Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Enforcement Officer said there were no updates to the report. Councillor Smithson queried about the number of appeals that were dismissed and how much time and money was wasted on these cases that had gone on for years, and if the process could be sped up. The Enforcement Officer explained that the timelines were controlled by the Planning Inspector and he was only aware of one appeal in the North of the district that had been dismissed.

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

RESOLVED

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

Councillor Cawley was asked to move to the public gallery. 

The Committee received report ES/2633 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/25/1945/FUL. The Senior Planner gave a presentation. The application sought planning permission for change of use from staff room/office to full time Warden's accommodation. The application was before Members because the applicant is an elected member of East Suffolk Council and the application therefore required determination by the Planning Committee. There had been no recommendations of support or objection from statutory consultees. She showed the site location plan and explained the site was located in the countryside for the purpose of planning. She explained that the site was subject to an enforcement case. Although it was not currently occupied the siting and use of the unit remains unauthorised.

The Senior Planner showed the site location plan and ran through the site layout. The unit sat within an area of gravel, approximately 420 metres from the clubhouse. She explained that permission had been granted for extensions to the clubhouse. There were four holiday lodges currently and permission was in place for 10 additional holiday lodges which have not been installed on site yet but they are understood to be in association with the golf club. Members were shown an aerial photograph of the site with the unit highlighted in red. The existing/proposed block plan was shown and it was explained that it was in an area with other storage units. The Senior Planner explained that a similar application was submitted last year which was refused under delegated authority as it was contrary to local policies for new dwellings in the countryside.

The Senior Planner said there was parking in front of the unit but there was no private amenity space proposed. 

Members were shown existing/proposed plans. The unit contains two bedrooms, an open plan sitting/kitchen area and a bathroom. The unit had limited floor space which was smaller than expected for a two bedroom unit when considered against the guidance in the nationally described space standards and it was more suited for a one-bedroom unit. Members were shown the space standards which suggests 61m2 is the minimum requirement. They were shown internal and external photos of the unit. 

As this constituted a new dwelling it was considered against SCLP 5.6 Rural Workers Dwellings and Members were shown the wording of the policy. The Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) had also been considered and this was a material consideration.

The Senior Planner explained that the information provided did not justify the need for a warden to be physically accommodated on the site. The unit does not appear to be well situated for the tasks, being quite a large distance from the clubhouse. There were alternative security measures that should be considered first including alarms, gates and CCTV and the scale of the holiday lodges did not give justification for a full-time onsite warden. Officers were also concerned about the lack of amenity provision. No information had been provided to explain why the need cannot be fulfilled by existing dwellings in the area. The applicant was asked for further information which was supplied after the deadline. However they were asked to keep this information confidential and so it was not published online or consulted on. Therefore the application was assessed on the basis of the information originally submitted, although officers do not consider the later information demonstrates compliance with policies.

The Senior Planned explained that the applicant had advised in correspondence that they would like the accommodation as dual chef/warden accommodation. However the application had not been amended to include reference to it being for a chef so the application was only looking at warden accommodation. The last application was for chef’s accommodation so that was considered and refused as it was contrary to the policy SCLP 5.6.

The Senior Planner ran through the material planning considerations and key issues. She concluded that the application was recommended for refusal as it was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SCLP5.3, SCLP5.6, and SCLP11.2 of the East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan and the lack of RAMS contribution.

There were no questions from Members for the Senior Planner.

The Applicant and Applicant’s agent (architect) were invited to speak. The Applicant wanted more time to speak as jobs were at stake here but was reminded that they had three minutes.

The Applicant’s Agent explained he worked with the Applicant on the 2017 planning application which was granted permission and the subsequent application for extensions to the clubhouse and driving range. He said there was no mention in the report of policy 5.3g and said it was an unusual setting. Permission had already been granted for 14 units here and they were just asking for a simple unit for a warden or chef to live on site close to the main facility. He said the policy 5.6 should be set aside. He said it was well related to other structures. He noted that the location and impact on the countryside was not a reason for refusal.

The Applicant said there were two companies involved here, one for the lodges and the other for the golf course. There was 3.3km of land, 250 acres, which was a lot to cover. He had spent 3 years trying to get a full-time chef. He had tried everything to get a chef. He did the visa sponsorship route and got a chef from a cruise liner who stayed in the accommodation. However he had to let him go when he was told the unit use was unauthorised and that had knocked him back about five years. He said the world had changed since Covid and Brexit and asked the Council to support British business.

The Applicant’s agent explained that they had provided some additional information and apologised that it was late. They asked for it to be kept confidential as it contained financial information in it, the same as for the 2017 application and perhaps the rules have changed since then, but they weren’t trying to hide anything. He thought it was a reasonable application.

