Meeting Details

Apologies for absence were received from

Councillor Deacon – substituted by Councillor Byatt

Councillor Daly – substituted by Councillor Ashton

Councillor Smithson

On the proposal of Councillor Reeves seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was 

RESOLVED

 
That the minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Enforcement Officer was unable to attend today’s meeting so the Planning Manager asked Members to take the report as read and would take any questions and feedback after the meeting. The Chair had raised two Felixstowe items with the Planning Manager who would follow up with the Enforcement Officer.

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

RESOLVED

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

Councillor Reeves moved to the public gallery.

The Committee received report ES/2500 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/1454/VOC. The application sought to vary condition 2 of planning permission DC/22/0991/FUL for the erection of 50 dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure. The Principal Planner gave a presentation and ran through the history of the application. In April 2024 an application was submitted regarding a variation to the affordable housing element. Rapidly rising construction costs and static/falling house prices had led to questions about the viability. The amendment would enable the Affordable Housing Layout plan (AHL.01.Rev B) in the approved list of drawings to be changed following an update to the viability of the scheme. Should a resolution to grant planning permission be accepted, a Deed of Variation to the s106 Agreement would be required to reflect the revised Affordable Housing position. 

The Principal Planner explained that the Applicant’s justification for the amendments was based on a change in circumstances relating to the viability of the approved scheme, construction costs, static and decreasing house prices, Building Regulations coupled with a lack of interest, or unviable offers, from Registered Providers.  The s106 clause states that “If the Council is satisfied that demand from Registered Providers has not been forthcoming for Reasonable Consideration the Council will enter into written negotiations with the Owner to seek an agreed way forward that does not disadvantage the Owner whilst maximising the provision of Affordable Housing.” After many negotiations they reached a settlement which was presented to Planning South in June 2025 proposing the purchase of four houses by East Suffolk’s Housing Team. The decision was deferred to allow further negotiations and after further scrutiny of the viability assessment a revised offer of purchasing six houses by the Housing Team was now being proposed. The abnormal costs had been reduced by £318k and the price £/sqft had reduced from £368 to £355.

The recommendation was to grant planning permission to vary condition 2 pursuant DC/22/0991/FUL, subject to a s106 Deed of Variation to amend the provision of Affordable Housing to 6 on-site units (12%).

The Chair invited questions to the planning officers.

Councillor Hedgley asked if six was as high as they could go. The Principal Planner explained that the original offer was for ESC to buy four dwellings or a commuted sum from the developer, but Members voted to defer to see if any more affordable housing could be squeezed out of the developer. As a result they are willing to sell six units to East Suffolk Housing.

Councillor Ninnmey was perturbed by the whole thing. 50 houses will be built and 17 would have been affordable but now we are letting them reduce the offering significantly which increases their profit margin by 40%. He asked if this was correct or is he was misreading it and they wouldn’t be going back to the landowner asking for a reduction in the purchase price and that it was just the affordable housing that was taking the hit.

The Principal Planner said no and explained that the Housing Team made an offer for four but the decision was deferred to see if they could purchase more. They then revised their offer to six which was retested for viability against updated costs. It is technically unviable for the developer and they will lose out by £92k but they are happy to agree to this to get the application over the line.

Councillor Hedgley asked what the result would be if they refused the application. The Principal Planner explained that the viability had been tested by an independent consultant. If it went to appeal there was a chance that the council would lose even more affordable housing.

Councillor Ashton asked what the viability profit margin was as a percentage. The Principal Planner was unsure but a loss of £92k was significant. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the national position was 15-20% profit and in this instance it was 17.5%. This had been tested in case law and appeals.

Councillor Ashton asked that this was the viability of just this site which was confirmed by the Head of Planning and Building Control. Councillor Ashton asked if he was correct in thinking that if East Suffolk purchased more properties the viability got worse. The Principal Planner confirmed he was correct.  

