Minutes of a Meeting Held at the Town Hall, High Street, Lowestoft

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Minutes of a Meeting held in the Conference Room, Riverside, Lowestoft 2 on Tuesday, 11 July 2017 at 6.00pm

Members Present: J Groom (Chairman), S Allen, P Ashdown, N Brooks, J Ceresa, G Elliott, T Goldson, I Graham, R Neil, M Pitchers, C Rivett and J Smith.

Officers Present: R Amor (Principal Planning Officer), P Perkin (Development Management Team Leader), P Rowson (Planning Development Manager) and S Carter (Democratic Services Officer).

In attendance: Mr S Bisley, Independent Consultant/Valuer

1 URGENT ITEM

The Chairman advised that, in accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act 1972, he had agreed to accept an urgent item of business.

The matter related to a submitted application for a prior notification for the demolition of an industrial unit on the Beach Industrial Estate in Lowestoft. As the applicant was the District Council, a Committee determination was required. The special circumstances for considering this item as a matter of urgency was that a decision was needed within 28 days and therefore before the next scheduled Planning Committee meeting in August.

The matter would therefore be considered as Item 15 on the Agenda.

2 CHANGE IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Chairman of the Committee advised that, in view of the public speakers waiting to speak, there would be a change in the order of business and Item 13 – DC/17/1612/FUL – Triple Trees, Cucumber Lane, Weston, would be taken immediately after Item 8.

3 APOLOGIES / SUBSTITUTES

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Cackett.

Councillor Goldson attended the meeting as a Substitute for Councillor Cackett.

4 MINUTES

(a) Planning Committee meeting – 30 May 2017

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 30 May 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

A question was asked on behalf of Councillor Patience relating to Minute 6 – DC/17/0633/FUL – Land off Monkton Avenue, Lowestoft, as to whether a section 106 agreement had been put in place for improvements to the junction of Monckton Avenue with Normanston Drive. The Planning Development Manager advised that the matter would need to be looked into and the position confirmed to Councillor Patience.

(b) Planning Committee meeting – 13 June 2017

RESOLVED

That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

5 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Allen declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon, as being Ward Member and also as a former pupil at the school, still currently attending their events.

Councillor Ceresa declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 14 – DC/17/2604/FUL – 22 Copper Beech Drive, Carlton Colville, as being Ward Member.

Councillor Goldson declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 10 – DC/17/1070/FUL – Land North east of Woodside, Brampton, as being County Councillor for that division.

Councillor Graham declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 11 - DC/17/1481/FUL – Links Club, Links Road, Lowestoft, as being the Mayor of Lowestoft.

Councillor Neil declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 11 – DC/17/1481/FUL – Links Club, Links Road, Lowestoft, as he was the applicant. He advised that he would leave the meeting during the consideration of this item and take no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Councillor Rivett declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 10 – DC/17/1070/FUL – Land North East of Woodside, Brampton, as being Ward Member and Item 14 – DC/17/2604/FUL, 22 Copper Beech Drive, Carlton Colville, as being County Councillor for that division.

Councillor J Smith declared a Local Non Pecuniary Interest in Item 15 – DC/17/2630/DEM – Starfrost House, Newcombe Road, Lowestoft, as being Ward Member.

6 DECLARATIONS OF LOBBYING

Councillor Allen declared that she had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Ashdown declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

2 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Councillor Brooks declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Ceresa declared that she had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Elliott declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Goldson declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 10 – DC/17/1070/FUL – Land North East of Woodside, Brampton,

Councillor Graham declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Groom declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Neil declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Pitchers declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor Rivett declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

Councillor J Smith declared that he had received communications in relation to Item 8 – DC/15/3288/OUT – Saint Felix School, Halesworth Road, Reydon.

7 APPEAL DECISIONS REPORT

The report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management advised the Committee that one appeal had been determined in May 2017 and that had been dismissed.

RESOLVED

That the report concerning Appeal Decisions in May 2017 be noted.

8 DELEGATED CHIEF OFFICER DECISIONS

The report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management informed Members of all the Chief Officer delegated planning decisions made during May 2017.

RESOLVED

That the report concerning the Chief Officer Delegated Planning Decisions made during May 2017 be noted.

3 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

9 ENFORCEMENT ACTION – CASE UPDATE

The report of the Head of Planning and Coastal Management provided Members with a summary of all outstanding enforcement cases sanctioned under delegated powers or through the Committee up until 30 June 2017. There were currently four cases.

RESOLVED

That the report detailing the outstanding Enforcement Matters up to 30 June 2017 be received.

10 DC/17/3288/OUT – SAINT FELIX SCHOOL, HALESWORTH ROAD, REYDON

The Planning Development Manager presented the application which sought outline planning permission for the construction of up to 69 residential dwellings together with areas of public open space and associated infrastructure within the grounds of Saint Felix School. The matter was considered a major development and it had attracted a significant level of local interest. For those reasons, the application was before the Committee for consideration.

The application had been submitted in outline with all matters, other than the point of access into the site from Halesworth Road, reserved for later approval. The application had been amended in August 2016 to introduce an additional area of open space on the part of the application site that backed onto St Georges Square. That amendment had resulted in a reduction in the proposed number of houses from 71 to 69.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views of the proposed access, the highway network including Halesworth Road and Keens Lane, the main elevations of the school, proposed replacement sports pitches and an indicative layout.

