6
The Committee received report ES/2791 which related to application DC/24/2645/FUL. The application sought planning permission for the replacement of an existing dwelling and annexe building, along with additional boathouse/garage including first-floor living accommodation at Swans Nest, Deben Lane Waldringfield. The application was at Planning Committee South, following the referral panel, because the “minded to” decision of the Case Officer was contrary to the Parish Council’s recommendation to refuse the application.
The Committee received a presentation from the Planner. A series of slides covering location, plans and photographs were shared. The application proposed the replacement of the existing dwelling and annexe, together with the addition of a new boathouse/garage with first floor living accommodation, all within the village settlement boundary. The site was located on the edge of the village next to the River Deben in a sensitive riverside and flood risk location. The new buildings would broadly reflect the scale and height of the existing development, with a modest increase in floorspace (113 sq m overall) and bedroom numbers (from 9 to 11), and a contemporary design intended to fit in with the established pattern of riverside properties. The replacement annexe would be slightly taller (up to 8 metres). The scheme included measures to protect the retained trees, following a detailed tree assessment (6 were to be removed), manage flood risk, control lighting and limit future development, and would remain for private residential use only, not holiday accommodation. The application was subject to a comprehensive set of 27 planning conditions; and recommended for approval.
The Chair invited any points of clarification following the presentation.
Councillor Ninnmey raised a point of clarification following the presentation. He asked for a breakdown of the 113 square metres increase of the new development. The Planner confirmed the breakdown was as follows:
Boat house – 68 square metres.
Existing house 130 square metres and proposed house 165 square metres.
Existing annex 70 square metres and proposed annex 80 square metres.
Councillor McCallum raised a point of clarification regarding Condition 23 for the Annexe, asking if it was added in after the initial application to ensure it wasn’t separately rented out and how the condition would be enforced. The Planning Manager confirmed that Condition 23 was added to ensure that the buildings would be incidental or ancillary to the main dwelling. How the condition would be enforced would be picked up within overall questions later in the order of speaking.
Councillor Reeves asked whether the footpath running in front of the property was now the King Charles III Coastal Footpath. The Planner wasn’t entirely sure but confirmed it was a Public Right of Way and the public footpath of Waldringfield.
The Chair invited Waldringfield Parish Council to make their representation.
Waldringfield Parish Council submitted holding objections to the application in August 2024 and February 2025, as they did not consider the application provided the required level of detail.
Their key concerns were:
The prominent and sensitive location. The site sat by the river wall alongside a public footpath (now part of the King Charles III coastal path) within a protected area (AONB, SSSI, and Ramsar site). Its position at the edge of the settlement boundary, with no properties to the north and a setback property to the south, makes it highly visible.
Misleading drawings and scale impact, the submitted visuals did not accurately represent the building’s impact in relation to the nearby properties. Although it was replacing an existing structure, the proposed building was significantly larger (64% increase in internal floorspace), increasing its visual prominence.
Access and construction concerns. No construction plan had been provided and access via Deben Lane was unsuitable due to its narrow, unsurfaced nature with few passing places. There was a tight difficult turn into Swans Nest.
Lighting and landscaping issues. Concerns were raised about external lighting in a dark skies area and inadequate daylight strategy. They recommended a detailed lighting plan, use of motion sensors, and a planting scheme before approval.
Councillor Reeves asked them to clarify that there had been no consultation between February 2025 when they made their comments and when the referral panel was told of extra documentation earlier this month. The Parish Council representative believed that was the case but couldn’t be absolutely certain.
Councillor Daly said there was a large amount of conditions associated with the application now and asked the Parish Council if they were content with them and whether they addressed the issues they had raised. The Parish Council representative confirmed that they were and that their presentation had been prepared before the conditions were added. They were happy with the construction plan, the lighting plan and the planting scheme. Their main concern was the visual prominence of the house; the proposed size of the new house was greater in size than any other properties other than the Maybush Pub. Whilst Crystal Creek was of a similar size it was set further back so not as visually prominent.
Councillor Ninnmey said that the building would be at the northern end of the settlement and the first thing you see from the river. The Parish Council representative agreed.
The Chair invited the applicant to speak.