The Applicant added that they had experienced break ins with £8k of damage.

Councillor Hedgley asked why they didn’t take pre-planning advice. The Applicant said they did regarding the extension of the clubhouse and restaurant but as the golf club is part of the farm the legislation states that you can have accommodation as part of the farm. The Senior Planner confirmed that the Applicant did not seek pre-planning advice on the current proposal.

Councillor Hedgley asked if the accommodation can be seen from the main road. The Applicant said no.

Councillor Hedgley asked for clarity that the need for this building could not be fulfilled by any other existing dwelling. The Applicant’s Agent said that was correct. Councillor Hedgley asked if the need related to a full time worker who had to live on site to do their job. The Applicant’s Agent answered yes.

Councillor Smithson asked why they couldn’t use one of the holiday accommodation units as that would be more appropriate. The Applicant’s Agent explained that there are restrictions on the number of days per year that it can be occupied. Councillor Smithson asked if an application could be made for that to be changed. The Applicant’s Agent said possibly but the holiday accommodation was being used. The Applicant said they were 5-star holiday lodges that cost £250k. The staff accommodation which was a purpose built container was only £60k. Councillor Smithson pointed out that it was considered inferior in terms of accommodation, particularly for two people. The Applicant said he was confused as the company that designed it, who build modular houses, followed the regulations. The Applicant’s Agent explained that it is a mobile structure and mobile home legislation was different to normal, standard open market accommodation so it has a different specification. 

Councillor Reeves asked what hours the warden would work and what their duties would be. The Applicant said it was dual use. A chef for 60/70% and warden 30%. As the other lodges come online then it would go 50/50%. He explained he had lost staff because he doesn’t have staff accommodation.

Councillor Reeves said this was an application for warden’s accommodation but at only 30% this was not a full time post. The Applicant’s Agent said the application was muddied as they applied for chef’s accommodation a while ago. There were conversations when the previous application was refused. The Applicant was told they might have more success if it included a chef. He explained this was general purpose accommodation for warden/chef and sometimes it would be for a couple, but yes the application was for a warden’s accommodation.

Councillor Deacon asked for officers to respond to the comments about inadequate living space. The Chair advised him to hold that for after questioning the speakers.

Councillor Ninnmey said if they had planning consent for 10 further units surely it would be practical to amend it so one unit could be used for a member of staff. The nearer it was to the clubhouse the better it would be for the duties that person is carrying out.

The Applicant explained that you would think that, but where the lodges are is where you have the majority of the issues. You need someone close by. There is CCTV in most places. You can’t deal with problems if you are 15 mins away or an hour away or wherever you live. You just need someone on site.

Councillor Reeves asked about the lack of private amenity space with there being no garden. The Applicant said the landscaping for that area was stopped. The unit is in a small wooded area with a garden area either side that is fenced off. They have not invested in further landscaping yet until it is known if it can be used for accommodation. 

Councillor Reeves said this contradicted the officer’s report and the Chair advised they would seek clarity.

The Planning Manager clarified several points. He explained that he had some involvement in the 2017 scheme which was a redevelopment of the site and so very different. That scheme had enabling of heritage buildings and new build dwellings which was a comprehensive package that was justified as an exception under policy SCLP 5.3. He explained that you wouldn’t apply that policy in the same way to a structure like this. 

With relation to it being part of the farm, this application was to provide accommodation for a worker. It was described as for a warden/chef although it was not clear how this would work in practice. This is accommodation required in relation to the golf club and the wider business and so policy 5.6 was relevant.

With regards to living standards, and the claim that this accommodation was subject to different controls, he thought this claim could be related to the Caravan Act dating from the 1960s. It was about what constituted a caravan. If it was holiday accommodation, we wouldn’t worry, but as this was proposed as a home the nationally described space standards should be applied.

Regarding the reference to amenity space, the area indicated by the Applicant was outside of the red line of the application site. So as this application stands it was a small unit of accommodation that was below standards without amenity space that couldn’t be secured with a planning condition.

Councillor Smithson asked if one of the holiday lodges could be changed to become a worker’s cottage. The Planning Manager explained that it would need a new planning application for change of use and the same considerations would apply, although this accommodation would be a better standard and more suitable. Irrespective however there would need to be the same justification for onsite living.

Councillor Reeves asked for clarification on the warden’s accommodation. He asked if it was required because they were a full-time employee as from what they have been told it sounds like they are only there 30% of the time. He asked if this fell under the policy.

The Planning Manager explained that even if the role was full time with extended hours, it’s not about the hours but is about the need. There has to be a justification for the need to be onsite. He said it was more commonly seen in agriculture where if you were unable to respond to an emergency quickly you were at risk of losing your entire stock. The evidence of the need to be onsite has not been provided.

