. They were vulnerable to external shocks, pressure from imports and avian flu and so domestic food production was a matter of national resilience. Approval of the application would make the family farm a viable and sustainable business. He explained the chicks were bred and hatched in the UK, the waste was used for anaerobic digesters, and the residue was a natural fertiliser. It was a self-sustaining and highly efficient model. He felt it was wrong to be focussing on emissions. If the Council believed air pollution was already a problem without this development then they should act on it. They should not be halting the development of modern poultry production especially when the average age of poultry housing was 31 years and 50% were 50 years or older and the country was 65% self-sufficient in chicken meat. Approval would make the family business viable and continue into a fourth generation of farming. The Applicant thanked members and asked for the application to be approved.

Councillor Beavan asked if there was any technology to restrict the amount of ammonia released. The Applicant said there was but the levels were so minimal it wasn’t required.

Councillor Hammond spoke as Ward Councillor. He stated that this proposal had attracted over 1,700 letters of objection and only 8 of support. The PC has worked hard on their objection. He raised concerns about intensive farming and that it would just benefit big supermarkets and not farmers and consumers. He was concerned about the impact of nitrogen and ammonia on nearby woodland. He reiterated that the NPPF states approval should be granted only for exceptional reasons. He pointed out that Moat Farm was on the Building at Risk Register and this development would put it at massive risk. When weighing up public benefits against the harm all he can see is the harm and no benefits. If approval was given it would be a disaster for the local area and heritage. He asked Members to follow the officer recommendation and refuse the application.

Councillor Beavan asked if he would be against this development being sited anywhere or was there somewhere on the farm where it would have less harm.

Councillor Hammond said he had shared his personal views on intensive chicken farming and he was against this development full stop, but in terms of planning it was the officer recommendations that were relevant.

Councillor Beavan asked how the ancient woodland would be harmed and if the lichen would re-emerge if the chicken shed were removed. The Planning Manager said it was hard to quantify but what was clear from paragraph 193 of the NPPF is that any level of harm was unacceptable. He said they should be refusing unless there were clear and compelling reasons.

There being no further questions or clarifications the Chair invited Members to debate. Councillor Pitchers remembered this from the previous meetings. The sheds are low and the site is isolated. Moat Farm was derelict and he voted in favour. He didn’t remember anything about harm to trees which was new. Now he’s heard this and that the farm is being occupied his view had changed. He said that he grew up near a factory and the smell was awful.

Councillor Gee was involved with the initial application and went on the site visit. She was delighted and relieved by the officer recommendation and confirmed everything that those who voted against it. She supported Councillor Pitchers.

Councillor Ashdown said he was on the site visit, which was during Covid. He didn’t think there was a very great effect on the listed building because of the treeline. He pointed out that the country needed food and solar farms were taking up agricultural land. This was an opportunity for food production so he hadn’t decided how he would vote yet. He felt the smells were relatively insignificant and was currently open minded.

Councillor Beavan had no previous on this application and was open minded. It was a balance between public benefit and harm. He noted the pressures on farmers and wanted to support the local economy. He stated there was a public benefit regardless of what you think about cheap chicken and intensive chicken farming. He accepted the building was a heritage asset but wasn’t sure he bought the ancient woodland element. It was a balance between economy and amenity. It was only a short route to a main road. He said people needed to make a living in the countryside and ammonia was a good fertiliser. He was staying open-minded.

Councillor Wakeling said there was an intensive poultry facility in his ward and the exhaust fans were working harder and harder as temperatures were getting higher due to climate change. The noise was a persistent low drone and he wouldn’t want to put this on anyone.  The Chair asked if heat exchangers reduced the level of noise. The Senior Planner said they had been assessed as part of the noise impact assessment. Councillor Ashdown suggested asking the Applicant.

