Report of the Head of Planning and Building Control
6
Members received report ES/2710 relating to planning application DC/23/2930/OUT. The application proposed a lorry park as part of the supply chain network linked to the Port of Felixstowe. Members received a presentation from the Planning Manager. He explained that it was a proposal that brought public benefit as it met an evidenced demand and need in the District. Whilst the land use was not particularly attractive or beneficial to the appearance and character of the countryside, this was a site of limited sensitivity that was strategically well-placed in connection with the A14 and Port of Felixstowe whereby positive impacts, in terms of the local economy, and public benefits outweighed the harms.
The application was referred direct to Planning Committee South by the Head of Planning and Building Control due to the significance of the proposal. The Planning Manager acknowledged there was not a direct Local Plan policy to specifically support a proposal of this nature, and therefore it was a judgment call for the Committee to weigh up matters in the balance.
The Planning Manager explained that the Developer requested a Screening Direction from the Secretary of State on 16th February 2024. The Secretary of State responded on 2nd August 2024 and confirmed that, “Based on the information provided it will need to be established what the impacts from other surrounding developments will be.” Traffic and transport are therefore detailed much more extensively in the Environmental Statement than you would expect.
Members were shown a map of the proposed site and the Planning Manager pointed out the A14, railway line and the surrounding road network and nearby farm and solar array. He showed the site location plan explaining this was a countryside location in close relation to the A14. Members were shown photographs of the site and the Public Right of Way network.
The Landscape Visual Impact Assessment appraisal included a series of photo montages to show how the development would look over the years if the landscape planting was implemented and maintained. Members saw the proposed view at year 1 and 15. The screening was something they would want to achieve but sometimes planting plans and proposals can be a little optimistic. He explained that if it only looked like it did at year 1 that would be acceptable. Landscaping would be a reserved matter.
The Planning Manager showed the proposed block plan explaining that the look and scale of buildings would be a reserved matter. The layout had been amended, particularly around the entrance/exit and the landscaping. There was some space on the southern edge for planting to soften the appearance.
He showed vehicular site access arrangements for Felixstowe Road. He explained that vehicles couldn’t turn right on exiting the site but would have to turn left and then rejoin the A14 at the Seven Hills roundabout. He showed the table of traffic flows which detailed absolute vehicles and HGVs and the summary of predicted vehicular movements.
The Planning Manager referred to the Suffolk MRN Improvement Scheme and the junction improvements being proposed at the Seven Hills junction. He explained this was just for context but not something that could be relied upon.
Members were shown National Cycle Route No51. They have limited status in planning terms but it has been considered in the application. Traffic flows from the site are below those that would be considered to cause problems for the cycle route.
He explained there was a need for the development. Members were shown a map of similar sites and there was a lack of facilities in East Suffolk. The red cross was the old Orwell Bridge facility that was now closed. Felixstowe is a huge container port but there were very few facilities to serve it in the county which was why you saw HGVs parked in laybys. The applicant has demonstrated the need but it was noted that the Local Plan doesn’t cover this type of proposal.
Members were asked to decide if this was the right site to meet this need. The pplicant has considered alternative sites, which was not a requirement, and they found there was no suitable land for development in the locality. The Applicant reviewed all the site allocations for employment land, land adjacent to those allocations and land within settlement boundaries. Countryside land has also been reviewed but it is of similar character to the application site.
The Planning Manager ran through the Key Issues and Considerations. There was no objections from either Highways bodies. The harm was about the loss of habitat site, which was given moderate weight, and this must be weighed up in the balance. The balance tipped in favour of allowing this scheme therefore the recommendation was to approve with conditions.
Councillor Reeves asked where the applicant was currently storing vehicles. The Planning Manager said it was just off Ferry Lane near the Port but the applicant could confirm. Councillor Reeves asked what the benefit was of moving it from the Port to the countryside. The Planning Manager believed that the lease was up on the site and they needed to look for an alternative.
Councillor Daly asked for clarification regarding the ecology. He asked why the site was significantly ecologically degraded, when it happened and what was behind it. He understood the loss of local ecological benefit was outweighed by benefits of national projects. Everyone was aware of the impact on the region from national projects. However he was wary about this loss of local ecological benefit that cannot be mitigated.
The Planning Manager advised Councillor Daly to ask the Applicant although he said much of the vegetation has grown back.