The Senior Planner explained that the Rural Development SPD does advise that applications should be supported with staff information on tasks and why they need a worker onsite but this information had not been provided.

The Chair asked the Applicant to leave the room at this point and the Committee moved to debate.

Councillor Daly said the reasons for refusal were explicit and clear. The applicant hasn’t come forward for pre-application advice even though invited. They should have come forward to address it. He agreed with the officers.

Councillor Ninnmey referred to paragraph 2.5 of the report and the previous application which was refused on the grounds of non-compliance. He had not heard anything that changed this. They had the opportunity for pre-application advice. 

Councillor Deacon said the application falls foul of policies 5.3 and 5.6 and that is enough to reject it. As an aside he did not like the idea that the worker was supposed to be living in sub-standard accommodation. 

Councillor Smithson had some sympathy that it was difficult to get a chef but planning considerations should not be put aside. She was not comfortable about putting one, let alone two people in something that was not really built for purpose. She was inclined to agree with the officer. 

Councillor Reeves said for the same reasons he would agree with officers.

Councillor Hedgley took a contrary view. He agreed with a lot of what has been said and always pushes people to get pre-application advice. If someone comes for a job and they are shown the accommodation they could turn the job down. However he was concerned about refusal that affects jobs. One job here, there and everywhere was so important and for that reason alone he would vote against the officer’s recommendation. He thought jobs were more important.

Councillor Fisher was inclined to agree with Councillor Hedgley. 

The Chair said most have spoken in favour of supporting the recommendation and called for a proposer. On the proposal of Councillor Reeves, seconded by Councillor Deacon, it was 

RESOLVED

That the application be refused.

The reasons for the decision to refuse permission are:

1. The application seeks planning permission for the retention of an existing residential unit for use as wardens' accommodation at Fynn Valley Golf Club. The siting and use of the unit would result in new residential development in the countryside and requires consideration under policy SCLP5.6 (Rural Workers Dwellings).

It has not been demonstrated that there is a clearly established functional need for a worker to be accommodated on site; that there are no existing dwellings or accommodation in the area which are suitable and available for the workers; that the need relates to a full time worker who is primarily employed in the rural sector; that the unit and the rural activity concerned has been established for at least three years, has been profitable for at least one of them, is financially sound and has a clear prospect of remaining so; or that the unit is of an appropriate scale and location for the proposed functional role. 

The application therefore fails to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with SCLP5.6. Moreover, based on the information available, it is considered that the proposal could not reasonably be justified under this policy, as there is no demonstrated essential need for a warden to reside on the site, nor any realistic prospect that such a need could be evidenced for the current operations. 

The proposal would otherwise result in the addition of a new dwelling in an unsustainable countryside location. The dwelling would provide substandard levels of amenity for the occupier due to the size of the unit and lack of private amenity space. There is no justification for such a dwelling as the functional need has not been evidenced in the application.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SCLP5.3, SCLP5.6, and SCLP11.2 of the East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (September 2020).

 2. The site is within the Suffolk Coast RAMS Zone of Influence (Zone B - within 13km of the Sandlings SPA; Deben Estuary SPA/Ramsar and Stour and the Orwell Estuaries SPA/Ramsar) and therefore a financial contribution to the scheme or equivalent mitigation identified via a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is required in order to mitigate in-combination recreational disturbance impacts on habitats sites (European designated sites) arising from new residential development. Local Plan Policy SCLP10.1 seeks to support regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) (as amended) where proposals that would cause a direct or indirect adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) will not be permitted. 

The applicant has failed to submit relevant information in relation to the potential disturbance caused by additional visitors to Habitats Sites as a result of the development and measures required to mitigate this. It therefore cannot be concluded that the development will not result in an adverse effect on the integrity of Habitats Sites and therefore the proposals are considered contrary to Policy SCLP10.1 East Suffolk Council Suffolk Coastal Local Plan (September 2020) and Section 15 of the NPPF.

Informatives:

 1. The Council offers a pre-application advice service to discuss development proposals and ensure that planning applications have the best chance of being approved. The applicant did not take advantage of this service. The local planning authority has identified matters of concern with the proposal and the report clearly sets out why the development fails to comply with the adopted development plan. The report also explains why the proposal is contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to deliver sustainable development.

The Chair chose to abstain from voting.

There was then a short adjournment before the next item was considered. 

The meeting reconvened at 2.55pm.

The Committee received report ES/2632 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which related to planning application DC/21/5550/FUL. The Principal Planner explained that the Landscape Officer would be joining later to answer any landscaping questions.