Councillor Gee noted that on the site visit it was difficult to exit Mill Lane. Although traffic speed had been reduced to 40mph there was a lot of traffic on that road. She was concerned that HGVs would find it difficult and could see accidents happening. Looking at the map, the footprint of the building was very close to Moat Farm. She was delighted to hear it was being restored. There were other heritage buildings and monuments in the area and it was important to think about the overall picture. She felt it looked bigger than the original scheme and the buildings were enormously long. It was farming on an industrial scale and feels strongly that it was not in the interest of the local community.

Councillor Ashton felt it was a difficult decision. There would be a negative impact on heritage assets and woodland but chicken production methods were not a planning concern. He reflected that the Council had changed its view since the original application due to other cases. He was minded to go with the officer recommendation and felt the Council had a reasonable defence if it went to appeal. It was a very difficult judgement to make. The Chair agreed. She aligned with Councillor Hammond on his views on intensive farming but that was not a planning consideration.

Councillor Pitchers could see the need for the development but not in this location. Site, sound and traffic didn’t bother him. But the officer recommendations were good enough reasons to refuse the application.

Councillor Beavan felt that the rural economy was more important than a sunken old pile. 

RESOLVED

That the application be REFUSED – for the reasons below:

1. The Grade II* listed Moat Farmhouse, its accompanying 18th century barn, and other 19th century farm buildings stand on a large and complex medieval moated site, a Scheduled Monument; and the Scheduled Monument at West End Farm sits adjacent to it. Historic England considers these to be all indivisible heritage assets forming, in effect, a single group.

With regards to the application site, there are two ways in which the proposed development will change its contribution to the setting of the group of heritage assets: through the change in the way that the land is being used; and by the addition of built form in connection with that. Historic England is of the view that, although this landscape has changed in the centuries since the medieval period, it remains as farmland without modern development and as such helps in the understanding of the designated heritage assets and contributes to their historic significance. The proposed development would bring industrial style development to the landscape around the historic complex which would result in harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

Historic England has identified less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets of a low to medium level on that spectrum. 

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and, the more significant the asset, the greater the weight should be. In Paragraph 213 it is highlighted that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. The justification for harm should be especially convincing where harm to assets of a high grade of designation is concerned.

In this case as these are high grade heritage assets, then the harm to the significance of this group of heritage assets through development within their setting would attract substantial weight against the proposal.

Paragraph 85 of the NPPF highlights that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity. However, the significant weight attributed to the economic benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the substantial negative weight to be attached to the overall harm to the designated heritage assets.

The proposal would be contrary to the aims of Section 66 (1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy WLP8.37 “Historic Environment” of the East Suffolk Council Waveney Local Plan (March 2019), Policy HEP1: “Protecting and Enhancing Heritage Assets” of the Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham and Ellough Neighbourhood Plan – Made 28 June 2023 and Paragraphs 212, 213 and 215 of the NPPF.

2. The results of the Applicant’s submitted assessments show that, at three ancient woodland sites, ammonia critical level process contributions and nitrogen critical load process contributions (PCs) would exceed the 1% threshold but not the 4% threshold. These sites are: Titsal Wood (SSSI); Great Wood (CWS); and Likely Wood (CWS). For all other sites scoped into the assessment neither process contribution will exceed 1%. 

Notwithstanding whether the 1% threshold or 4% threshold is used as a benchmark for assessing significant impacts, baseline pollutant levels are already in excess of critical levels and loads at these Ancient Woodland sites; the exceedance of baseline levels is not justification to make an undesirable situation worse and, as such, the resultant pollutant levels would unacceptably cause the further degradation of these areas of Ancient Woodland. 

The proposal would fail to meet the tests of Paragraph 193 (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which highlights that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons. In this case there are no wholly exceptional reasons why permission should not be refused.

The Committee received report ES/2496 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1460/FUL. Retrospective planning permission was sought for a ground plant room containing a Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) associated with the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) requirements for the property; approved within planning permission reference DC/24/4213/FUL. The plant was constructed in an underground location which was considered too far from the original application that had been approved, so a new retrospective application had been made. 