The applicant thanked the committee, planning officers, and parish council for their time and input. She explained that the family purchased Swans Nest in 2010 as a redevelopment opportunity, as it was then, and remained now in poor condition. Due to having three very young children at the time, two with disabilities, they delayed rebuilding while they assessed their long-term needs. The family had a strong attachment to Waldringfield and intended the home to serve them and their children for many years. The property had now significantly deteriorated, meaning doing nothing was no longer an option. They began working with Burd Haward Architects in 2019, a practice known for sustainable, sensitive design. These architects understood the local context and their family’s specific needs. The proposal had been carefully developed to respect the sensitive site, address environmental considerations, and accommodate the family’s requirements. There had been no public objections, and one letter of support from an unknown member of the public. The applicant emphasised that additional bedrooms were intended for carers, not for use as an Airbnb. She concluded by asking the committee to support the application, as it would be something both the family and the village can be proud of long term.
Councillor Byatt queried whether the site included rainwater harvesting and solar panels. The applicant advised the scheme included a ground source heat pump, no solar panels were planned, and the priority was raising the building above flood risk level due to the amount of water on site.
Councillor Byatt asked about a building plan. The applicant confirmed one was in place, covering the full construction process, including wildlife and environmental considerations, and stated they would comply with it and aim to minimise environmental impact.
Councillor Bennett asked why eleven bedrooms were needed. The applicant explained in detail this was due to family circumstances, requiring space for specialist carers to live on site, and that the aim was to create a long-term family home.
Following all public speaking, the Chair invited questions from the Committee.
Councillor McCallum raised concerns about the site’s size but was satisfied with the applicant’s explanation. It was clarified that the proposal was a private C3 dwelling with no tourist use, and any breach of conditions would be enforced, with issues investigated if reported. They would rely on local insight.
The Planning Manager clarified that the King Charles Coastal Path ran adjacent to the site, it incorporated existing public footpaths (11, 12, 14, and 16) along the river edge at Waldringfield. That was a material consideration regardless of whether it was a Public Right of Way or part of the King Charles Coastal path. The key point for consideration was that it was an attractive and well-used route.
Councillor Smithson highlighted the environmentally sensitive nature of the site and asked whether construction would be monitored. The Planning Manager responded that due to limited resources, proactive monitoring of all sites was not possible. Instead, enforcement was largely reactive, with any planning conditions enforceable but reliant on reports from the local community if issues arose.
Councillor Byatt asked whether the access road shown in earlier slides was the only access to the site and raised concerns about potential damage to trees and hedges from construction traffic, particularly HGVs. The Planner confirmed it was a narrow, single-lane access and they were not aware of any alternative route. The access was heavily vegetated, especially on one side. A Construction Management Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement were in place, which could include measures to protect trees and vegetation across the site. As the track lies within the red line boundary, further details would be reviewed by landscape and arboricultural specialists, and additional protective measures may be required if deemed necessary.
Councillor Hedgley had a question about the number of rooms but was satisfied with the applicant’s answer. He asked if the road was private or public and the Planner demonstrated on the plan the point where the road became unadopted. Councillor McCallum commented that any other issues pertaining to that road were civil issues not County Council issues.
It was noted that there was an application on the site in 2006 which was for a 4 bedroom detached house and garage. This was refused on appeal. The Planner replied this was in outline and was for an additional dwelling, which extended the line of the buildings in that location. The inspectorate noted the degree of seclusion and the nature of the site and said the partial infilling would spoil village. This application was not infilling but replacing.
Councillor Reeves asked why the Parish Council and Ward Members were not re-consulted after additional documents were submitted in February 2025. The Planner explained that consultation took place at the initial submission, but the application was held in abeyance for a year due to the need to carry out winter nesting bird surveys. After receiving sufficient additional information concerning potential nesting bird impacts, officers considered that the Parish Council’s concerns were adequately addressed through proposed conditions, so re-consultation was not deemed necessary. Councillor Reeves questioned how this could be assured without further consultation. The Planning Manager acknowledged the concern and agreed that this approach would be reviewed for future applications. Although there had been prior communication between the Case Officer and the Parish Council that informed the conditions, it was accepted that formally re-consulting could have provided greater reassurance.
Councillor Bennett highlighted the site’s national landscape designation and environmental sensitivity, expressing surprise that Suffolk Coast and Heaths officers were broadly satisfied with the proposal. He asked how the future use of the site would be controlled, noting that while the intended current use was understood, it was unclear how this would be monitored over time.
The Planning Manager said that personal circumstances were rarely a material consideration, it justified the scale of the development and the requirement for the number of bedrooms in this case, but from a planning perspective it had to be acceptable in its landscape context.
Councillor Ninnmey referred to Policy SCLP 10.4 on landscape character, he
was concerned that the proposed development could be intrusive and negatively impact the character of the landscape. The Chair suggested this was moving into debate and asked if there were any more questions.