The Chair invited Councillor Beavan to speak as Objector. Councillor Beavan quoted the report saying that construction costs had risen and sales prices remained static and there were additional costs related to Building Regulations. He said compliance with Building Regulations was not an abnormal cost. The Office of National Statistics reports that the average house price in East Suffolk was £300k in March 2023 increasing to £305k in March 2024 when they claimed the fall in prices. The BCIS index showed that costs were already increasing in 2023 when the developers got planning permission. He did not feel that their claims stacked up. He said the gross development of the site was £50m and East Suffolk would be guaranteeing them 20% profit of £3m, minus £92k, which was a substantial profit. The developer agreed to 17 affordable homes and he asked why homeless families should suffer when the developer paid 12x what the land was worth. He finished by saying that he would like another three months to find the money to buy another six homes and asked the Committee to stand up for homeless families as we need homes that people can afford to live in.

The Chair invited questions to Councillor Beavan.

Councillor Ninnmey said due to Covid very few house transactions took place at that time which then led to a spike in prices and sales after the pandemic. However now the demand had softened in the housing market. He asked if there was a misrepresentation in the figures presented in the report.

Councillor Beavan said prices were static and not keeping up with inflation which was a good thing. Margins were being squeezed in building but why should affordable housing be the thing that suffered. It should be the price of the land. There was fat there to cut and that should be used to supply affordable housing. The hope value should be disregarded and then the development does become viable.

Councillor Byatt asked about the three month deferral and if they could find funding with that cushion. Councillor McCallum raised a point of order that Councillor Beavan was here as an objector and not cabinet member. The Chair dismissed the question.

Councillor Hedgley appreciates the passion but if we turned it down and it went to appeal and we lost and had to pay, would it be worth it. Councillor Beavan said it was vital we won this argument and with the requirement to build 1,700 houses under the new regulations we want as many of those to be as affordable as possible. 

The Planning Manager acknowledged the emotion and cynicism around this application. He reassured Members that the independent consultant, BNP Paribas, often push back and they were rigorous in their testing. The planners don’t just accept the findings at face value. He wanted to give members confidence that they instructed an independent assessment and there should be no perception that there were incorrect facts. A robust process has been followed.

Councillor Ashton asked if the changes in house prices were reflected in the BNP Paribas viability assessment as that is material to whether we should accept the assessment or not. The Planning Manager said the review reflected the current situation which is why there was a reduction in the abnormal costs. The Principal Planner explained that the sale price per sqft had reduced which cancelled out the benefit of the reduction in the abnormal costs, which was why there was still a deficit.

Councillor Reeves was invited to speak as ward member. He felt strongly about the need for more affordable homes in the ward. He expressed concern that all the green land was being built on and the chance to have affordable homes was very limited. To lose this many affordable homes here was a disaster. At the previous meeting he asked that further possibilities be explored such as funding through bonds and Armed Forces Capital Fund but he was not sure if anything had been done in this regard. He was unsure if the developer had approached such bodies about potential interest. He pointed out that it was not good that the developer had not turned up to the meeting again. The Council needed to send a message to developers that if they want to work with councils they need to sit down and talk to us. He asked for the decision to be deferred again, citing lack of developer attendance. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked about approaching another provider and if this would mean an immediate retrofit. Councillor Reeves was not aware of the spec they were working to but as Councillor Beavan said, working to Building Regulations should be a standard cost.

The Head of Planning and Building Control summed up. He explained that the key point was that there had been an exhaustive process of review. He said it gave planners no satisfaction to deal with the loss of affordable housing but they had a s106 that had mechanisms to address issues like this. He pointed out it was a national situation that there is little take up from Registered Providers for affordable homes. He said they must accept the position that has been arrived at and work with what was on the table. The application had been independently reviewed and they had worked with the consultant over several years. It was a very objective position reached through national guidance and policies. He appreciated the strong feelings and regretted seeing this situation. He was satisfied with the recommendation in the report but he does hear the local concerns and they are working hard to achieve affordable homes. He reminded Members that they had to reach a position. 

