5
The Chair outlined the process for the next 3 agenda items; due to the close linkages of the Wilderness applications the Case Officer would give one presentation that covered all 3 applications with questioning, debate, public speaking and voting following separately for each individual application.
The Committee received report ES/2620 which related to planning application DC/23/4867/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the creation of two water bodies as part of a larger landscape masterplan, to hold water within the landscape including the creation of reed bed and wetland habitat. The lakes would provide recreational use and mooring points, associated with the wider tourism development. A new pedestrian bridge would retain the existing public right of way. The application was triggered for Committee via the Call-In process.
The Senior Planner gave a presentation starting with an explanation of each of the applications and the location plan for each.
The Masterplan slide was shared with the Committee and for clarification, following the previous committee, the Senior Planner noted that it was good practice for these types of large-scale development sites to be brought forward in different phases. He added the masterplan was not an adopted document, but it gave an indication of the future development proposals that could be coming forward. This masterplan had been submitted in support of the Wilderness applications, some of which were determined at the previous committee and the Griffin public house which was approved several months ago. It also included the future developments that would be brought forward. The purpose was to demonstrate how it all fitted together whilst providing significant landscape enhancement, ecological and heritage benefits.
The Senior Planner turned to flood risk. It was noted that one of the main resident concerns was flood risk. The site was situated in flood zone 3. Flood zone 3b was functional flood plain, and one small part of the lake was outside of that area. Hydraulic modelling carried out supported a level 3 Flood Risk Assessment, assessed by Environment Agency and the lead local flood authority. The Section 19 report had also been raised, and the Senior Planner advised the Committee that the LLFA representative was available to answer questions as necessary. The Section 19 report highlighted that the main cause of flooding in Storm Babet was the runoff from fields to the west of the site overwhelming the drainage infrastructure due to poor maintenance. The recommendations from the report was the provision of natural flood management projects such as this one, which slowed the flow and attenuated water and for the improved maintenance of gullies, ditches and water courses.
Referring to the update sheet, the Senior Planner noted there was a clarification note from the applicant and a rebuttal from the flood consultant working for the applicant. This was in response to a document that they received entitled Yoxford Impact Assessment by Mr Mayhew, who was due to speak later. Officers were of the view that the application had been thoroughly scrutinised and considered by the Environment Agency and the LLFA.
The next slides took the Committee through the design of the lake. The lake design overview was shared, highlighting the areas where the excavated materials would be deposited. Another concern of neighbours was the recreational activities that may be taking place on the lake, with suggestions that powerboating, jet skiing would be a disturbance to neighbours. The Senior Planner advised there was a condition to require agreement to activities that would be allowed on the lake; officers considered it more likely that sedate activities like those that they had seen on other lakes within the Wilderness Reserve would be more likely to take place.
Slide showing inset 1 was shared, this was the northwestern end of the lake, the narrowest part of lake, viewpoints showed where it would be visible to the public from footpath 7 and 7A within the LVIA.
Slide showing inset 2 was shared – more dramatic views would be available from users of footpath 8, there was a bridge proposed to cross the lake. This was considered to significantly enhance the experience of the users of the public footpaths. Photos shown from LVIA of the 4 oak trees, the point that members viewed at the site visit when looking at the water table level and trees to be retained.
Slide showing the bridge was shared, the bridge was 68 metres across the lake. The cross section showed the water level opposed to the existing ground level, along with the flood storage capacity. There had been some comments about safety of users of the public footpath once there was a lake and bridge crossing it. The Senior Planner said it was not uncommon to have public footpaths near water. This had been fully assessed by SCC public rights of way and met the current safety standards and legislation.
Slide showing inset 3 was shared – this showed access to Hills Farm and Keepers Cottage, also known as Hex Cottage (points that Committee viewed on site visit). It was noted that the character of landscape would change significantly in that location and it was considered to be a significant enhancement. Channels on the west side of the lake running down towards Cockfield Hall were shown.