Councillor Byatt asked whether the large number of planning conditions would result in increased monitoring of the site. The Planning Manager explained that specialist teams, particularly in landscape and ecology, would be involved in an advisory capacity due to the nature of the development. The Planner added that the site would be highly visible from the adjacent Public Right of Way, which was well-used daily, making the development easier to observe. Councillor McCallum added that monitoring would also be carried out by local residents and the Parish Council.
The Committee debated the application.
Councillor Reeves highlighted that the proposal was a prominent waterfront development located in an ecologically sensitive area. He proposed that a site visit should be undertaken so Committee Members could fully appreciate how visible and prominent the development would be. He emphasised that any decision would have long-term consequences, noting the development could remain in place for 100 years.
Councillor Daly noted that the existing building was in a poor, deteriorating condition and required redevelopment. He acknowledged that the current owner had specific needs which justified the proposed scale of development. He said there was no better alternative for the site and considered the proposal acceptable, given the extensive environmental conditions attached.
Councillor McCallum concurred with Councillor Daly, saying if he was to propose she would second it for the same reasons.
Councillor Smithson said it was an attractive building, not an eyesore. It would have ground source heat pumps and be ecologically sound. She could see no reason to oppose it as long as the conditions were met. Should there ever be a change of use application, she was making the assumption that the track was not suitable and this would be refused.
Councillor Hedgley agreed, he noted that Natural England had no objections, he couldn’t see a reason for a site visit for something that was not there. He would be voting to approve it.-
Councillor Byatt was minded to agree with Councillor Daly. He understood Councillor Reeves’ request for a site visit but felt there were adequate photographs in the Officer’s presentation.
Councillor Bennett knew the area very well. He said there were two factors in play, there were good visual views from the photographs and the opinion of Suffolk Coast and Heaths who managed the national landscape. He suggested they took Councillor Daly’s proposal first.
Councillor Daly proposed that they voted on the proposal as presented to them with the conditions. Councillor McCallum seconded the proposal and by a majority vote it was
RESOLVED
That the application was recommended for approval with the following conditions.
Conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is imposed in accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the following approved drawing(s) and document(s):
o 22/022 Tree survey and constraints plan - existing site (Published 22 July 2024);
o 22/022 Proposed layout and demolition phase tree protection Plan (TPP) (Published 22 July 2024);
o 22/022 Proposed layout and construction phase tree protection Plan (TPP) (Published 22 July 2024);
o 22/022/2 Arboriculture Report and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (Published 22 July 2024);
o Landscape appraisal: Lucy Batchelor-Wylam, November 2024 (Published 8 January 2024);
o Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev.1: Aberhart ecology ltd (Published 22 July 2024);
o Report to Inform Habitats Regulations Assessment: MHE Consulting, December 2025 (Published 5 January 2026);
o Bat and Bird Survey Report: MHE Consulting, December 2025 (Published 5 January 2026);
o 2114_E01_B Existing Location Plan (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_E02_B Existing Site Plan (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_E03_A Existing Elevations (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_E04 Existing Floor Plans (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P01_D Proposed Site Plan (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P02_G Proposed Ground Floor Plan (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P03_G Proposed First Floor Plan (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P04_C Proposed Site Elevations (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P05_C Proposed Elevations (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P06_B View of Proposal (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P07 Existing and Proposed Views (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P08 Sustainable Strategy (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P09 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Floor Areas (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P10_A East Elevations - Existing and Proposed (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P11_A North Elevations - Existing and Proposed (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P12 Lighting strategy (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P14 Village Context Elevation - Existing and Proposed (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_ P15_A Public Footpath Details_1 (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_ P16 Public Footpath Details_2 (Published 2 March 2026);
o 2114_P17 Views of site from footpath on eastern bank of estuary (Published 2 March 2026);
o IE24/035/SITI Rev.00 Stage 1/ Teir 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report: J P Chick and Partners Ltd, 26 April 2024 (Published 22 July 2024);
o Flood Risk Assessment Issue no.2 : Cole Easdon, July 2024 (Published 22 July 2024).
Reason: For avoidance of doubt as to what has been considered and approved.
3. No development shall commence until full details of all external facing materials/ finishes to be used in the hereby approved development's construction have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development in the interests of visual amenity and the wider landscape.