The Chair invited Members to debate. Councillor Hedgley didn’t doubt that officers had made every effort to get affordable housing on this site. He didn’t believe the developers were being allowed to get away with it. His concern was that if the Committee refused the application how much longer would it go on for. The applicant would take it to appeal and if we lost we pay for it. He recommended biting the bullet and that this was as far as we can go on this. 

Councillor McCallum concurred with Councillor Hedgley. She was on the list for social housing but realises we won’t get everything we want. She didn’t think it was a bad offer. It was a sad situation but markets and values change. She couldn’t vote against this and couldn’t see us winning at appeal. Despite her own necessity for somewhere to live she would vote in favour.

Councillor Ninnmey was disturbed and surprised that the developer was not here in person. He would like to know which five Registered Providers had been approached and why they weren’t interested. He acknowledged that housing rental prices were increasing dramatically whilst house sales prices were declining but this would reverse. He wished to vote in favour of a further deferment in order to get a better deal.

Councillor Ashton said fundamentally the market was the problem and wondered if it was worth challenging viability rather than improving efficiencies. He was very concerned about the principle of challenging viability. He had taken on board what had been said and acknowledged the lack of demand from registered providers but the elephant in the room was the land value, as the developer paid over the odds. The developers should be dealing with the landowners. He accepted the points raised by Councillors McCallum and Hedgley but there are times to allow the appeal process to go through. He felt this was a chance to voice our concerns about viability and was minded to refuse and defend at appeal as that would test it. He was not in favour of deferring again. 

Councillor Byatt felt it was a sword of Damocles situation – damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Deferring again could see an even greater increase in costs and if delayed and it went to appeal it would delay any affordable housing. He noted that the developer was willing to take a hit against their profits although it would have been nice to have the developer here today. He was minded to approve as this project needed to get started.

Councillor Fisher agreed with Councillor Byatt. He didn’t like to support something that provided such few affordable houses but thought this was the best deal we would get.

Councillor Ninnmey asked for clarity that Councillor Ashton meant there wasn’t demand from housing providers rather than for social housing. Councillor Ashton confirmed he meant it was a lack of interest from housing providers.

On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was 

RESOLVED

Resolve to grant planning permission to vary condition 2 pursuant DC/22/0991/FUL, subject to a S106 Deed of Variation to amend the provision of Affordable Housing to 6no. on-site units.

Conditions:

1. Condition 2 to be updated to replace approved Site Layout (SL.01.F) with revised Site Layout (SL.01.J) and removal of Affordable Housing Layout (AHL.01.B):

The development hereby permitted shall be completed in all respects strictly in accordance with: 
Drwg. No. SL.01.1 C received 04.09.2025;
AHL.01.1 C received 04.09.2025;
Drwg. No. LP 01 A received 10.03.2022; 
Drwg. Nos., SL.01F, HLP.01 F and STORAGE,02.pe B received 01.09.2022; 
and the following plans received 01.08.2022: 
AHL.01 B, BDLM.01 B, RCP.01 B, PP.01 B, PM-01 B , POS.01 B, FB-A.e B, FB-A.P1 B, FB-A.P2 B, FB-A.P3 B, HT-2B4P.e B, HT-2B4P.p B, HT-2B4P-MID.e B, HT-2B4P-MID.p B, HT-3B5P.e1 B, HT_3B5P.p B, HT-3B5P-MID.pe A, HT.766.e B, HT.766M4(2).p B, HT.966-M4(2).p B, HT.966-2.e B, HT.966.p B, HT.966-M4(2)-2e B, HT.1136.e B, HT.1136.p B, HT-1102.e B, HT-1102 M4 (2).p B, HT.1102.p B, HT.1102M4(2).e B, HT-1319.e B, HT-1319.p B, HT-1319-B.e B, HT-1319-B.p B, HT-1424.e B, HT-1424.p B, P.9-11.e A, P.9-11.p A, STORAGE.01.pe B, GAR.01.pe B, GAR.02.pe B, GAR.03.pe A, MAT22825-11 sheet 1 B, MAT22825-11 sheet 2 B, MAT22825-11 sheet 3 B, MAT22825 man A, MAT22825spec (received 10.03.2022), MAT22825-03 A and MAT22825aia_ams A for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.

