Meeting Details

There were no apologies for absence received.

Councillors Ninnmey and Reeves declared a Non-Registerable Interest for item 6 as Ward Members. Councillor Reeves asked to be recused from item 6 as he would be speaking as ward member and would not take part in the discussion or vote.

Councillors Reeves, McCallum, Smithson, Fisher and Bennett stated that the applicant had contacted them regarding item 7 and they had made no response. Councillor Deacon had also been contacted by the applicant and responded acknowledging the email and that it was noted.

On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley seconded by Councillor Reeves it was 
 
RESOLVED
 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 May 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2414. The Enforcement Officer explained there were a few updates to the published report. A.10 - The Old Golf Shop, Newbourne Road, Waldringfield was subject to an appeal so that would be dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate. B.8 – 12 Holland Road, Felixstowe had the appeal dismissed and the compliance period would now kick in. C1 – Portlight, The Ferry, Felixstowe was subject to an enforcement visit and the notice has been complied with so the case will be closed.

On the proposal of Councillor Deacon, seconded by Councillor Daly it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 22 May 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2416 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/1454/VOC. 

The Principal Planner gave a presentation, explaining that planning permission was granted for the erection of 50 dwellings, of which 33% was affordable housing provision, with associated landscaping, open space, access, drainage and parking (ref: DC/22/0991/FUL) in February 2023.  The applicant sought the removal of affordable housing based on a change in circumstances relating to the viability of the scheme. It was not considered financially viable and there was a lack of interest from Registered Providers. The application was referred to Planning Committee by the Head of Planning and Building Control due to the significance of the current situation in respect of the low interest in Section 106 affordable homes and to allow wider Planning Committee awareness and consideration of the process of consideration in reaching this recommendation and because of the Parish Council objection. 

The Principal Planner ran through the application timeline and the independent reviews that had been carried out which indicated a viability of 24% which was then reduced to 14%. At that point the Applicant proposed 8 flats and East Suffolk asked them to test the market with Registered Providers. After only receiving interest from one Registered Provider who then withdrew their offer the Applicant initially proposed a combination of homes and a commuted sum and then offered a commuted sum of £416,000, which was £52,158 more than required. 

The Principal Planner explained that since the report was published there had been an offer from East Suffolk Council’s Housing Team to purchase 4 units, which would equate to a delivery of 8% affordable units. This had been verbally accepted and so the recommendation contained in the report had been amended and was in the update sheet. 

Councillor Daly asked the Principal Planner to say what constituted ‘viable’ and had it been tested independently. The Principal Planner explained that the applicant submitted an updated viability assessment which was independently assessed by an expert appointed by East Suffolk. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the commuted sum was £52k more than would come out of this development. This had gone through various rounds of review with the viability consultant and he had faith in the viability consultants that had been engaged.

Councillor McCallum pointed out that house prices in Felixstowe were down 4% on last year and 9% on 2022 and if this was considered as part of the viability assessments. The Planning Manager said it was based on land value and resale value. He explained that viability was a tricky beast that was not understood by many authorities. However, the criteria were well established in national guidance and followed strictly by the consultants they had used, who are held to professional standards they must follow.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the three houses that the Applicant offered as stated in paragraph 7.9 of the report, were still on offer or was it just 4 in total. The Principal Planner explained that 3 was the viability offer made by the Applicant initially, after which they reached an agreement that 14% was viable and that was when the Applicant went out to Registered Providers. However, because they were unable to find a provider the Applicant then offered £412k which was £52k above what they needed to provide. The Housing Team then made an offer for 4 units so it was just 4 on offer. Councillor Ninnmey asked what the price per square metre was. The Principal Planner could not say but the Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the offer exceeded the amount of the commuted sum.

Councillor Smithson asked what percentage of affordable housing was actually being delivered and if the 33% was just a fantasy figure. The Planning Manager explained that the new figure of 8% was a disappointment but that building out developments was not straight forward. He did not believe the Applicant was trying it on or trying to get past the system. The planners had robustly challenged the Applicant and had reached this final position after extensive independent review. He pointed out that the commuted sum was a considerable amount. He also pointed out that although there was expenditure in buying the properties there was a return to the Council in terms of rent. The planning team fought hard to reach the recommendations but this wouldn’t set a precedent for future developments as each case is assessed independently. 

