Meeting Details

Councillor Wakeling declared an interest in agenda items 6 and 13 as Ward Councillor.

Councillor Hammond declared an interest in agenda items 7 and 8 as Ward Councillor.

Councillor Beavan declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda items 10 and 11 as a member of Southwold Sailing Club and Chair of the Harbour Management Committee, recusing himself from those items.

Councillor Ashton recused himself from agenda items 10, 11 and 12 as the Cabinet Member for assets.

The whole committee received emails regarding agenda item 6.  Councillor Ashdown responded to acknowledge receipt.

The whole committee received emails regarding agenda item 12.

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

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2537 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 September 2025.  The Enforcement Planner explained that there were two updates to the report. The appeal for 6 Upper Olland Street, Bungay had been dismissed, therefore there was a 3-month compliance period from 2 October 2025.  The land in Wrentham had been given a high court injunction on 10 October 2025 and there was a 6-month compliance period to clear the site.

The Chair thanked the enforcement team.

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

RESOLVED

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

In a change to the published agenda, this application was heard as agenda item 8.

The Committee received report ES/2538 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/3444/OUT.  The application sought outline planning permission to erect 3 ‘self-build’ dwellings with associated garages, car parking and other associated works. The application was referred to the Planning Committee by the referral panel.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

A site location plan was presented, highlighting the site’s context and nearby house at Bickers End to the west. Aerial photos from present and 2021 showed significant tree and vegetation removal during that period. This was raised with Planning around 2022/23. After site inspection, it was found no Tree Protection Orders existed, so the matter was referred to the Forestry Commission. Due to minimal remaining vegetation, it was unclear if a licence was needed or if the removal was unlawful. Additionally, a 2009 street view and a map showing the site within Wenhaston Village were shared.

A proposed block plan was presented showing an indicative layout as this was for outline planning. Only the access details were finalised, while the rest of the layout showed what could be proposed at the reserved matters stage.

The proposed access was shown, including visibility splays of 59 meters to the north and south. Suffolk County Council Highways reviewed the plan and raised no objections. The site is just outside flood zones 2 and 3, and situated on raised ground sloping north and east.

Several photos were shown of the site from various directions, including the new access and track leading to Bickers End. The Senior Planner noted that the existing dropped curb from the garage was used. Although enforcement was raised when the track was installed, the local planning authority considered that removing the hedgerow and creating the track was not a planning breach.

An enforcement case regarding a caravan on site was initially deemed lawful. However, extensions to the caravan have since been made. The applicant states the caravan’s use, if approved, will be linked solely to the house construction. It has not yet been decided on further enforcement action regarding the caravan’s extension, keeping the enforcement case open and dependent on the outcome of the current application.

The terrace of houses opposite the site is Grade II listed. East Suffolk Council’s Design and Heritage team reviewed the application and concluded that the proposal would not harm the significance of the listed terrace and that the development would not have any negative impact on those buildings. The Material Planning Considerations and Key issues were summarised as:

• Principle of location and sustainability
• Appearance and landscape impact
• Heritage impact
• Highways impact
• Flood risk
• Residential amenity

The Senior Planner noted late representations were received the day before the Committee, mostly raising issues already in the officer’s report. One new point was that Bickers End had been identified by a third party as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). Officers reviewed this but did not agree that Bickers End qualified as an NDHA. Even if members considered it did, the proposed buildings would not significantly harm its setting and should not be a reason to refuse the application.  Another issue raised was whether the applicant needed to serve notice on Suffolk County Council Highways. It was determined that notice was not required in this case, as the work involved was effectively to the highway.

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

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashdown asked if the proposed access served the three new dwellings only or Bickers End as well. The Senior Planner replied it appeared to be just for the three new dwellings, with the existing access for Bickers End remaining.  It was agreed to clarify this with the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Wakeling raised concerns about flood risk and surface water runoff, especially as Wenhaston was very prone to flood risk and from the photos shown it looked like surface water would run off into a listed building. He asked how would that be stopped from happening? The Senior Planner emphasised the need for a clear drainage strategy, which would be requested via a planning condition, ensuring all water was directed to a collection area such as soakaways within the site, likely north of the driveway, and not funnelled onto the road.

Councillor Wakeling asked how this was adapting to changing rainfall patterns, would larger gullies or soakaways be required.  The Senior Planner said that Suffolk County Council Highways and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) would be consulted and they would consider those factors when calculating appropriate drainage systems. Their advice would be followed. Councillor Wakeling said that Storm Babet caused significant damage in Wenhaston so he was concerned.

The Chair invited the first public speaker, the objector, to speak.

The objector told the Committee that this application was of significant concern on a policy, legal and heritage basis. He invited the Committee to ask questions particularly regarding the heritage.

The objector said that the proposal was not a self-build, as self-build typically involved one property on one piece of land (according to case law and authority).  Even if they were intended for family members, each had their own preferences, so it was misconceived as a self-build.  They stated the development was not sustainable, failing the new weighted balance test introduced in September’s Cabinet. The site was dependent on cars with no footpaths and no public transport on Sunday.  Children could not walk to school. The plans, though outline, showed 8 different garages on the small space.

The objector emphasised the heritage significance of the site, bordered on three sides by important heritage assets. Sunnyside Cottage, former home of Suffolk artist Harry Becker, was to the left. They strongly disputed the planner’s view that Bickers End was not a heritage asset, as it was a 17th-century Suffolk longhouse, occupied by the Bishop of Norwich, with original features and expected to be listed soon. The proposal would remove the garden of Bickers End. Grade 2 listed historic railway cottages were at the bottom of the site and surface water runoff could impact these buildings.  They would now be looking at a driveway from a Grade 2 listed building. 

Councillor Beavan left the meeting at 15:54 to attend another meeting.

There were no questions for the Objector.  The Objector asked for a point of order and whether the meeting was now suspended as Councillor Beavan left. The Chair clarified that it was not and that Councillor Beavan was now unable to take part in this item as he had left part way though. She noted that the meeting was still quorate and could continue.

The Chair invited the Parish Council representative to speak, who strongly objected to the application. They highlighted that vehicles regularly park on the land now within the proposed visibility splay, with no plans to prevent this. Two previous applications were refused due to access risks, and traffic volumes and risks have since increased significantly, with three recent accidents on the road that runs through Wenhaston.