Slide showing inset 5 was shared – this was Cockfield Hall itself; the extent of the grade 2 listed parkland was pointed out. The Senior Planner pointed out the Yoxford Conservation Area boundary. The Committee were shown the part of the lake that fell within that green area, this part of the proposal had the potential to affect designated heritage assets of the listed parkland, the conservation area and the grade 1 listed Cockfield hall. The Committee were shown the section of the grade 2 listed wall that was to be removed.
The next slide showed some of the landscaping of the site and the location of some removal of trees. Any tree loss was significantly outweighed by planting across the estate and within this application.
A slide showing the existing walled garden was shown with the site visit location pointed out. The 3m height of walled garden pointed out and where it dropped to 2.1m and the part that was proposed to be removed. An image of the walled garden was shared. The Heritage impact assessment statements were shared with the committee.
A slide showing the plan form of the wall was shared with the Committee from outside and within the walled garden.
The Senior Planner noted that both Historic England and the Garden Trust had been consulted as statutory consultees. Whilst acknowledging some harm through the loss of part of the grade 2 listed wall, it was considered to be less than substantial harm which was outweighed by the heritage benefits of the setting of the hall and conservation area and listed parkland.
The Senior Planner noted that the Garden Trust stated they were fully supportive of comments by the Council’s Principal Design and Heritage Officer and were in support of the proposals generally. Within paragraph 7.13 of the report for this listed building consent application there was a weighing up of the benefits against harm.
The next slide showed the proposed north lake; the block plan was shared showing the design and shape of lake. The area where the soil was to be deposited was pointed out along with the oak tree to be retained on the island. The Committee was told that the lake was to have a dual purpose for irrigation and recreation activities. It was in a much less sensitive location, but the officers still felt it was necessary to control the types of recreational activities that took place and had made that a suggested condition. Diagrams were shared from the flood risk assessment showing the existing overland flow routes. The Senior Planner told the Committee that the flood risk assessment suggested that the natural flow route (1)would fill the lake and if it didn’t completely fill the lake, it would be topped up by bore hole, outflows from the lake would follow existing flood paths, mimicking natural flow in a controlled way.
The proposed lake sections were shown, it was 2.5 m in depth. The lake would have minimal visibility in the surrounding area. The lodges that proposed to surround the lake had been subject to a previous application; this lake would only be visible from the people staying in the lodges themselves.
The material planning considerations and key issues were summarised as:
• Principle of development
• Flood risk
• Heritage impact
• Design
• Landscape Impact/Impact on trees
• Neighbour amenity
• Transport
Application DC/23/4867/FUL was recommended for approval, subject to the conditions in the officer report.
The Chair invited questions from the Committee on the officer presentation and then any third party representations.
Councillor Ashton referred to the area where the bridge would be and noted it was often quite boggy in the winter, and very infrequently it could flood. He asked if there was any risk of the lake increasing the boggy nature of the area, making it difficult to access the bridge. This question was directed to the applicant’s flood consultant to answer.
Councillor Gee asked if Suffolk County Council Rights of Way still objected. The Senior Planner confirmed that the initial consultation had a holding objection, however the most recent response from them was that they had no objection.
There were no more questions, the Chair invited the first of the public speakers, the objector to speak.
The Objector introduced himself and explained that he had a technical expert on hand to answer any specific questions that were raised. He had a series of photographs that he shared to support his public speaking. He told the Committee that the proposal was to replace a very large natural flood plain with lakes which sounded odd. He showed the Committee a photo of how the flood plain had been altered in past years to create a bank and warned it would greatly affect flooding in Yoxford. Various photographs were shown showing the impact of the change. He said that when the River Yox hit the top, the whole field used to soak, and displayed photographs showing what happened now that the flood plain was altered. He said that the lakes were like bowls of water and the flood plain was like a sponge of soil, with extra water, it would soak up and go over the top, he said if the flood plain was removed, it would flood down the river and through the village. This had already happened in Storm Babet, the flooding system all connected, and flooding would occur far away on the A12 if the flood plain didn’t operate correctly. He said this scheme would make the flood potential worse, not better or neutral. He had read the reports, yet they struggled to refute this fact. He showed slides of Storm Babet and said this was why he was at the Committee, he like many other residents feared the lakes as they would cause floods to properties and gardens. He said the flood plain was relevant for the whole of Yoxford and replacing the natural sponge and fields which overflowed to take the water of hundreds of years old with two lakes was asking for trouble. He appealed to the councillors to not let the estate mark its own homework. They had their own experts in and everyone else in the village was suspicious of this thinking as there would be a big flood risk, he said they needed to get independent experts.