The Planning Development Manager explained that the proposals were complex and that had raised significant planning considerations. There had been 145 objections to the original proposals. Further comments had been received on the amended plans and concerns had been raised by Reydon Parish Council and The Southwold/Reydon Society. The key issues were:

Landscape: The site was bounded by mature tree screening which could be retained as part of the development proposals. That was an essential element to the mitigation of landscape impact on the local and wider landscape and a tree protection plan and management plan would need to be the subject of appropriate planning conditions if permission was granted. The proposed landscape strategy could provide adequate mitigation. The Council’s Arboricultural and Landscape Manager agreed that the site was a medium to low impact setting given the existing school development and surrounding residential development. The site was not considered to be a greenfield site as it was already in use as part of the wider school site. The proposals satisfied the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) regarding development proposals in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

4 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Loss of Sports Pitches: Full details were contained in the report and the strategy for the replacement provision of sports facilities had now met with approval from Sport England. The existing equestrian facilities would be given over to new sports facilities. The proposals could be supported subject to a suitable section 106 agreement.

The Planning Development Manager explained that, prior to the issue of planning permission, if granted, the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State as the proposed development would result in the loss of playing field facilities.

Ecology: In noting the character of the site, existing habitats and species present, the possible impact had been analysed in the report from paragraph 6.46 onwards. It was considered there were no overwhelming impacts that could not be mitigated.

Viability: Saint Felix School had committed that the receipts generated would be ring fenced to enable a £4.3m investment in the school’s infrastructure. The works were considered essential to the viability of this independent school.

The Planning Development Manager summarised by advising that there were no overriding technical matters which had not been addressed or could not otherwise be mitigated by suitably worded planning conditions or Section 106 agreement clauses. The scheme offered improvements to existing facilities, would underpin the future of a significant local employer, provide up to 25 affordable homes, and offer up to £866,000 of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) revenue of which 25% could go to Reydon Parish Council. Officers considered that these benefits significantly outweighed any harm created; on balance, the development was recommended for approval, subject to a section 106 agreement and appropriate conditions being completed. The matter would be referred to the Secretary of State prior to any decision in accordance with 02/09 Town & Country Planning (Consultation) Direction 2009.

Mr B Bailey – Reydon Parish Council

Mr Bailey advised that, after consideration, Reydon Parish Council had unanimously voted to refuse the application, even after cosmetic alterations. The application was contrary to policies DM01 and DM27 and the site was in an AONB. He made reference to the letter of objection from the Parish Council which was contained in the officer’s report. It seemed that not much money would be spent on capital improvements and it was questionable if the school was a viable business. To whom would the affordable homes be provided? There was little work in the area for newcomers and most major housing developments finished up with up to 30% second/holiday homes. The access onto Halesworth Road was not good and would result in three accesses within 100m; Keens Lane, St Georges and the new one. Speed watch had regularly recorded vehicles at 50mph in the 30 limit. An accident was waiting to happen. On behalf of Reydon Parish Council, Mr Bailey asked that the application be refused.

5 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Mr Chessher - Objector

Mr Chessher expressed the view that in a mass of detail, the actual detail was lost. The site was outside the physical settlement limits and in an AONB which contravened policy. As for exceptional circumstances, there were none. To address four points: As for Houses, the Council had a five year housing land supply, the proposal was for the wrong type in the wrong place and too expensive for local people. It was likely that the affordable housing would drop out of the picture and not be delivered. The Playing Field was not surplus to requirements as another was being provided which would impact on the Site of Special Scientific Interest and County Wildlife sites. The proposal was outside the physical limits in open countryside and to quote the school’s consultants ‘would expand the settlement of Reydon’. The Suffolk Coast and Heaths stated that the area was distinctive and the mitigation proposed would make things worse. An area would be fenced off and not available to the public. The school might be low on funds for computers and updating windows but an enabling development, such as this proposal, was not a reason for destroying the area.

Mr J Whyte – Applicant

Mr Whyte explained that Saint Felix School played an important role in the community and provided a good education to its pupils. The school was important to Southwold and Reydon, being the second largest employer in the area employing some 140 people from teachers to maintenance and cleaning staff. As an independent school, it was funded by fee paying parents but some scholarships were offered. It was important for the school to maintain and update its historic building and necessary to invest some £4m to remain viable. The only way to secure such funds was to release land for development. The old sports field was unfit for purpose and too far away from facilities, water and toilets. The application dealt with minimising any environmental impact and the infrastructure could cope with the additional dwellings. A natural green space was being provided and the community did have access to facilities when not in use by the school. The proposal was necessary to secure the future of the school, provide employment for the staff and education for the pupils, and upgrade the school to operate in the 21st century.

Questions to Applicant

Members raised specific questions relating to:  This being a second enabling development.  Timescale for using the finance generated.  Public access to school facilities.  Number of local pupils and scholarships/bursaries.  Access for children with learning difficulties.  Cost of installing, hiring and maintaining 3G synthetic surface pitch.  Usage of the monies raised by the proposed development.

Mr Whyte explained that Saint Felix School had been in operation since the 1800s as a girls’ school and, over time, there had been a decline in the building. 2002 had seen the start of boarding and other schemes in order to address the school’s debt and there had been

6 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017 further issues with the financial crash in 2008. It had taken 15 years of recovery but, as an independent school, it was necessary to upgrade to remain viable and obtain the right funding for capital projects. The school facilities, sports centre, swimming pool and squash courts, could be used outside school hours. The swimming pool was available to the public at weekends and between 6.00am to 8.00am weekdays. They had a good relationship with the local Rugby Club and, subject to planning, the astro turf and lighting would make facilities more available. A Member commented on the costly exercise of installing a 3G artificial pitch and usual rate of £50-£100 per hour to hire. Its replacement would be needed every 7-10 years. Mr Whyte explained that the school day finished at 5.00pm and following the after school activities, clubs would then be able to use facilities.