4. Prior to commencement of the hereby approved works, an intrusive ground investigation(s) [Tier 2] and asbestos survey of existing buildings shall be carried out in-line with the requirements of approved document ref. 'IE24/035/SITI Rev.00 Stage 1/ Teir 1 Geo-Environmental Desk Study Report: J P Chick and Partners Ltd, 26 April 2024'. Findings of the ground investigation shall be compiled within a report and submitted to the Local Planning Authority The submitted report shall include the following:
- the locations and nature of sampling points (including logs with descriptions of the materials encountered) and justification for the sampling strategy;
- explanation and justification for the analytical strategy;
- a revised conceptual site model; and
- a revised assessment of the risks posed from contamination at the site to relevant receptors, including: human health, ground waters, surface waters, ecological systems and property (both existing and proposed).
All site investigations must be undertaken by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM).
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
5. No development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of structures/ waste materials) shall commence until a detailed Remediation Strategy (RS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The RS must include, but is not limited to:
- details of all works to be undertaken including proposed methodologies, drawings and plans, materials, specifications and site management procedures;
- an explanation, including justification, for the selection of the proposed remediation methodology(ies);
- proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria; and
- proposals for validating the remediation and, where appropriate, for future maintenance and monitoring.
The RS must be prepared by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019 and Land Contamination Risk Management.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
6. Prior to first occupation of the hereby approved development, the Remediation Strategy agreed under Condition 5 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. The Environmental Protection Team may want to observe works for example the effective installation of ground gas measures and geotextile membranes.
7. Prior to first occupation of the hereby approved development, a Validation Report must submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The validation report must include, but is not limited to:
- results of sampling and monitoring carried out to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met;
- evidence that the RS agreed under Condition 6 has been carried out competently, effectively and in its entirety; and
- evidence that remediation has been effective and that, as a minimum, the site will not qualify as contaminated land as defined by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The validation report must be prepared by a competent person (see National Planning Policy Framework) and conform to current guidance and best practice, including BS8485:2015+A1:2019, CIRIA C735 and Land Contamination Risk Management.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
8. In the event that contamination which has not already been identified to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is found or suspected on the site it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. No further development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance, removal of underground tanks and relic structures) shall take place until this condition has been complied with in its entirety.
An investigation and risk assessment must be completed in accordance with a scheme which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS10175:2011+A2:2017 and the Land Contamination Risk Management (LCRM)) and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Where remediation is necessary a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The RMS must include detailed methodologies for all works to be undertaken, site management procedures, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria. The approved RMS must be carried out in its entirety and the Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.
Following completion of the approved remediation scheme a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.
9. No development shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) for all construction activities within the root protection zones of all retained trees has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The AMS should include no-dig specifications, foundation specifications, tree protection fencing details, ground protection measures, tree pruning specifications, a phasing schedule and site monitoring provisions.
Thereafter, the development shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the approved method statement and no materials, plant or machinery shall be brought on to the site until protective measures have been fully installed to protect all retained trees.
Any protective fencing shall comply with BS.5837 and be retained throughout the entire period of construction, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect retained trees/hedgerows during the course of development in the interest of visual amenity.
10. At no time shall there be any storage of spoil/ plant/ machinery/ equipment/ materials etc. beneath the canopy of any retained tree(s) and no services, including but not limited to mains water, electricity, gas, telecoms, surface water drainage and foul water drainage, shall be located within the root protection areas of trees to be retained.
Reason: To protect retained trees/hedgerows during the course of development in the interest of visual amenity.
11. None of the trees or hedges shown to be retained on the approved plan shall be lopped, topped, pruned, uprooted, felled, wilfully damaged or in any other way destroyed or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.
Any trees or hedges removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased within five years of the completion of the development shall be replaced during the first available planting season, with trees or hedges of a size and species, which shall previously have been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard the contribution to the character of the locality provided by the trees and hedgerow.
12. Within 3 month(s) of commencement of development, precise details of a scheme of landscape works (which term shall include tree and shrub planting, grass, earthworks, driveway construction, parking areas, patios, hard surfaces, boundary treatment etc, and other operations as appropriate) at a scale not less than 1:200 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that there is a well laid out landscaping scheme in the interest of visual amenity.
13. The approved scheme of landscape works shall be implemented not later than the first planting season following occupation of the development (or within such extended period as the Local Planning Authority may allow) and shall thereafter be retained and maintained as approved.
Any plant material removed, dying or becoming seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced within the next available planting season and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
Reason: To ensure the submission and implementation of a well-laid out scheme of landscaping in the interest of visual amenity.
14. All construction and demolition work in connection with the hereby approved development (including the removal or deliveries of materials/equipment/spoil etc to or from the site) shall only be carried out between the following hours:
- 07:30 and 1800 Monday to Friday;
- 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays;
- None on Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and protection of the local environment.
15. All waste associated with the hereby approved development shall be responsibly disposed of and at no time during the demolition and construction phases shall there be any burning of waste on site.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and protection of the local environment.