The Chair invited questions to the objector.
Councillor Ashton asked to revisit the last slide. For clarity he confirmed with the objector that this was a photo of The Lane in Yoxford with River Yox in the distance. He confirmed that earlier it was stated that the primary cause of flooding in Yoxford as a result of Storm Babet was poorly maintained drainage to the west of the site. He said this photograph was to the west of the site and he wanted to make sure that the objector was not suggested that the flooding in the photograph was caused by the River Yox. He said that was a separate issue.
The objector said he used a generic slide of Yoxford being flooded. He explained that what he was demonstrating was the way the flood plain worked, and how they should work to protect Yoxford. He said in Storm Babet there had already been alterations to the flood plain. He stated whatever the report said, it had been altered. Inevitably the flooding in Yoxford would be made worse. This showed that the flood plain was critical and the plans to replace it with 2 lakes were risky.
Councillor Ashton probed further asking if the objector believe the flood was linked to Storm Babet. The Objector challenged that, saying if the flood plains were removed or attenuated it would be worse. He noted that Storm Babet was a special event.
Councillor Beavan asked how creating a lake attenuated the flood plain. The Objector replied that the field acted like a sponge, as water comes in, they fill up and flood over at the top. Now with a lake, the area was already permanently full of water, this meant they had lost the soil taking up the sponge effect and lost the ability for the water to go over the top.
Councillor Ashton asked if the lake had been built and over time the water had silted up to the point it had soil again; would the lake have greater or less capacity to store water at that point. He argued that it made no sense to claim that with soil in the space there was greater capacity to sponge water up. The objector disagreed and used a metaphor of a sponge to demonstrate how it would work.
Councillor Hammond said the sponge metaphor was powerful, but he wasn’t sure that was how they worked. He asked was it not the case that the pores in the soil in the event of a flood were full – the water table is very high and gets to the point where the water table is at that level, regardless of whether there is water or soil there, it then overtops and spills onto the flood plain, taking the pressure off as the water spreads across the valley. His understanding of the proposal was that the spreading out function was not being taken away, and the flood plain was not being eliminated as suggested. He noted that the consultant’s report suggested that there would be more capacity than there was currently to absorb water, therefore the flood risk was reduced not harmed.
The objector’s flood expert, Mr Mayhew responded by saying when you look at catchment it can do well but adding buildings and hardcore causes significantly more runoff. He argued it was all very well having a catchment but if you build around it were would the runoff go to. It would mean catching in one area, but due to hardcore and building run off would be increased. He referenced some studies that had looked at this across the world.
Councillor Ashton asked if the question could be answered – if soil was excavated from the flood plain, how can it hold less water than it does with the soil there? He said the assertion was by creating lakes it increased the risk of flooding as the capacity to store water is reduced. He didn’t think this was possible as removal of the soil would allow more space for water. The flood expert replied that it would depend on the type of soil and what it could or could not do, it wasn’t something that could be answered without further investigation.
The Objector said this reiterated the main point that they were asking, which was for the council to have their own independent assessment.
The Planning Manager told the Committee that Matt Hullis from the LLFA was available online and would respond as part of officer clarification in line with the committee process.
Councillor Gee said that the report paragraph 4.3 flood risk referred to the lake already produced near Yoxman, and it had reduced some of the flood plain there. She said she could vouch for that having noticed the large area of water on the left of the A12 in recent years. She asked how residents were affected. The Objector replied that a lot of people living close to that area were vociferous about far worse flooding into their gardens since those changes. He said lots of people were not willing to write or come forward to meetings as they had links with the estate, but they were very unhappy with lake for the reasons Councillor Gee stated.
