9
The Planning Manager told the Committee that there had been several late representations received, and many members of the Committee had received direct requests to defer the applications that were before the Committee. He confirmed that those letters were taken very seriously, and he understood that relatively late in the process there had been an influx of comments and interest from local residents. He explained that the Case Officer would set out the context of the consultation process that had been undertaken to date as part of their presentation, some of which was carried out by the applicant team prior to submission and also during the application process. The application had been in the system for a long time with the statutory determination dates dating back to 2024. The Planning Manager confirmed that he understood the scale of the application and that there had been lots of documentation to review; the officer position was that there had been ample opportunity to carry out that review during the process and the publication of that committee report was the conclusion rather than another opportunity to engage with written representations. He noted the benefit of the public meeting being held to consider the applications where there was the opportunity for public speaking and representation that was important to the process. He notified the Committee that presentation materials from both the community and the applicant were received after the cut off deadline as outlined in the public speaking procedures and therefore it was not possible for it to be presented at the meeting.
The Planning Manager handed over to the Senior Planner who was the Case Officer for the applications.
The Committee received report ES/2571 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/2468/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the conversion of Cockfield Hall to a hotel (C1 use), to include partial rebuild of existing buildings alongside the sensitive extension of the Main Hall, and removal of ancillary structures in the immediate setting. This also included full details of car parking required to support the hotel use. The application was referred to the Planning Committee following the call in process as the application was deemed to be of significant public interest.
The Senior Planner outlined the order and grouping of the presentations that would be shared with the Committee for the Cockfield Hall applications. The presentations were to be grouped as follows:
- Items 9 and 10 – DC/24/2468/FUL and DC/24/2469/LBC would be presented together.
- Items 11 and 12 – DC/23/4864/OUT and DC/23/4866/FUL would be presented together.
- Items 13 and 14 – DC/23/4867/FUL and DC/24/1567/LBC would be presented together.
The Senior Planner told the Committee that all 6 applications formed part of a larger master plan approach for Cockfield Hall Estate, which comprised a heritage and landscape scheme including a variety of accommodation types. The centrepiece was the conversion of the Grade 1 listed Cockfield Hall. There was also the construction of woodland and lakeside lodges and farmsteads with the associated lakes. The overarching aim was to provide significant landscape and ecological benefits. All 6 applications were called to Committee from the former Vice Chair of Planning Committee North at the time due to the public interest in the applications.
The Statement of community involvement (SCI) was shared with the Committee which highlighted the extent and timings of the community involvement carried out . The Senior Planner noted that whilst it was not compulsory to carry out that level of involvement, it was encouraged by the NPPF. This highlighted that a thorough consultation had taken place prior to submitting the application with the community, the statutory consultees and East Suffolk Council.
The Senior Planner said that some of the objections related to EIA development and whether the application fell within EIA regulations. The planning statement highlighted that in 2023 a screening opinion was sought by East Suffolk Council. This was responded to confirming that this wasn’t EIA development, details of which can be seen online, available since 2023.
The timeline of applications was shared with the Committee, highlighting the consultation period. The main reason for the delays was to allow time for the Cockfield Hall application to be ready for submission, to enable them to all be determined together. The timeframes shown for each of the applications highlighted the opportunities for comment that were available prior to the applications being determined.
The Senior Planner noted the suggestion that insufficient independent assessment reports had been carried out; he confirmed that all statutory consultees had been consulted and had commented on the applications. These consultees included the Environment Agency, Historic England, Suffolk County Council, Lead Local Flood Authority and Highways Authority. In addition, the highly experienced East Suffolk Council Specialist Services team had commented on the proposals.
A series of slides were shared showing the extent of the consultation carried out in accordance with their community involvement for each of the applications. This showed the Committee where they were sent to and the areas where objections were received from.
The Senior Planner explained the site location plan and layout plans for agenda items 9 and 10 to the committee, highlighting the listed buildings in the courtyard which could be a future application for tourism accommodation and the area for the car park which would be encompassed within the application. Both areas were situated within the conservation area and the registered listed parkland.
The location plan for the second pair of applications, agenda items 11 and 12 was shown to the Committee, highlighting the outline application and north lake. This also included the change to the access drive and the provision of the cycle and walking path to join onto the A12.