Mr Whyte confirmed that 25% of the school’s income was given away to the under privileged via bursaries and scholarships to local children. That however did not apply to swimming. There was a designated tutor for around 10-12 pupils with learning difficulties. The finance raised would be used for refurbishment and modernisation including works to the sports facilities, boarding houses, windows, electrical and heating systems, and the school’s computer systems. The proposed items would be prioritised to satisfy Sport England and upgrading the boarding houses would provide the type of accommodation required by overseas students.

Questions for Officers

In response to Members’ questions, Mr Bisley, the Council’s Independent Consultant/Valuer, confirmed that the proposal was classed as an enabling development and the school had set out its priorities in its Business Plan. The proposed scheme should generate sufficient income to fund the priorities identified. It was considered to be a rigorous Business Plan providing a reasonable assessment. There had been similar cases in Woodbridge and Holt and the relevant local authorities had supported those schools’ cases as enabling developments.

Further issues raised by the Committee included:  The views of Suffolk Coast & Heaths, Natural England and the AONB.  The previous of enabling development permitted for Saint Felix School.  The Council’s five year supply of housing land.  Maintaining the provision of affordable housing and at what rent.  Loss of playing field and equestrian facilities.  Future public access to facilities, no information was currently on the school’s website.

The Planning Development Manager explained that the application site did not have a special ecological status and the location had been carefully chosen to minimise impact. Whilst being aware of the concerns of the community, professional advice had been taken and issues could be effectively mitigated. It could be demonstrated that the Council currently had a five year housing land supply and that this proposal would provide additional much needed housing which, through the viability analysis, could offer 35% affordable housing. Any reduction in affordable housing would require further justification and revised application(s). It was considered that suitable tenures could be provided via the legal

7 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

agreement to best fit the local housing market. The proposed development site was a mown grass area on the school’s own estate and the current equestrian area shown on indicative plans was to be given over to open space.

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that appropriately worded conditions could address issues of concern and public access during the negotiations on a section 106 agreement. Delegated authority could be given to the officers to conclude the legal agreement or alternatively the final draft details of that agreement could be reported to Committee for its consideration.

Debate

Comment was made that having considered the significant detail and in order to support the school, the application could be approved but subject to the final detail and content of the section 106 agreement being considered by the Committee prior to any planning permission being granted. A local Ward Member stated that a number of non-material considerations had been received from the objectors, including impact on property values and loss of a view and, from a public point of view, ownership of land and right of access. Those matters should not be considered within the planning decision as they were not material planning considerations.

It was considered by some Members that there was difficulty with access from Keens Lane; the access to the proposed development was in the immediate vicinity and there would be similar issues there too. The Committee was advised that the proposal for a mini roundabout might require significant land to be given over within the application site and that might result in the loss of some element of the existing tree screen. In any event, that was not part of the proposals for consideration and the proposed access was considered acceptable by County Highways. Some Members questioned whether or not traffic calming could be introduced. The Committee was reminded that there was no requirement for traffic calming from County Highways and CIL money could be used for local improvements such as traffic calming as might be requested by the local community and deemed appropriate by County Highways.

Although the local business and employment provided by Saint Felix School was welcomed, it was suggested that the application should be considered on planning grounds and not on facilities for local people and overseas students. As the application stood, it was considered by some Members to be contrary to policies DM01 and DM21 and it could always be argued that the money raised from this enabling development would be insufficient for the works required. A Member stated that there did not appear to be any exceptional circumstances, there would be an impact on the AONB and if the dwellings were purchased as second homes, then they would not support the local economy. The financial viability of the school might still be in question, even after the injection of the proposed ring fenced finance.

There being no further debate, the officer’s recommendation was tabled to delegate the grant of planning permission subject to the satisfactory conclusion of a Section 106 Agreement relating to the heads of terms in the officer’s report. The proposer required that the recommendation be amended to facilitate final consideration of the section 106 agreement by the Planning Committee prior to referral to the Secretary of State and the issuing of planning permission. This proposal was duly seconded and agreed by Committee.

8 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement dealing with the following matters and that it be reported back to the Planning Committee for agreement prior to it being signed and that, where required, the matter be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with 02/09 Town & Country Planning (Consultation) Direction 2009:

1. 35% of the housing units to be affordable. A scheme showing the tenure split to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the LPA on submission of the first reserved matters.

2. Provision of a landscaping plan and management strategy for the provision of new areas of onsite open space to be provided on land adjacent to St Georges Square. The plan and strategy are to be provided to and agreed in writing with the LPA prior to commencement of the residential development and the open space is to be delivered on occupation of the first residential dwelling.

3. The developer to commit to provide two new Accessible Natural Green Spaces: one in the wooded area at the north end of the application site and the second on the School’s Land to the south of the development site (the latter to be accessed on a permissive basis for residents of the proposed development). The areas will be provided prior to the occupation of the first residential unit and their delivery and maintenance is to be secured in perpetuity.

4. The developer to obtain planning permission for replacement playing pitches of at least equivalent quality and quantity to the existing in accordance with details set out in the Feasibility Study prepared by Total Turf Solutions Limited. The pitches to be provided and made operational prior to commencement of the residential development.