Councillor Pitchers asked how long the lake had been there, it was confirmed that it was put in in 2021.
There were no further questions for Mr Wescott or Mr Mayhew.
The Chair invited the next public speaker from Yoxford Parish Council to speak.
The Parish Councillor told the Committee he would be talking about the lakes in general. He introduced himself to the Committee and said he was involved in water activities for many years and was aware of the dangers involved. He said in planning, the key question was what the need was. He said there was no need for lakes, it was purely vanity, which threatened and endangered over 100 houses in the village. Government UK official advice to landowners who wished to build lakes was that they do not build for flood water retention, for water sports, in historic designed landscape/parks or in areas with biodiversity features. He noted the 2025 flooding bill was more rigorous than that of 2020 when the lakes were passed. He said it was accepted that the landscape would be altered, and the new build flags a higher risk. He noted the lakes were forever and delicate permeable vegetation was being destroyed as the soil hardens it becomes impervious. This was the size of 25000 cubic metres, equating to 40 Olympic pools or 10 football pitches. He said it was interesting at the site visit that the area was not marked and the earth removal was made to sound minimal. There have already been cottage and road development permitted which would create a huge run off area that didn’t currently exist. A full lake is a hazard and the only tests that have been carried out have been done by the estate. In the summer there would be more run off and more silt. He said Blenheim palace lake just cost £10 million to have the silt removed, this was what they would be getting at Yoxford. He said the lakes were forever and these builds would become the Parish council lakes. They wished the estate well but asked would it still be there in 200 years, if there was regular flooding and it is regular, who would insure the houses, they would be vacated houses, stripped out emotionally and spiritually.
There were no questions for Councillor Walford. The Chair invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant said this proposal was a landscape feature which was integral to the overall landscape vision by landscape architect Kim Wilkey. It enhances the setting of Cockfield Hall, the outbuildings and parkland. It was supported by Historic England and officers. The design responded to the hydrology and natural topography of the valley bottom. It would be a natural lake, which would sit at the level of the existing water table, and no imported water would be required to fill it. It is not a flood amelioration project, although it did provide natural flood management by attenuating surface water to help minimise the peak storm discharge into the river Yox and it would improve the water quality in doing so. He told the committee it had a free board water storage area, with 60 million litres of additional water storage. During a significant storm, it would not be dissimilar to existing conditions, where the land acts as a water meadow. However, the time it takes to reach the top of the freeboard was crucial as that would provide a lag to help the initial surge of water from upstream pass. Proposals were tested robustly through detailed flood modelling demonstrating flood management benefits and crucially that the development would not increase flood elsewhere. These technical assessments were considered by Environment Agency and LLFA with no reason for objection with consideration to the NPPF and the PPG on flood risk and coastal change. Recently Suffolk County Council published section 19 report on the impacts of Storm Babet. Whilst the key areas affecting the flooding were south of the A120 and not north, principal reasons were runoff from arable fields, blocked drains and undersized culverts. The LLFA is clear that as part of their medium term actions they want to slow flow by attenuating water, referencing natural flood mitigation measures such as storage ponds, wetland areas and this proposal did just that. The design would create a surface area of 17 acres for lake with a further 4 acres for wetland. In addition to the flood management the lakes would provide an important habitat for nature and would provide amenity, visual amenity for guests, and the future footbridge.
The Chair invited questions to the applicant.
Councillor Beavan asked if they had looked at other places where lakes were created and whether it had caused flooding. The applicant replied that where they have created lakes, Heveningham, Huntingfield, Sibton there were no issues. Storm Babet was a seismic event. He added the modelling was commissioned but not undertaken by them and robustly done by consultants as with any other applicant. Their previous work has not led to the catastrophic impacts that have been suggested.
Councillor Hammond asked what the planned maintenance was and whether maintenance or lack of it influenced flood risk. The applicant replied if nothing at all was done then it would return to its current situation. He added that the way the whole site was presented, meant all lakes worked cumulatively and were assessed cumulatively as part of the drainage strategy. There are inlets and roadside swales provided which are opportunities for further infiltration into soil. The estate maintenance team would regularly maintain the lakes, carrying out debris removal, reed cutting, as required. They have effective maintenance of network of ditches feeding into the lakes. They don’t have a prescribed maintenance strategy, but it is within the wider drainage strategy.