The Planning Manager explained that they have reservations about the ecological harm. This application has been delayed because of the back and forth on ecological matters. Initially the harm was of such a scale that the benefits wouldn’t outweigh that. Further information has informed that it was only local scale harm and so now the benefits outweighed the harm. He did note that there was a gap in the Local Plan relating to developments of this type though.
Councillor Smithson asked if the call for sites had generated any suitable sites for this type of application or if there should there be a call for these sites. She didn’t understand this location and asked if the Felixstowe lorry park was under threat of closure.
The Head of Planning and Building Control said the call for sites asked for a variety of sites and they had over 500 submissions across the District. The next Local Plan will allocate land for employment and there will be Port of Felixstowe considerations. He pointed out that long term sustainable truck stop facilities and electric vehicle charging facilities will need to be considered.
Councillor Ninnmey asked why there was no mention of the Felixstowe Traps truck stop on the map. He thought the site was for the operator’s own vehicles whereas the biggest need was for eastbound truckers who needed an overnight before they got to the port. He asked if the eastbound carriageway would be more suitable and felt this was not the ideal location. He asked how many spaces were for passing truckers and how many were for Prologic. He asked if they had received advice from the Trans-European Network.
The Planning Manager wasn’t aware of the allocation split and suggested asking the applicant. He hadn’t had advice from the Trans-European Network.
Councillor McCallum asked if there could be a condition that said it was for travelling lorries only and not a lorry park. The Planning Manager said it was reasonable to have a condition that covered the approved use to ensure that what was delivered long term was accurate.
Councillor Bennett asked about the cycle route as the additional traffic was suggesting it wouldn’t double the traffic. However the HGV movements were more like tripling them and cycling and HGVs do not mix on a 60mph stretch of road. He also asked if the site was providing EV charging.
The Planning Manager showed the traffic flow table and confirmed the numbers. The Planning Manager said EV charging could be controlled by conditions.
Councillor Deacon asked if the cycle route ran along Felixstowe Road and Councillor Bennett confirmed it did.
Councillor Reeves asked why this application was different to the eastern structures development that was refused by the council and dismissed by the inspector on appeal and is subject to enforcement.
The Planning Manager said there was an unmet need in the area but he took their point. The Head of Planning and Building Control said there was a difference between the two sites but didn’t have it to hand. Councillor Reeves asked under what Local Plan policy it was refused. The Head of Planning and Building Control said he would need to confirm.
Councillor Hedgley asked to see the site access arrangements slide and asked if cars could turn right and if the bollard would interfere with the cycle route. Councillor Bennett explained this wasn’t a cycle path but cyclists just use the road. The Planning Manager said the bollard was contained within the application site and wouldn’t impede the carriageway.
Councillor Fisher asked about the consideration of the impact on surface water drainage. The Planning Manager said there was a formal plan and the Lead Flood Authority agreed the proposal.
Councillor Reeves asked how sewage will be directed to the mains sewer when there is none so where will it go. The Planning Manager said that would need to be asked of the applicant.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if they had received anything from truck organisations and those that look after truckers. The Planning Manager said there was a letter from the Road Haulage Association on 30 September.
The Chair invited the Objector to speak. They explained that the site is in the countryside and outside the Local Plan. It was farmland with ecological benefits and its development was contrary to SCLP 10.5. Felixstowe Road was a potential route for ribbon development and he was against the filling in of gaps. He said 10.5 existed for good reason and should be observed. He took issue that the site was well placed in relation to the A14 and Felixstowe. The road was a country road and you can’t turn right but a left turn towards Ipswich was awkward, a negative camber and not an easy turn. Joining the A14 at the Seven Hills roundabout was a busy junction and SZC freight management was moved from this site to the A14. This site was a mirror to the failed Innocence Farm application. Highways gave no serious impediment but the inspector removed it. He also had concerns that the site was close to the level crossing.
Councillor McCallum asked if he was speaking on behalf of a group of objectors. The Objector said he was speaking on behalf of himself but there were plenty of people who supported him.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if he was a member of Kirton Parish Council and the group of parishes that have joined together. The Objector confirmed he was the Vice-Chair of Kirton and Fakenham Parish Council and Chair of the cross-parish group.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to the Planning Inspector’s report which found that the provision of land around the docks was sufficient to meet the growth. The Objector confirmed that was his understanding of the inspector’s view.