The location plan for the final pair of applications, agenda items 13 and 14 for the West Lakes and associated Listed Building Consent was shared with the Committee.
A slide showing an aerial view of the Masterplan was shared with the Committee. The Senior Planner highlighted that this showed the full Masterplan submitted with the application and also included some applications outside of the proposal, such as the Griffin Public House (already determined) and the nursery site which would be a future planning application. Within some of the plans there were some aspects of the Masterplan which are subject to future applications.
The Senior Planner continued with the presentation, focusing on agenda items 9 and 10, the hotel and listed building consent for conversion of Cockfield Hall to c1 hotel use.
The site location plan was shared showing the location of the listed buildings. An aerial view of the estate and Cockfield Hall was shown, along with a map showing the extent of the Yoxford conservation area and its relevance to the application. The listed parkland boundary was pointed out and its similarity to the conservation area.
The plan for Cockfield Hall itself was shown, the main part being the reconstruction of the southwest wing, a single storey block providing a service building and garden room extension. There would be some development to come forward in the future such as the development of the walled garden and a proposed spa facility in the woodland area.
The Committee was shown a photo of the east side of Cockfield Hall along with the 1950’s Curtis Green extension to the southwest elevation, following bomb damage, and a photo circa 1900 of how the building stood prior to that.
As was apparent at the site visit, the Principal Design and Heritage Officer had commented significantly on the application. In addition, Historic England had been significantly involved in the application and pre-application stages The proposed extension was not seeking to replicate but provide traditional interpretation of exceptional quality. There was also a conservation strategy which outlined the finer details of the restoration of the building.
The existing and proposed northwest elevations were shared, covering the service block element, the colonnade and the garden room extension. Historic England had only made one slight design change which was to change a door to a window on this elevation. This demonstrated the high level of pre-application engagement which had taken place.
Various photographs of the site visit were shared.
Various elevations of the application were shown including:
- The Service Courtyard
- Proposed northeast elevations.
- Proposed basement, ground floor plan and roof plan.
- Proposed first floor 2nd floor and attic.
The view through the gatehouse towards the great hall, which would be the principal entrance to the hotel, was shown, along with the proposed reception plans, as explained by the Principal Design and Heritage Officer at the Site Visit.
The Senior Planner said that one of the main concerns from objections received was relating to noise, particularly from events. He noted that generally hotels did have ancillary events such as weddings and there had been a noise impact assessment carried out.
A slide giving a summary of the noise impact assessment and the nearest noise sensor receptors was shared with the Committee. The Senior Planner confirmed that Environmental Protection Officers had assessed this and were satisfied with the assessment. He noted that there had been discussion regarding marquees and noise, but this did not form part of this application.
The car park layout plan was shared with the Committee, noting the concern from the Parish council and Historic England due to the scale of the car park which was for 195 spaces. The slide identified that this was for staff, overflow and wider master plan parking. Both Suffolk County Council and East Suffolk Council Landscaping Teams were satisfied that it had been well designed and sat comfortably within the parkland. As the parking was away from the Grade 1 listed building, Historic England were satisfied that there would be no adverse impacts on the heritage asset.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:
- Principle of development
- Heritage impact and optimal viable use
- Design
- Landscape Impact/Impact on trees
- Neighbour Amenity
- Ecology
- Transport
- Drainage
It was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and for the completion of a Section 106 agreement for RAMS payment and to secure the permissive path.
The Chair thanked the Officer for his presentation and invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor Beavan asked what noise neighbours would expect to hear at 11pm at night. This was deferred to the applicant’s acoustic engineer to respond.
Councillor Hammond asked the Senior Planner to bring up the slide showing the Curtis Green extension. He understood that the officers had steered applicants to not create a facsimile of what was there before. He asked the Officer to elaborate on the idea of the different phases and the ongoing evolution of the building. The Senior Planner responded that there had been discussions with Historic England and the Principal Design and Heritage Officer; they were understanding and supportive of modern contemporary design but felt it would be difficult to successfully complete due to the nature of the building. He said that the proposed design was a good balance, it looked different, but you could also appreciate the existing building and how the extension tied in with it. He noted that the architect was at the Committee and able to give further detail.
The Head of Planning and Building Control gave another example, referring to brickwork and whether historic bricks should be replicated. He said this was the wrong approach, what should happen is the right type of brick should be used but in a modern form so people can differentiate between components. This would be done sensitively.