The Parish Council stated the application conflicted with Wenhaston’s Neighbourhood Plan (p51, no. 2) regarding housing development in the countryside, arguing the site was not cluster infill. Three large houses with double garages would form a cul-de-sac out of keeping with the area and negatively impact the surrounding landscape. The site was on high ground overlooking nearby dwellings, raising concerns about cumulative visual and light pollution (per SCLP clause 5.28). The proposal also conflicts with the Neighbourhood Plan’s requirement that new housing should meet local needs, be infill or small groups within physical limits, and serve first-time buyers or the ageing population. Additionally, the site lies between a Suffolk Special Wildlife Area, requiring environmental considerations to be respected to maintain the Neighbourhood Plan’s credibility.

The Parish Council stated the application failed the NPPF criteria for sustainable development. Building 3 substantial properties outside the village settlement boundary did not meet policy exceptions for countryside development, it offered little economic or social benefit, and caused environmental harm, including tree felling and impacts on a priority habitat designated by Natural England. Increased private car use would harm the appearance and character of the Grade 2 listed railway terrace cottages and their surroundings, which was an important heritage consideration. Finally, existing Section 19 flood risk orders from Suffolk County Council still applied to this area, and the development would increase flood risk.

The Chair invited questions to the Parish Council.

Councillor Hammond asked the Parish Council representative if he accepted that the flood risk could be mitigated with the suggested drainage solutions.  He replied it was impossible to say, a Section 19 was issued after the 2024 flood, which caught everyone by surprise. They were unclear as to what the proposals would ultimately be or need to be.  They could only say that the flooding in Wenhaston, particularly lower Wenhaston, was significant causing people a lot of misery.

The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to speak.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, a local family from Wenhaston, the representative referenced the comprehensive officer’s report recommending approval subject to conditions. She told the Committee that the report thoroughly addressed relevant issues with input from consultees including Suffolk County Council Highways, the local Flood department, and East Suffolk Heritage and Ecology Teams, none of whom objected. Members were reminded that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, engaging the tilted balance, meaning housing proposals aligned with sustainable development should be approved unless the adverse impacts significantly outweighed the benefits. The application provided three self-build/custom build plots, directly contributing to the Council’s legal obligation under the Self Build and Custom Housing Building Act 2015 to provide 235 such plots, which was identified as a significant benefit toward housing targets.

The applicant’s agent emphasised that the application was for a self-build development of three houses for a local family with deep, longstanding ties to Wenhaston—specifically a son, father, and uncle. She outlined the family’s history in the area and highlighted that approving the self-build plots would help meet two key objectives: fulfilling the Council’s statutory housing obligations by increasing self-build supply and protecting local connections by enabling the family to remain in the community. She concluded that a positive decision would deliver much-needed housing in a sustainable location, aligning with the community’s aspirations expressed in the Neighbourhood Plan to “enable local people to stay in or return to the village throughout their lifetime.”

The Chair invited questions to the applicant’s agent.

Councillor Ashdown asked if the access was for Bickers End as well and she confirmed that the access was only for the 3 new dwellings and would remain so.

Councillor Pitchers asked in what way was it sustainable when there was such reliance on public transport. The applicant’s agent replied that the site was not far from Wenhaston town centre and facilities, so every day needs could be met.  There was a verge in front of the site and a pavement opposite.  It supported sustainable living.  She replied to  Councillor Pitchers that it was approximately 1 mile away from the church. 

Councillor Plummer requested clarification on whether the proposal qualified as self-build, noting previous speakers’ concerns. The applicant read the definition from the Self Build and Custom Housebuilding Act (as amended), stating it referred to buildings constructed or completed by individuals, associations of individuals, or persons working with them, intended for occupation by those individuals. She confirmed the proposal fitted that definition, as the three houses would be built by the three individuals who would occupy them.

Councillor Gee noted it had been suggested that the owner already owned three properties in Wenhaston.  The applicant’s agent stated they did not believe that was true.

The Chair invited Councillor Keys-Holloway, Ward Member, to speak.

Councillor Keys-Holloway acknowledged that the application had caused community concern, with many residents asking her to represent their views. She identified herself as a Councillor for Wenhaston and noted that the applicant was also a local resident. She stated she aimed to be diplomatic and fair but understood that the proposal was unlikely to please everyone.

She told the Committee that concerns raised by residents stemmed mainly from their attachment and worry for their green spaces and countryside views. Site clearance of trees had caused worry about increased hard surfaces leading to more water runoff, which could put pressure on roads already prone to flooding. The site was within a Special Landscape Area and adjacent to the Blyth Valley Area of Natural Beauty, requiring sensitive development. Road safety concerns were also noted, including poor visibility on a bend and a speed limit change from 60 to 30 mph. It was flagged that the proposal may fail to meet new national standards for sustainable drainage systems, which required further investigation.

She acknowledged the applicant’s desire to build three self-build homes for their local family, who had lifelong ties to the area. She emphasised the importance of respecting the natural environment surrounding the site and noted that all parties were very aware of the flood risks. She urged careful consideration to ensure any planning decisions helped manage issues with excess water.

She concluded by noting that change could be unsettling. If the family could not use the land, there was a risk it could be sold to a developer, potentially leading to more houses with less discretion, larger footprints for dwellings, and reduced space for nature, which was often the case.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Gee noted the comment regarding a developer buying up and creating a larger development. She said this would not stand up as the plan states that only 3 dwellings can be put in an area of 5 or more but less than 10.

Councillor Keys-Holloway acknowledged that and noted that the applicant had previously had offers from developers.

Councillor Gee noted that the houses were for 3 members of the same family, and asked if they were already living in the area why would they wish to build 3 more houses for themselves.  Councillor Keys-Holloway replied she didn’t know their personal reasons for wishing to move, perhaps they wished to move closer or live inter-generationally.

The Chair noted that they had been told that one was renting locally so home ownership would be different.

Councillor Gee suggested that the location was difficult for older residents asking how they would cope with the location and walking.  Councillor Keys-Hollway replied that a mile was not too far as long as it was safe and there were many people that continued to walk in later life.

There were no further questions, the Chair invited Officer clarification.

Officer clarification

In response to the objector’s claim that self-build could only apply to one property, the Planning Manager clarified that this was incorrect from an officer’s point of view. He said multiple self-build plots could be included in one application. Policy SCP 5.9 of the local plan addresses self-build and custom housing, setting design principles for proposals of four or more dwellings, and that had been independently examined and found to be sound.  Supplementary planning guidance further supported this, including model conditions. If approved, a condition would require each plot to be developed as self-build/custom build through reserved matters applications, which could be submitted individually for each dwelling depending on the self-builder.