Councillor Deacon asked that if we were 46 affordable units short in the district where would these come from. The Principal Planner explained that there should have been 17 units originally so they were 13 short. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that if East Suffolk received a commuted sum it would be available for the Housing team for affordable housing across the district. Other developments were coming forward without viability issues and they had a good record with 230 affordable units in the district last year. He pointed out there were different CIL rates to boost development in some areas.

The Planning Manager clarified that what was on offer was either 4 units or the commuted sum.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if it was factored into the viability assessment that the developer would now have 46 houses, 13 more than originally planned, to market. The Planning Manager confirmed it was. Councillor Ninnmey felt that if the figures in the future were better than expected ESC should be able to claw back some additional money.

Councillor Beavan joined via Zoom to speak as Objector. He explained that all s106 applications should come to him before they were refused but this one didn’t. However in two days they found the money to buy 4. They didn’t have the time to get finance to buy more affordable housing and requested that the Applicant gave them more time to see if they could improve their offer as there was very little affordable housing in this area. He asked Members to reject the application if they could not get the Applicant to delay.

The Head of Planning and Building Control reminded Members that Councillor Beavan was meant to be objecting as a member of the public not as Cabinet Member. Councillor McCallum asked Councillor Beavan if he was objecting as Cabinet Member or Objector. He confirmed he was objecting as a member of the public.

Councillor Ninnmey asked how many houses could be purchased with this commuted sum. Councillor McCallum expressed a point of order about him being asked questions as Cabinet Member. The Chair agreed and advised that they moved on.

Councillor Reeves read out a statement on behalf of Trimley St Mary Parish Council. The Parish Council strongly disagreed with the variation as there was an increasing number of people waiting for an affordable home locally. They questioned how hard the developer had tried to market these homes if it was not in their best interest to provide them. They felt it was not the duty of the planning committee to make sure the developer made a profit when selling their homes. The Parish Council urged the planning committee to turn down this application and ensure that the affordable homes that it set out to supply through the planning systems was upheld.

The Applicant/agent had not registered to speak.

Councillor Reeves spoke as Ward Member. He pointed out that there were more than 4,500 residents in East Suffolk awaiting social housing. He stated that this development should have delivered 17 affordable units and now the proposal would see all removed and replaced with a commuted sum or just 4 units. The loss of 13 affordable homes would equate to approximately £30,750 per house lost to East Suffolk although this amount would be insufficient to build affordable homes. 

He accepted there was an issue with Registered Providers but suggested it could be a short-term issue. He would like the council and housing associations to work with funding providers through bonds or bodies such as the Armed Forces Covenant Capital Fund.  He did not believe it was the job of East Suffolk to compensate developers or ensure their profits if the market had a downturn. He was concerned about the lack of transparency on planning issues and how this could alienate residents and lead to criticism of councillors. Most residents could see the prices of houses in Trimley, many built on green fields, balanced by a third of them being affordable although many of these were not truly affordable for local people. He said cynics would argue that a reduction in affordable houses merely to maintain a certain level of profit for the developer had become the norm. They agreed 33% and then later renegued or sought a reduction. He cited several other developments by Matthew Homes that had seen reductions in affordable housing. 

In light of the new recommendation, which only came through last night, he didn’t think the decision should be taken today. He asked Members to defer their decision, especially as the developer was not here to answer questions, as there was still a chance to salvage some of the affordable housing on this development.

The Planning Manager reminded members that they should be considering the proposal before them, not the specific Applicant and their other developments across the country.

Councillor Ninnmey asked how many people had moved out of Trimley and were in emergency accommodation as there was no affordable housing for them there. Councillor Reeves did not have this figure but the Housing Team would. There were 4,500 residents in need of housing across the district though.

