Meeting Details

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

RESOLVED

 That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2025 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received report ES/2676 of the Head of Planning and Building Control which provided a summary of the status of all outstanding enforcement cases for East Suffolk Council where enforcement action had been sanctioned under delegated confirmed powers up until 18 December 2025.

The Enforcement Officer said there was one update since the report was issued. Item A.7 at Campsea Ashe has been granted a one-month extension.

Councillor Ninnmey asked about B.2 and B.6. He asked if the solution for B.2 was for them to apply for a change of use. The Enforcement Officer explained that they were served a notice and they have appealed although he was not sure on the grounds for the appeal but would need to check the details and confirm.

He asked if B.6 was still being used as accommodation. The Enforcement Officer was not sure at the moment but it was when they first served the enforcement notice. There is an appeal and a planning application for change of use being considered. If the planning application is approved the enforcement notice will be dropped.

Councillor Daly asked about A.2 The Queen at Brandeston and if there was a prosecution underway. The Enforcement Officer explained that there was ongoing action so he couldn’t discuss this publicly. He expected to be able to bring an update to the planning meeting in February. He explained that the owner had claimed compliance and made some efforts to reopen but the Enforcement Team needs to establish if this is full compliance. He said it was a very complex case.

The Chair asked for a specific update on this case next month.

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

RESOLVED

That the outstanding enforcement matters up to 18th December 2025 be noted.

The Committee received report ES/2677 which related to application DC/24/3429/VOC. The application sought planning permission to amend a planning condition that controls the operational hours of floodlighting at Felixstowe skatepark. 

Members received a presentation from the Planning Manager. He explained that the site dates back to a 2006 planning application. The floodlighting was approved and the skate park has been in use for some time and is well used. He showed photos of the site and the existing condition relating to the floodlighting when it was originally approved. The proposal was to extend the hours of operation to 22:00 (Fridays to Sundays) and 21:00 (Mondays to Thursdays). He said that in the context of this urban environment the site being lit to these hours was acceptable and in accordance with the Development Plan and NPPF.

The Planning Manager said the skatepark was well used and users would like the area to be safer in the evening. 

The Planning Manager showed photos of the Shotley Close properties. Objections had been received from residents. It was approximately 80m from the back gardens to the skatepark. 

Members were shown a picture of the site between 4-5pm in December showing the context of the lighting from the supermarket and the glow from the Port of Felixstowe beyond. There was no lighting of the skatepark at that time but there was light spill from the surrounding area. It was an urban setting and not a dark skies area. The Planning Manager explained that the original lights were replaced due to vandalism but there was no shrouding installed which the residents were unhappy about. It was hoped that by extending the lighting time and adding a condition to secure details of shrouding this would ensure light spill is limited. It would make the area safer and be positive for the community.

The application was recommended for approval.

Councillor Deacon asked about the shrouding specification and if it would come back to the Planning Committee. The Planning Manager explained it wouldn’t but would be delegated to officers who would seek advice from the Environmental Protection team.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if there were any police reports or reports of ASB in this area. The Planning Officer said this would be a good question to ask of the applicant. 

Councillor Hedgley asked what precautions have been made to prevent light spill already. The Planning Manager explained that the Communities Team have been looking to fix this irrespective of the application being approved. The lighting has been in-situ for years and could continue in the way it is without this permission being granted. This permission will mean the shrouding will be done.

Councillor Ninnmey asked the Communities Officer if there were reports of ASB as this was a big concern of residents when it was installed. The Communities Officer said there had been reports and the Police do extra patrols of the area. However there is a misconception that it is the users causing the ASB when the reality is the opposite. The site feels unsafe and users leave the site when the lights go off. Users have been approached and made to feel unsafe when leaving the site.

Councillor Reeves said this had been discussed at the Felixstowe ASB forum at length. He asked what the shrouding would cost. The Communities Officer explained that regardless of today’s outcome the lighting will be repaired so it works and there will be shrouding or something similar to stop light pollution. She didn’t know the actual cost.