2. The other conditions shall be as per the parent planning permission with minor amendments to the wording as appropriate, in order to reflect the changes to condition 2. 

The Committee received report ES/2501 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/24/4253/FUL. The Assistant Planning Officer gave a presentation. She explained that the application sought permission for the creation of a new HGV training facility on land at Otley College on Charity Lane in Otley. She ran through a summary of the comments from the Parish Council and answered their queries. It was noted that Highways had not objected to the application. 

Members were shown a map of the site and the road network and parish boundaries were pointed out. A series of photos of the site, access and street view of the B1078 were shown. The Assistant Planning Officer noted that it was raised by objectors that Charity Lane had signs saying not suitable for HGVs. This has been raised with Highways but no objection was received.  Existing and proposed block plans showing access points were shown and the Assistant Planning Officer explained that it was not possible for vehicles to turn left and go along Charity Lane but they would only be able to turn right and travel a short distance on Charity Lane to reach the B1078. 

The Assistant Planning Officer concluded that the application complied with the policies of the Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and was therefore recommended for approval.

The Chair invited Members to ask questions of the Assistant Planning Officer.

The Chair asked for clarity on the longest vehicle that would be permitted. The Assistant Planning Officer said it would be 18.75m.

Councillor McCallum expressed concern at the lack of information from Highways and queried why they hadn’t responded further. The Assistant Planning Officer had queried this with Highways who were reconsulted after the traffic management plan was received. The only comment from Highways related to preventing vehicles turning south onto Charity Lane. Councillor McCallum asked if they were invited to the meeting and it was confirmed they weren’t.

Councillor Hedgley asked if 6 trips per day was a condition. The Assistant Planning Officer explained it was part of the traffic management statement which was conditioned. Councillor Hedgley was concerned that due to the demand for bus and HGV drivers from Sizewell C (SZC) this could be built up into a big training centre. The Assistant Planning Officer said this was not the impression they had received. The college had received funding to train SZC workers but the site was limited in size and so there was limited scope for expansion.
 
Councillor Ashton asked for reassurance that Highways had understood this application fully and had no objections, rather than they had no objections because they hadn’t understood it. The Planning Manager explained that had they received just one response you could think that. However, the Assistant Planning Officer had followed up with Highways and he was comfortable that the correct process had been followed. He would liked to have had Highways here but they can’t be invited to every meeting. He was comfortable with the assessment that had been done. 

Councillor McCallum said other applications don’t involve such large vehicles. She would have preferred to see Highways here at the meeting and wondered if they should defer to allow Highways to attend.

The Planning Manager explained it was the gift of Members to defer but he was not sure what they would gain. It might provide reassurance to the community but he wouldn’t want to be in a position that you can only feel comfortable with highways matters if a Highways officer is in the room. He would not encourage a deferral. 

Councillor McCallum asked if Highways had assessed the application by visiting the site or was it a desktop review. The Head of Planning and Building Control said they had rigorous reviews of applications by SCC. They do undertake site visits and review the materials and representations received. However there was a resourcing issue associated with asking consultees to attend.

The Chair agreed with Councillor McCallum and said that we should look at each case individually. He felt that in this case we should have invited someone from Highways. The Chair asked about the Quiet Lane designation and if the B1078 also had a sign saying not suitable for large vehicles. The Assistant Planning Officer thought it was just Charity Lane.

The Chair asked for the distance between the exit from the site and the B1078 and if there were any residential properties along this stretch. The Assistant Planning Officer confirmed that it was 275m from the exit of site to the B1078, there were two semi-detached properties to the north of the site and one residential neighbour to the southwest of site but the land surrounding this section of Charity Lane was just countryside.

Councillor Ninnmey was mindful of traffic at the start and end of the school day and asked if there should be a condition to limit the hours of operation. The Chair accepted this was a valid point but one for when they debated.

Councillor Reeves asked if the vehicles would be dual controlled. The Assistant Planning Officer didn’t know but the Applicant may be able to answer that question.