The Principal Planner gave a presentation. The application sought planning permission for a 21MW solar farm comprising ground mounted solar PV panels, vehicular access from Loudham Hall Road with internal access tracks, landscaping and associated infrastructure including security fencing, CCTV cameras and grid connection infrastructure including inverter and substation buildings. The application was originally determined by Planning Committee South on 28 May 2024 and the application was resolved to be approved subject to conditions. A decision notice was subsequently issued to that effect on 17 June 2024. Following the determination of the application, a claim was lodged with the Planning Court for a judicial review in respect of East Suffolk Council’s decision to grant planning permission.  East Suffolk Council accepted that it failed to have regard to the extent of any impact on the Grade II* listed Loudham Hall and it was agreed that on this basis, the planning permission should be quashed and the application be returned to the Planning Committee for redetermination. 

The Principal Planner showed the site location plan and she explained that the site had been reduced since the original application so the blue lined area was no longer included. Members were shown an aerial photograph with the site outlined in red. The Principal Planner described the different elements of the site and surroundings pointing out PROWs, properties, pylons, Loudham Hall, existing solar farm, A12, Suffolk Plant Centre and Wickham Market.

Members were shown a series of photographs taken in March, August and September 2025 showing the site from a number of views and different states of leaf cover.

The Principal Planner showed the proposed block plan and landscape masterplan. The plan has been amended so there is additional planting on the southeastern strip near Sandpit Cottage. The Principal Planner has spoken to the residents to confirm if they are happy with this mitigation.

She showed zoomed in detail explaining that the orange line around the panels was the perimeter fencing with CCTV, the grey blocks were transformers, grey tracks were access tracks, the green line was the PROW and the pink line was the access to the site. 

The Principal Planner showed the SuDS strategy of a swale and bund.

Members were shown the proposed equipment and it was explained that the panels would be 2.6m above ground at the highest point. There was a condition on the fencing but would also recommend a condition on gates too. There would be no barbed wire. The Principal Planner showed the wildlife holes in the fencing. Details of the CCTV was shared and it was pointed out that the pole height has reduced from 6m to 3.5m. The grey access tracks would be below ground level and use recycled stone. The pink access track will be above ground and use cement. There were two shipping containers that would be used for spares and welfare/cafeteria. The private switchgear allows the applicant to control the site capacity whilst the District Network Operator (DNO) connects to the grid from the application site. The aux transformer in the substation powers the site and allows remote access to the site whilst the transformers take energy from the panels and feed into switchgears. There is a condition relating to noise mitigation.

It was explained that since the previous decision and the July 2025 consultation several amendments have been made which were shown to Members. The Principal Planner ran through the Material Considerations and Key Issues. 

Members were shown the Planning Balance table which summarised the harms and benefits of the scheme, as set out within the officer report. The Landscape Visual Assessment showed the impact of the site was limited and harm judged to be moderate. The distance from the river limited the impact.
Nearby properties would be impacted during construction and commissioning but that was temporary and considered acceptable. Acoustic barriers would be installed and glint/glare issues have been addressed. The benefits of improved biodiversity was considered moderate and the provision of renewable energy required to meet the Net Zero requirement was given substantial weight.

The Principal Planner ran through the Update Sheet that had been provided to Members. She concluded that the recommendation was for approval with conditions as per the Update Sheet.

The Head of Planning and Building Control and the Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer introduced themselves.

Councillor Daly thanked the officer for the thorough report. He questioned if the biodiversity benefits were only moderate. The Principal Planner explained that because the application was submitted before BNG legislation it didn’t go through the same assessment matrix. However it will have a huge net gain of over 100%.

Councillor Deacon asked for the size of the switchgear, DNO and transformer and what noise elimination mitigation would be in place. The Principal Planner showed the relevant slides and sizes. Acoustic barriers will enclose the transformers and there is a condition to provide the detail.

Councillor Smithson could see the substantial benefit to contributing towards net zero but how does the creation and decommissioning of solar panels impact on the benefits. The Principal Planner said they were not aware of any policy or legislation that made this a material consideration. Councillor Smithson said it wasn’t possible to say how much it contributes then. The Principal Planner said you can see the benefits of the output but in terms of the equipment she was not aware of any planning policy that gave weight to the carbon input of the production of the equipment. 

The Planning Manager said they had seen, through a number of appeal decisions for this type of proposal, that a consistent level of weight of benefit has been ascribed. But it was open to Members to take a slightly more conservative approach if they felt it should be given less weight.

Councillor Hedgley asked how many homes 21MW would power. The Principal Planner confirmed it was approximately 5,000 houses.

Councillor Reeves asked how high the 4G masts were compared to the containers. The Principal Planner didn’t have the details but showed the plan to see it in proportion to the container.