Members received a presentation from the Senior Planner. He showed pictures of the development and the log acoustic barrier, pointing out that they had some concerns about the integrity of the acoustic barrier but these could be dealt with by conditions. He discussed the noise impact assessment and showed a map of the receptors. The mitigation of the log acoustic barrier and silent mode setting showed a low impact on receptors both during the day and night. He ran through the mitigation measures and explained that the acoustic barrier would need further work as there were gaps and the opening was on the wrong corner and so did not match the noise impact assessment.

The Senior Planner ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. He explained that objections had been received from the Parish Council and the Ward member, which triggered the ‘call in’ process. 

Councillor Gee asked if the acoustic barrier had been set up correctly. The Senior Planner said it had not hence the condition. The committee was being asked to grant authority to approve subject to the conditions. The Planning Manager explained that they wanted to see the completion of the barrier before planning permission was granted.

The Chair invited the Applicant to speak. He explained that the original intention was for the plant to be sited in an adjacent area above ground near Millennium Green. It was considered more appropriate to locate it further away from the noise sensitive receptors and they placed it underground to make it less intrusive. He did not appreciate planning permission was required and so had subsequently undertaking the necessary tests and submitted the application. The noise consultant had accurately measured the impact and looked at the worst-case scenario, which was unlikely to ever happen. There was no technical basis for an objection based on noise. The install engineers have confirmed that what was installed has a low impact and there were no objections from statutory consultees. He pointed out that it has been a hot, dry summer so the plant has been in operation but they had not received any objections from residents.

Councillor Pitchers noted that this was the 3rd or 4th retrospective application. He asked if the silent mode could be changed or if it was physically impossible. The Applicant explained it would have to be amended by an engineer but there was no expectation that it would need to be changed. 

Councillor Ashdown asked if the Applicant was happy to comply with the officer’s recommendation to grant permission once the conditions had been met. The Applicant confirmed that they would. He apologised that the acoustic barrier hadn’t been constructed properly and would raise this with the company.

Councillor Ashton pointed out that this was yet another retrospective application which caused issues and concerns. He stated that in this case it was really enforcement as they started building without permission. He was incredulous that the company didn’t realise they needed permission considering the expertise in the company. He told the Applicant they were a significant developer and they needed to show some respect to the council and residents. The Applicant explained that they did have previous permission for this plant but they moved it for the betterment of the operation of the system and the impact of noise on the surrounding area. It was a genuine error that they didn’t realise this needed a planning application. He explained it was not a repeat of the previous issue but one of the same matter. Where they have been aware of issues before they have brought it to the Council’s attention so the fact they didn’t in this instance shows it was a genuine error, but they would look to address this going forward.

The Chair pointed out that East Suffolk’s planning department was very approachable. She advised the Applicant to chat to them as it would make it so much easier if they were just upfront.

Councillor Hammond asked if the Wilderness Reserve had a problem with the local residents with the way it acts and how it is perceived. The Applicant said they have had challenges with the nature of what they are doing and the type of development but they had been very present in the community. They attend parish council meetings and answer any questions. They work with the local communities and provide employment and investment. He felt that since the previous applications had been approved the site has been running generally well. They have made some mistakes but they operate well and relations are far calmer now than 4-5 months ago. He said they were committed to being good neighbours.

Councillor Ashton asked how long the plant had been operating and when it was switched to silent mode. The Applicant said it was switched on in early May and the silent mode was installed from the start. He was not aware of any complaints about plant noise but it wasn’t operational when the committee did their site visit.

The Chair invited Ward Member Councillor Ewart to speak. She objected to this application. On the surface it looked minor but the main consideration was noise and amenity. It was a retrospective application and the site operated regularly. The plant room is dug into the ground near the Millennium Green and it was an industrial heating collective that impacted the residents. She pointed out that what had been built was not fully acceptable. She said the noise was based on modelling from 2020 and 2021 and not on this machinery and this situation. The acoustic consultant talked about predictions, but this was a retrospective application and this plant was already built and operating. She felt there should be real-time, site-specific assessments. She challenged that there had been no complaints as her inbox was full of complaints. The combined output could reach 84dB which was like a lawnmower, but it should be 25 in this setting. There was the relentless grind of industrial machinery when all you should be hearing was bats swooshing and owls hooting. She asked for the application to be stood down until a full assessment had been carried out.