5. The developer / School will be required, on making an application for the replacement playing pitches, to supply and obtain the LPAs approval of an implementation scheme to ensure that the playing pitches provided are of equivalent or better quality to the existing.

6. The School to provide and obtain the Council’s agreement to a Community Use Agreement for the use of the new facilities and to implement the agreement on first use of the facilities.

7. Developer to provide and agree in writing a plan showing a network of new footpaths and entrance points into the residential development site prior to commencing work on the residential development.

8. Developer to provide a scheme of signposting for the residential development site and an information pack for future residents showing options for walks around the site. The scheme shall be provided to and agreed with the LPA prior to commencement of development and the signposting and information to be provided prior to occupation of the first residential unit.

9 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

9. Developer or School to provide and agree in writing with the LPA a strategy for maintaining the path margins and gorse around the site prior to commencement of development. The Strategy is to be implemented on occupation of the first residential dwelling.

10. School to pay capital receipts from the sale of the site into a ring fences bank account in the name of the School and the school to prepare and agree in writing with the LPA an Investment Schedule and Phasing Program showing how and when the funds will be invested within 3 month’s of the site’s sale. The monies to be spent in accordance with the agreed schedule.

11. Developer to make a financial contribution to the Suffolk Coastal District Council Natura 2000 Monitoring and Mitigation Strategy prior to occupation of first dwelling.

12. Developer to make a financial contribution towards delivering improvements to the existing bus stops on Halesworth Road to the front of the application site. The improvements would comprise of raised kerbs for easier boarding/alighting at the Westbound stop (£2,000) and real time screens to show live bus arrival times (£10,000 per stop) – a total of £22,000 contribution from the development. Contribution to be paid prior to occupation of first residential dwelling.

and conditions to cover the following matters:

1. Standard Outline time limits.

2. Submission of reserved matters.

3. Surface water drainage strategy (at first reserved matters).

4. Highway improvement works - uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point (West of The Drive over Halesworth Road) and - improvement of the existing footpath (frontage).

5. Access improvements.

6. Reptile survey and mitigation.

7. Contaminated Land investigation and mitigation.

8. Tree Protection.

9. Landscaping.

10. Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).

and the Community Infrastructure Levy amount being calculated at the Reserved Matters Stage.

10 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

11 DC/17/1612/FUL – TRIPLE TREES, CUCUMBER LANE, WESTON

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which sought approval for the replacement of an existing bungalow with a two storey dwelling and subservient connected outbuildings. The purpose of the application was to provide accommodation specifically designed to accommodate the needs of the applicant’s disabled son. The site was in the countryside and was before Committee as the application was contrary to policy DM21.

It was proposed to demolish the existing bungalow on the site and replace it with a part single and part two storey dwelling, within the same footprint. That dwelling would include a number of facilities designed to accommodate special needs and included two therapy rooms, a specialist bathroom, a hydrotherapy swimming pool and a carer’s bedroom and kitchen.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views of access to the site; screening between the existing bungalow, which had been subjected to extensions in the 1980s, and the neighbouring house; block plans of the proposals and elevations; and artist’s impressions of the dwelling.

The Principal Planning Officer cited previous similar cases of permitted dwellings in the countryside where they involved only modest changes in the size or appearance of the building and also those extensions in the countryside that had been in excess of the 35% increase that had been allowed on appeal. The existing property when recently sold could not be considered to be affordable and there would be little impact on the landscape as the site was well screened by existing trees. Although the development did not comply with policy DM21 in relation to the volume increase compared to the original dwelling, it was considered that the proposal would not significantly conflict with the aims of the policy and was recommended for approval.

Mrs L Scase-Jones - Applicant

Mrs Scase-Jones expressed the view that all parents must do the best they could for their children and their son, who was severely disabled with complex needs, would never be able to leave home and have an independent life. They had suffered a long legal battle to get to this point and the application was designed to include the special facilities, so that the necessary daily interventions including physio and other therapies could take place, thus reducing pain and anxiety and increase life expectancy. Her son had the need for care 24/7 and the proposed development and facilities would enhance his wellbeing, provide accommodation for full time carers and an outside space with a sensory garden for wheelchair access. There would be easy access for emergency services if needed and, for a family home, it would provide the best future for their son.

Questions

In response to a question relating to the ridge height of the proposed dwelling compared to that of the neighbouring property, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that they were similar.

11 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Debate

Members supported the recommendation for approval and unanimously resolved:

RESOLVED

That permission be granted, subject to the following conditions.

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved drawing reference: PL01, PL02, PL03, and EX01 received 12 April 2017 for which permission is hereby granted.

3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) no development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation consisting of the following components has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority: 1) A desk study and site reconnaissance, including:  a detailed appraisal of the history of the site;  an inspection and assessment of current site conditions;  an assessment of the potential types, quantities and locations of hazardous materials and contaminants considered to potentially exist on site;  a conceptual site model indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and  a preliminary 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). 2) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including:  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 and conform with current guidance and best practice, including BS10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11.

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) no development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS 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;

12 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

 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 RMS must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including CLR11.

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 2 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) a validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. 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 RMS approved under condition 2 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.

7. 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. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA 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 BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) 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.

13 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

8. Samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order) (with or without modification), no building or structure permitted by Classes A (extensions or alterations), B (changes to the roof) or E (buildings or enclosures within the curtilage of the house) of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Order shall be erected without the submission of a formal planning application and the granting of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

12 DC/17/1254/FUL – BEULAH HALL, DAIRY LANE, MUTFORD

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which sought approval for a new small office building for a construction company. The existing shower block was to be pulled down and removed. The application was before the Committee as a result of a Member’s call-in.