Councillor Byatt asked if planning officers knew how many HGVs/vehicles passed along that route on a normal day and how much this application will add to the traffic. He could see no flood lights but assumed they would need security lighting to protect expensive vehicles.

The Assistant Planning Officer said there were no security measures put forward and was not aware of vehicle movement numbers. The Planning Manager confirmed that there was a recommended condition to secure a lighting design strategy. 

The Chair invited the Objector to speak. He explained that he lived on Charity Lane about a mile from the site and was also speaking on behalf of the family at Silverdene about 100m from the site. He pointed out that this was a narrow C road with a few passing places and no pavements or crossing points. Adding learner HGV drivers to the mix was reckless. He acknowledged that the design stopped vehicles turning left towards Grundisburgh, but the instructors will choose their own routes. He pointed out there were 5 HGV trainers within 15 miles and asked why the college had not engaged with these providers. He stated that it conflicted with planning policy and should be totally rejected.

Councillor Ninnmey said that Otley Bottom shut frequently due to flooding so the route back would come past his house.

Councillor Byatt asked the Objector for his views on heavy vehicles. The Objector said he had a tractor and horse box. He said the road was dangerous with them frequently unable to walk the dogs without jumping into the hedge. At harvest time lorries were going at 100mph and it scared them to think of articulated lorries being driven along this road by people who had never driven one before. 

The Chair invited Councillor Mike Bowers of Otley Parish Council to speak. He showed some photographs of the access and two lorries trying to pass each other. He said they were happy with the traffic survey as a condition but paragraph 55 of the NPPF says there are 6 steps necessary but 4 are unenforceable. He questioned if they were HGVs or LGVs and asked where they would park together with all the vehicles associated with staff. At this point the Chair had to ask him to finish as he had used his allocated three minutes. 

Councillor Ashton asked Councillor Bowers to make his last point. Councillor Bowers said you couldn’t get two lorries down the B1079 at the same time and it was 6 miles to an A road.

The Chair invited the Applicant to speak. She explained that Otley College was the rural campus of Suffolk New College. There was a local and national shortage of lorry and bus drivers which was exacerbated by SZC. They had been offered funding to train the unemployed or those on low incomes who couldn’t otherwise access training. They would never be a commercial HGV trainer but they had the ability and expertise to access funding to offer bespoke in depth training to those in this target group. She said the impact on the area would be very low with only one bus and one HGV. It would be a modest facility but would provide a vital area of training. She explained that it would be initial training with use of B and A roads rather than more complex routes.

Councillor Hedgley asked if there would be 30-40 pupils. The Applicant explained that it was unlikely to be any more than that as they were subject to funding and demand but this was on par with other courses they ran for the unemployed. Councillor Hedgley asked what would happen if more applied. The Applicant said they would train as many as they got funding for but it was intensive training for small volumes.

Councillor Hedgley asked if they would meet SZC’s demand for more HGV drivers. The Applicant explained they were responding to the need of the local economy. Lots of businesses were impacted by SZC and had a lack of drivers.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the funder was prepared to look at putting passing places on Charity Lane on the basis that it was narrow. He asked if they did agricultural machinery driving training, if they had tachographs in vehicles and how often would they go on the road. The Applicant said they had funding for the groundworks and would look for additional revenue funding for training.  The land on both sides of Charity Lane between the exit and the B1078 was owned by the College as were the nearby houses which were lived in by college staff. She said they could mitigate the impact with our own traffic management.

Councillor Reeves asked if the vehicles would be dual control. The Applicant explained that it was a year since they applied but they can’t proceed until they have planning in place. She expected the vehicles to be dual control and for them to have dash cams.

Councillor Reeves asked how it would be for learner drivers, looking at the photo of the two lorries being unable to pass each other. The Applicant said they would only work with very experienced trainers who would risk assess. Councillor Reeves pointed out that they wouldn’t be able to access an A road without going down that road pictured. The Applicant explained that the scene shown was the Otley bottom side and would expect them to go the other way but it was something they would look at in detail. She said we all need trained drivers.