Councillor Reeves asked if the land was currently farmed and if it was productive. The Principal Planner said it was still used for agricultural production. The land was not the best and most versatile so wasn't given great weight by planning policy.

Councillor Ninnmey said he was struggling to find any guidance on solar farms in the Local Plan. He pointed out that Bucklesham had a smaller space to create the energy of 1 hectare to 1 MW. He asked why this site used so much land. The Principal Planner showed the Bucklesham site where it was a much denser site without much landscaping. The application site has different topography and more landscaping features such as the copse and the area under the pylons.

The Chair invited the Objectors to speak. The first Objector said the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm and there was no serious attempt to mitigate the harm. All parties agree that the valley is an important site and the solar farm will impact on this. The views are accentuated by the topography. The solar panels will be seen from neighbouring parishes and PROWs. There was no space for substantial planting on the boundaries and hedges will rarely screen on rising land. Photos of open boundaries were shown as well as from the solar farm at Kelsale. She said they had experienced increased runoff there. She said level sites were more appropriate for this type of development.

The second Objector said there were unresolved issues and key information missing. The residential amenity of the Lodge and Sandpit Cottage have not been properly considered. He felt the landscape and heritage impact were understated. There will be damage to Loudham hall. The solar farm should be away from heritage assets and landscapes. He asked Members to defer or refuse the application.

The Pettistree Parish Councillor was invited to speak. She said wildlife, hedges and trees have been given consideration but what about the people who live in the parishes. There was loss of food production and amenity. Not enough weight has been given to the impact on the river valley. There are 28m homes and this site just caters for 5k houses. Successive governments have kicked the issue down the road. There are new houses and industrial storage without solar panels. There should be a new policy looking at the negative effect on the rural environment. This application has not been well designed. She had sympathy with the committee. The Parish Council was aware of the benefits but how can money compensate industrialising the countryside. She asked Members to rule out this site for solar as it will have a big impact on the community and little benefit on the country’s energy supply.

Councillor Ninnmey asked how they would mitigate.

Objector One said little space had been given over to planting, just a small amount of hedging. Cricket bat willows are spreading rapidly but the Environment Agency has significant concerns. They are cropped after 30 years and shed plastic tubes but they do filter, but you can see the valley site. It would be difficult unless you can put in wet woodland but that needs time and space to grow.

Councillor Daly said it was a huge arable field at the moment so if solar panels went in there would be a big uptick in BNG. There would be no chemicals going on the site and running off into the river. He said there were positives as well as negatives.

The Parish Councillor asked how it can be guaranteed there was more wildlife and who was going to prove it. Councillor Daly said we look for improvements so perhaps we could interrogate the Applicant.

Objector One had the same concerns. She had looked at a lot of solar farms and went to one in Somerset. They do use herbicides and there weren’t many wildflowers. The central woodland was outside the red line so there is no control of how that would be managed. The Chair summarised that they don’t see the biodiversity gains. Objector One said they do in theory but not in practice.

Councillor Cawley asked if they had calculated on other sites if they could accommodate the full size. Objector One said Parham and Holton are extensive but not quite as big but are better contained visually.

The Applicant was invited to speak. She pointed out that in 2019 East Suffolk Council declared a Climate Emergency. The solar farm will help meet this desire to reach NetZero by 2030. The issue identified by the judicial review had been addressed. The harm was less than substantial. Loudham Hall Lodge is not a listed building and less than substantial harm was found. The site has been selected to avoid areas of environmental sensitivity. They would be delivering high BNG, far exceeding the national requirements. After 40 years the land will be returned to former agricultural use. There were no objections from statutory consultees. No impacts have been identified that outweigh the benefits.

Councillor Reeves asked if they had purchased or leased the land. The Applicant said it was leased. Councillor Reeves asked what guarantees were in place to ensure it returned to agricultural use and what quality will that land be in. The Applicant explained that they have insurance on the land which creates a fund for decommissioning after 40 years. There was also a decommissioning condition as part of the planning permission. Soil testing took place throughout the lifetime of the scheme to ensure that when it is decommissioned that it is back to the same quality. They have found that solar farms often have a beneficial impact. 

Councillor Daly asked if they will be using chemicals to manage the land underneath the panels. The Applicant said there was a condition for an ecological management plan. The developer was a full cycle operator. Town farm was a similar scheme with a management plan which included soil management and monitoring, ecological monitoring, bird and bat boxes, mowing regime and the panels are washed just with water. There may be limited chemical spraying on invasive species. She explained that they plant according to the land and will monitor to ensure any planting is established and thrives.