Councillor Hammond asked if the officers would respond to actual noise monitoring rather than predictive modelling. The Planning Manager explained the assessments were modelled during Covid when there were lower background noise levels than current levels. There could be contemporaneous assessments, but the impact assessment was done against a worst-case scenario. The Environmental Protection Officer was then invited to join via Zoom. He explained there were two ways of looking at noise either through the planning regime or assessing against statutory nuisance after installation. He said once the acoustic barrier had been installed as per the requirement the Environmental Protection team could do an assessment. The Planning Manager explained that the revised recommendation - that planning permission would not be granted until the barrier was installed properly – meant the planners could view it working and then decide if permission should be granted.

Councillor Beavan asked officers to confirm that a retrospective application was not a material planning consideration. The Planning Manager confirmed that it wasn’t.

Councillor Ashton asked for clarification on Councillor Ewart’s comments on 84db. The noise in the report uses a power level at the equipment which is different to a sound pressure level which drops off with distance. He asked if he was misunderstanding how it worked. The Chair asked how the barrier worked with those numbers. The Environmental Officer said the levels were dropping to as low as 20-25db once it got to the residential properties and that was a worst-case scenario at levels that were unlikely to be reached.

Councillor Wakeling asked if the original application had plant within a building and so this application was for a brand new location where noise wouldn’t have happened. The Senior Planner explained the original application was in a building but it was always a remote building to Blyth Barn and not part of that building.

Members moved to debate.

Councillor Ashdown was happy to go with officer’s recommendation to grant approval subject to the revised conditions being in place.

Councillor Pitchers said his heart told him to kick it down the road but his head says approve. He hated it but he would second Councillor Ashdown’s recommendation.

Councillor Hammond asked if there could be an additional condition to allow some additional noise monitoring. The Planning Manager said there needed to be a reasonableness of planning conditions. They had made this revised recommendation without much of a heads up to the Applicant and they had a duty to bring the application to a conclusion and to reply on the robust information provided. Adding in another condition to require an acoustic assessment would bring about further consultation. He explained there was the secondary process to the planning system of statutory nuisance complaints so if there was an issue it would be picked up by Environmental Protection. Adding an extra condition might not meet the six tests that they have to apply when adding conditions to a planning permission. Councillor Hammond accepted this explanation but thought it would be in the Applicant’s interests to reassure local residents.

Councillor Ashton explained that he liked to revisit sites that the committee had granted approval for, but he wasn’t doing a tour of the district! He had visited a site in Lowestoft numerous times and he passes Huntingfield regularly. On two occasions he went after 9.30pm and he walked around the Millennium Green and up to the boundary to be as close to Blyth Barn as possible but he couldn’t hear anything from the site. He could hear people in the pub and a dog barking. He also visited on 12 August in the morning and got as close as he could and it was not possible to hear this unit. He thought the recommendation was good and was totally fine with approving. However he reiterated his dissatisfaction with retrospective applications.

Councillor Gee said she had been led to understand there was a constant low humming noise that residents heard day and night. She wanted officers to go out and take readings. The Chair said the officers would not take regular readings. The Planning Manager explained that they were trying to make sure the acoustic barrier was in place before planning permission was granted. They can visit with Environmental Protection but they wouldn’t carry out an acoustic assessment. The Environmental Protection team don’t have capacity to carry out regular monitoring activities. The onus is on the developer to prove it is adequate and up to scratch.

Councillor Gee said the noise mitigation does not work as residents complain of a persistent low hum that is always present. The noise levels being used were for Chapel Barn not Blyth Barn and they were done 5 years ago. Blyth Barn was different as it was on the edge of the village of Huntingfield. She felt the report was confusing and residents are disturbed by cars and people leaving the site. She also asked if the Applicant was any closer to installing the bridge to avoid people going through the village. The Chair reminded Councillor Gee that she was moving outside the remit of the application and called for a vote.