Councillor Ashton asked if there had been discussions with the applicants regarding the noise management plan and specific details. The Senior Planner confirmed that there hadn’t been yet, this would come later as part of the design consideration.
The Chair invited the first of the public speakers, the objector to speak.
At this point Councillor Ewart raised her hand from the public gallery. The Chair advised that there was to be no interruption from the Public Gallery. Councillor Ewart continued to say that she was unclear on the procedure. The Chair clarified that they were currently hearing public speaking relating to Agenda item 9. She clarified the order that the public speaking would take.
The Objector told the Committee that he was speaking on behalf of residents affected by the scheme in Yoxford. He said the proposals were large scale and ambitious, not fully formed and not yet compliant with the policies of the local plan or NPPF guidelines, especially relating to heritage, as Cockfield Hall was a vitally important Grade 1 heritage asset. He said that Yoxford Parish Council had withdrawn their support for scheme and were united in their view that the application should be denied or deferred today for further information, explanation and compliance to be presented to the planners. He said for this application to stand policy scrutiny, an established need for the development as it stood must be fully proven. It was not for the village to show that the need wasn’t established, it was for the applicant to prove that it was. He said this could not be the case as the applicant already owned 2 similar establishments, close by, both of which were currently advertising availability through reseller sites. He said it wasn’t good enough that planners relied on an unofficial balance of scales that this requirement could be ignored in favour of an interpretation that benefited the redevelopment of Cockfield Hall. He said that the Parish Council would explain how this application misclassified Cockfield Hall entirely, and the Committee would hear more on that from the District Councillor. He referred to an appeal case in Shropshire, where the inspector dismissed the appeal for 10 shepherd’s huts for wedding accommodation due to harming the significance and setting of Grade 2 listed Delby Hall. He said with this in mind the Committee should be minded to dismiss the application outright, or as an alternative they should as a minimum defer it.
There were no questions for the objector. The Chair invited the Parish Council representative to speak.
The Parish Council Representative said she was a recently retired professor of hotel and resort management. She asked that the application was deferred as the proposed use did not fall within a C1 hotel classification as stated and the material impacts for the actual use had not been properly assessed. The applicant had described the proposal as a C1 hotel use, but the evidence clearly showed this was not a public hotel, it was intended to be used as a private event and wedding venue accessible only to guests for exclusive use. There would be no public accommodation, no day to day bookings of individual rooms and no walk in trade. This means that it did not meet the definition of a hotel under C1 which required availability to the general public for overnight stays. What was being proposed in planning terms was a material change of use from a residential property to an events and function venue more accurately sui generis or mixed use commercial. She said that distinction was critical because the impacts of an events venue including large gatherings, a capacity of 400 guests, over 30 events a year and amplified music, late night activity, marquees lighting, catering operations and frequent vehicle movements were far more intensive than those of a genuine hotel. The associated noise and light pollution particularly from evening functions would affect the tranquillity and nearby residents. Heritage England were not satisfied with the car park size and continually asked for justification. By classifying this as a hotel the applicant avoided stricter scrutiny that a change to a full events or mixed use venue would attract. This was not a minor technicality it goes to the heart of whether the proposal had been lawfully and fairly presented to the council and the public. She urged the committee to defer the application until a proper assessment was made under the correct use class.
The Chair invited questions to the Parish Council Representative.
Councillor Hammond asked the representative to expand on her view that it was not a hotel, he asked where that assumption was from. She replied that they got that assumption from the number of events talked about, the number of guests, the size of the property and other properties where you could only hire the whole house. There was no evidence it would be available to book per night like a hotel should be. All the evidence pointed to it being an events and wedding venue. She said they didn’t find out about guest capacity or number of events until they looked at the noise assessment report, it was not available elsewhere. She had concerns for the residents about noise, there could be music until 11 or 12 at night. There was nothing to show it was for transient guests, which is what a hotel should be. In the noise assessment report, it said that the venue would be reserved for those event guests. These would be very large events, lasting for 3 or 5 days either a wedding or corporate event. She said she had put all that together and concluded it was not a public hotel, she felt the only way they could turn up and ask for a room for the night was if the person hiring the whole hotel allowed you to take a room.
The Chair invited the applicant to make their representation.