16. The access, driveway and parking areas shall be completed in all respects in accordance with the approved drawings and shall be made available for use before the approved development's first occupation.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure the approved layout is properly constructed and laid out.
17. No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details within the statement shall include:
- the location of parking areas for construction vehicles indicated on a plan;
- the location for storage of materials and spoil indicated on a plan;
- the proposed vehicular access route for the delivery/removal of materials/ equipment/ spoil to and from the site indicated on a plan.
The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the demolition and construction phases of the hereby approved development.
Reason: To reduce potential impacts on neighbouring amenity and the local environment. The existing vehicular access road is narrow and lined with trees.
18. Development must be undertaken in accordance with the ecological avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures identified within the following approved documents unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:
- Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Rev.1: Aberhart ecology ltd (Published 22 July 2024);
- Report to Inform Habitats Regulations Assessment: MHE Consulting, December 2025 (Published 5 January 2026);
- Bat and Bird Survey Report: MHE Consulting, December 2025 (Published 5 January 2026).
Reason: To ensure that ecological receptors are adequately protected and enhanced as part of the development.
19. Prior to commencement, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy shall:
a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for biodiversity likely to be impacted by lighting and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and
b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places.
All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure that impacts on ecological receptors from external lighting are prevented.
20. No part of the development which may kill, injure or disturb bats or damage or destroy a bat breeding site or resting place, shall in any circumstances commence unless the local planning authority has been provided with either:
a) a licence issued by Natural England pursuant to The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) (as amended) authorising the specified development to go ahead or demonstration that the appropriate Natural England Class Licence is in place to allow works to commence; or
b) a statement in writing from the relevant licensing body, or a suitably qualified and licenced ecologist, to the effect that it is not considered that the specified development will require a licence.
Reason: To ensure that the legislation relating to bats has been adequately addressed as part of the implementation of the development.
21. All works towards the hereby approved development's implementation will take place between 1 April and 31 October. If either the construction of the shell(s) of hereby approved buildings has not been completed by 31 October of the year of the development's commencement, the applicant must submit evidence that the sound screening - as detailed within approved document ref. 'Report to Inform Habitats Regulations Assessment: MHE Consulting, December 2025' - has been installed. All on-site works must cease until the screening has been fully installed with evidence submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the demolition and construction of the dwellings shell does not impact wintering bird populations associated with the nearby SSSI, SPA and Ramsar.
22. All external glazing, including all windows, doors and rooflights of the hereby approved dwelling, annexe and boathouse buildings, shall be fitted with low visible light transmission (VLT) glass with an LT value of 0.6.
Reason: In the interest of reducing harmful light spill into the surrounding landscape and mitigating impacts on ecological receptors.
23. The hereby permitted annexe and boathouse buildings shall not be occupied or let as a separate dwellings but shall be used only for purposes incidental and ancillary to the use of the host dwelling to which it relates or for occupation by a relative or employee of the householder or his/her spouse.
Reason: The development is not such that the Local Planning Authority would be prepared to approve as a separate dwelling house in its own right.
24. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order re-enacting the Order with or without modification), no fences, gates or walls shall be erected unless prior permission has been sought from the local planning authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over such features in the interests of preserving the character of the locality.
25. Notwithstanding the provisions of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order re-enacting the Order with or without modification), no outbuildings, enclosures, swimming or other pools or containers for domestic heating purposes shall be erected unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over such features in the interests of preserving the character of the locality.
26. The hereby approved development shall be carried out in accordance with the flood resilience and mitigation measures included within the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (Issue no.2 : Cole Easdon, July 2024). This shall include, but is not limited to, the production of a written site-specific Flood Response Plan (FRP) detailing how the property could be affected by flooding; how residents should prepare for such an event; details of the safest ingress/egress route(s) for the owner/occupants to take in the event of an evacuation. The site should also be signed up to localised flood warning scheme prior to the development's practical completion. The FRP should be compiled by a suitably qualified professional and made available to all permanent and visiting occupants.
Reason: In the interest of safeguarding residents from the risks of flooding.
A further condition included on the update sheet was also proposed, as follows:
27. The hereby permitted dwelling, annexe and boathouse buildings shall not be occupied other than as a single planning unit of C3 (Dwelling) accommodation and at no time shall the site or any buildings therein be used for the purposes of tourist holiday accommodation or as short-term letting accommodation for tourists/ holidaymakers.
Reason: Use of the site as tourist/holiday accommodation at the site would be a change of use, which has not been considered and approved during the determination of this application.