Councillor Deacon asked what happened to decommissioned panels. The Applicant said the company is part of a waste system. They support the recycling of panels and reuse of materials. 

Councillor Ninnmey pointed out that the Local Plan says development will not be allowed where it has an impact on a rural river valley. He asked if they could have found a different site and referred to the Objectors saying more could be done to mitigate the impact. The Applicant said a site needed a willing landowner and a grid location and this was the only site in this area that could accommodate this. There are conditions to ensure visual screening on the river valley and there is BNG. They considered other sites but had not explored beyond that.

The Chair said the objections were about visual amenity so what confidence did the Applicant have about the mitigation measures that would reassure the Members and objectors. The Applicant referred to condition 7 regarding the landscaping masterplan. Where hedgerows exist there will be infill and they will also put in further hedging. The landscaping will take some time to grow but it was expected that by 10-15 years they will be fully established and provide full screening. She said the landscaping assessment gave further information.

Councillor Fisher asked how they envisaged electricity production being replaced when the site was decommissioned in 40 years’ time. The Applicant said further sources of energy will come about and are being built, many in Suffolk, to meet the energy demand.

Councillor Reeves asked where the solar panels were produced and how many people would be employed on the site. The Applicant said the panels were produced in China. Once the site was established there would be 1/0.5 full time employee. The site would be remotely monitored but there would be some onsite management. Councillor Reeves pointed out that this was probably less employees than for the current use. The Applicant said agricultural use for this farm will continue elsewhere.

The Chair asked if the solar farms attracted crime. The Applicant said they had instances during construction, mainly due to the copper on site and the police have advised further security measures. They have monitoring during construction and security on site. There is CCTV on the perimeter to deter intruders and smart water identification markings on the panels. The Chair asked if the solar farms attracted crime once they are running. The Applicant said there was less crime when operating.

Councillor Cawley asked about the maintenance and cleaning of the panels and if this water was from the mains or another supply. He also asked if they had considered wind turbines as they take up less space but produce more energy. The Applicant said they used deionised water so there were no chemicals and it can come from the mains. The site had only been considered for solar as there was a blanket ban on onshore wind.

Councillor Noble was invited to speak as Ward Member. She said that river valleys were important assets and this will impact this unique landscape. It is a recreational resource that features in two Suffolk walking leaflets. Footpaths run through and across the sites. National Cycle Network 1 runs along Loudham Lane. The stunning view from footpaths will be ruined. Local residents are worried about loss of agricultural land and the impact on heritage assets. The proposed array will provide a large and unnatural intrusion. There are multiple demands on local land for new homes, SZC and the SZC Park and Ride. There were better uses for valley landscapes and she referred to the forestry event called Woods and Water that she attended in Wickham Market. You can have carbon sequestration and water improvements and land still being able to provide food. The heritage impacts were of great concern. Not clear how the adverse impact can be mitigated by the suggested hedges. The run off issues will only get worse as the ground is largely impermeable and the panels will have greater run off. Not clear if this will flow out onto the road. She wanted to know who would be responsible for the issue of flooding and road debris. She asked about the habitat improvement as they were only suggesting a few fence holes, some grass and some wildlife boxes. Other companies go much further. She wanted more planning conditions. Babergh land was recently refused on heritage grounds. She said this district was inundated with major energy projects. As a green councillor she welcomed clean energy but it needs to be in the right place and this wasn’t the right place.

Councillor Smithson asked if she would say that you don’t need 40 years to enhance soil and asked if agricultural practices can do that. Councillor Noble said these areas are out of action for 40 years. Wakelynds are doing agroforestry where you can grow food within rows of trees  and there is one in Debenham on the Helmingham estate. More important that we do this rather than changing barren fields into solar farms. We need food and siting this one in the landscape it is in means it can never be shielded.

Councillor Daly agreed with what she was saying. Soil degradation and run off was a problem. We need a plan quickly about soil regeneration and pollution of our water sources. Is there a place during this climate crisis for looking at these fields and putting in the solution with proper green energy production if we can ensure there is a BNG uplift of over 100% and the management of the land means no continued run off of chemicals into the river. It’s a solar panel and it’s something we could get used to. Councillor Noble said she was not against solar but this was a river valley and it was not a good site for a solar farm. A lot of farms are screened. You will see this and it won’t be screened. Other developers speak to communities about what landscaping they want included.

Councillor Reeves said the biggest problem on this application and housing generally is that it is the landowner who no longer wants to farm the land. How can we prevent this when farming isn’t paying for the landowner. Councillor Noble said she could see how landowners are attracted by the income. This scheme was in the wrong place. She said we should engage with farmers, a lot of whom want to do this and the answer wasn’t to say yes to every solar application.