The applicant told the Committee that Cockfield Hall was the centrepiece of a proposed masterplan. He outlined the consultation that had taken place with statutory and community consultees. He said that the statement of community involvement set out the significant level of consultation that occurred ahead of the planning submission in July 2024, this was with both community and statutory consultees. This included formal public consultations at Yoxford village hall in September 2022 and June 2023 across 5 days and attracting 414 members of the community. He said 71 comments were received at or after the event, which were included in their statement of community involvement, these comments were all responded to where details were left.
The proposals had been in place for over 2 years, during that time changes were driven through design development with East Suffolk officers and Historic England, they had received limited feedback on the proposals for new hotel. This was reflected in the ESC consultation responses; there were no representations made between July 24 and November 24. He said the late representation in objection from Yoxford Parish Council the previous week, was a change from the unanimous support in September 2024. In that time there had been further submissions in respect of minor elevation changes, further rationale on car parking strategy, drainage modelling, and further modelling on the entrance road. The applicant said they were unclear why the change of representation response had been made.
He said that Cockfield Hall was Grade1 listed and warranted the highest level of protection. Their proposals had received no statutory objections. Cockfield Hall was in need of significant investment; it was purchased in 2014 and was on the market for a considerable time. It was no longer viable as a dwelling house due to the extent of required refurbishment; a hotel was the most viable use to restore and retain it. It was proposed to have a 16 bed hotel with a public restaurant. The layout had been carefully considered to function separately or together. It could be hired as a function space if so requested. This had been designed so that it could be achieved without impacting the day to day running of the hotel. The impacts had been tested as a precautionary measure, considered by statutory consultees, who had no objections.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant.
In response to Councillor Ashdown, the applicant confirmed that the restaurant would be open to the public. He said this was a slight change in the typical Wilderness Reserve model. They had considered what they had in their portfolio, and it was intended to operate as a hotel with a restaurant.
Councillor Beavan asked if the hotel would be public as well, the applicant confirmed it would be open for room bookings.
Councillor Ashton couldn’t see any data about frequency/size of events etc and asked if the applicant could share that with the Committee. The applicant said their acoustic consultant was available to answer any noise questions. He told Councillor Ashton that the way they had approached the application was to undertake a noise impact assessment recognising the type of use they were looking at. Its planned use was as a hotel and a public restaurant; therefore, potential functions were likely. As such they had modelled any noise assessment on that to make sure the village would be protected from noise dispersion. It was modelled on a worst case scenario (using potential thresholds) of maximum of 30 events with maximum of 400 capacity, this was an absolute upper limit. The assessment also assumed worse case conditions such as a downwind taking noise into the village. It assessed everything to make sure it was robust and met all of the policy requirements.
Councillor Ashton raised the following concerns:
Section 2.1.2 talked about people noise and residents in the vicinity would already experience noise from people in the area. He said in Yoxford the area most at risk for noise would be the east side of the high street, north of Mulberry Park. Those properties didn’t experience noise from people currently.
He noted the location of the receptor point on the footpath from the side of Horners to a view of Cockfield Hall– that location would be picking up noise from the road, which wouldn’t be the case from those properties described. The choice of the receptor location didn’t make sense, he said it would make more sense to have the noise receptor nearer to the properties.
The assessment assumed behaviour of guests, describing 5 people talking loudly with raised voices at any one time. That felt implausible to Councillor Ashton with an event of 400 people.
The applicant asked his acoustic consultant to respond. He responded as follows:
People noise – they had looked at predictions of a hypothetical worse case and taken the sound to all different receptor points and compared to other noise in the area whether there would be people there or not. The Committee could see from the report the numbers were all negative and below target levels set. The conclusion was that there was no scenario where they would expect there to be significant or even low impact from people noise.
NP2 – footpath position – He confirmed that was relatively close to the road, and the noise levels showed that, it represented that area of houses, there were 4 positions in all. In between car movements etc, there were gaps in between, the background levels related to what the position was for most of the time. It assumed the worst case situation.
Guests – They had to make some assumptions around the number of people shouting and accepting that not everybody was, they created a realistic profile based on ISO standards and assumption. They could say what if 400 people shouted all the time, which could happen. The noise management plan would be in place, which would be poor management to allow to happen, they were trying to be as realistic as possible.