Councillor McCallum asked if the funding could be used to do the training somewhere else, such as Debach. The Applicant explained that it wouldn’t be them taking it forward if it was done elsewhere and there were wider facilities that they offered on site. Councillor McCallum suggested that they still held classes at Otley but could do the vehicle training elsewhere. She asked how the college benefitted from having this facility on site. The Applicant said there was no profit to the college from this project. They needed the reversing area as part of the training of the individuals. She acknowledged there were other facilities but they would have to pay to use them and this was not the proposal put forward. 

Councillor Ashton said they needed to consider the application in front of them. He reflected on learning to drive and said there would be a point where learner drivers would need to navigate tight spots. He wondered if it could be a condition that only trainers could drive off site initially. The Applicant said this was a likely scenario and was happy with that condition. Trainers would expect to take people out in smaller vehicles to start with and there would be a lot of pre-assessment to check the student’s aptitude of driving large vehicles.

The Chair asked if the attendees would be charged less to take the course because it was subsidised and asked who the target audience was. He also asked why they needed 18.75m vehicles which seemed huge and unnecessary. The Applicant explained that the training would be free or very low cost for the target groups – the unemployed or low waged. She didn’t expect the vehicles would be that large but would train on smallest vehicles that were compliant with passing the test.

Councillor Reeves asked where the small vehicles would be stored as the application referenced only two vehicles. The Applicant explained they would be working in partnership and the additional vehicles would not be stored on site so there would be no additional parking requirements. There would be the occasional use of small vehicles, which may even just be on the site to test their aptitude.

Councillor Byatt asked if the licence was for a double decker bus, a PCV licence. The Applicant confirmed that was the plan. She didn’t expect it to be a double decker but didn’t want to restrict what was allowed and we need more bus drivers due to infrastructure projects.

The Chair asked if she would accept a condition about the size of vehicle. The Applicant was happy with a condition as long as it allowed vehicles that were compliant with the licence requirements.  Councillor Ashton said it might be due to the need for a bus that stipulated the 18.5m length.

The Planning Manager explained that a condition to require trainers to take students to a location offsite and drive from there was not something that could be monitored and enforced. However they could have a movement log that was enforceable. The vehicle size has been modelled on a worst-case scenario. The Applicant has not got the full specification yet but there could be a condition that the vehicle specification is supplied before approval is given.

The Chair invited Members to move to debate. 

Councillor Hedgley referred to the NPPF saying that planning policies and decisions should enhance the local natural environment. He doesn’t feel this application does. He acknowledged the suggested conditions but the narrow roads, lack of passing places, other providers nearby will not make the roads in the area any better but will break them down and make them worse. Highways should have been here today as it was 100% about highways. This was HGVs ruining our lives and roads and was unconvinced of this application.

Councillor McCallum said Kesgrave was subject to HGV drivers and had worked with Ransomes to limit the HGVs in Kesgrave but the roads there were much better than those in Otley and Grundisburgh. She took on board the comments about lack of resources at Suffolk County Council to speak to us but the lack of Highways response should not be dismissed in the face of public danger. Councillor Hedgley was right that this wasn’t about a splay, but it was a Highways issue and someone from Highways should have been here today to speak to us. Therefore she was minded to refuse.

Councillor Reeves asked about the distribution centre and where it was in relation to this application. The Planning Manager would try to come back with an answer.

Councillor Byatt was nervous about this after seeing the picture of two vehicles. As a former bus driver of a vehicle that was 18m long the drivers would have little training and there aren’t dual controls. Adding HGVs and buses into the equation into this part of East Suffolk was an accident waiting to happen. He would support the college finding another site as this location was not appropriate. You could only learn to manoeuvre on the site. He had deep concerns and could not support the application in its current form.

Councillor Ninnmey suggested that because the Applicant owns the land along Charity Lane one would assume they could provide passing places before reaching the B road. A rural college to train drivers was a worthy thing but he felt the Applicant needed to go back to the funder and look at addressing the highways issues.