The Chair said that all the statutory consultees don’t object any more so where is the disconnect with your view and theirs. Councillor Noble said residents and Parish Councils object. Locals are under huge pressure from national policy. People are terrified of appeals and wasting public money.  She found it unbelievable that the landscaping officers are saying the visual impact was minimal. The Chair said visual impact was difficult to avoid.

Councillor Ninnmey agreed that this was a significant visual amenity place. This committee by its approval last time missed that we hadn’t done much to mitigate the impact. Changes for this application should have been on the first application. He asked if what was proposed now would reassure her residents and they may grow to love it. Councillor Noble said that what was being proposed had not gone far enough. Residents would not grow to love this solar park. They were devastated about it going ahead.

The Planning Manager asked the Principal Planner to share the slide about the planning balance. The Planning Manager clarified that officers did not disagree that the proposal would cause some harms, but that those harms were outweighed by the benefits in the balance.

With regards to management of landscaping, three conditions were recommended covering soil management, landscaping and the landscaping plan. He said they gave good coverage. He said it was not unusual that they weren’t fully developed at this stage but they would all be reviewed by the experts.

He invited the Principal Landscape and Arboricultural Officer to give any points of clarification. The Officer said that with regards to the river valley, the site is bordered by the A12 and crossed by heavy duty pylons. You need to acknowledge sensitive elements and also the distracting factors. With the footpaths there was concern about the one through the middle as it created a solar panel corridor. It was going to be screened by hedges but this would change the view to an enclosed corridor. They have changed this so there is now a 10m width to ensure views. Footpath walkers have a high level sensitivity but they will be walking east west so the view is not over the site unless you turn 90 degrees plus there are overhead power cables there already.

The Principal Planner clarified that alternative sites were not needed to be considered as the land was not best and most versatile.  The site was previously approved and since then there has been additional landscape planting. She drew Members’ attention to the benefits and its relation to the Climate Change Act 2008, the Climate Emergency declared by ESC, and meeting net zero by 2030 and promoting and supporting green technologies. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero set pathway targets by 2030. To meet this target we need additional solar production. 

Councillor Hedgley asked if the site became industrial in terms of user class once the panels were installed. The Principal Planner believed it would be sui generis. 

Councillor Reeves asked if the BNG was 100%. The Principal Planner said the gain was over 100% but it was only given moderate weight in the planning balance because it was submitted before BNG legislation came in. It doesn’t have to meet the current matrix and it can’t be compared to new applications since BNG legislation came in.

Councillor Daly asked if ecology and landscape were conditioned. The Principal Planner confirmed they were.

The Chair said 100% sounds a lot but this scheme isn’t being done as a natural revolution and amazing transformation but rather that it was just going from a low base. The Principal Planner said it started with a low base. By adding grassland and hedging it all contributes to improving what the site already offers. They are also putting in wildlife holes, log piles and wildlife boxes. In reference to the claim about impermeable land, the panels are not impermeable. The water runs off the panels and then into the land. The amount of impermeable land was very small and just the access tracks and substation area.

It was questioned if the holes in the fence will help boost BNG compared to what is there now. The Principal Planner explained this was a recommendation from an ecologist within the assessments provided by the application.

The Planning Manager said this was more a mitigation of development. There are benefits of the scheme and alongside that mitigations.

The Chair invited Members to debate.

Councillor Smithson said there was nothing much in the Local Plan about this type of development. Accumulative development of things like this needs to be considered. The emotional impact of bunging in another project is huge and cannot be measured. There are lots of ways to improve the soil. She said she objected last time and will again. She felt the impact on the river valley was too great and there were more suitable sites. It was so damaging to the people who live there.

Councillor Daly appreciated that soil can be improved immediately and it doesn’t take 40 years, but we need a broad open view. We have a carbon crisis. This is proper localised green energy unlike other projects in the district. The impacts to benefits compared to the other energy projects are very minor. He said we need to think of the landscape in terms of diversity which includes green energy. It was not that long ago that wind turbines were hated. He asked if solar panels were worse than an arable field with nothing in it. It was new and different and some are exercised by this but as time goes by the effects on the river and the lack of ploughing and use of chemicals will see great environmental plusses. The soil improvement will happen immediately. The wide view of the development doesn’t have to be viewed as entirely negative as there are lots of positives coming out of it. The objections are just the impact of the panels and how they look from certain points which is the single issue. We have a climate crisis so we need to get used to panels in the landscape.

Councillor Hedgley was impressed by the defence put forward by the objectors. He wondered if there would there be the same objection if it was near council houses rather than Loudham Hall. This council did vote in favour of a climate emergency and this is one of the consequences of that vote. We need electricity so that is the stance he will take.