Councillor Pitchers asked if they could confirm that the surface of the lakes would be where the natural water table was now. The applicant confirmed that was correct. The worst case scenario would be that it acts like it does currently and day to day it provides additional freeboard capacity to manage flows. It mimics the River Yox, providing a crucial lag.
The applicant returned to Councillor Ashton’s earlier point around the boggy area where the bridge was proposed. He confirmed that the lake’s water was below ground level so it shouldn’t impact on the ground conditions at that point.
The applicant responded to issues raised during public speaking. He said that one of the speakers referenced installing the bank and altering what was there currently. He confirmed they were not aware of that happening.
The flood image picked up on was Little Street, he said he had been there and spoken to residents.
The applicant said it wasn’t clear whether the consultant had reviewed the catchment and drainage modelling but that would be helpful.
Referencing the last speaker, the applicant confirmed that they had assessed the scale of earth removal and this was shown in the application drawings.
Councillor Ashton said there was concern that they might intentionally/ unintentionally extract water from the River Yox to keep the water level of the lake. The applicant replied they would not, they were simply digging a hole. It would overflow back into the River Yox and not the other way.
Councillor Ashton asked the applicant if they would be concerned if there was a condition that said no motorised boats except for safety vehicles. The applicant replied that could be a constraint, looking at current lake activities, popular activities were paddle boarding, wild swimming. The lakes would be set up some time before they welcomed the first guests, and they didn’t want to set up something that may preclude the next popular activity. He added they did use motorised crafts for maintenance and rangers support the lake activity in support vessels. They wouldn’t want to say no and then be picked up on that later. The Wilderness thrives on peace and quiet and the opportunity to be in nature.
Councillor Ashton said the Committee would want to ensure that there wasn’t any significant noise that might be a disturbance. They would want officers to make a condition.
Councillor Beavan suggested the use of electric boats; they would be quieter and be more palatable. The condition seemed appropriate to him as noise would affect both guest and neighbour amenity.
The Chair invited Councillor Ewart, Ward Councillor, to speak.
Councillor Ewart said the application was elementary, and to risk or not risk was how to look at the outcome. She said the NPPF was clear, In flood zone 3 where credible risks to safety or flood vulnerability exist, the presumption was against development. When professional opinion is divided, the advice is to take the precautionary route, this was not the safer alternative, and the notion of the development being made in this location should be brought to a close. This proposal was not gentle landscaping, it was a major engineered intervention in the centre of Yoxford, involving excavating into the flood plain, covering 30 acres, 4 metres deep, generating almost half a million cubic metres of soil. It would require HGVs to move them. It would require 360 million litres of water. The applicant says no tankers would be used, so she asked where the source was. Essex and Suffolk Water had not been contacted. She said the application did not meet the NPPFs water stress requirements. The depth was an issue, usually lakes were 1-1.5 metres deep, these lakes would be 3 metres plus. She said that power boats were being considered, with a 68 metre footbridge and 2 metres wide, the deep water would give no refuge. She said that planning required safe access in flood conditions, not just in good weather. She felt that the slippage risk when walking around the lake could cause a fatality. Re flooding, the existing dynamic reed beds were currently holding back water and slowing it. This was evidenced in storm Babet when the river Yox overtopped the edge and water flooded homes on A12 and A1120. She asked who would be responsible for the outcomes as Environment Agency would not manage the lakes in a flood. The SCC statements relied on models that Babet had already exceeded. Referring to the 3 sequential NPPF tests, the development was in a flood risk, there was alternative land available the lakes did increase the risk if elsewhere. Therefore all 3 tests were not met for the application. She said in summary the presumption where risk exists is against permission, and climate change would heighten the risk. The lakes were optional and recreational and did not impact the greater scheme of a Grade 1 listed hall such as Cockfield Hall. These posed a new and unnecessary flood risk to the residents of Yoxford and to major A roads, she concluded by urging the Committee to refuse planning permission.