Referring to the comment about the potential for something worse coming along, or threat from a future developer, the Planning Manager confirmed they did not want to get into the territory of the site and what could come along in the future.  The view was that the scheme was acceptable as it is and it should be considered on that basis.

The Planning Manager addressed drainage concerns, offering reassurance to members and the local community. Before finalising the report, numerous representations were received from residents about drainage issues. In response, officers paused to consult the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and Suffolk County Council for their views. Consultees recommended approval of the application, subject to the submission of detailed drainage plans and appropriate conditions.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Pitchers referred to the site’s planning history, noting two previous refusals, and asked for the reasons. The Senior Planner confirmed that both refusals, from 1963 and 1985, were partly on highways grounds. The current application, however, meets Suffolk County Council’s highways standards. When asked about the other reasons, the Senior Planner explained that one refusal also related to potential landscape impact and that planning policies and housing pressures were very different at the time. The Committee would now need to consider whether the current proposal results in any harmful landscape impact.

Councillor Pitchers said that what he was trying to say was that in those days things were much slacker, so refusing on those grounds is interesting.

For full transparency, the Planning Manager outlined that the 1985 application was refused for five reasons: it was contrary to settlement policy and to the Blyth Rural Areas Local Plan and Wenhaston Draft Village Plan; it was considered infill within a small group but outside the physical limits boundary; it would cause serious harm to rural amenity through intrusion into the countryside; it was deemed to have a detrimental impact on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties; and it posed an unacceptable road safety risk due to its access onto a Class 3 road—although such road classifications are no longer used.

The Senior Planner also noted that an earlier application, refused in March 1963 for five dwellings, was rejected on the grounds of the principle of development and its unacceptable location outside the village envelope or physical limits boundary. At that time, concerns were also raised about inadequate visibility at the site access. It was relevant that the scheme proposed five dwellings, which would have intensified use of the access. This background was provided to give context to the current application.

Councillor Gee observed that the objections raised in the past were similar to those made now but noted that society now had a far greater awareness of some of the issues raised. Referring to Councillor Pitchers’ earlier comments, she added that there were far fewer vehicles at the time of the previous refusals, with traffic levels now likely tenfold higher, making road safety concerns even more relevant. She concluded that the reasons for refusal then remained just as valid today.

The Planning Manager advised that it would be flawed for the Committee to give significant weight to the previous decisions due to the time that they were issued. The current scheme complies with the development plan in relevant respects, with no objections raised by Highways. It would therefore be inappropriate to rely heavily on historic decisions made under very different policy contexts, though it was acknowledged that some similar issues were there, they had been fully considered in the current officer’s report.

The Planning Manager added that current national policy included a central government agenda to deliver 1.5 million homes, alongside significant housing targets for the district. The local plan contained policies supporting rural infill development within close groups or clusters of dwellings. In the officers’ view, the proposal complied with the development plan, and none of the statutory consultees had raised objections.

Councillor Gee asked for confirmation that Suffolk County Council had been on site to view.  The Planning Manager could not confirm whether a Highways Officer had been on site but confirmed that they had their own processes and professional standards to follow when advising responses. There had been significant discussions with the Highways Officer.

At 2:26pm, a member of the public called out to request a point of order.  This was refused, with the member of the public being advised if they continued to call out they would be asked to leave and the meeting continued.

Councillor Ashton noted concerns had been raised about the site’s sustainability, he had visited the site and there was pavement nearby, on the opposite side of the road, with only a short distance between the driveway and where the pavement began. Councillor Ashton considered the development to be in a sustainable location and sought clarification on this point.

The Planning Manager responded that while the site could not be described as a highly sustainable location, this reflected the rural character of the area, where residents were generally reliant on cars for travel. However, there may be reasonable walking routes and some connectivity to local services. The location was considered sustainable in the context of a rural village in East Suffolk and in line with the aims of local policy regarding the distribution of housing.

Councillor Ashton agreed with the Planning Manager’s comments, acknowledging that while the location was not comparable to living in a town centre, it was typical of village life. He noted that the site benefited from some safe walking and cycling routes within the village.

Councillor Ashton referred to concerns from the objector regarding the heritage impact of the development. He noted that the Design and Heritage Officers had assessed the proposal and did not raise any concerns, believing the development could be carried out sympathetically, with some details to be addressed in reserved matters. The Senior Planner confirmed that the scheme was assessed against nearby Grade 2 listed buildings across the road at the time of submission, with no harm identified. The only other potential heritage concern, which had been raised the day before the Committee, related to Bickers End and its possible designation as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). After a quick assessment, they concluded that Bickers End House was not considered an NDHA, and even if it were, the new development was sufficiently distanced to have a negligible impact on its setting.

Councillor Ashdown asked if they approved the application, when it came to reserve matters could they request control over landscaping etc. The Senior Planner confirmed they could as the only thing set in stone was the access, everything else was subject to change.

Councillor Ashdown commended the Senior Planner’s presentation and said he was familiar with the site, having driven past and reviewed it via Google Earth. He referenced the Highways department’s lack of objections. Acknowledging that this was an outline application for up to three dwellings, he highlighted that final decisions on design and other details would return to the Council for approval, allowing for control over the development. He warned that if the application were refused and went to appeal, the Council would lose control over what could be built on the site. Councillor Ashdown therefore recommended approval, with reserved matters to be considered later.

Councillor Pitchers said he had tried to find a reason for refusal. He could see that Highways had not objected, drainage would be covered in reserve matters, sustainability was a possible issue but on weak grounds, the landscape would be covered in reserve matters. Having looked at everything, he could not see a justifiable reason for refusal, so he seconded the proposal to approve it.

Councillor Hammond said he had sympathy with the neighbours, there were impacts with any development. He could see why there was opposition but agreed with his fellow Committee members that he couldn’t see any material planning considerations for refusal. In addition, he felt that this was a reasonable development in a village, where they were trying to encourage local families to stay living in them. He felt that self-build projects should be supported and was in favour of the application.

Councillor Ashton was concerned about heritage impacts, and keen to see what was presented at reserved matters stage, at this outline planning stage he could see no reason for refusal and was happy to support.