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions summarised below.

Conditions: 

1. Approved Plans
2. Development to be carried out and operated in accordance with Noise Impact Assessment
3. Installation of acoustic barrier in accordance with specification.

The Committee received report ES/2497 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1637/FUL.

This application sought planning permission for the change of use and conversion of an existing B2 outbuilding into a new residential dwelling at Oak Hill, Halesworth Road in Wenhaston with Mells Hamlet. The application site was located outside any established settlement boundaries and as such was located in the countryside for planning purposes. The support from the Parish Council was contrary to the officer's 'minded-to' recommendation of refusal. As the Ward Member also objected, the application was subject to the Council's 'call-in' process. The application was called in on 18 August 2025 by Councillor Wakeling.

Members received a presentation from the Planner which showed maps of the site and photographs of the existing structures and site the existing access that would be shared. He showed existing and proposed block plans, floor plans and elevations for the house and garage. 

The Planner ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. He focused on the two main reasons for refusal; that it was outside the settlement boundary and conversion of B2 use. He explained the relevant policies – SCLP 5.3 (e) and (g) and SCLP 5.5 and that it would not make a positive contribution to the landscape. He acknowledged NPPF paragraph 11(d) relating to East Suffolk meeting housing targets, but this paragraph did not apply because it was not a sustainable location. There were no good pedestrian or public transport links and it was not considered to be a well-designed place. It conflicted with the Local Plan and the harm outweighs the benefit of a single house.

The Planner referenced SCLP 4.4 explaining that the existing use class was B2 and the Local Plan protects those uses and prevents conversion. The building had been empty for some time and was likely to remain redundant but the conflict with Local Plan was more significant. It was also not within the defined settlement boundary.

It was noted that the ecology report was not received in time to be examined thoroughly and there was a lack of information about land contamination. A similar scheme on this site was refused in March this year. It was pointed out that although meeting the housing supply was a benefit on balance the recommendation was to refuse planning permission.

Councillor Hammond noted that it was an interesting case. He referenced SCLP 5.5(g) and the lack of design quality. He asked if the design were revised to be considered high quality would it change their recommendation. The Planner explained that the Local Plan policies restricted development in the countryside and the most important one is that the building should offer a positive impact on the landscape and it usually related to the conservation of buildings of high positive value such as barns. This scheme didn’t meet any of the exceptions set out in the policy 5.5.

Councillor Pitchers asked that if the Ecology report was ok and the land contamination info was ok and the RAMS payment was made, what would be the implication of approving this and would it set a precedent. The Planning Manager explained that precedent was a difficult one. Developers would look on this with interest as it would be going against policies if approved. He said they would expect a design of much higher merit and so approving this design would reflect poorly for future applications to the Council.

Councillor Gee asked how the adjacent building got planning permission as it looked modern so why couldn’t this house be constructed. The Planner was not aware when permission was granted and under which policies. The maggot farm was there for 30 years so it would have been under a different Local Plan and NPPF than today’s. The Planner said he assumed the house was associated with the running of the maggot farm but he could clarify this later in the meeting. The Planning Manager explained that you often saw a dwelling in association with agricultural buildings.

Councillor Ashton asked if an application was submitted that totally removed a building of no value and replaced it with a new building of good design merit would that be acceptable. The Planning Manager explained that with permitted development you can convert agricultural buildings to dwelling houses under Class Q. He understood that there are redundant buildings in the countryside that should be repurposed. The Planner explained that Class Q was not relevant to this application as it was classed as industrial not agricultural.

The Chair asked why the previous application was refused on 4 principles. The Planner explained it was outside the settlement boundary, was a conversion of a B2 building, there was a lack of RAMS payment and no ecology report.

Councillor Wakeling asked if it was the current building limiting the design quality of the application. The Planning Manager explained that there was only so much you could do with the existing building.

Councillor Pitchers asked why it was industrial and not agricultural. The Planner explained that a maggot farm was classed as B2.