The Chair invited Councillor Yeo from the Parish Council to speak. They strongly object to the planning application and do not believe it will have benefits. It would be for the benefit of Prologic and not an altruistic development. There was a new 100 space lorry site in Felixstowe so what was the public benefit of moving from the Port to the countryside. He said this land was in the countryside so allowing this application would be a breach of Local Plan policy SCLP 3.6. It also contradicted the Planning Inspector's December 2023 report relating to the Eastern Structure site and this site is 600m away and almost identical in outlook. This site was close to an AONB and he was concerned that the ecology report does not say that nightingales are in close proximity to the site, which are red listed species and the development will harm them.
Councillor Deacon asked when the land was last cultivated. Councillor Yeo said it was mown but wasn’t sure when it was last cultivated.
Councillor Reeves asked them to confirm that access onto the site will be adjacent to the level crossing. Councillor Yeo said the access would be off Felixstowe Road.
Councillor Reeves asked about sewage and Councillor Yeo confirmed that residents use septic tanks.
Councillor Ninnmey asked about bus stops and noise. Councillor Yeo said there was a bus stop 50 yards from the entrance. There were noise concerns and lots more issues that could be raised.
Councillor McCallum asked if neighbouring parish councils were invited to speak. The Planning Manager said they were consulted as neighbouring parishes but weren’t invited to speak.
The Applicant’s Agent was invited to speak. He explained the applicant was a reputable haulier. The site was constrained by roads and the railway and it had not been farmed for nearly 10 years. Geographically the site makes sense. They had sought expert opinions and there were no technical concerns from key stakeholders. The principle of development was sound and the Committee report was spot on. The works would be conditioned and the site has been subject to EIA scrutiny. The proposal was a solution to parking issues locally and it had been thoroughly stress tested against policy.
Councillor Smithson asked why they can’t reapply for a lease at Felixstowe Port where there are good facilities. There are no showers at this site. She asked what the real need was and why they were moving from Felixstowe.
The agent explained that Prologic knows what is needed. This application was just for outline planning but reserved matters would provide the details for showers, facilities etc. He said there was no capacity at Felixstowe and there was a massive shortage.
The Chair asked if they were leaving Felixstowe. The agent said it was additional provision that would be predominately for lorries from other companies. It was an extension of what they already had giving additional storage for 50 lorries.
Councillor McCallum asked if it was a lorry park or a lorry stop. She noted that the country is in need of lorry stops which is why it was recommended by the Haulage Association. If it was just to park lorries then she was not so comfortable.
The agent explained it was a facility to park up and use the facilities so it was a blend of a lorry stop and parking. It could be conditioned to what it was predominantly used for. There would be a café, office and facilities.
The Chair felt it was odd that there wasn’t a clear business plan with set requirements. There is a dearth of stops because they struggle to make money. He wanted the agent to give a more convincing response.
The agent said they had a very strong business case and the need and demand for this type of facility near to the A14 and Felixstowe was huge.
The Chair noted that there was a lack of clarity as to what proportion of spaces were for visiting lorries and those for Prologic.
Councillor Daly asked if there would be open access and the agent confirmed there would be.
Councillor Daly asked for details about the ecological degradation. The agent said he was equally interested to know about that. The Client has been involved for nearly 5 years and they were not aware of any wholescale scraping of the site. He wondered if this could be the archaeological and infiltration testing.
Councillor Reeves asked how many vehicles were at Ferry Lane and if the applicant offered services to other drivers at that site.
The agent explained they had 50 vehicles and there are other satellite sites not owned by Prologic so this site would be a role reversal by providing parking provision to other companies. There was no access to Ferry Lane by the public.
Councillor Reeves asked if this meant 50 spaces in Felixstowe already why wouldn't you have 50 at the application site.
The agent said it was an ever changing number of lorries that they had in different places. He mentioned that the site could be conditioned to split out the spaces for Prologic and other hauliers but it was tricky to give an exact number.
Councillor Ninnmey was still confused as he thought the reason for the application was that the lease at Felixstowe was up for renewal. He had concerns about noise, reefer points in the design and refrigeration lorry noise.
The agent said the position they have is that the reserved matters would give the details. EV charging for lorries was the long term plan. They would be bound by reserved matters and the HGV industry.