Councillor Gee did not support the application, she stated that Bickers End, part of Wenhaston Black Heath, was a historically significant area that was once ancient woodland but suffered recent destruction. The site lies outside the settlement boundary in countryside and was near protected landscapes, including the Suffolk and Essex Coast and Heaths national landscape and a registered common. Two previous planning applications were refused, and recent enforcement issues had arisen. Local residents and the parish council raised multiple justified objections, with flooding risk being a major concern. The main access road was narrow with sharp bends and near the end of a 60mph zone, raising safety and speeding concerns. Anglian Water has objected to drainage connections, imposing conditions that may not be enforceable. The proposal conflicted with local policy (SCLPS4) and the neighbourhood development plan, as it involved three dwellings in backland development outside the settlement boundary, potentially harming the landscape and affecting nearby Grade II listed buildings, contrary to planning guidelines which support limited housing within defined boundaries.

The Chair clarified that Anglian Water was not saying it could not happen. The Planning Manager confirmed this, explaining that the applicant could submit a pre-development enquiry to Anglian Water to receive advice on network capacity and connection options. Additionally, the recommended drainage condition would require an approved drainage strategy to be agreed before development proceeded.

Councillor Wakeling expressed a conflicted view, acknowledging wanting to support local families in building homes and noting that flooding mitigation measures were proposed. He noted the Highways’ lack of objections but questioned whether the proposal aligned with the local plan or qualified as a cluster development. He raised concerns about potential negative impacts on heritage assets due to the site’s topography, feeling that any development there could be overbearing. Councillor Wakeling stated he could not support the application at this stage and would require more information.

Councillor Gee suggested it could be possible to have a site visit. The Chair said that was something that could be voted for if the Committee felt they wished to see that.  There was a proposal that was seconded, that needed to be considered first.

The Chair said the next step was to vote on the proposal that had been seconded to accept the application for outline planning permission.

Councillor Wakeling asked if reserved matters would come back to committee for consideration.  The Planning Manager confirmed that it didn’t automatically come back to Committee.

Councillor Ashton said he would support referring the reserved matters back to Committee.

Councillor Ashdown wished it for it to be part of the recommendation for approval as a condition.  Councillor Ashton was happy to second on that basis.  The Planning Manager confirmed it could be agreed that any reserved matters application be referred back to Committee via the Head of Planning and Building Control.

On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Ashton. It was

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions.


Conditions: 

 1. Time limit  

 2. Details of "reserved matters"

 3. Implementation condition

 4. Approved plans

 5. Ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures

 6. Lighting design strategy for biodiversity
 
 7. Method statement for reptiles and hedgehog

 8. Construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) 

 9. Ecological Enhancement Strategy

10. Unexpected contamination 

11. Noisy construction activities
 
12. Details of foul and surface water drainage

13. Access improved, laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with drawings
 
14. Access surfacing

15. Access gradient
 
16. Visibility

17. Parking/manoeuvring

18. Refuse/recycling bins

19. Water efficiency standard

20. Custom and self-build homes limitation

21. Phasing plan

In a change to the published agenda this item was re-ordered and heard as item 6.

The Committee received report ES/2541 which related to planning application DC/23/3266/FUL.  The application sought part-retrospective permission to refurbish and convert the Kings Head Hotel into six apartment hotel suites with ground floor office/retail space and a two-bedroom dwelling, along with the conversion of Odd Fellows Hall into two three-bedroom dwellings. The application was triggered for Committee via the referral panel following Town Council objections and significant public interest.

The Planning Manager presented both the full and listed building consent applications, though Members were asked to consider only the planning application under this agenda item.

The site location plan and block plan was shown, along with an aerial view to show the site in context. The Kings Head Hotel is a Grade II listed building in a prominent town centre location.  It was very attractive, despite its current condition, giving it its listed status.  The historic context of the site was pointed out; it was near Bungay Castle (a Grade I listed building) and a scheduled monument. 

The Planning Manager referenced the Bungay Conservation Area Appraisal, highlighting the building’s significance, but did not go into detail as this information was included in the report.

The building was covered by Policy CH2 of the Bungay Neighbourhood Plan, which outlined how proposals for it should be considered.

The Planning Manager worked through the timeline of events.  A previous 2015 application for similar redevelopment had lapsed and was never implemented. In mid-2023, the Council received complaints of unauthorised demolition to the rear and internal works which had led to the loss of historic fabric. Following an enforcement visit, with Design and Heritage Officers present, it was confirmed much of the work was unauthorised, prompting Building Control involvement due to structural concerns. In June/July 2023 officers worked with the developer's engineer to make the building safe.

In July 2023 they advised that the submission of retrospective applications would be required to deal with the work already undertaken.  The Planning Manager advised that unauthorised listed building works constituted a criminal offence, while the planning breaches were unlawful but not criminal. Therefore, it was still possible to submit retrospective planning and listed building consent applications to regularise and retain the works already carried out.

An initial application in August 2023 proposed 11 aparthotel suites, but following negotiations, this was reduced to six. Photos were shown to the Committee, showing the poor state of the building and the extent of the unauthorised works.

A condition of any approval or consent granted would be that the building was to be made watertight within 12 months of approval, a retrospective application had to resolve planning control breaches.

Details of the existing and proposed elevations, floor plans and reinstatement works were shared with the committee.

The Planning Manager noted that one of the key points raised by the Town Council was whether it was compliant with the neighbourhood plan.  In their view it did comply by using a mix of apartment hotels and retail/office space. 

It was noted that Bungay Town Centre had 22 vacant units out of 109 commercial units, a relatively high vacancy rate, which was a relevant consideration for the application.

The key planning considerations were outlined in the report, and the application was recommended for approval, subject to the listed conditions.

The Planning Manager acknowledged the unfortunate situation involving unauthorised works and retrospective applications and recognised the community’s and Members’ frustration. He explained that the current applications aimed to restore the building, make it watertight, and reverse the harm caused. On balance, he recommended approval to secure the building’s long-term use as a valued heritage asset.

The Chair thanked the Planning Manager for his presentation and invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Hammond asked about Suffolk County Council Highways' view on the partially obscured site access. The Planning Manager explained that while Highways had initial concerns, the access formed part of a long-standing arrangement with previous (now lapsed) permissions.  He explained that although it would not meet modern standards for a new development, Suffolk County Council Highways were satisfied, subject to conditions aimed at improving access and ensuring on-site parking.