Responding to an earlier question from Councillor Beavan about noise level at 11pm at night, the acoustic consultant described the noise levels at the 4 points. He said they were all low background noises, and what was important was that the level from music at those positions was 20 or less. There would be many times when it would be completely inaudible and sometimes it may be heard, depending on the conditions.
Councillor Beavan asked what that would sound like. The consultant replied that the further away it was, the sound drops away, the lowest frequency travels the furthest. The bass is created on the dance floor meaning it would fall off more rapidly. The building assisted with this, assuming not all windows and doors were open. It was found that they wouldn’t be able to hear the bass at those times in and in those locations.
The consultant confirmed that the management solutions had worked in the past. They had to apply best practice, a robust assessment had been completed, leading to 4 recommended conditions; one being the noise management plan.
The Chair referred to use of a marquee, asking if music in a marquee could be controlled too? The acoustic consultant replied they would have a similar system and apply different ways of controlling the noise transfer. The best would be at source, with an acoustic lining. They ultimately had the control of volume, and this would be covered by the noise management plan.
The applicant confirmed there was no marquee proposed within the red line of the application. It was assessed precautionarily for people noise. Currently they were not proposing marquees.
Councillor Pitchers asked where the function spaces mentioned were located. The applicant replied they were internal within several different areas within the buildings. The function areas would be in a separate area to the day to day areas used by hotel guests, and that had been tested for noise.
Councillor Ashdown asked if the car park would be in operation at the same time as the hotel was finished and open. Secondly, he noted the access on to the A12 was not particularly good and asked if it would be improved. The applicant confirmed the car park would be constructed to tie in with the opening and there were proposals to widen the access point on to the A12. They were discussing with Suffolk Highways. The applicant confirmed the car park would be suitably surfaced.
Councillor Ashton asked about the car park and its spare capacity. He asked if they had considered it being extended for future applications, as a more phased approach could be more acceptable. The applicant replied that they had tried to break it down into elements, an amount for staff, an amount for restaurant/hotel guests, space for check in points, a degree of flexibility for events. They preferred a considered approach rather than leaving it ad hoc. They took this approach to make it a more considerate design.
Councillor Ashton described the route he had taken and asked if there would be a more suitable walking route between the hotel and village for guests and visitors to make use of. The applicant said they did have another bridge which was not publicly accessible but could be. It was certainly something that could be provided. This was a sizeable project that would take some years to develop, so these items could continue to be looked at. From their perspective they wanted to encourage the success of the restaurant and bring in the community.
The Chair invited Councillor Ewart to speak.
Councillor Ewart, District Councillor for Yoxford and Kelsale, told the sub-committee that Cockfield hall had stood empty for many years and they welcomed its restoration. She said its renaissance could be wonderful, but unlike other halls, this community did not know their neighbour. She asked what was truly planned – was it turning Cockfield hall into a themed resort operating weekend after weekend with lights and music? This could be catastrophic and must be tempered. No one disputed the quality of restoration of the Wilderness Reserve and what they delivered but they had planning rules to respect. Residents spoke with lived experience, and it was up to councillors to steer this towards a workable solution. The Parish Council Representative had raised that clarification was required for the C1 application as this was not a C1 hotel. She could not find anywhere the notion of a restaurant and questioned whether that had been invented that afternoon. She noted Councillor’s questions about the reception, and said that the reception would be closed, which was not a good welcome. She said that noise was a great issue, the acoustic report said no amplified music from marquees, the condition 38 was vague and retrospective, only reacting after a disturbance. She said resident disturbance at midnight was hard to enforce the next day. She concurred with Councillor Ashton as the terrace faced the village, so you could have 400 people on the terrace which needed to be thought about. She referred to the size of the car park – and said that 278 spaces for a 16 bedroom hotel was not needed. She said that an events venue was likely to be on the cards, everything pointed to a party village which would impact Yoxford. She said that the Committee had been told in detailed planning policy and by a professor of tourism what was what. She said this was important for the validity of any decision made. If Yoxford were to accept the application, then it must be best managed and a less harmful vision be delivered, not simply what was convenient for the applicant. With proper reworking and ongoing dialogue, it could be achieved; that required transparency and no surprises. As users of the A12 the Committee would be aware that Yoxford already faced the NSIPS roadworks and infrastructure pressure, yet the village was so often not heard. She asked that as District Councillors they changed that notion. The Parish Councillor stepped in with expertise and clarity/understanding of hospitality to ensure the outcome worked for everyone. She asked that the correct classification was applied and enforceable conditions. She asked the Committee to defer the application.