Councillor Deacon said he was more than happy to support this motion only if the shrouding was implemented. In the last 3 days he had been past when the lights were on and they were very bright. Something must happen soon to sort this. 

Councillor Reeves reiterated what Councillor Deacon said. He thought it was a great scheme that helps a lot of people in the area but needs to be subject to shrouding.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved with conditions as below.

Conditions: 

1. The floodlighting shall not be operated outside of the following hours:

09:00 to 22:00 on Fridays to Sundays; and 
09:00 to 21:00 on Mondays to Thursdays.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the local residents and visual amenity.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this permission, precise details of measures to shroud and direct/aim the lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented in full prior to the extended hours of operation (in condition 1) coming into effect.

Reason: To prevent any direct light glare from shining into adjacent residential properties.

The Committee received report ES/2678 which related to application DC/25/3431/OUT. The proposal sought outline consent for three new market dwellings. 

The Senior Planner gave a presentation.  He explained that the minded to recommendation of officers for approval was contrary to the objection raised by the Parish Council so the application was referred to the referral panel where it was decided to be presented to Planning South.

He showed the site location plan, proposed block plan and visibility splays.  He explained that Highways have reviewed the splays and confirmed they are acceptable. He showed the street scene but pointed out that they wouldn’t support a two-storey scheme. This would be covered at Reserved Matters stage if approved.

He showed photos of the trees that will need to be removed and replacement planting to be carried out. He showed photos of other properties in the area and photos of the site from different viewpoints.

The Senior Planner said one of the main concerns was if it fits with the cluster policy. He showed an illustration from the SPD and said that this proposal was relatively similar to the diagram in the SPD. He demonstrated how the site location plan fitted with the cluster policy and showed another development that was allowed in Burgh using the cluster policy.

The Senior Planner ran through the main material planning considerations. Considered against all the relevant material planning matters, the application was deemed sustainable and therefore recommended for approval in accordance with the NPPF and the relevant policies of the adopted development plan.

Councillor Deacon asked what the holding objection by Highways related to. The Senior Planner said it was due to visibility splays and they wanted just one access rather than three which was negotiated to two. The red line spikes on the plan were included to ensure the visibility splays remained open forever. With these changes Highways withdrew their objection.

Councillor McCallum asked if the site was in the ownership of the Turks Head as a previous application was allowed to keep the sustainability of the public house. The Committee went against policy last time to support the pub. The Senior Planner was not aware that this was anything to do with the pub. He said it was better to ask the applicant but it was just for housing.

Councillor Daly talked about the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There were three, five-bedroom plots that were huge but there was no Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) and the locals object. He asked what about this application was sustainable.

The Senior Planner explained that the scale has not been agreed and they wouldn’t want to see three five-bedroom houses but would expect something smaller. He said they could get BNG but it might possibly be offsite. 

Councillor Daly said these are rural villages and BNG was an important factor. He asked again what about this site was sustainable.

The Senior Planner explained that it doesn’t have to be in a sustainable location. The cluster policy allows up to three houses to infill small areas of smaller settlements.

The Chair said the issue was the interpretation of the word sustainable. 

Councillor Ninnmey asked how this will address the housing need of Burgh. The northern development in the village has provided three dwellings and now the same in the south. As they don’t have a village envelope he asked if all little settlements are going to be at risk of development.

The Planning Manager said it wasn’t about addressing the needs of the village but about meeting the need of the entire district. Someone living elsewhere in the district may want to live here. It is believed that this application accords with the development plan therefore it is considered to be sustainable. He stressed it was important to just look at this application in front of you today.

Councillor Reeves noted that the application only takes part of the field and asked where the access points to the rest of the field will be. The Senior Planner was not aware of all the access points but there were quite a lot of potential access points to the field.

Councillor Reeves asked about the stop tap referenced in the Update Sheet. The Senior Planner said there was a water supply running around the edge of the field to the property to the east of the site. The developer would have to ensure that the supply was maintained.