The Chair invited questions.
Councillor Hammond asked for more information of her understanding of water requirements for the lake. Councillor Ewart said Essex and Suffolk was not consulted and the implication being filling lakes would be a drain on our scarce resources. Councillor Hammond said winter storage reservoirs were being built everywhere by farmers in order to use excessive winter water in summer, these lakes would be naturally filled by winter rainwater. Outside of any concerns around drought conditions, he asked did she know something they didn't?
Councillor Ewart replied would they not expect to see that in the report? She was informed recently that the water was taken from the local supply to get the lake underway. She understood about water capture, but it was not possible to capture the volume they talked about there. With humidity water lifts and goes up and has to reproduce. To get to 3 deep metres is a significant amount in our areas. Sizewell were also requiring water, that was a considerable amount of water that they would have to find from their community.
Councillor Hammond said that was a red herring, he grew up in an area where there were lots of gravel pits and when they finished pumping out, the pits filled up to the dynamic water table of that time of year. He said that was what happened and anything else wasn’t feasible. Councillor Ewart found it concerning that he would ask that question, she said the information wasn’t there and she was endeavouring to establish for the community where the water was coming from. The Chair said she thought that information was in the report. Councillor Ewart replied it discussed a bore hole for the North Lake but gave no indication of the source. She wanted to establish where it was coming from as it was good practice. The Chair asked for that to be clarified later by Officer clarification. Councillor Ewart did not think it was a red herring.
There were no further questions for the Ward Councillor. The Chair invited Officer clarification.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referenced the comments requesting an independent review or the applicant marking their own homework. He said that the planning process depends upon a collation of professional opinions, independent, unbiased responses from consultees. This application had received professional input from the Environmental Agency and the Lead Local Flood Agency, an organisation set up in past decade to make sure that the responsibilities around flood risk are addressed. This has included the Storm Babet, section 19 investigation. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the Planning Committee should have confidence in that approach and not require extra independent advice on top of that already sought within the report.
The Planning Manager said that any developer who worked in the district on a planning scheme would note the rigorous scrutiny from the LLFA on applications. There had been objection in February 2024 from the Environment Agency which had led to more information being submitted from the applicant and then again reviewed by the Environment Agency until the objection was finally removed in August 2024.
The same had occurred with the LLFA where there was a holding flood objection which was not removed until the appropriate information had been received. He concurred with the comments of the Head of Planning and Building Control and stated there had been independent review, public consultation, with qualified experts picking up on detail. This was demonstrated in the extent of responses received.
He advised the committee that the applicant team had provided a rebuttal regarding the report from Mr Mayhew, this was on public access.
Regarding the planning condition suggested by Councillor Ashton, the Planning Manager advised that the condition would be for motor craft for safety purposes and maintenance purposes only – they would want to flesh it out and get it right as it was an important issue for community.
The Planning Manager directed the Committee to the paragraphs within the report which referred to the sequential and exception testing. He confirmed that the application passed the sequential test and exception testing was not required.
He referred back to the report, and following the input received from public speakers concern regarding flooding and others regarding how the lakes would be filled, he directed Members to paragraph 3.2 of the report where the source and design of the lakes was covered. He invited Matt Hullis, of Suffolk County Council, Lead LLFA to add any clarification.
Matt Hullis introduced himself and said he was part of the team that analysed the application, his team included flood risk engineers and investigators. He clarified that the surface and ground water flood risk was a key issue for developers and that is why they sought independent professional advice. Their concern was to make sure that any decisions did not increase flood risk for homes and infrastructure, they look impartially at proposals and any associated information to analyse and take a decision on whether the flood risk is increasing. He confirmed that this was done with this application, looking at surface water and ground water. They did the same for fluvial flood risk from the River Yox. He confirmed that both SCC and the Environment Agency were united in their views that the proposal did not increase flood risk to the locality or anyone else downstream. He completely understood the concern, and referring to the analogy of a bowl of water, he said this wasn’t designed as a flood attenuation basin, but it would provide some attenuation. The flood risk would reduce. This was covered in the JP Chick report, page 17. Following the flood investigation report, post Babet, it was confirmed that the source came from the west of village, saturated ground, and the water could not penetrate. The vast majority came from flow paths, west to east across the Yox, this was gathered from information from local residents, and this had the most impact. There was some impact by the overflow of the Yox natural flood plain.