The site was in open countryside and had previously been used as a touring caravan site; there was no current licence for the site. The wider site included two dwellings, Beulah Hall and Beulah Cottage, with the application site located to the south of the dwellings. The proposal was to construct an office building measuring 13m x 8m, part single and part two storey in height, with dormers in the roof. The development site was well screened by mature trees and had its own vehicular access from Diary Lane.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views in both directions along Dairy Lane and block plans of the proposal and interior layout.

The Principal Planning Officer explained the planning considerations and advised that, in conclusion, the application proposed development in the countryside which was contrary to Local Plan policies. Since the preparation of the report, County Highways had responded to the consultation and had no objection; and any permission granted should be subject to conditions. Although relatively small scale, there would be potential for intensification and as there was no indication for making an exception to policy, the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

Mr J Armstrong – Mutford Parish Council

As Clerk to the Council, Mr Armstrong reported that Mutford Parish Council had recommended refusal of the application as it was contrary to CS01, development in open countryside. There was a long planning history for Beulah Hall going back to the 1970s and the caravan site for touring caravans had only been approved as part of the operation of the Hall when it was a hotel. The Hall was now residential and the caravan site was not used. The Council should not allow further development of the site in order to maintain the amenities and rurality of the area. From the plans, the proposed building looked like residential accommodation and not offices for a business that was located some distance away. He understood that the shower block was a temporary building and should have been

14 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017 removed some years ago. Mr Armstrong reported that Barnby Parish Council also had concerns and strongly recommended refusal.

Mr G Nourse - Agent

On behalf of his client, the applicant, Mr Nourse expressed disappointment to see that, after dealing with the officers, the application was recommended for refusal due to impact on the open countryside. His client had recently purchased Beulah Hall for his residence and his intention was to have three employees based at the office on site; it would not be used as a builders’ yard. Traffic would be minimal, there would be easy access to the A146 and the building was away from the road and not visually intrusive. Policies CS01 and CS07 encouraged diversification and the National Planning Policy Framework supported growth in rural areas to support the economy. In allowing caravans back on to the site, the office would also be used to manage that site and a new shower block. The proposed development would make effective use of the estate relating to Beulah Hall with little impact on the countryside. Mr Nourse requested approval of the application to support a growing business.

Questions to Agent

In response to question relating to the building being two storey with a central circular staircase, Mr Nourse confirmed that the office was a 1½ storey building and which did contain internal stairs.

Questions

Members raised specific questions relating to the site being used as a caravan site and whether a further planning application would be required.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that the Council’s Licensing Services had advised that there was no current site licence; a new planning permission was a separate question and not part of the planning application before Committee. Abandonment and not using a building for a period of time would result in it having no use at all. If it was proposed to use the site for caravans, an application for a site licence would be required.

Debate

Having considered the report and representations, Members unanimously

RESOLVED

That permission be refused for the following reason:

This development is in open countryside, beyond any settlement. In such areas the Waveney Core Strategy policy CS01 advises that outside the towns and larger villages “Development will be regarded as being in the open countryside where the objective is to preserve the countryside for its own sake. Exceptions to this overall approach will be infill housing development and affordable housing that meets a local need, both subject to the character and form of the settlement and access to services and facilities. Other exceptions will be developments of an appropriate scale that contribute to the

15 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

continued viability of the agricultural industry and/or diversify the local rural economy.” The development is served by a narrow road and is likely to lead to further intensification to the detriment of the character of the countryside.

13 DC/17/1070/FUL – LAND NORTH EAST OF WOODSIDE, BRAMPTON

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which sought approval for the construction of six two-storey dwellings and associated works including off-street parking and a private drive. Although the site was an area of rough grassland and on the edge of an existing Council housing development, there were issues with separation from an area of ancient woodland to the north of the site.

The application was before Committee as the Council owned the site.

The proposal was to construct three pairs of semi detached two-bedroomed houses and each dwelling would have two parking spaces in the form of a driveway. The application had been submitted by Orwell Housing Association acting as agents for the Council. All six dwellings would be affordable rent properties and the provision of two bedrooms would address the balance in the current stock/need. Amended plans had been received; that had resulted in the plots being moved to gain separation space from the woodland and ensure no overshadowing. However, there would be the loss of a tree T6 but its removal was considered necessary and not detrimental.

Members were shown an aerial view and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views of the street scene, photographs taken from within the site and looking outwards including in the direction towards the school planning fields, and block plans of the proposed dwellings and their elevations. Further reference was made to the limits of the adopted highway and that part of the access road in the Council’s ownership.

The report outlined the relevant policies and explained that Brampton was one of the smaller villages in the District which did not have a physical limits boundary, so was considered to be open countryside in planning policy terms where there was a presumption against new residential development. However, one of the potential exemptions against new development in the countryside was affordable housing that met a local need subject to the character and form of the settlement and access to services and facilities. In this instance, the proposed development formed an extension to an existing development adjacent to the village primary school and was therefore considered to comply with policy.

The Principal Planning Officer made reference to the late observations received from Brampton Parish Council contained in the update report and also a letter from the Head Teacher concerning the school’s increase in pupils resulting in additional parking issues, the lack of pavement, the likelihood of an accident along the busy road and requested consideration be given to a strip of the Council’s land being released for school parking. The County Councillor had also submitted a detailed email relating to the need to address the parking issues for the school.