Councillor Deacon said he had no problem with solar panels in the right place but that should be on the houses and warehouses that are being built. He was really concerned about the accumulative effect of the energy projects. This was not a suitable site and panels should be put on houses and industrial units, not in our countryside.

Councillor Fisher said it was a very emotional subject and we could easily argue the objections have been overstated but he thought the benefits have been totally overstated because of Government regulations. You can improve biodiversity without solar panels. As Councillor Smithson hinted we aren’t taking into account the fact that the energy consumed to produce and recycle them totally balances out the gain of having them.

Councillor Ninnmey said it was a shame our Local Plan doesn’t cover this. His wife was 16 when Sizewell A was planned. They said they would plant perimeter trees that would screen the view from the beach. Now that A is being dismantled the trees never did the screening that was claimed and this is the same with this site. The renewable industry does need to change. It doesn't take into regard SCLP10.4 and this development does have a significant impact on the environment. It should be rejected on those grounds and he couldn’t support.

Councillor Cawley said he had a background in renewable energy and he had just installed 100 panels but they were out of sight and not doing any damage. He would be objecting on the grounds of location only.

The Chair said putting panels on roofs could only go so far and was it realistic to think we can solve it with putting them just on roofs. Councillor Cawley said it depended on your roof but it was not worth putting back into the grid. The council could offer a rate reduction for accommodating panels on the roof. Councillor Daly said rooftop solar would not meet the requirements of the targets the government has set. Solar arrays in the countryside was the best way you can.

Councillor Ninnmey said this government has got to think about giving a good rate for electricity generation.

At this point the Chair sought approval to exceed the 3 hour meeting limit. On the proposal of Councillor Bennett, seconded by Councillor Hedgley it was unanimously agreed to continue past three hours.

Councillor Reeves was torn about this application. He didn’t like the location but does feel we need to go for the electricity production or we won’t meet energy targets set by the government. He felt that if it went to appeal we would lose this.

On the proposal of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Bennett and through the casting vote of the Chair it was 

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to the conditions as per the Update Sheet.

Councillor Cawley abstained as he wasn’t at the first meeting so was undecided.

Conditions: 

1. Standard timeframe condition 
2. Development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans 

Operation

3. Development to occur for a 40 year period only

 4. Decommission strategy to be agreed

5. Soil management plan to be submitted and agreed (prior to commencement)

Landscape and Arb
6. Materials of the spares container, welfare container, private switchgear building and DNO building to be submitted and agreed
7. Details of a landscape scheme to be submitted to and agreed. Landscape scheme shall include details of additional planting along the southern boundary adjacent to the access with Loudham Hall. Management of the scheme to be provided including management of the planting adjacent to Sandpit Cottage
8. Detailed arboricultural method statement to be submitted and agreed (prior to commencement)
9. Tree protection to be carried out in accordance with section 6.0 of Arboricultural Planning Statement (May 2025) (prior to commencement)
10. Notwithstanding fence elevation plan, the fence is to be finished with plain wire. Details of the materials of the gates are to be submitted and agreed. 

Ecology
11. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, including the ecological enhancement strategy to be submitted and agreed (pre commencement). 
12. Development to be carried out in accordance with the ecology assessments 
13. Construction Environment Management Plan (Biodiversity) to be submitted and agreed (prior to commencement)
14. No removal of hedgerows, trees or shrubs during bird breeding season
15. No lighting to be installed unless a lighting design strategy for biodiversity is submitted and agreed 
16. Additional badger survey report to be submitted and agreed (prior to commencement)

Environmental Protection / Amenity
17. Construction Management Plan to be submitted and agreed 
18. Ground survey to be submitted and agreed
19. Vibration on site to be controlled 
20. Details of acoustic barriers to be submitted and agreed and development to be carried out in accordance with appendix 5 and section 8.1 of the Noise Assessment
21. Validation noise survey to be submitted and agreed
22. CCTV camera locations to be submitted and agreed

Flood Risk
23. Development to be carried out in accordance with surface water strategy and flood risk assessment, including appendix G
24. Construction Surface Water Management Plan to be submitted and agreed including the prevention of accidental water pollution
25. A surface water drainage verification report to be submitted and agreed

Archaeology
26. Written scheme of investigation to be submitted and agreed (prior to commencement) 
27. Site investigation completed and agreed 
28. Archaeological management plan to be submitted and agreed for the use of any no dig construction methods (prior to commencement)

Highways
29. Details of the proposed access to be submitted and agreed 
30. Visibility splays to be provided prior to use of the access
31. Construction Traffic Management Plan to be submitted and agreed 
32. PROW Management Plan updated
33. Temporary diversion of the PROW shall accord with the PROW Management Plan