Councillor Bennett asked if this truck stop would qualify to appear on the map of truck stops as he noted that the one at Felixstowe wasn’t listed.
The agent said the nearest truck stop was at Chelmsford or Risby so this was a good location. He would argue that it would be of the same status, but he could not say if it would meet it and be included.
Councillor Bennett asked if they had considered the cycle route and cyclists at length. The agent said they had and they commissioned RPS to undertake surveys which included provision of cycles. They would have a marshall box with a gate at the entrance and note any other road users.
Councillor Reeves asked about the comments from the police and the need for security and if they would get full accreditation to ParkMark. The agent explained they had aspirations to accredit the site. It was a serious operation and it was something they would aim for.
Councillor Reeves asked how sewage would be dealt with as there wasn’t a mains sewer. The agent said there would be a site specific septic system that would be dealt with at reserved matters stage.
Councillor Smithson asked about the surfacing and if it was permeable.
The agent explained that the site dips down. They carried out infiltration tests and they will install a crated system. It would be a hard surface that was permeable – the water would be held and discharged at an appropriate rate.
Councillor Smithson asked where it would be discharged to and hoped it was not the creek or the river.
The agent said it would be discharged at the lowest point. The Environment Agency had not raised any objections and the water would be well contained.
Councillor Bennett asked what net gain of employment would be achieved by opening this site.
The agent said there would be an increase onsite. With the Café, office, service and maintenance there would 16 FTE and 4 PTE, so 18 FTE equivalent, in addition to the existing site.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if the lorry park provided 38 lorry bays for temporary parking.
The agent said the application was submitted some time ago but it was predominantly for non Prologic vehicles.
Councillor Smithson asked if it would make a difference to the A14 and stop the layby parking.
The agent said they couldn’t police the A14 but believed the offering will be an attractive site to the industry that will help improve the situation.
Councillor Bennett asked if it would be used, as pulling off the A14 was a detour.
The agent said it was a very promising site. He acknowledged it wasn’t perfect as it was in the countryside but the technical work and demand showed this is well positioned.
McCallum asked if there were any other feasible sites.
The agent said there weren’t hence why it was such a problem in the industry.
The Planning Manager gave some clarifications that the site access was not near the level crossing and the lighting strategy would be conditioned. With reference to the planning control unit they do not come to a conclusion on ecological matters. There could be a condition that set the number of spaces allocated to Prologic and those for visiting trucks. On the application form it stated that they would rely on mains sewerage but in the drainage strategy it showed two cesspits. The Head of Planning and Building Control said the emptying of these was covered.
Councillor Ninnmey said he was still not sure if the application was due to the lease being terminated and this was a replacement site or an additional site.
The Chair said it was in addition and numbers had been given.
The Planning Manager stressed that Members needed to look at the application before them in addition to what was already in place. He explained they could control the space allocation through conditions.
Councillor McCallum said they needed to look at this application on its own merits to which the Planning Manager agreed.
The meeting adjourned for a short break and reconvened at 4.08pm.
Councillor Daly felt this was a strange application as it wasn’t in the Local Plan and it wasn’t a housing development. There was ‘policy silence’ and they needed to be careful. He was mindful of coalescence and the importance of SCLP 10.5 as this area was at risk of becoming a big urban landscape.
Councillor Hedgley felt there was confusion and uncertainty. This was in the countryside and yet opposite was a farm which was a mini industrial estate. The Port is so important and we need to do everything we can to support it. As it will be a place of employment he would be voting in support of the application.
Councillor Reeves could see no reason to divert from SCLP 10.5. It’s in the countryside. He could see there was a need for overnight parking but what is needed is something like the old Orwell Crossing site. As this is not that he was minded to refuse.
Councillor Deacon initially thought it wasn’t a bad site but having listened to what has been said today he feels it is an inappropriate site. Should make plans for a similar site somewhere else. However whatever we do might not be enough and lorry drivers might not be able to afford to use it. He would be voting against the application.
Councillor McCallum came in very positive and then went un-positive but has listened to what has been said. She sympathised with the objectors but can see the importance of the Docks and everything that goes alongside. There is a huge need for lorries and Officers say we should approve. She wished there were more sites but there aren’t. She would be voting in favour as we should be supporting the businesses in the community.