Whilst sympathising with the issues raised, the Principal Planning Officer outlined the difficulties that would arise with trying to locate a pathway, it would not be possible to move the dwellings nearer to the woodland and any reduction in the number of houses being built would raise questions on the viability of the proposal. Reference was made to the Draft

16 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Local Plan and the identification of a parking area that would be associated with the proposal to replace the village hall; that might be available for future use.

Mr J Barter – Brampton Parish Council

Mr Barter thanked the Committee for hearing his impassioned plea for the support needed for the school with regard to parking. The primary school was expanding with increased pupil numbers resulting in more parents bringing their children to school. There was not adequate parking available; houses on Southwold Road complained of being blocked in and parents and 5 year old children walking along the roads was becoming more difficult and dangerous with tractors passing and the general increase in traffic. All that was needed was a 20ft strip of land along the north west side of the rear gardens of the proposed properties to allow access to the school. The area of ancient woodland was no longer there; it had been cut down and removed in the 1950s.

Councillor T Goldson – County Councillor

Councillor Goldson explained that they were trying to find a solution for parking at the school as there was nowhere on the road to put in a layby or for passing places. There was no ancient woodland; the site was now just shrubland. The school had increased to some 90 pupils; some farm machinery was as wide as the road; and community speed watch and cameras had shown the dangers on the road. The land for this development was owned by the Council and now was the time to assist in making provision for school access/parking before the development proceeded.

Mr M Dixon - Agent

Mr Dixon thanked Members for giving him the opportunity to address the Committee; he was accompanied by Mr Paul Pitcher, Wellington Construction. Mr Dixon welcomed the recommendation for approval of a much needed shared ownership scheme, with the equity being retained by the Council. He outlined the benefits of the scheme and confirmed that Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) funding was in place for early delivery. As previously mentioned, the scheme had been revised to take into account the adjoining woodland and there were no issues with regard to particular tree species. Mr Dixon requested Members support the recommendation for approval.

Mr Dixon advised that he had not previously been aware of the issues relating to the provision of access to the school and consideration could be given to that, once clear details of the precise request were known.

Questions

The County Councillor raised specific questions relating to the use of some of the Council’s land to benefit the school and proposed an area along the rear boundary line of the plots 3 to 6 could be used.

Mr Pitcher responded by saying that the school’s issues had not previously been mentioned and it was not entirely clear which part, and how much, of the land was being sought.

17 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

Debate

Members proposed that a site visit would allow clarification on the issues that had been raised.

The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee that their decision was to consider the recommendation for approval; there was no sale of land at the present time and there were no strong planning reasons for refusal. There was a fine balance between the provision of housing, highways issues of which there were none, and securing funding. The specific highways issues that had been raised related to the school and not the application before Members.

The Committee agreed that a site visit would allow consideration to be given to the precise location and accesses, and allow an understanding of the school’s parking issues. It was proposed that it would be beneficial for a representative from the school and the agent be present at the site visit. The proposal for a site visit was duly seconded and it was:

RESOLVED

That, in order to explore the opportunities to facilitate access for the school, the application be deferred pending a site visit.

THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED FROM 8.30PM TO 8.35PM TO ALLOW FOR A COMFORT BREAK.

Having declared a Pecuniary Interest in Item 11 on the Agenda, Councillor Neil left the Conference Room at this point in the meeting prior to any discussion on the application.

14 DC/17/1481/FUL – LINKS CLUB, LINKS ROAD, LOWESTOFT

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application which sought approval for the demolition of the former RNLI building and the erection of two holiday homes with associated parking, vehicle access and landscaping.

The application was before Committee as the applicant was a District Councillor.

Members were advised that the site was located on the northern side of Links Road and was adjacent to, but outside, the physical development limits for the town and not located within a defined Conservation Area. Although there were some listed and locally listed buildings located nearby on Gunton Cliff, there was sufficient separation distance for those properties to be unaffected by any development of this site. A number of applications had previously been submitted, with two applications for residential use having been refused in 2016. However, the applicant had been actively engaged in discussions with the planning department prior to the submission of this application for holiday lets.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views along Links Road in both directions, a cross section of the site and adjoining sheltered accommodation showing the lie of the land. Amended plans covering both internal and external alterations providing recesses and balconies had been received and the design changes were more appropriate with fenestration and cladding. Block plans

18 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017 gave an indication of the design of the two three-storey holiday homes which would each have one parking space. From the potential palette for the weather boarding, it was considered that the grey green would blend in with the surroundings.

The Principal Planning and Enforcement Officer explained that, whilst two previous applications had been refused, this application was finely balanced and it was considered that the amended design was acceptable in principle. The proposed dwellings for holiday accommodation in this sustainable location would comply with the adopted Local Plan and approval with relevant conditions would ensure the proper control of the use of the properties. Reference was made to the additional conditions as listed in the update report that had been circulated prior to the meeting.

Questions

Members raised specific questions relating to:  The design and the cladding.  Registration of residents.

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that all materials would comply with Building Regulations and fire restrictions. The cladding was in fact similar to weatherboarding.

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed a condition requiring a maximum of 28 day use and a register of occupants was acceptable. Subject to this being included in the permission, it was unanimously:

RESOLVED

That permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plans numbered 1703:153:03 received on 23 May 2017.