Councillor Gee asked for an explanation of an aparthotel and whether East Suffolk Council could insist on the reinstatement of the original internal fabric. The Planning Manager explained that much of the original fabric had already been lost, so the focus was now on restoring the building in a modern way compatible with its listed status. A conservation-led schedule of repairs would guide the restoration, with some elements needing modern replacements based on advice from the heritage team.

The Chair invited the first of the public speakers, Mr A, Objector to speak.

The first objector told the Committee that the Bungay Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), made in 2022, was a statutory planning document and formed part of the development plan under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. As there was no conflict with the current Local Plan, the NDP takes precedence in determining planning applications.

He said that the Bungay plan resulted from a very democratic process with significant community engagement, resulting in a large response compared to other towns. The plan had been scrutinised by the planning department and the Broads Authority.  Deviation from the plan may have arisen from an autocratic process, which he hoped the committee was not attempting to democratise. He noted that the plan carried full weight for the specified strategic period and any deviation from the NDP’s policies must be supported by clear and relevant material considerations.  He concluded that the plan was examined and voted on by the community and could not be overridden administratively.

The second objector told the Committee he was a chartered architect, and he expressed concern that the proposal prioritised developer profit over community benefit. He stated that the applicant had neglected their legal duty to maintain and protect the listed building, a valued community asset, allowing it to deteriorate.

He described the recommendation to approve as a quick decision that would deliver a substandard outcome for Bungay, which needed a fully operational hotel. He urged the Committee to refuse the application in support of the town’s long-term prosperity. However, if approval was granted, he requested that a covenant be imposed to secure the building’s continued use as a hotel.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

The objectors confirmed to Councillor Beavan that they wished for it to remain as a hotel as there was nowhere currently for people to stay in town.

Councillor Beavan said that the proposed apartments could provide some visitor accommodation. However, the objector responded that the original hotel had 13 ensuite rooms, and they would prefer to see that number reinstated as part of the hotel use. They added that 6 rooms would be insufficient, it would not help Bungay, who needed the accommodation to support businesses. He added it was a real risk that at some point the developer/owner would wish to convert it into apartments.

Councillor Hammond thanked the objectors and acknowledged the difficult situation. He noted their preference for the building’s reinstatement as a traditional hotel but asked if this was practical and whether there was any evidence of interested parties to take it on as a hotel. He was also concerned that refusing the application could risk the building remaining derelict and a continued blight on the town.

The objector gave some background to how the site was purchased and said whilst there were people out there who would be willing, the developer had to cover their costs.

The Chair invited the Town Council representative to speak.

The Town Council representative addressed the Committee, stating that he did not accept the officer’s conclusion (para. 7.3 of the report) that the application fully accords with the Bungay Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). He said that it was reasonable for Bungay Town Council (BTC) to request a 12-month marketing period for hotel use when the NDP was drafted in 2020/21, and that delays in the process were not BTC’s fault. He also clarified that BTC had never owned the building.

The objector highlighted that the application did not include a formal change of use for the ground floor from Use Class C1 (hotel) to Use Class E (commercial use), despite the NDP’s intention to retain it as a food outlet and bar, an asset for the people of Bungay. He cited apparent contradictions in the report between paragraphs 6.24 and 6.52.

He expressed concern that the application appeared to be a “back-door” HMO which would be use Class C4 and questioned whether a formal change of use between subcategories was required. He criticised the owners’ lack of interest in Bungay and little knowledge of owning the listed building, which he described as being in a state of disrepair and dilapidation.

He said the building had been in poor condition since 2008 with Waveney District Council doing little to improve it then. He read a quote from a recent Full Council report by Bungay district councillors.  He emphasised the need for an owner who cares for the building and the town, rather than profit. He concluded that approving the application without reinstating a ground floor eatery would be a “slap in the face” to the people of Bungay.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashton asked the Town Council representative to clarify which of the Neighbourhood plans it didn’t comply with. The Town Council representative replied that it was the part of the document that referred to it retaining use as a bar/restaurant on ground level.  The Planning Manager shared this on the screens with the Committee for ease, with paragraph 109 being highlighted as important.

Councillor Hammond shared their disappointment with the current situation and was dubious about the owner’s capability to bring the site forward. However, he acknowledged the reality of the current situation, asking whether it might be better to accept an imperfect solution that would at least bring the building back into use, rather than risk it remaining vacant and derelict for another decade.

The Town Council representative replied that was a reasonable argument, but asked pragmatically what would happen, they were already capable of removing a staircase without permission, he was dubious that it would be done properly. He added there was no application for a change of use for the ground floor from C1 to E and that should have been part of the application. This would be addressed in the Officer’s clarification following public speaking.

Councillor Pitchers referred to paragraph 6.15 of the officer’s report, which stated that, following negotiations with the applicant, officers had secured the reinstatement of a retail/office unit at ground floor level and a reduction in the number of aparthotel apartments from 11 to 6. He noted that there had been a reference to restoring the original 13 hotel rooms and asked whether the preference would be for 11 units over 6.

The Town Council representative clarified that he had not made that statement—it had been raised by another speaker, who had spoken as an objector.

The Chair noted that the Town Council’s preference was for the retention of food and bar facilities on the ground floor of the building.

The Town Council representative acknowledged the move towards aparthotel-style accommodation but emphasised that this did not resolve the issue of the ground floor use, which remained a key concern.

Councillor Gee asked if it could be a condition that the ground floor must be retained as an eatery? This would be picked up in Officer clarification.

Officer Clarification

 The Planning Manager noted there was a request for a covenant to be applied to any granted planning permission to restrict it to aparthotel use.  He noted that while covenants are not a planning matter, it would be possible to control the use of the site through a planning condition – in this case, Condition 3 of the officer’s report.

The Planning Manager noted that any commentary about the applicant’s background, other business interests, or their intentions was not a material planning consideration. Their role was to assess the application solely on its planning merits and the information submitted.

Regarding process, the officer’s recommendation was to approve the applications, however the Planning Manager outlined what would happen if the Committee was minded to refuse.  Any enforcement action to follow a refusal would solely be able to reverse unauthorised or illegal works carried out, i.e. the repair the damage to the rear of building, reverse internal alterations that removed historic fabric and make it watertight and rebuild that section that had been demolished.  It would do nothing to improve the overall appearance and quality of the building. It wouldn’t be able to introduce a use that was compliant with the neighbourhood plan. It would restore the building to the previous condition, which was relatively derelict but a watertight shell.

There was a point raised regarding the application not including the change of use.  The Planning Manager said that the description of development clearly referenced the inclusion of office/retail space at ground floor – the change of use is inferred from that.