The Chair said he was no fan of HGVs in rural areas but there was another aspect to this. The cost of an HGV licence was £1,900-3k so this was a significant offer for people who would otherwise struggle to get work. All the woes Members feel about HGVs on rural roads shouldn’t be taken out on this application. But he did think it was an odd place to put it and was torn by this application. It offered something different and that shouldn’t be ignored. The cost of passing places was too much and very complicated so it was not a realistic suggestion.

Councillor Ashton suggested that it would be good to get Highways to explain to Strategic Planning Committee how they approach applications, so we are reassured that they are rigorous in their responses. He understood the demand for drivers and the need of training in rural areas, but training 30-40 a year would not give a significant uplift and this site was inappropriate for HGVs. There were plenty of better sites across the area and this was wrong as an elective choice and was unimpressed with Highways’ response so would be voting against.

On the proposal of Councillor Bennett, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey the recommendation to approve the application failed.

The Chair sought an alternative proposal. After a discussion about the insufficient information from Highways, whether a site visit was appropriate to see the problems and the advice from the Planning Manager that the impact on the highways network needed to be classed as severe, the Chair suggested deferring for a site visit. The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the purpose of a site visit was to take in the site and view the surrounding area and road network and to appraise it later at Planning Committee. 

On the proposal of Councillor Byatt, seconded by Councillor McCallum it was by majority

RESOLVED

That the decision be deferred and a site visit to take place. 

Reasons for abstentions: Councillor Ninnmey wanted to ask the officer a question and didn’t have sufficient information to make a decision and Councillor Ashton was looking for a reason for refusal relating to paragraph 89 of the NPPF.

There was a short break at which point Councillor Fisher left the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 16:17.

The Committee received report ES/2502 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/23/4556/FUL. The Planner gave a presentation about the application explaining it sought planning permission for the creation of a new Artificial (3G) Grass Pitch (AGP) and separate Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) pitch. This would include the installation of a 4.5m high ball stop fencing and entrance gates to AGP perimeter, installation of a 2.0m high and 1.2m high pitch perimeter barrier and entrance gates within AGP enclosure, installation of hard standing areas, installation of a floodlight system to both AGP and MUGA pitches, installation of a maintenance equipment store located within AGP enclosure, and the installation of a new hardstanding walkway.

This application triggered referral to planning committee as East Suffolk Council is the applicant.

The Town Council’s comments were summarised and he showed a site location plan and aerial photographs of the site. The development site was outside the settlement boundary of Leiston.  Photos of the site were shared together with site block plans. The Planner explained that the colours in the scheme were indicative of what would be constructed. The gates from the school would be locked at 5pm allowing access from the leisure centre side only after that time. There were a number of images showing pitch markings, layouts and elevations. There was also an indicative photo to show what the fence should look like. The floodlight details, lighting plans, surface illuminance and light spill diagram were shown and it was explained that the floodlights would be aimed downwards. An external drainage plan was included and there was a low risk of flooding. He concluded by showing photos of the site to show context from the Alde Valley Academy and leisure centre perspectives. 

The application was recommended for approval, subject to conditions and there was an amendment to condition 13 as the lighting design strategy had now been submitted.

Councillor Hedgley asked how close the fencing was to nearby housing. The Planner said there was sufficient distance between the development and housing.

Councillor Byatt asked how the existing site was currently used and if the MUGA was artificial turf. He also asked which was the nearest property that would be affected by noise. The Planner said it was currently an under-utilised area due to the quality of the pitches and lack of lighting and he was unsure of usage and timings. He pointed out the closest property to the East, the leisure centre to the west and the school to the north.

The Chair invited East Suffolk’s Leisure Development Partnership Manager and the Agent to speak. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said this was a SZC legacy and these facilities will be used by the academy during the school day but at evenings and weekends it can be used by the community. They invested in the leisure centre 5 years ago and they have a management usage agreement with the academy. The leisure centre will manage the bookings and the leisure centre will be shut off during school times and vice versa. 

Councillor Hedgley asked if it was high quality fencing that doesn’t rattle if a football hits it. The Agent confirmed it was high quality rebound fencing.