Councillor Gee asked if the Applicant was to demolish the current building and provide a better design would this be acceptable. The Planning Manager explained that policies dictated where houses were permissible and this site wasn’t considered compliant. 

The Chair invited the Applicant’s Agent to speak. He explained that they had incorporated comments from the original application that was refused and had turned it into a bungalow to make it more compliant. He said it was a self-build and the Applicants were young key workers. This was an industrial brown field site that hadn’t been a maggot farm for 11 years and it would not be brought back to industrial use. The Parish Council don’t want that industrial use back and he asked what should happen to these sites. The only way this site would be remediated would be using it for housing otherwise it would rot and become an eyesore. The best outcome for the local area would be for residential usage.

Councillor Beavan sympathised with the Applicant but explained they can’t make up the rules. He asked the planners if there was a way that they could give the members a reason to approve it. He said policies were guidelines and exceptions are allowed for appropriate developments. There was no issue with precedent as sites are dealt with on a site by site basis.

Councillor Hammond found it interesting that the previous application with a pitched roof was much more aesthetic but it wasn’t turned down for poor design unlike the current application. He asked if the original design was of better aesthetic quality. The Applicant's Agent agreed that it was. He explained that the original design was to keep it in line with the neighbouring property. The reasons for refusal said the extent of the changes to the building meant it was no longer policy compliant so this is why they tried to make the design of this application more compliant.

Councillor Gee asked if Members could see the original application as it did not come to Committee. The Planning Manager said he would find it but advised Members to focus on the current application.

The Chair appreciated Members’ sense of frustration. As there were no further questions the Chair asked the planning officers for any points of clarification.

The Planner shared the design of the original application explaining it was a delegated refusal. He referenced SCLP5.5 which states there should not be significant changes to the existing building. The other dwelling was permitted in 1988 and it was a replacement of an existing dwelling.

The Planning Manager appreciated it was a frustrating decision. This was an empty building and everyone is sympathetic but we need to make a decision based on planning policy. The original application went beyond a conversion but the same issues apply across both applications regardless of what design was put forward. The second application was a conversion but it’s not a building that would be supported to be developed. He explained that Members would need material considerations to depart from planning policy and it wouldn’t be a sound decision today to find reasons to approve in its current form.

Councillor Pitchers asked if the application could be approved if the design included a pitched roof. The Planner said irrespective of the design issues, the building and location are against Local Plan policies and the Neighbourhood Plan. Councillor Pitchers conceded there were issues with the policies.

The Chair acknowledged they were bashing their heads against the policies and asked if there was a way through this.

Councillor Ashdown asked if there was a way to defer and see if there was any design that could be acceptable and allow them to go against policy.

The Planning Manager said this was not a good outcome. He explained that the Applicant had feedback that there was willingness for something to happen on this site and officers can pick this up with the Applicant. However it would require a fresh application and members needed to make a decision on this application.

Councillor Beavan said the design was irrelevant and if the Committee approved it set a precedent. He had every sympathy with the Applicant but with the current policies there was nothing they could do and the officer recommendation was correct. He said this needed to be looked at as part of the next Local Plan. 

Councillor Gee said many people were supportive of the application and this wouldn’t be the first time that a decision went against a Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Ashton explained that he was keen to call this application in as there were important principles to be aired in the planning committee. He agreed with Councillor Beavan and said officers have to apply planning policies and it was for the committee to scrutinises the recommendations. He had huge sympathy with the Applicants but the Committee did not have free rein. The Council needs to think about what to do with these sort of sites. He was happy if there was further discussion with the Applicants but it needed to form part of the new Local Plan discussions. He apologised but explained they had no option but to accept the officer recommendation.

Councillor Wakeling concurred with Councillor Ashton. He called it in as he saw it as an old building that could become a home but the Committee was restricted by policy. Councillor Beavan advised the Applicant to come and see the Council about rural exception sites.