Councillor McCallum said the Update Sheet said the proposed change of use was policy compliant. She asked if that could be turned around and that three very large houses supplying no affordable housing could be seen as a reason for refusal. The Planning Manager said in debate you could discuss if this was an efficient use of land. He explained that the Council’s SPD supports clusters of up to three dwellings. Bringing forward a policy compliant site with more properties would be hard. He advised against looking for a larger scheme that delivered affordable housing.

The Chair asked for the second cluster policy diagram from the SPD to be shown. He felt that the red cross on the right looked very like the site being presented. The Senior Planner explained that the red line exceeded the boundary of the opposite property. With this application site the red line matched the boundary opposite. The visibility splay exceeds this but there would be no development there.

The Chair invited Alistair Turk, Chair of the Burgh Parish Meeting to speak. He said they held an extraordinary meeting and they unanimously voted to object. There is no settlement boundary and to meet the test of SLP5.4 it only allows infill where there is continuous frontage. The site is not infill as there is no continuous frontage. The cottage on the corner has a 300ft hedge and the property is 18m back from the road.  There is a separate area of land known as the goose yard between the cottage and the application site so the application site is not compliant and doesn’t meet criteria b of the policy. There are issues with surface water, the site is on heavy clay and the site regularly floods. He said that run off cannot be managed without harm to the highway and neighbouring land so it is not compliant with SLP9.5. The scale and form were not in keeping with the local area. He concluded that it was not compliant with SLP5.4, 10.4 and 11.1. The neighbouring property was a 17th century building and it was a non designated heritage asset. Burgh was a small hamlet and approval for three properties had already been granted that hadn’t been built yet and three more was not appropriate.

Councillor Smithson asked if the development was suggesting a more modest collection, such as a row of terraces, would they still object.  Mr Turk said if the properties were smaller it would be far more suitable. They had no new housing that was affordable or suitable for young families.

Councillor Ninnmey asked if the pub survived as they previously enabled provision for the pub’s survival. He also asked what the housing need was for the village and if this application would meet it.

Mr Turk explained that the Turk’s Head is in Hasketon. Burgh has nothing apart from housing and in the last 30 years two houses have been built and planning permission for three houses has already been granted to the same developer as this application.

Councillor McCallum noted that Burgh didn’t have a public house but how far was the pub in Hasketon. Mr Turk explained that the nearest pub is in Grundisburgh which is about a mile away and the pub in Hasketon was about 3 miles away. 

The Applicant’s agent was invited to speak. He thanked officers for the positive recommendation. He said the application does not propose three five-bedroom houses but the size of the houses will be determined at Reserved Matters stage. The site lies in the countryside and SLP5.4 supports new dwellings in rural clusters as detailed in paragraph 7.7 of the report. He said that all the criteria was met and the proposal was fully compliant. He also pointed out that East Suffolk cannot demonstrate a 5-year land supply and the Local Plan was not up to date. He said no harm will come from the development and the concerns of residents are not shared by officers or consultees. He noted paragraphs 7.4 and 7.20, acknowledging that a marker has been set but these will be addressed at Reserved Matters stage. He said the trees are given an amenity value. One is dead and the others are of poor value. The Council’s Tree Officer has no objections. He concluded by asking Members to give it their support.

Councillor Daly thanked him for reminding Members how the planning system worked. He asked if there was scope to think about BNG on site. 

The agent said he was not a designer just a humble planner however there may well be scope for improving the BNG of the site and that would be done in conjunction with offsite BNG credits. The BNG value of the field was quite low and it would be enhanced by the gardens and the new hedgerows that are proposed.

Councillor Daly asked if he would be happy for it to be written into conditions. The agent said he anticipated that the BNG will be secured offsite and draft conditions we have seen indicate that this would be a standard condition so the simple answer was yes.

Councillor Smithson asked why the other plot has not been built out. The agent said the reason was largely due to the state of the housing market. One of the plots has been sold to a couple who live in Grundisburgh who will build their own house. Permission was granted two days ago. The other two plots are on the market and there is interest in them.

Councillor Ninnmey queried that the three houses given consent were now being marketed as self-build and that was not what was approved by the previous administration. The agent said the original site was always for self build plots.