Councillor McCallum asked how quickly they could start if approval was granted. The Agent said in 4-6 weeks.

Councillor Ninnmey said there was a similar facility in Felixstowe at the Orwell school but there was never a resolution between the sinking fund and maintenance. Will the structure here avoid the problems they have in Felixstowe.

The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that 3G pitches went through cabinet in 2023 but there was a requirement for a sinking fund for the surfaces. The first 12 years will be funded by SZC and after that the leisure centre will put money into the sinking fund. Although not on East Suffolk land we control the facility and the financial management and the Council will benefit from additional income.

Councillor Byatt asked if the operating hours were flexible. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that they aligned with the opening hours of the leisure centre. The school will use it until 5pm in term time and the 9-10pm slot is always the favourite.

Councillor Reeves asked which sports will be played here and who decides the usage. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said there will be football (11, 9 and 7 aside) on the 3G pitch and netball and tennis on the smaller MUGA pitches. The leisure centre will manage the usage based on demand.

The Chair asked if they were suitable for hockey. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager said 3G pitches weren’t suitable but you could play rugby on them.

Councillor Reeves asked if priority was for SZC or the public. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that whilst SZC funds it the original thought was that SZC would have it from 6 to 8pm however it will be up to the leisure centre to decide. 

Councillor Ashton felt it was good to integrate SZC workers with the community. He asked what measures were being used to reduce crumbs escaping. It was explained there was a low level barrier to stop this and the mitigation in place was up to 98%. They would do everything they could to mitigate it escaping.

Councillor Byatt asked if there was room for another pitch if successful. The Agent confirmed that you could fit another pitch in and still satisfy Sports England criteria. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained that the academy has other facilities that could be restored and he was hopeful that more opportunities will come forward. It was good to get more schools opening up their facilities to the community so people travelled less to participate in activities.

Councillor Reeves asked if the changing facilities were in the leisure centre. The Leisure Development Partnership Manager explained they were but most playing football players would arrive and leave in their football gear.

On the proposal of Councillor McCallum, seconded by Councillor Byatt it was unanimously

RESOLVED

The application should therefore be support and is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined below. 

Conditions
1) Standard 3-year time limit for implementation
2) Approved drawings and documents Ecology
3) Lighting Design Strategy for Biodiversity
4) Ecological Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy Sport England Related
5) Submission and approval of FIFA quality concept for football turf certification and confirmation of inclusion on the FAs register of football turf pitches, prior to first use. 
6) Submission and approval of a completed community use agreement, prior to first use. 
7) Submission and approval of a Management and Maintenance Scheme, prior to first use. 
8) Surfacing of the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to meet England Netball’s surface performance standards and agreed finish. 
Flood Risk
9) Strategy for disposal of surface water to be implemented concurrently with the construction and maintained thereafter.
10) Prior to first use, a surface water drainage verification report, is to be submitted and approved. 
Residential Amenity
11) Submission and approval of Construction Management Plan (Noise, dust and light) prior to  commencement. 
12) Construction Hours (including deliveries) limited to 8am to 6pm weekdays, 8am to 1pm
Saturdays only. 
13) Compliance with the submitted "lighting design strategy for biodiversity". 
14) Use of MUGA and 3G only between 8am to 10pm weekdays, 9am to 5pm Saturdays,
Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays. 
15) Hours of use of flood lighting limited to 8am to 10:10pm weekdays, 9am to 5:10pm
Saturdays, Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays. 

Informatives
1) Positive Proactive Statement
2) Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 and discharging water to a watercourse.
3) Discharge of surface water to a watercourse and Internal Drainage Board requirements.
4) Drainage pipes underneath the public highway need a license under the New Roads and Street Works Act.
5) Guidance on preparing Community Use Agreements
6) Guidance on FIFA expectations for the pitches
7) Expectations for Management and Maintenance Scheme. 
8) Site Clearance and nesting birds
9) If changes are required by Other Regs and Civil matters, the changes may also require agreement from the Local Planning Authority. 
10) Discharge of Requirement also required (along with Discharge of conditions on this consent).