The Chair invited Officer Clarification.
The Planning Manager clarified that procedurally they had all 6 applications being considered and would have public speaking on all of them.
The Planning Manager noted the points raised about the classification of the proposed development – it was referenced as C1 hotel class use. He told the Committee that the Planning Use classes order brought into effect in 1987 defined Class C1 as a hotel and hostel, it had quite a broad description which covers all classes and could have ancillary events and functions. There was not a requirement in the planning use class order for a hotel to have a mandatory requirement of openness to the public to turn up and book a room or that it is open to individual guests, it was down to how the business operated. He clarified that how the Wilderness had operated their other properties was not relevant to the proposal that they were considering today. He said C1 use was the correct classification.
Following Councillor Ewarts’ comment that there was no mention of the restaurant, the Senior Planner said the restaurant was referred to several times throughout the planning statement and the location of the restaurant was highlighted on the site visit.
The Chair invited final questions from the Committee.
Councillor Beavan sought clarity on whether they could enforce a change of use. He gave an example where if the worst case scenario happened and there was 30 events a year with 400 people, could it be deemed outside of their class and enforcement occur? The Head of Planning and Building Control said that the number of events held did not establish the use class and dictate a change of use. He said that the Committee did have the noise assessment which established the maximum number of attendees and maximum number of events, and they could propose conditions that sought to limit the number of events to conform with that. The proposed conditions were there to allow some control. He concluded that the application had to be looked at as a C1 hotel use with the range of events that could take place within a typical hotel.
Councillor Hammond asked if what was proposed was exclusively a private hire venue would that be C1 class or something else? The Planning Manager said that the principal function had to be that rooms were available for hotel purposes, with it being marketed for that general offer. Councillor Hammond asked if the rooms were never actually marketed, would that be in breach of their use class. The Planning Manager replied there were lots of different types of hotels, if later it was deemed to be a single giant holiday let, then there would be a position of saying it was a change of use. Ultimately, they had in front of them a proposal that was proposing a hotel. They would investigate any form of breach at all if that occurred.
Councillor Ashton said he didn’t completely accept the noise assessment answers, he accepted the general principle that the hotel could be managed to not have noise impact, but all the noise impact assessment was saying was it was possible, but the noise impact management plan would demonstrate how it was achieved and was crucial.
He said it was a desirable application, and without investment it would deteriorate. He noted the applicant’s reputation for thorough and sympathetic restoration. He was not confident for the residents of Yoxford about approving an application without assurance that the noise impacts were definitely mitigated. Councillor Ashton would like to see more detail about the noise management plan; he was happy to propose that the application be deferred for more detail to be added to the noise management plan.
Councillor Ashton added that the walking/cycling route between the village and the hotel should be a condition of this application. Although it hadn’t been mentioned he said it was the intention that the guests of the hotel and wider estate would use the Griffin. There would be reason for residents and guests to move in both directions, therefore the application shouldn’t be approved without that walking/cycling route.
Councillor Ashdown thanked the Senior Planner for the excellent site visit. He said it was a good visit, where they were able to see everything they wanted to. He said they had seen a building that needed to be back into utilisation and a hotel would be the best option. He saw the potential for growth, and investment, noting the need for tourism in the district, which would bring in income and employment. He said it would be a benefit and was looking to support the application.
Councillor Beavan, having researched, said that 19-26 decibels was a whisper, he said if the noise could be kept down to those levels it was acceptable and he was minded to approve.
Councillor Hammond said that the noise impact was well thought through and would be properly managed and attenuated. They had to take the applicant’s word that the management plans would be in place. He agreed that a hotel was the best outcome for the building to ensure it got the restoration it needed. He felt that the residents had been spooked by some of the worst case noise modelling that had been described as well as other elements such as the size of the car park, and this had led to them distrusting the idea of a hotel. It was a very high quality proposal, and officers had provided good reassurance and explanations regarding the use class. He was minded to support, whilst it did have impacts, had positive benefits for employment, income, tourism and restoration of the building.