The importance of the Neighbourhood Plan policy in the decision making was noted. This was shown on the screens for the Committee.  The pre-amble wording (para 109) made it clear that there was a risk that historic buildings could fall into disrepair if not in use, the Kings Head was given as an example of this, with its importance noted, as a town centre location and an asset for tourism. The Planning Manager said this was what they considered when they received the application.  He emphasised he was unhappy with the situation they were in; unauthorised works to a listed building.  But this application came forward and dealt with that whilst meeting the aspirations of the Neighbourhood Plan.  Part A of the policy deals with the ground floor requirements and what is expected. The Planning Manager said they did not consider there to be a neighbourhood plan requirement to only have an eatery or restaurant on the ground floor, therefore negotiations focused on what could be done at ground floor level to meet the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Councillor Ashton asked what the rationale was for reducing the rooms in the application from 11 to 6.  The Planning Manager explained that having 11 rooms meant that the entire ground floor was not able to be used as outlined in the Neighbourhood Plan, there would be no active frontage.  In the balance of things the Officers considered that the office/retail planning was more suitable.

Councillor Beavan commented on the importance of adhering to the Neighbourhood Plan. He noted that within the plan it said reverting to a traditional hotel would be supported, but it didn’t say an alternative would be objected to. He asked the Planning Manager how strong this clause was in the Neighbourhood Plan. The Planning Manager replied that it offered some flexibility, setting out an ideal scenario which would be repurposing it to a traditional hotel as it once was. From their perspective if it had that aspect of hotel use, and aparthotel rooms, it retained the tourism offer, with other uses offered at the ground floor. The Neighbourhood plan was not worded to say that any other use or configuration would not be supported, therefore they were in a position, taking into consideration the spirit of the preamble policies and the intent of the Neighbourhood plan and looking at CH2 to make a judgement of whether it is acceptable or not.

Councillor Ashdown asked if there was a restriction on the number of days that people can stay in the hotel, as there was with other tourism accommodation.  The Planning Manager replied that the condition needed finalising, but it was for tourism purposes and the occupancy controlled, not allowing for long term stays.  He agreed to confirm back to Councillor Ashdown the number of days allowed within a calendar year.

Councillor Wakeling asked if there were ever discussions with the developer regarding an eatery and how/if that might work.  The Planning Manager replied it had been a challenge to get something finalised that met the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan and East Suffolk Council put forward what else may be appropriate and a compromise reached.

Councillor Gee asked if there could be a condition that a facility providing food had to be provided.  The Planning Manager replied that the application had to be considered as it was currently with office/retail at ground floor level. The Planning Manger emphasised the officer time taken with this application and that it had not been recommended for approval lightly.

Councillor Ashdown thanked the Planning Manager for an excellent application, he said there had been lots of good questions and they could reassure the objectors that there was an excellent building control team in place, one of the best in the country.  He was convinced that any development work done would be to the highest standards. He said that the restriction on the number of days staying at the venue should be a condition and recommended approval with those conditions in place.

Councillor Ashton expressed the Committee’s dislike for retrospective applications, he found it frustrating as the penalties were weak and did not provide an incentive to stop it happening. However, he recognised that they had to deal with the application as it was presented at Committee.  He was reassured that there were criminal penalties relating to LBC.  He understood the importance of Neighbourhood Plans, the effort that goes into them and the importance of considering them. He noted that there could be a condition within the Bungay Neighbourhood Plan regarding retail, but it could be futile with the number of empty retail units. Whilst not ideal, he felt it was better to have office space than nothing at all. He shared the concerns regarding the applicant and what has already occurred, however that was not a matter for the Committee today, they were purely considering the application, not who was implementing it.  He was happy to second the proposal.

The Chair noted the importance of the condition for making the building safe and watertight within 12 months.

Councillor Pitchers said what they had was the best possible compromise. He noted that CH2 does say that proposals for change of use from Kings head would be supported, therefore he was reluctantly supporting the proposal.

Councillor Hammond said he had spoken to the Head of Building Control as he had concerns and recommendations.  The building in its current state was in a risky situation and subject to vandalism/fire risk.  The priority was that the building was secured to a better state than it presently was.  There were close neighbours, and it remained a concern. He said it needed a quality architectural and design team put into place; it’s a very serious undertaking to get the building back into use and needs highly technical expertise.  East Suffolk Council Building Control are keen to support and advise. If the applicants don’t have the funds to bring it back to the correct condition, then they should sell it to someone who does.  As Ward Councillor, he recognised how important it was that it must be brought back into use for Bungay and it residents.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions.

Conditions

1. The northwestern part of the main building which was demolished will be rebuilt and made watertight within 12 months of the date of this permission.

2. Drawings and supporting documents approved. 

3. The 'apart hotel' use restricted to tourism/hotel use with occupancy controlled

4. The office/retail space shall be brought into use prior to or at the same time as first occupation of the 'apart hotel' and used for that purpose

5. Prior to occupation, first 5 metres of access to be surfaced with a bound material 

6. Provision of parking and turning areas prior to first use

7. Provision of EV charging points prior to first use (and submission/agreement of details prior to installation)

8. Bin storage and presentation areas to be provided prior to occupation

9. In accordance with ecological mitigation measures

10. Prior to first occupation. on the site with the exception of reinstatement works to the northwestern corner (Plan EL02B) a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing

11. Prior to any further development commencing, a contaminated land site investigation to be approved in writing by the local planning authority.

12. Submission of Remediation Strategy

13. Completion of Remediation Strategy prior to occupation. 

14. Land Contamination validation report submission prior to occupation

15. Standard unexpected Contamination condition

In a change to the published agenda this application was heard as agenda item 7.

The Committee received report ES/2542 which related to planning application DC/23/3267/LBC.  The application sought Listed Building Consent for part-retrospective permission to refurbish and convert the Kings Head Hotel into six apartment hotel suites with ground floor office/retail space and a two-bedroom dwelling, along with the conversion of Odd Fellows Hall into two three-bedroom dwellings. The application was triggered for Committee via the referral panel following Town Council objections and significant public interest.

The Planning Manager presented both the full and listed building consent applications as part of the previous agenda item.  Members were asked to consider the Listed Building Consent application under this agenda item.

The Chair invited questions to the Planning Manager.