Councillor Deacon felt that having received this information it would be in our interests to defer making a decision, which the Chair confirmed.

Councillor Smithson asked when the land was purchased. The Head of Planning and Building Control said it wasn’t information they had available at the moment but the applicant was the name on the planning application. He was unsure if they already owned the land at that point or if they had an option on the land subject to permission being granted. They originally applied in 2022 and permission was granted in 2023.

Councillor Hedgley asked about the repercussions if there was a deferment. The Planning Manager questioned what would be achieved through a deferral. They had presented the recommendation for a commuted sum which had gone through a rigorous process. The 4 units offer was a reduction but this was all that can really be achieved on this site. The applicant could also appeal for non-determination if deferred. He couldn’t say if there would be any further information to present and accepted it was a disappointing outcome, but did not want to raise member expectations that a deferral would lead to a different proposal.

The Chair stated that he understood why people would want to defer as there hadn’t been the time to fully digest the new recommendation. 

Councillor Daly felt that they could justify deferment as after only a couple of days East Suffolk found the ability to purchase 4 units so after a few more months they could possibly find more money and purchase more units. He felt it was unfortunate that the Applicant wasn’t here. He felt that with increases to material costs and house prices being affected by the amount of building going on  the company was playing the system and going for the lowest level possible. East Suffolk’s priority of 33% justified deferring this until the Housing Team could get on to this and see if there was an improvement.

The Chair pointed out that deferring could mean the offer was then rejected and East Suffolk could only end up with the lower commuted sum.

Councillor Deacon said the lack of homes that people can actually afford to buy was a tragedy. Felixstowe had seen a lot of green fields go over to housing and we were promised affordable homes. We’ve lost both the countryside and the affordable homes so the council needed to take the risk of deferment. 

Councillor Ninnmey had looked at the figures and was struck by how much £416k could be used to deliver affordable housing. He felt what was more pressing was that Registered Providers were reluctant to purchase their share of affordable housing. He felt East Suffolk should hold the line on 33% being delivered. He was happy to propose deferring the decision.

The Chair asked if anyone wanted to propose the recommendation in the report. Councillor McCallum felt the Council could lose out if the decision was deferred. If the recommendation was accepted then you would have either 4 affordable units or the enhanced commuted sum. She believed they had done their best to prove their viability and couldn’t see the benefit of deferring for another month.

On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Hedgley the recommendation to approve the variation of condition as detailed in the update sheet failed. Therefore an alternative proposal was sought. There was a discussion around the short notice given to digest the new recommendation and this was sufficient reason to defer. Councillor McCallum voiced concern that Councillor Beavan spoke more as Cabinet member than objector. The Chair explained they were looking primarily for a deferral on the grounds of the applicant not being here.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that there had been interactions between the Housing Team and Planning throughout as Housing was a consultee. They will buy s106 houses that are available on developments but the Housing Team declined to purchase twice on this development. However on the publication of the planning committee report on Monday they then put in an offer for 4 units. He explained that they had reached a conclusion on the viability of the development and s106 properties were sold at cost price. If the Housing Team offered to purchase more this might be at an open market rate. 

Councillor Smithson felt they didn’t have enough information about what the £416k could buy, for example could we deliver 8 with the £416k.

On the proposal of Councillor Ninnmey, seconded by Councillor Smithson it was 

RESOLVED

 
That the decision should be deferred to enable officers to discuss the Affordable Housing provision with the Applicant and the Housing Team.

A short comfort break was taken before resuming the meeting.

The Committee received report ES/2415 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1051/VOC. The Senior Planner gave a presentation, explaining that the proposal sought retrospective permission for the variation of condition 2 of DC/20/3495/FUL which originally permitted the removal of an existing shed and the erection of a two-bay cart lodge and store. The proposal sought to amend the drawings of the proposed cart lodge to show an overall taller building.

The application triggered the Planning Referral Panel Process because the Parish Council’s objection was contrary to the 'minded to' recommendation of officers. The Planning Referral Panel referred the application to Planning Committee based on the application drawing significant public interest.