The Chair asked about BNG and about the hedgerow between the development and the field and if they intended to plant a hedgerow between the new hedgerow.

The agent said he would expect a condition requiring a detailed landscaping scheme to be submitted and for it to be implemented within the first planting season. That may not be sufficient to meet BNG in which case they may have to purchase offsite BNG credits. He would expect this as an additional condition.

The Chair confirmed that they were looking to get BNG locally first and offsite second.

The Planning Manager said they should focus on the scheme in front of them and should not be considering the other site that had previously been granted permission. He reminded Members that this is an outline permission application and any indicative plans are just that. There would be careful consideration at Reserved Matters stage. He explained that the policy limits a development to three dwellings at most.

He clarified that development potential is for the developer to examine through the Local Plan. He said that BNG offsite credits was legitimate and would be more expensive than doing it onsite. A second condition requires an ecological enhancement strategy. He clarified that the Turks Head was 1.3 miles away and the Grundisburgh Dog was 0.8miles.

Councillor Daly understood the enhancements and that the applicant was looking at getting BNG uplift at the site so can this be added as a condition. The Senior Planner said we don’t know what could be produced on site. The trees and hedgerows might provide the necessary uplift without buying extra credits. Realistically they would hope to achieve onsite but the credits would be a fallback to top up. 

Councillor Daly said the key was to get the ecology detail in there to maximise the BNG. The Senior Planner said it would be in the applicant’s interest to get the BNG onsite rather than buy offsite.

Councillor Smithson asked about the grade of the agricultural land. The Senior Planner didn’t know off the top of his head. 

Councillor Hedgley said there was a glaring mistake made by applicant’s agent. He was not a humble planner but was very experienced. There were problems with the cluster policy and SLP5.4. This one stretches his belief. It does not meet local need and he had landscape character concerns. It will spoil the view and does not enhance the residential amenity. This was an attractive small village in the countryside. There were no queues of people lining up to buy houses here and there were still three houses to be built at the north of the village. This site had just been cleared and there was no real demand and there were no people clamouring for more houses in the village. He would vote against this as it is not fair to the village and not required.

Councillor Reeves was also concerned. He questioned if this was a continuous built up frontage as it has been alleged it isn’t due to the hedging. He said he has a similar application coming down the line in his ward so he is interested to see this one.

Councillor McCallum was worried Councillor Reeves’s judgement was being affected by this other scheme. She was assured it wasn’t.

Councillor Ninnmey wasn’t aware of what the village need was and didn’t think it complied with the cluster policy.

The Chair said it was a finely balanced case. He understood the concerns but the NPPF says you can only turn it down if there is significant harm. He was torn between local housing need but we have to consider the district wide housing need.

Councillor Smithson agreed. It doesn’t meet our housing needs. However everywhere needs to take some housing not just the towns. It was frustrating to get outline planning applications with so little details as Members are being asked to make a decision on something we either don’t agree with, three big houses, or something we would support, such as three smaller houses or three affordable houses.

Councillor Daly said sustainable just means sustaining development which is irritating. It’s an arable field and not hard to make it ecologically better. He was on the fence but it was hard to defend in terms of policy.

Councillor Fisher asked how much of a bend was needed on the west side for it to count as two sides for it to fit the cluster policy. He felt it would cause harm as it is an open area. He was inclined to refuse as he doesn’t think there is development on both sides. If it was a straight side and it doesn’t conform to the policy then the NPPF doesn’t allow you to build in the countryside.

The Planning Manager said this wasn’t a finely balanced decision. The application meets the policy but he accepted members had concerns. He reminded them that they had to consider the tilted balance and was there demonstrable harm. He said it would be good to hear what the real concerns about harm were without referring to other applications and what made it unacceptable in planning terms.

Councillor Reeves asked if the hedge counted and whether it constituted it being close enough to the cluster policy. The Planning Officer quoted the policy saying it needed to be adjacent to existing development on two sides and that is what makes it acceptable.

Councillor McCallum reminded Members that providing big houses can mean smaller houses are freed up when people move into the bigger houses. She understood the frustrations but can see no reason to object. She would be voting to support it.