On the recommendation of Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Plummer it was unanimously

That the application be REFUSED for the reasons set out below:

1. The application site lies outside of any established settlement boundaries, as defined on the Policies Map, and is therefore defined as Countryside. Residential development in the countryside is restricted as there are generally no or very few services and facilities, and is therefore not considered a suitable location as a focus for new development. Policy SCLP5.3 sets out the circumstances where new housing in the countryside can be supported, which includes the conversion of an existing building as defined in SCLP5.5. As the existing building does not provide a positive contribution the landscape, and the proposal would not enhance the immediate setting of the area, the proposal is contrary to Policy SCLP5.5. The proposal also does not represent affordable housing adjacent or well related to Settlement Boundaries or clusters of housing, nor is it within an existing cluster, it is not a replacement dwelling, it is not a subdivision of an existing dwelling, and it is not a rural workers dwelling, and is therefore further contrary to Policy SCLP5.3. It is also not located within the physical limits boundary of Wenhaston village, and thereby is contrary to WwM P1 as defined in the Wenhaston with Mells Neighbourhood Plan.

2. The proposed design, while maintaining the basic form of the existing structure, would result in a new residential dwelling of poor architectural quality, appearing bulky and deep with proportions more akin to industrial structures. The design does not represent high quality design that clearly demonstrates an understanding of the key features of local character, as required by Policy SCLP11.1 and is therefore contrary to that policy.

3. The building to be converted has most recently been used as a maggot farm, which is considered a B2 use class. This use class is protected in the Local Plan by Policy SCLP4.4, which among other things seeks to restrict the conversion of employment premises into housing. Such proposals will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and within the defined settlement boundaries. As the site is not located within a settlement boundary, the proposal is contrary to Policy SCLP4.4.

4. The site is surrounded by trees on all sides and there are several ponds within 250m of the site. As such, the site may provide suitable habitat for protected and/or UK Priority Species (under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006), in particular bats, nesting birds, reptiles, and amphibians  (including great crested newts). The ecological information submitted with the application is insufficient to determine the potential impact on the protected species in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan Policy SCLP10.1.

5. The application site is located within Recreational Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Zone B. Any new residential development within the Zone of Influence is required to mitigate the effects of new residential development and to show how this will be achieved prior to approval of planning permission. Typically this is achieved through the payment of an appropriate RAMS tariff. No RAMS payment has been made nor has the application demonstrated an alternative method of mitigating the impact of new residential development within the ZoI.

6. The application does not contain sufficient information to assess contaminated land implications. As the site was previously used for industrial purposes including as a maggot farm, being a potentially contaminative use and the proposed use being sensitive to contamination, a Stage 1/Tier 1 study is required to determine the risk potential contamination may pose to future users of the site and how the risks can be reduced to an acceptable level. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed use would not expose sensitive users to potential land contamination. It is therefore contrary to Policy SCLP10.3.

The Committee received report ES/2498 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/2810/FUL.

This application sought planning permission for the replacement of an existing timber boundary fence at St Margaret's Church, Lowestoft. The proposed fence would match the existing fence in height and general appearance. Following clarification from the Applicant confirming the fence height as 1.2m, the Design and Heritage Officer withdrew their initial objection. The proposal was considered acceptable in terms of heritage impact, amenity, highways, and street scene, and was recommended for approval. The application was referred to Planning Committee as the Applicant is East Suffolk Council.

The Committee received a presentation from the Planning Manager who explained that a much taller fence was originally proposed.  He showed photographs of the section that needed replacing and examples of the replacement fence. The Town Council was supportive and the Heritage Team Officer was happy with the lower fence. Historic England had emphasised concerns about potential harm and had suggested alternatives but it wasn’t an objection so officers were happy to recommend approval with conditions.

Councillor Ashton wondered if there could be a low wall and no fence, but did acknowledge there could be ASB issues. The Planning Manager said it was a replacement but he tended to agree. Councillor Ashton felt they could permit the application but would ask the Assets Team if they could just remove the fence and not replace it. He would check if it really needed replacing.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be APPROVED subject to standard conditions.

Conditions: 

1) Time Limit
2) Approved Plans
3) Precise location, height and design of fence