Councillor Smithson was very torn. She was appalled at the lack of national strategy and that the welfare of lorry drivers has been neglected. She said sites were definitely needed but this was not the right place. Suffolk Wildlife Trust made no objections which heartened her. If they didn’t object she didn’t see what ecological grounds she could object on. There would need to be a lot of conditions for her to support it though. High level of welfare services for truck drivers and absolute certainty that there would be no water pollution that would affect the area. She thought there needed to be a call for sites specifically.
Councillor Ninnmey said he represented parishes that are constantly having applications put on them. He referenced the Planning Inspector report from 2020 which said there was enough land adjacent to the Port for a 15 year period and he had not heard that the land had been consumed. The Local Plan is being reviewed. The lack of the regional view on the A12 and A14 is not good. Huge number of trucks in and out of the Port. We should be doing a lot more but this application is not serving the greatest needs which is for people approaching the Port. It should be bigger and be an inter-county discussion. He would be voting against this as it is too small and in the wrong place.
Councillor Fisher noted the 5 mile round trip from the A14. He felt it was not a suitable site and worried about the impact on cyclists.
Councillor Bennett recognised the need for lorry parking as a Felixstowe Councillor. Cost is a factor and so is the distance from the A14 and the Dock. It is 5 miles from Felixstowe but impacting a different area. The farm opposite is right next to the A14. If this was located right next to the A14 like at the Orwell truck stop then it would be a different scenario. The Local Plan has parts that indicate against a development like this. Development should not harm walking and cycling routes, new employment development only outside settlement boundaries only if there are no impacts on AONB. He can see the need but can see the difficulty in the numbers of who would use the site. Scale of impact versus scale of benefit is hard to see. It contradicts too much of our Local Plan.
Councillor Hedgley asked if people really thought a driver who has driven 350 miles will care about the last 5 miles.
Councillor Bennett said the issue was more about getting back onto the A14 and the mix with local traffic and cyclists. This is the countryside and 400m from the AONB. It would be different if it was beside the A14.
Councillor Daly said it was about balance. The loss to locals versus the benefits but the benefits aren’t that clear.
The Planning Manager said there would need to be an additional condition to include EV charging for cars and HGVs. The foul drainage strategy needed to be conditioned. A proportion of the site must be made available for non Prologic lorries and the equality of welfare facilities would be picked up by reserved matters.
Councillor Bennett asked what proportion can be conditioned. The Planning Manager said a plan would be provided which are set aside spaces for visiting trucks – eg 30 general spaces.
Councillor Ninnmey asked if it would operate 24/7. If there were only 30 spaces you would need a booking system to ensure there wasn’t a tailback. There was no explanation on how this would be managed so could a condition be included.
The Planning Manager said it was a 24 hour operation and the lighting strategy and measures from noise impact assessment were more relevant.
Councillor Ninnmey questioned how the operators would ensure that there wasn’t a line of trucks waiting to get in.
The Planning Manager said this couldn’t be conditioned.
The Chair sought a proposer for the recommendation in the report, with conditions. On the proposal of Councillor Hedgley, seconded by Councillor McCallum the recommendation failed.
Councillor Ninnmey felt it should be refused based on the Planning Inspector report from the Local Plan Review dated 8th September 2020. It said the provision of employment land was sufficient and there was land available to meet Port related needs for a 15 year period.
The Head of Planning and Building Control urged caution as that was the report that advised the Local Plan. Time has moved on and there were policies in the Local Plan that need to be used. He said they could make reference to the report but it was not substantive.
Councillor Daly said this committee has decided that the planning balance between the impact on locals was not outweighed by national benefits. There was a discussion around policies SCLP 10.5, 10.4, 10.1, 10.3, 2.2, 3.3, 4.2 and 7.1.
Councillor Smithson said the Council needed to address the lack of provision. Members didn’t object to the concept but just the location and that it doesn’t meet the needs.
After discussions it was agreed that the scheme should be refused as contrary to policies SCLP10.1 (Biodiversity & Geodiversity), SCLP10.3 (Environmental Quality), SCLP10.4 (Landscape Character) and SCLP10.5 (Settlement Coalescence). Members felt benefits would not outweigh the harm.
On the proposal of Councillor Daly, seconded by Councillor Ninnmey it was
RESOLVED
That the application be refused as it was contrary to policies SCLP 10.1, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 and the benefits would not outweigh the harm.