The Chair said it could be clear cut or finely balanced depending on how you looked at the site location plan.

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

RESOLVED 

That the application be approved subject to conditions below, BNG condition and RAMS contribution. 

Conditions: 

 1. 3 Year time limit

 2. Details relating to the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping

 3. 2 year commencement of each plot

 4. Ecological Enhancement Strategy

 5. Unexpected Contaminated land

 6. Construction Management Plan 

 7. Foul and surface water drainage

 8. Visibility splays 

 9. Accesses delivery

10. Water efficiency standard 

11. Phasing Plan 

Informatives:

1. The Local Planning Authority has assessed the proposal against all material considerations including planning policies and any comments that may have been received. The planning application has been approved in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan to promote the delivery of sustainable development and to approach decision taking in a positive way.

2. A Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) assessment at the Section 278 stage may be required by an independent arboriculturist may required to determine highway tree's amenity value affected by the development. This is due to the trees to be felled potentially falling on SCC Highways land.

Members took a short break and the meeting reconvened at 3.40pm.

The Committee received report ES/2679 which related to application DC/25/2180/FUL.  The application sought full planning permission for the construction of a winter storage irrigation reservoir on agricultural land at Dumb Boy Cottage, Shingle Street, Hollesley. The application was at Planning Committee following the triggering of the Member Call-in consultation process due to objections from the Parish Council and Ward Member, and the subsequent calling in of the application by a Planning Committee member.

The Senior Planner gave a presentation. She showed the site location plan. She explained that Highways had requested visibility splays and access to be demonstrated, which had been provided by the applicant.

She said it was a rural coastal setting surrounded by agricultural land. There was a PROW along the boundary that will remain open and any diversion or closure would require separate permission.  The nearest residential dwelling was Dumb Boy Cottage. She pointed out the pump house and the small reservoir that was already there. She explained that the landscape was largely flat and no trees would be removed. She showed the boundary between the site and Dumb Boy Cottage and a selection of photos of the site from a variety of viewpoints.

The blockplan of the scheme was displayed to show the relationship to the small existing reservoir and pump house. No buildings were required for this development.  

The Senior Planner ran through the main material planning considerations and concluded that the recommendation was to approve.

Councillor Daly asked how water would fill the reservoir. The Senior Planner did not know and suggested they ask the applicant.

Councillor Smithson wanted to raise local concerns about contamination so would ask the applicant.

Councillor Deacon wanted to see the relationship between Dumb Boy Cottage and the proposed reservoir. The Senior Planner showed the photos.

The Chair wanted to know about the height of the bund/bowl and if it was raised or level. The Senior Planner said there will be a raised embankment but there will be landscaping to soften the appearance.

Councillor McCallum asked if the Parish Council or Ward Member were here to speak as they called it in. It was confirmed that they were not. 

The Applicant was invited to speak. He explained that he owns and manages Cobrey Farms with his family. In 2024 they acquired the sandy land at Cedar Farm for asparagus production. This area is the veg basket of Britain. He explained that the British asparagus season ran from April to June and the UK grow 5,300 tonnes, but in addition 2,000 tonnes is imported, which is the carbon equivalent to the carbon footprint of 700 homes. This application will benefit the environment as it will reduce reliance on imports. He pointed out that there are no objections from statutory consultees. He explained that the reservoir will be lined with clay found on site and a shallow shelf will be planted which would encourage wading birds. He explained that the flow in the ditch becomes saline in the summer and so not suitable for irrigating crops.

He explained that the Environment Agency is restricting extraction licences by 40% in the summer. As there is an abundant flow of water in the winter the plan is to capture in the water at that time to then be used in the summer. He said they had Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) accreditation and this application will bring employment, economic and environmental benefits to the area.

Councillor McCallum thanked the applicant for travelling for 5 hours to be here unlike the local parish council and ward councillor.

Councillor Reeves asked about sewage from the prisons and blue green algae that residents raised concerns about. The applicant explained that the discharge is from an EA sewerage works. This water is required by law to meet certain standards but the EA does not always meet those standards. He thinks this is a relatively rare occurrence and perhaps clutching at straws by an objector.