Councillor Ashton queried the enforcement implications should Listed Building Consent (LBC) be granted. The Planning Manager advised that granting LBC would not close any existing enforcement investigations. A condition of the approval required the building to be rebuilt as approved and made watertight within 12 months, and compliance would be monitored. While prosecution would not occur where remedial plans were in place, enforcement powers would take place if works were not completed, with criminal proceedings considered usually only as a last resort.

Councillor Ashton stated that criminal liability should continue even if the building was regularised and a way forward agreed, as harm has already been caused and that should be pursued. He asked whether granting approval would stop any ongoing or potential criminal proceedings.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that during the initial enforcement investigation, the owner would have been cautioned by the enforcement officer for undertaking unauthorised works to a listed building. The current planning process sought to retain those works. It was noted that, although a criminal act had occurred, it may not be expedient to pursue court action where appropriate steps are being taken to mitigate the situation.

Councillor Ashton expressed concern that the harm had been caused and it couldn’t be mitigated.  He was uncomfortable about drawing a line under it from a prosecution point of view but open to suggestions.

The Head of Planning and Building Control acknowledged that a criminal offence had occurred through the unauthorised works to a listed building. He explained that not every case resulted in prosecution, and that a LBC had been submitted as part of a solution. He noted that the opportunity to pursue prosecution likely still stood until the necessary remedial works were completed and the building was properly restored and brought back into use. However, if the right outcome was achieved, prosecution may not be necessary.

Councillor Ashdown asked if there was any reason why they shouldn’t withhold the listed building consent until such time as the building was satisfactorily refurbished. The Planning Manager said if they didn’t grant LBC then the works undertaken would be unauthorised, because they wouldn’t have listed building consent, so it wouldn’t be an ideal situation to end up in.  He added that granting listed building consent would not change the fact that a criminal offence had been committed, and the option to pursue enforcement action would still be open. He emphasised that, following any approval, the Council would review the enforcement position as appropriate, with a focus on monitoring progress, ensuring that works are undertaken correctly and on time, and compliant with conditions.

To benefit the town, the Planning Manager advised that the priority should be on ensuring the approved works were carried out properly and on time, rather than focusing officer resources on pursuing prosecution.  The option to take enforcement action remained open but it would be unlikely to be the most appropriate action if LBC was granted and the works were completed in compliance with conditions.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that an LBC enforcement notice would require the building to be restored to a proper, watertight condition. He noted that if the owner fails to comply, while enforcement action can be taken against them, the Council may ultimately need to intervene and carry out the work itself, something they would prefer to avoid. He emphasised that with LBC capable of being granted, there was an opportunity to resolve the matter fully.

Councillor Ashdown asked that the Building Control team closely monitor progress and report back to Strategic Planning Committee. It was confirmed that the Council’s Building Control Manager had been closely involved in this, following site visits, any issues would be reported, there would be good oversight.

Councillor Wakeling understood all the arguments regarding LBC; he expressed frustration that unauthorised works could be carried out unlawfully and then LBC consent granted afterwards. He added for some developers it’s a drop in the ocean, as they expect that retrospective consent would resolve the matter.

Councillor Ashton said it was important to pursue the damage caused as a criminal offence to deter others from doing similar. He accepted that prosecution might not help the current case, he felt that disincentive was vital to show the seriousness of causing harm to listed buildings. He reluctantly proposed accepting the recommendation, noting that if works do not comply within the conditioned 12 months, it would be a criminal act.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions


Conditions

1. The northwestern part of the main building which was demolished to be rebuilt and made watertight within 12 months of the date of this consent.

2. Development to be in accordance with drawings and supporting documents as approved.

3. Submission and agreement of details of fenestration prior to work commencing on The Odd Fellows Hall residential units (and subsequent adherence to approved details). 

4. Prior to installation, details of the proposed bricks and mortar mix for the reinstatement of the rear corner of the ‘Apart Hotel’ to be submitted to and approved (and subsequent adherence to approved details).

5. Prior to installation, details of the proposed roof tiles for the reinstatement of the rear corner of the ‘Apart Hotel’ to be submitted to and approved (and subsequent adherence to approved details).

6. Prior to installation, details of the proposed railings and brickwork boundary wall to be submitted to and approved (and subsequent adherence to approved details).

7. Schedule of repairs, including manufacturer’s details or elevation drawings of any new doors to be submitted prior to any works on the cart lodge

Councillor Ashton left the meeting at 2.47pm.

The Committee received report ES/2543 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1163/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing threshing barn with associated buildings to form one new residential dwelling. The application was before the Planning Committee as the applicant was related to an elected member of East Suffolk Council.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

The site location plan and aerial photograph was shown. The proposed block plan was shared, showing the converted barn in the context of the site. The existing and proposed floor plans and proposed and existing elevations were shown. Proposed plans would look to return it to a more traditional form. Various photographs of the site were shown, looking at the barn, the surrounding site and access. The main house is considered a non-designated heritage asset and conversion of the barn would improve the setting of the NDHA.  The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Principle of conversion
• Appearance and landscape impact.

It was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

The Chair invited questions to the Senior Planner.

Councillor Pitchers asked if it was really a conversion, and should it be approved would the committee be setting a precedent. The Senior Planner replied he had considered that point and weighed it up against the benefits. There were heritage benefits, the agricultural workers would be able to be resident on site. It would be tied in with an agricultural holding and deliver that benefit.

Councillor Pitchers asked how much of a precedent would be set.  The Senior Planner confirmed that the majority of the conversion would be new build, the reason they were allowing it in this case was due to the agricultural ties to it.  It was difference from a standard conversion as it was also for the owner of the agricultural unit to live in.

Councillor Wakeling said it was interesting as they had seen a previous request to convert a building which was deemed unacceptable due to its unattractive nature. He noted there was a much higher quality design output for this one.

The Planning Manager noted that each case would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Councillor Ashdown asked if RAMS had been paid, the Senior Planner replied it would be if the Committee were minded to support the application.

The Chair invited the applicant to speak.

The applicant explained that the barn, potentially older than the adjacent 17th-century farmhouse, was part of the original farmstead and held significant historical and architectural interest. They were passionate about preserving and restoring the barn sympathetically to enhance its structure, character, and its contribution to the farm’s historic setting. The restored barn would also improve views from the public footpath and highlight the historic farm.