The Senior Planner showed the approved and proposed block plans, street scene plans and elevations. He pointed out that the ground level was now lower than originally shown and the overall height had increased by around 90cm. He showed photographs of the site and building from various views. He showed the flood zone map as concerns about flooding were raised as part of the objections but it was not felt there was any increased risk of flooding resulting from this building.

He ran through the material planning considerations and key issues and stated that none of them were sufficient to refuse. Considered against all relevant material planning matters, the application was deemed sustainable and therefore it was recommended for approval in accordance with the NPPF and the relevant policies of the adopted development plan. 

Councillor Hedgley asked if it was in the curtilage of a listed building. The Senior Planner explained it was in the curtilage of a grade II listed building but it didn’t require listed building consent as it was detached.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if by raising the roof it created a habitable space on the first floor which they wouldn’t have had in the original design. The Senior Planner said the Applicant had advised there was no real extra usable space as the trusses they bought were larger than they expected.

Councillor Smithson asked if the Applicant would have to return for planning permission if it was turned into a habitable space. The Senior Planner confirmed that they would for a holiday let or if they wanted to add additional windows. The limited roof lights didn’t make it very habitable and a condition could be added that the space could only be used for storage and not sleeping accommodation.

The Chair invited Lewis Marshall to speak as Objector. He asked for image 4 from the presentation to be shown. He felt the cart lodge was incongruous to the setting with its increased height. The ridge line was now higher than the surrounding listed properties and the doors make it look like a dwelling. He believed the vantage points should be greater and decision makers should pay special regard to the setting of listed buildings. The planning officer has stated there wouldn’t be significant harm but in October 2023 Storm Babet caused flooding to all four cottages. The concern was not from the river but from the road. He pointed out that from image 7 onwards it showed how much the cart lodge protruded which was something you wouldn’t see it if it was at the agreed original height.

Councillor Hedgley asked if he objected to the original proposal. Mr Marshall said he didn’t object as the hedge would have screened it. When the annexe was put on Pike Cottage it was said that it could only be used as part of the main dwelling, however it has since been used as two holiday lets. He believed the increased height would allow for use as another holiday let.

Councillor Trevor Gill from Letheringham Parish Council was invited to speak. He explained there had been 12 letters of objection which was around 50% of the village. The Council believed the letters have been considered but ignored. He said the Parish Council supported the original application but this building was now 90cm higher and the ridge line dominates. The VOC application says there was an error with the roof trusses purchased but you can see that the walls have been built higher. The Parish Council find it hard to believe that there was a mistake and feels this undermines planning integrity and trust when Applicants apply for approval and then apply for a variation. He urged the planning committee to enforce the original planning permission. He pointed out that Councillors were volunteers who gave up so much time but wouldn’t want to be involved if the system was regularly circumvented.

Councillor Hedgley asked if the Parish Council was happy with the original application. Councillor Gill said they were but this variation was totally different.

Councillor Daly asked if they disagreed with the planning officer’s view that the changes were not considered to significantly change the street scene to a substantial degree. Councillor Gill said yes and the street scene was now subservient.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if their concern about this being used as a future let was their opinion and would the impact be significant. Councillor Gill didn’t know if they wanted permission as a holiday let. However an extra metre of internal height was quite a lot and the set up was completely different. You could see it was totally different.

The Applicant was invited to speak. He explained he was not a developer but he was in environment consultancy. He stated that the property had been owned by the family for over 50 years across two generations. They approached with respect for the village and environment and the original application in 2020 was designed in collaboration with architects and the council. They had received no objections from anyone in the village. He said this application was to regularise the genuine construction error due to an error between him, the builder and roof truss manufacturer. He was away and a neighbour contacted Enforcement who found the ridge height to be 90cm higher. Work stopped once the building was watertight and they have fully complied with enforcement. None of the objections had been sent to him directly. He felt that the height increase was unobstrusive and was shielded by a hedge whilst the closest property was over 22 metres away. There was no loss of daylight or view and he did not think the height increase significantly impacted the village, which was the same view held by the planning team. He asked Members for their support.