The Chair invited any final questions. Councillor Beavan asked Mr Hullis if he was confident that the proposal did not increase flood risk, and he replied that he was.
The Chair asked how much difference the maintenance made to how problematic the flood risk would become. Mr Hullis replied that every landowner had the maintenance responsibility to stop blockages and keeping them clear.
In terms of lakes effectively its vegetation and silting up which would be the natural cause of not undertaking any maintenance, worst case scenario, lakes became completely silted up, original ground level would reconstitute itself over decades. And you have what you have now.
Mr Hullis referred to the sponge effect, if soil was removed and open space created more water can be stored.
It was confirmed that the construction of a lake was compatible with the NPPF, this was confirmed in paragraph 7.4 of the report.
The Chair invited the Committee to debate the application.
Councillor Ashdown thanked the Officer for their presentation and everyone’s input. He said there had been lots of questions and answers, this was a major project which would affect people in different ways. He thought it enhanced what the Wilderness were aiming to do and suggested it should be approved.
Councillor Pitchers referenced the NPPF (paragraph 171) and said he was happy to second Councillor Ashdown.
Councillor Beavan returned to the condition of the lake use and suggested he would prefer noiseless craft with electric motors.
Councillor Ashton said the condition should not include use of craft powered by internal combustion engines, with the exception of safety, maintenance and support for disabled guests. The Planning Manager agreed this would be a reasonable condition.
On the proposition of Councillor Ashdown, seconded by Councillor Pitchers, it was
RESOLVED
That the application be APPROVED 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:
Drawing No. CO.108/001 Rev C - Location Plan - Received 19 December 2023
Drawing No. CO.108.002 Rev E - Proposed Lake Design Overview - Received 14 June 2024
Drawing No. CO.108.003 - Proposed Lake Design Inset 1 - Received 19 December 2023
Drawing No. CO.108.004 Rev C - Proposed Lake Design Inset 2 - Received 14 June 2024
Drawing No. CO.108.005 Rev A - Proposed Lake Design Inset 3 - Received 26 April 2024
Drawing No. CO.108.006 Rev A - Proposed Lake Design Inset 4 - Received 26 April 2024
Drawing No. CO.108.007 Rev B - Proposed Lake Design Inset 5 - Received 26 April 2024
Drawing No. CO.108/008 - Proposed Lake Sections - Received 19 December 2023
Drawing No. CO.113/001 - West Lake Public Bridge - Proposed Plans, elevation and typical section - Received 19 December 2023
Hydraulic Modelling Report Dated June 2024 by Waterco Rev 3 Ref: 15194-HMR-03.docx - Received 14 June 2024
Level 3 Flood Risk Assessment Report by JP Chick & Partners Ltd Report: IE22/014 FRA Dated 14 June 2024 Rev. 02 - Received 14 June 2024.
Drawing No. CO.108 017 - Proposed Section A-A - Received 26 April 2024.
Drawing No. CO.108 016 - Proposed Brick Pier Details Walled Garden - Received 26 April 2024.
Drawing No. CO.108 015 - Proposed South-East Elevations Walled Garden - Received 26 April 2024.
Drawing No. CO.108 014 - Proposed North-West Elevations Walled Garden - Received 26 April 2024.
Drawing No. CO.108 013 Rev A - Proposed Site Plan Walled Garden - Received 26 April 2024.
Arboricultural impact Assessment by Nicholsons Ref: 5981 Version 1 Dated December 2023
Draft Tree Protection Plan V2 - Inset 6 of the Arboricultural impact Assessment by Nicholsons.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced a Construction Management Plan shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Construction of the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.