The applicant emphasised the need to live on-site as a rural worker to ensure the smooth running of the farm, citing recent emergencies (such as a fire in the pig unit) where their presence was critical. Living on-site supports the farm’s ongoing management, conservation efforts, and biodiversity. They have a young family and wish to raise them with an understanding of evolving food production; this also allows them to live inter-generationally.

They said that moving from two households into one would free up a home in the area. Restoring the barn without it being occupied wasn’t financially viable, risking its deterioration. The barn was important to them and their family and an opportunity to preserve the farm’s heritage.

There were no questions for the applicant and no points for the officer to clarify.

On the proposition of Councillor Pitchers, seconded by Councillor Beavan

RESOLVED

That the application is recommended for approval, subject to receipt of RAMS payment.


Conditions: 

1. 3 Year time limit

 2. Compliance with plans.

 3. Landscaping details

 4. Completion of landscaping plan

 5. Protection of trees

 6. Remediation Strategy (LC)

 7. Implementation of Remediation Strategy (LC)

 8. A validation report (LC)

 9. Unexpected Contamination (LC)

10. Manoeuvring and parking of vehicles 

11. Cycle storage 

12. Accordance with the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Great Crested Newt Report 

13. Lighting design strategy for biodiversity

14. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs or works to / demolition of buildings shall take place between 1st March and 31st August 

15. Method statement for hedgehog, reptiles and amphibians

16. Construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity)

17. Bat licence issued by Natural England 

18. Ecological Enhancement Strategy

19. Remove PD rights – Walls and fences

20. Remove PD rights – alterations to dwelling

21. Restriction to occupation of dwelling 

The Committee received report ES/2544 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1607/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for a replacement landing stage and all associated works. The application was before the Planning Committee as the location was on land owned and managed by East Suffolk Council.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The presentation comprised the site location plan, the original and proposed layout plans, elevations and site photographs. The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Principle of rebuilding but larger

• Appearance and impact to conservation area and AONB
• Ecology

It was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

Questions were invited to the Officer.

Councillor Plummer asked if everyone moved to that type of landing stage, would there be space.  The Senior Planner confirmed there would be but each application would have to be considered on its own merits and that this was a one-off so acceptable in this case.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the conditions.

Conditions: 

 1. 3 Year time limit

 2. Compliance with plans

 3. Construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) 

The Committee received report ES/2545 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1130/FUL.  The application sought planning permission for a replacement existing failed slipway for Southwold Sailing Club at Southwold Harbour and extension to the jetty. The application was before the Planning Committee as the location was on land owned and managed by East Suffolk Council.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The presentation comprised the site location plan, the original and proposed layout plans, elevations and site photographs. The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Principle of rebuilding
• Appearance and impact to conservation area and AONB
• Ecology

It was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions in the officer’s report.

Questions were invited to the Officer.

There were no questions for the officer. On the proposal of Councillor Hammond, seconded by Councillor Pitchers it was

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to conditions.


Conditions: 

 1. Time Limit

 2. Compliance with plans

 3. Construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) 

The Committee received report ES/2539 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/3062/FUL.  The application sought permission for change of use to Class E (Commercial, Business and Service Use) for one of the units on the recently completed Nexus site specifically for use as a private training and recovery studio. The application was before the Planning Committee as the location was on land owned by East Suffolk Council.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application.

The presentation comprised the site location plan, photographs of the built unit, the floor plans and proposed alterations. The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Conflict with planning policies WLP2.2 and WLP8.18.It is a designated area as a power park in the local plan and therefore should be for uses related to those sectors or ancillary to those uses. Officers didn’t consider a business that proposed individual training and recovery as ancillary to that use, and it would be impossible to enforce any conditions that people using it are only in from that sector.
• Design and heritage – no harm building remains
• Amenity – none
• Highways – none
• Flood risk – none

It was recommended that planning permission was refused subject to the reasons outlined in the report.

The Chair invited questions from the Committee.

Councillor Ashdown referred to the letter received from the applicant, outlining how the facility would be used and that they would be focusing on offshore wind/energy businesses. He recognised that it would be difficult to stop other sectors from using it. Councillor Ashdown asked how many other units were rented out and bringing in income. The Senior Planner confirmed that there were ongoing discussions with several units to be rented out by the Council. He was unable to disclose any information as it was commercially sensitive information. The Senior Planner added they hadn’t been on the market for any substantial time, so there was still the possibility that more would be rented out in the future.

The Planning Manager confirmed that they were not struggling with tenants or attracting business. This proposal was premature in terms of timing but that shouldn’t influence the decision.  There was sympathy for the applicant with a well-meaning business plan. In reality it was not within the specified business class and at this point they would not want to recommend any planning permission that neuters the proposed business use of the buildings.

Councillor Hammond said that the power park vision was a really important one for Lowestoft and a dedicated use for offshore workers was a dubious distinction to make.

Councillor Hammond agreed with the officer’s recommendation that the proposal be refused and Councillor Pitchers seconded it. 

Councillor Ashdown abstained from the vote and suggested as a counter proposal to tell the applicant to contact the East Suffolk Council Assets department and speak to them about business proposal.

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

RESOLVED

That planning permission is refused for the following reason:

1. The proposed change of use of Unit 16 at The Nexus to a private personal training and recovery studio (Use Class E(d)) would conflict with Policy WLP2.2 (PowerPark) of the Waveney Local Plan, which restricts uses within the PowerPark allocation to Class E(g), B2 and B8 in order to support associated and ancillary uses necessary to the offshore energy and engineering sectors. The proposed use would not contribute towards these objectives, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate a lack of demand for the allocated uses.

Furthermore, Class E(d) is defined as a main town centre use, and Policy WLP8.18 (New Town Centre Use Development) requires that a sequential test be undertaken to demonstrate that no suitable or available town centre sites exist. The application is not accompanied by such evidence, and therefore fails to comply with Policy WLP8.18.

Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies WLP2.2 and WLP8.18 of the Waveney Local Plan (2019) and is considered unacceptable in principle.

The Committee received report ES/2539 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/2798/FUL.  The application sought permission for the installation of a step life adjacent to the front door of the property.  The application was before the Planning Committee as East Suffolk Council was the landowner/applicant.

A presentation was given to the Committee by the Senior Planner, who was the case officer for the application. The presentation comprised the site location plan, photographs of the property and existing and proposed plans. The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:

• Impact on street scene
• Impact on amenity

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

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the conditions:

Conditions: 

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
- Site Location Plan, received 16/07/2025,0
- Existing and Proposed Plans, received 20/08/2025,

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.