3. This permission relates solely to the use of the premises hereby approved for short-term holiday residential use; the property shall not be occupied as a permanent dwelling and shall not be occupied by any one person for a period exceeding 28 days in any calendar year. The owner shall maintain, and keep available for inspection at all reasonable times, an up-to-date register of lettings.

4. No other part of the development shall be commenced until the new vehicular access has been laid out and completed in all respects in accordance with Drawing No. DM02; and with an entrance width of 4.5m and been made available for use. Thereafter the access shall be retained in the specified form.

19 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

5. The gradient of the vehicular access shall not be steeper than 1 in 20 for the first five metres measured from the nearside edge of the adjacent metalled carriageway.

6. Before the development is commenced details of the areas to be provided for storage and presentation of Refuse/Recycling bins shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the development is brought into use and shall be retained thereafter for no other purpose.

7. Before the development is commenced details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing the means to prevent the discharge of surface water from the development onto the highway. The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety before the access is first used and shall be retained thereafter in its approved form.

8. The use shall not commence until the area within the site shown on Dwg no 1703:153:01 for the purposes of manoeuvring and parking of vehicles has been provided and thereafter that area shall be retained and used for no other purposes.

9. Site Investigation Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) no development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a site investigation consisting of the following components has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:

1) A desk study and site reconnaissance, including:  a detailed appraisal of the history of the site;  an inspection and assessment of current site conditions;  an assessment of the potential types, quantities and locations of hazardous materials and contaminants considered to potentially exist on site;  a conceptual site model indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and  a preliminary 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).

2) Where deemed necessary following the desk study and site reconnaissance an intrusive investigation(s), including:  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 and conform with current guidance and best practice, including BS10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11.

20 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

10. Remediation Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) no development (including any construction, demolition, site clearance or removal of underground tanks and relic structures) approved by this planning permission, shall take place until a detailed remediation method statement (RMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the LPA. The RMS 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 RMS must be prepared by a competent person and conform to current guidance and best practice, including CLR11.

11. Implementation of remediation Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) prior to any occupation or use of the approved development the RMS approved under condition 2 must be completed in its entirety. The LPA must be given two weeks written notification prior to the commencement of the remedial works.

12. Validation Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) a validation report must be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to any occupation or use of the approved development. 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 RMS approved under condition 2 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.

13. Unexpected contamination 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. Unless agreed in writing by the LPA 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.

21 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and conform with prevailing guidance (including BS 10175:2011+A1:2013 and CLR11) 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.

14. Prior to the commencement of development the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the dwellings shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

15. Prior to the demolition of the existing building or the commencement of any development an ecological survey of the site shall be submitted for approval to the Local Planning Authority. Any ecological mitigation measures proposed shall be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the ecological survey.

Note: Councillor Neil returned to the Conference Room at 8.45pm.

15 DC/17/2538/VOC – LAND AT TOWER ROAD, GISLEHAM

The Principal Planning Officer presented the application which sought approval for a variation of Conditions Nos. 2, 13, and 17 of DC/15/5066/FUL, Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four retail units, one café unit and one flexible retail/restaurant unit with associated car parking, servicing, landscaping public realm and pedestrian and vehicular access.

The proposed amendments to the approved scheme were for the removal of the mezzanine from Unit 4, resulting in the loss of 382 sqm (4000 sq ft) of retail space, the addition of mezzanine in Unit 2 of 186 sqm (2000 sq ft), the sub division of Unit 5 into three separate retail units and also minor amendments to the plans. The application was before Committee as it was considered a major development.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site including views along the surrounding roads, views into the site and the existing buildings and the revised plans. There was to be a change in the parking spaces and an additional trolley bay outside Unit 2. Other minor changes included a compound on the drive-thru and a water tank for the sprinkler system.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the principle of the redevelopment of the site for retail purposes had been established by the permission granted in 2016. He outlined the planning considerations as detailed in section 6 in the report. In conclusion, the proposals were for a prominent site which had been vacant for many years and the scheme would

22 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017 positively enhance the entrance to the town of Lowestoft from the south. It was not considered that the application would have a significant impact on the town centre or other retail areas and the loss of employment land was not considered to be significant. The design of the buildings was considered acceptable and the proposed amendments would have only a minor impact.

Since the preparation of the report, additional comments had been received from a local resident relating to the traffic flow, the neglected site, insertion of a mini roundabout, traffic control cameras and a speed reduction on Tower Road. Gisleham Parish Council was still concerned by the entrance and exit to the application site. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the main access remained unchanged and he gave an indication of the likely tenants of the retail units.

Debate

Members supported the application and expressed the view that the development needed to commence at an early stage. There being no further discussion, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That permission be granted, subject to the receipt of an amended plan showing the removal of a parking space and inclusion of the trolley bay and the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until it has been completed in all respects strictly in accordance with drawing numbers 1323 RE [08] 00 01 1323 RE [08] 00 02 1323 RE [08] 00 08 1323 RE [08] 70 01 1323 RE [08] 80 02 received 16 December 2015 and 1323 RE [08] 00 03 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 00 04 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 00 05 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 00 06 rev D02 1323 RE [08] 00 07 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 00 09 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 20 01 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 20 02 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 70 03 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 70 04 rev D01 1323 RE [08] 80 01 rev D01 Received 10 June 2017, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

23 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

3. Samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

4. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 5 to 8 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 8 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, an investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons 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. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to: - human health, - property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, - adjoining land, - groundwaters and surface waters, - ecological systems, - archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

6. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

7. The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of

24 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

8. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 5, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 6, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 7.

9. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

10. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include proposed finished levels or contours; means of enclosure; car parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting etc.); proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (e.g. drainage power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating lines, manholes, supports etc.); retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration, where relevant. Soft landscape works shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed number/densities where appropriate; implementation programme.

11. The landscaping scheme shall be completed within 6 months from the completion of the last building shell, or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first 5 years shall be replaced during the next planting season.

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any other Order amending, revoking and re-enacting that order), the foodstore premises in unit 1 shall be used for a limited assortment discount retail foodstore only and for no other purpose within Class A1 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

25 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 as amended and the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended: a) Unit 2 shall not exceed 651 square metres gross internal floorspace; b) Unit 3 shall not exceed 929 square metres gross internal floorspace; unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The floorspace of these units shall only be used for the sale of goods within the following categories: (i) Electrical goods and other domestic appliances; (ii) Bathroom suites - furniture and accessories; kitchen units - furniture and accessories, floor and wall tiles; (iii) DIY products, materials, tools and machinery for the repair, maintenance or improvement of the home, the garden and motor vehicles; (iv) Motor and cycle goods; and (iv) Furniture, bedding, floor coverings, soft furnishings and textiles. (v) Furniture and textiles (and other products associated with improvements to the home); (vi) Camping and bulky leisure goods (including tents and associated products, garden play equipment and outdoor summer toys); (viii) Household and garden products (including plastic storage, dustbins, ironing boards, cooking utensils, pots and pans and ceramics); (ix) Pets and associated pet products, goods and services.

14. The net sales area of Unit 4 hereby permitted shall be no more than 2926 sq. m (including 650 sq. m external display space) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. That floorspace shall be restricted to the sale of furniture, furnishings, textiles, carpets, electrical goods, hardware, housewares, DIY, garden products, pet supplies, vehicle accessories and cycles, camping and leisure goods, toys, hobbies and office equipment and goods ancillary those listed and ancillary food and drink for consumption within the premises.

15. Unit 5 will be for uses within Class A1 and/or Class A3 and the gross internal floorspace shall be limited to 372 sq. m unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.

16. Units 1-4 shall not be subdivided without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

17. No mezzanine floors (other than that included in this application for unit 2) shall be inserted in units 1-4 without the prior written approval of the local planning authority.

18. No development shall take place until a scheme to restrict delivery vehicles from turning left when exiting the service yard has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; the approved scheme shall be in place before the first occupation of the site and retained thereafter.

26 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

16 DC/17/2604/FUL – 22 COPPER BEECH DRIVE, CARLTON COLVILLE, LOWESTOFT

The Planning Development Manager presented the application which sought approval for the erection of boundary fencing to the front and highway side of the property and the demolition of part of an existing wall. It was considered to be a minor application and brought before Committee as the applicant was an officer of the Council.

The property was located alongside the busy Ashburnham Way, with a boundary wall alongside the pavement and linking to the boundary with the doctors’ surgery at the rear of the property. There was a 1.5m privet hedge along the eastern side of the boundary and around the front of the dwelling. It was proposed to replace the entire hedge, with a 2m high close boarded fence parallel with the house and 1.4m in height around the property frontage.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views along Ashburnham Road, the road frontage of this corner plot and similar properties on the estate with similar fencing.

The proposal was considered to be of neutral benefit to public amenity and not causing harm. The applicant had previously repaired the brick wall and was intending to retain this main feature together with several trees and other soft landscaping in the vicinity. It was considered that that was sufficient to mitigate the overall effect caused by the proposed loss of the privet hedge and the application was recommended for approval.

It was proposed and duly seconded that the application be approved and it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That permission be granted, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the application particulars, approved block plan and visual details of fence received 15 June 2017 for which permission is hereby granted.

17 CONTINUATION OF MEETING

In accordance with Paragraph 9 of Part 3 of the Constitution, as the meeting had been in session for three hours, the Chairman asked the Committee if they wished to continue or adjourn the meeting, It was proposed, seconded and unanimously

RESOLVED

That the meeting continue over three hours duration.

27 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 11/07/2017

18 DC/17/2630/DEM – STARFROST HOUSE, NEWCOMBE ROAD, LOWESTOFT

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application which was for a prior notification for demolition of a redundant industrial unit on the Beach Industrial Estate. The application was before Committee as the applicant was the District Council.

Members were advised that the application had been brought as an urgent item as Council had 28 days to determine the application before deemed consent was automatically granted under Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B paragraph vii(cc) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and there was no facility to request an extension of time under the relevant legislation.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that the site was located off Whapload Road and Hamilton Road, an area of mixed use commercial and industrial units. The building, in traditional form of mixed brick and cladding with some asbestos sheeting, was in a poor state of repair and surveys had shown there were issues with the asbestos which had deteriorated beyond economic repair. The potential future of the site was being reviewed and whilst discussions were ongoing, it could be used as a temporary car park.

Members were shown an aerial view, photographs and location plans of the site and its surrounds including views along the road and the building itself.

The Development Management Team Leader advised that the loss of the building in the industrial area was not considered unacceptable and consent was being recommended

In response to a question as to why this report was considered to be an urgent item, the Planning Development Manager confirmed that there was a 28 day limit on determination with no extension.

There being no further discussion, it was unanimously

RESOLVED

That consent for the demolition of the commercial unit and associated outbuildings, Starfrost House in Newcombe Road, Lowestoft, be granted under the prior notification procedure as laid down by national legislation in Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The meeting concluded at 9.04pm.

Chairman