Councillor Pitchers said he wasn’t sure which way to vote. He noted there wasn’t a really good restaurant locally and the opening of one would sway him. The Committee had challenged the developer, who had confirmed it would be open to the public as a hotel and restaurant. Councillor Pitchers said this had to be accepted at face value, and if it turned out later it was being used differently, then action would be taken.
Councillor Ashton added that he didn’t disagree that ultimately, they should be trying to approve the application; however, he had concern that the noise impacts were not determined by the noise impact assessment but by the successful impact of the management plan. He said that they owed it to the people of Yoxford for the applicant to work with officers to demonstrate that, so it wasn’t a condition that was dealt with afterwards without any say. He reiterated his proposal for deferral to give time for the condition to be worked through and asked if there was support for that.
Councillor Gee concurred with Councillor Ashton. She was torn; it was an exciting project which would bring a magnificent building back to life. However, she was anxious about the noise, noting the previous history where there had been problems with the noise. She wanted to be sure that the correct mitigation, control and monitoring would be in place, she noted that the testing had been carried out with the applicant’s consultant and not an independent consultant.
Councillor Wakeling said he was minded to agree with the deferral, particularly considering the need for a footpath to access the restaurant.
The Planning Manager said he understood the noise concerns. The noise impact assessments had been carried out by competent qualified professionals based on best practice. He accepted that the noise impact could be mitigated subject to an appropriately detailed noise management plan and that was the standard way of working, with the conditions flowing from the report. He noted there were multiple conditions and it would not be feasible or practical for members to see that level of detail on every condition. The Committee had a proposal to consider, and the reassurance was that they had a detailed noise impact assessment, and the management plan would follow. He said that deferral might not bring the sense of reassurance that the Committee was hoping for as it was not possible for members to know how every single condition was being complied with. He confirmed this was just planning advice and he was not trying to sway any decisions; they were currently 4 hours into the meeting with 6 applications to be considered and should move toward a decision.
Councillor Beavan said he couldn’t see how deferring the application would make the noise management plan, the impact of it would only be seen when it was in operation. Regarding the footpath he said it was in the interests of the applicant to do this as they would not want guests to turn up via a muddy footpath and trail it through the hotel.
The Planning Manager sought clarification on what the deferral was seeking. Councillor Ashton said it was for the noise management plan and reconsideration of the walking route to site.
Councillor Hammond didn’t feel deferral would achieve what was required, he said the conditions would deal with the points of concern and it was in everyone’s interest to establish the route.
On the proposition of Councillor Ashton, seconded by Councillor Gee it was
PROPOSED
That the application be DEFERRED to consider the noise management plan and the footpath. 3 members were for this proposal and 5 against, therefore the motion for deferral failed.
The Committee returned to the proposal as per the officer’s recommendation in the report.
On the proposal of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Hammond it was
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement and subject to the conditions listed below:
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 plans and documents:
Noise Impact Assessment by Sustainable Acoustics Report No. 22-0128-1 R01.3 (dated 04 July 2024) - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102 001 Rev C - Location Plan - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102.002/0 - Proposed Block Plan - Received 08 July 2024
Drawing No. CO.102/041/0 - Typical Details - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/040/0 - Proposed lift details - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/030/0 - Reception Elevation - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/025/0 - Proposed Southwest and Southeast Elevations - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/021/0 - Proposed Roof Plan - Received 08 July 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/024/A - Proposed Northwest and Courtyard Elevations - Received 06 November 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/022/A - Proposed Northeast Elevations 1 of 2 - Received 06 November 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/023/A - Proposed Northeast Elevations 2 of 2 - Received 06 November 2024.
Drawing No. CO.102/020/A - Proposed Floor Plans - Received 06 November 2024.
Drawing No CO.102/009/0 - Existing Floor Plans Showing Building Morphology & Extent of Demolition - Received 08 July 2024
Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment Preliminary Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection Plan
In Accordance with BS 5837:2012 by Haydens Arboricultural Consultants (Proj. No. 10613 - dated 19 July 2024) - Received 02 September 2024
Cockfield Hall, Yoxford - Conservation Strategy & Outline Specification Issue 02 - August 2024 (Zoe kelding/ Jessica Ryder on Behalf of Purcell) - Received 02 September 2024.
Sustainability Statement for Cockfield Hall Conversion by Wilderness Reserve - Received 02 September 2024
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.