The Construction Management Plan shall include the following matters:
a) parking and turning for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
b) loading and unloading of plant and materials
c) piling techniques (if applicable)
d) storage of plant and materials
e) provision and use of wheel washing facilities
f) programme of site and all associated works such as utilities including details of traffic management necessary to undertake these works
g) site working and delivery times
h) a communications plan to inform local residents of the program of works
i) provision of boundary hoarding and lighting
j) details of proposed means of dust suppression
k) details of measures to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during construction
l) haul routes for construction traffic on the highway network and
m) monitoring and review mechanisms.
n) Details of deliveries times to the site during construction phase.
o) Layout of facilities above to be included on a plan.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety to avoid the hazard caused by mud on the highway and to ensure minimal adverse impact on the public highway during the construction phase. This is a pre-commencement condition because an approved Construction Management Plan must be in place at the outset of the development.
4. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA no further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.
An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS 10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority that likely risks have been identified and will be investigated accordingly.
Where remediation is necessary a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) must be prepared and is subject to the review and confirmation in writing by the Local Planning Authority as likely to address the risks identified. The RS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The RS must be carried out in its entirety, and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.
Following completion of the remediation strategy a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to, reviewed by and confirmed in writing by the LPA as likely to have addressed the risks identified.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
5. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:
a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
b. The programme for post investigation assessment
c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation
e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation
f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy SCLP11.7 of Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6. Prior to first use the site investigation and post investigation assessment shall be completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 5 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.
Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy SCLP11.7 of Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (2020) and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Ecological Impact Assessment (CSA Environmental, 2023) and Ecological Impact Assessment Appendices (CSA Environmental, 2023) as submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.
8. No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:
a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities.
b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones".
c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements).
d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features.
e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works.
f) Responsible persons and lines of communication.
g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person.
h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected as part of the development.
9. No part of the development which may kill, injure or disturb great crested newt or damage or destroy a great crested newt breeding site or resting place, shall in any circumstances commence unless the local planning authority has been provided with
either:
a) a licence issued by Natural England pursuant to The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) (as amended) authorising the specified development to go ahead or demonstration that the appropriate Natural England Class Licence is in place to allow works to commence; or
b) a statement in writing from the relevant licensing body, or a suitably qualified and licenced ecologist, to the effect that it is not considered that the specified development will require a licence.
Reason: To ensure that the legislation relating to great crested newt has been adequately addressed as part of the implementation of the development.
10. Prior to first use details and the location of other associated infrastructure such as life belts and mooring points shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area.
11. Before the development within 30m of the existing Public Right of Way is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and SCC Green Access, showing the proposed bridge provision (Yoxford footpath 8) and detailed design specification. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is completed.
Reason: To promote and facilitate green access modes and to provide safe and suitable access for all users in accordance with National Planning Policy Framework (Dec 2024) Para. 115 and 117 and SCC Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) - Suffolk Green Access Strategy 2020. https://www.suffolk.gov.uk/asset-library/imported/suffolk-green-access-strategy-2020-2030.pd
12. All hedges or trees within the site, unless indicated as being removed within the Arboricultural impact Assessment by Nicholsons Ref: 5981 Version 1 Dated December 2023, shall be retained for at least five years following practical completion of the approved development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority; and these hedges/trees shall be protected by the erection of secure fencing as shown within the Draft Tree Protection Plan V2 - Inset plans 1 - 6 of the Arboricultural impact Assessment by Nicholsons.
Within the aforementioned five-year period any trees, parts of hedges or hedgerows removed without the Local Planning Authority's consent or which die or become, in the Authority's opinion, seriously damaged or otherwise defective shall be replaced and/or shall receive remedial action as required by the Authority. Such works shall be implemented by not later than the end of the following planting season, with plants of such size and species and in such number and positions as may be agreed with the Authority. The hedge(s) shall be reinforced with further planting where necessary to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the continuity of amenity afforded by existing hedges and trees.
13. Prior to first use of the lake details of the recreational activities proposed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lake shall thereafter be used in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interest of the residential amenity of nearby residents.