Councillor Reeves asked for clarity that water that is coming from the prisons will not go into your reservoir.

The applicant said no. They would be pumping from the Black Ditch water course which ends at the pumping station. In summer this is saline water going out to sea. In the winter it is good water and it grieves him to see good water going out to sea.

Councillor Ninnmey commended him for having travelled on such a wet day. He asked what the land was used for currently. The applicant said the intent is to focus on asparagus. They crop from April to June but the season could be extended if you had usable water further into the season. The applicant explained that the harvest ran from St George’s Day to Midsummer’s Day. The growing period is through the summer and water is needed July to September. He explained that they had delivered the first English asparagus to a supermarket and they would supply until the end of October. They had more than doubled the UK asparagus season. It was good for jobs, economy and reduces imports.

Councillor Smithson said this seemed like a sensible solution so was inclined to support.

Councillor Daly was very interested. He asked if the irrigation of crops would be wider than just Hollesley. The applicant said it would. He explained that Moors farm was part of the prison farm but was now part of Cedar Farm. One thousand acres will be served by this reservoir and it will hold 160k cubic metres of water. This will make all the difference when the EA reduces summer extraction licences by 40%. They were balancing the need of the environment with growing English vegetables.

Councillor Daly expressed concern about protecting the water table. The applicant explained that the other half of the farm was being bought by the RSPB and they were working with them to develop nesting sites. The RSPB is excited about the reservoir. That area grew crops but there is now no profit from combinable crops so we will dedicate to growing vegetables.

Councillor Daly asked what LEAF was. The applicant said it was a national body that was started by Waitrose two years ago. The company has accreditation and the logo was on our products. 

The Chair asked about the depth of the reservoir. The applicant said it was limited to 2 metres as they can’t go below the water table. The Chair said he might get interest from the local swimmers as a result.

Councillor Deacon asked if they forced the growing of asparagus with glasshouses like in Germany. The applicant explained there was greenhouse production in Ross on Wye, then cropping from polytunnels whilst here in Hollesley mini cloches are used that allow cropping in March. In Germany they use black coverings to produce white asparagus. Here we grow green asparagus mostly but sometimes white too.

Councillor McCallum said what an absolute delight it was to learn about this and thanked the Parish Council for calling it in. She supported the application.

Councillor Deacon was disappointed that no one from the Parish Council or the Ward Council had attended today.

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

RESOLVED

That the application be approved subject to consideration of comments received from the Local Highway Authority and subject to the inclusion of conditions 

Conditions to include:

1. Standard Time Limit for implementation
2. Approved Drawings/documents
3. To be completed in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment
4. Submission of landscaping/planting scheme
5. Implementation of landscaping/planting scheme
6. Submission of Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation/Evaluation
7. Submission of written report on the results of the Archaeological Evaluation and details of any archaeological mitigation
8. The archaeological evaluation and mitigation shall be completed and deposited prior to first use. 
9. To be completed in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the Shadow Appropriate Assessment (Wild Frontier Ecology, 2024), Ecology Report (Wild Frontier Ecology, 2024), Biodiversity Statement (Wild Frontier Ecology, 2024).
10. Submission of BNG Delivery and Management Plan, and subsequent implementation and maintenance.
11. Unexpected Contamination requirements
12. No external lighting without prior approval from the LPA
13. Submission of noise assessment and mitigation if any external plant or machinery is proposed (i.e. pumps etc) – to be submitted prior to installation of such equipment

Informatives, to include:

1. Positive /Proactive statement
2. Various Informatives relating to requirements for any works near a main river, flood defence, or sea defence, or watercourses. 
3. Requirements if laying of drainage pipes under roads 
4. Potential requirements for abstraction licence
5. Requirements of Reservoirs Act 1975 (as amended) and Flood Plan Direction 2021.
6. Proximity to Public Right of Way and that it must remain open, unobstructed, and safe for public use at all times.
7. Potential for protected species and advisement to undertake work outside of the bird nesting season. 
8. BNG Informative