Councillor Smithson asked if he owned and lived at the property. The Applicant said he didn’t live there but he used it often.

Councillor Ninnmey asked why the wall height had increased and who instructed the walls to be built higher. The Applicant explained that the first floor height was the same as the original application and there was an error with the pre-manufactured truss. Councillor Ninnmey asked again about the supporting walls being higher than the original plans showed. The Applicant explained that was in the design of the truss manufacturer. Councillor Ninnmey said he didn’t understand the explanation.

The Chair said that it was not just the height that had changed but other aspects had too and asked for clarity. The Applicant said they had dropped down 300mm into the ground due to foundations being constructed in wet weather. The window had replaced the doors and the window was smaller and matched the annexe. The Chair felt it now looked more suited to people staying there.  The Applicant stated that they wanted more light into the store and it was not their intention to make this a holiday let. 

Councillor Reeves asked the Applicant if the building would definitely not be used as a holiday let. The Applicant confirmed that it wouldn’t. Councillor Reeves asked if they would be content with a condition to prevent it being used as a holiday let. The Applicant said that wasn’t what they had applied for and it wasn’t their intent to use it that way and he would have to see what the condition said. The Chair said it would be as Councillor Reeves stated to which the Applicant asked for how long. The Chair said it would be forever to which the Applicant replied that he would need to look at the wording.

Councillor Langdon-Morris joined remotely and spoke as Ward Member. He had visited the site. Altering designs should go through planning before construction took place. He raised concerns about flooding in this area and they were seeing a lot of deviation from agreed planning permissions across the District. He said changes should go through the planning department and how far along the planning process were we allowing changes to be made. He therefore objected.

The Planning Manager pointed out that a key concern that had come out was the upper floor being used as a holiday let. He explained that it would require planning permission if it was. The plan showed the area was limited to storage and it would be reasonable to include a condition to limit it to storage space only. He offered reassurance to the Parish Council and community and said their objections were not ignored. Their objections directly triggered the referral panel and the application being brought to Committee for determination, so the democratic process had been followed.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the ridge height was determined by the trusses or the supporting walls. The Planning Manager was not party to the discussions. He said they made recommendations and members have to look at what has been built and judge if that was acceptable or not. The original wall heights with the trusses may have resulted in an overhang and a change in appearance.

The Committee moved to debate. Councillor McCallum said she had sympathy with the residents. She said they either followed the officer’s recommendation with a condition that it could only be used for storage or they refused the application and go down the enforcement route at which point the applicant can appeal the decision. She was minded to go with the recommendation for approval with the additional condition about storage only.

Councillor Smithson had concerns about retrospective applications happening quite often when there was a proper process to be followed, so was minded to reject it. However if it was approved it must have the storage condition.

Councillor Hedgley had a lot of sympathy for the Parish Council and had a very similar situation in his ward. It had gone to appeal and they were still waiting for an answer after a year. He would go against the recommendation.

Councillor Fisher felt it would be difficult to enforce but what did matter is the greater impact from the increased height of the building so would vote against this application.

Councillor Deacon felt the impact was quite significant. Councillor Reeves rejected the recommendation to approve.

The Chair said it was the visual impact and the physical structure rather than usage that was the concern. Councillor McCallum decided to go with the rest of the committee.

The Chair sought a proposer for the report recommendation to approve but no-one wished to propose it so he sought a proposer to refuse the application. The Planning Manager reminded Members that they required a reason for refusal that referenced a planning policy. Councillor Smithson said it was the visual impact. Councillor McCallum said no listed building consent had been applied for, but the Planning Manager explained listed building consent was not required.  Councillor Daly disagreed that the new change did not significantly change the street scene so it was the policy relating to landscape character that mattered. It was agreed that it was contrary to policies SCLP 10.4 and SCLP11.1.

On the proposal of Councillor Smithson, seconded by Councillor Deacon it was unanimously
 

RESOLVED
 

That the application be refused as it was contrary to SCLP10.4 and SCLP11.1.