There were no apologies for absence received.

Councillor Freeman declared a personal interest in item 7 in his capacity as Ward Councillor for the Ormesby Ward and he advised that the applicant is known to him, but he did not feel conflicted by the application.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 4th June 2025 were confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planner's report which presented an application of a proposed erection of a 50MW battery storage flexible energy facility comprising 28 battery units and 14 transformers, acoustic fence, electricity substation, associated works and landscaping.

The Principal Planner presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Members were advised that since publication of the report, the applicant had agreed to the proposed pre-commencement conditions. Members were also advised that condition 23 as detailed within the report would now be removed from consideration as the layout was now considered safe and to have the appropriate access in place.

Mr Jake Stentiford, Agent addressed the Committee and advised of the many benefits that would be seen if the application was to be approved, Mr Stentiford commented that in his opinion this application, which had received no objections, provided for an excellent opportunity for the Borough to provide a facility that would assist with de-carbonisation.

The Chairman asked whether there would be on site security in place if the application was to be granted. The agent advised that there would be no permanent staff on site but that the site would be secure and would have monitored site visits once or twice a month for maintenance purposes.

The Chairman asked if discussions had been held with the port authority to be able to make use of the facility when not in use by the National Grid. It was advised that discussions were being had with the port.

The Chairman asked with regard to noise levels from the facility, it was advised that a noise impact assessment had been completed which had shown noise levels to be at a level of background noise and would not therefore cause a nuisance.

Councillor Galer sought clarification regarding the 50MW storage, it was advised that the facility had the capacity of single storage to store up to 50MW once a day with a release of 50MW once per day.

The Committee hereby entered in debate.

Councillor Mogford commented that he was pleased to see that the application had come before the Committee and advised that he was keen to see how quickly the

facility could work with the port authority. Councillor Mogford was reminded that the connection to the port did not form part of the application being considered.

Councillor Williamson commented that he felt the application was an excellent project and moving forward added sustainability to the town, with an excellent co-location in an area of other energy generation sites. Councillor Williamson further commented that he fully supported the application.

Councillor Galer advised that he full supported the application and was particularly impressed with the fire regulation details that had been put in place.

Proposer : Councillor Williamson Seconder : Councillor Galer

That Application 06/24/0123/F be approved subject to conditions 1 to 22 and 24 to 26 as detailed within the Principal Planner's report.

APPROVED

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented an application for a change of use of former poultry rearing facility and agricultural land to provide an animal sanctuary, wildlife rescue and welfare centre (Sui Generis use) comprising use of the poultry shed building for animal treatment and rehabilitation, and the erection of ancillary outbuildings.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Members were advised that since publication of the report and following a site visit there has been a hay storage shelter erected at the site to the front of the building. It was reported that the applicant had advised that this was for temporary storage of hay for the animals, but the Council has not received confirmation as to whether this will be removed from site or moved elsewhere once the grain store is removed. The hay storage building is not included within the plans and therefore would require separate planning permission for its retention; planning enforcement officers are aware of this development and will monitor the situation following the determination of this application.

Councillor Boyd asked whether the land had ever been considered prior to this application for re-use for agriculture. It was advised that this application had been the only application received for this site.

Councillor Williamson asked with regard to parking at the site and it was advised that the plans indicated 5 parking spaces within the site of which there were 2 staff members and 2 volunteers who would use these, it was advised that the site would only have volunteers dropping off animals to the shelter.

Members here entered into debate.

Councillor Martin welcomed the application as she felt other animal sanctuaries that were already in place were stretched.

Councillor Boyd commented that whilst he had raised concern regarding the re use of agricultural land he felt the application proposed would provide for a good scheme and therefore welcomed the application and gave his support.

Proposer : Councillor Williamson Seconder : Councillor Martin

That application 06/24/0296/F be approved and planning permission granted subject to the proposed conditions as detailed within the Senior Planning Officer's report.

APPROVED

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented an application for a retrospective change of use of agricultural land to a residential garden.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Members were provided with updates to the report which had been made since publication of the report together with additional information that had been received relevant to the application.

It was reported that the agenda report mistakenly described the Ward Councillors as being Cllr G Freemen and Cllr R Hanton. The report should have stated that the Councillors for Ormesby Ward are Cllr G Freeman and Cllr J Rundle. It was confirmed that no comments had been received from any  Councillor.

Confirmation was given that the existing close boarded boundary fence along the proposed garden extension (western boundary) does not benefit from planning permission, as this is a means of enclosure enabling the change of use. The submitted plans show this boundary treated with a brick wall. A slightly different approach is now proposed from the original report, where the application under consideration is now just for a change of use; any boundary treatment would need to seek further planning permission under a new application.

Members were advised of the additional representation that has been received from the Arboricultural Officer which commented on an oak tree that sat within the boundary of the applicant’s ownership, but not within the site currently under consideration. The oak tree is protected by a Tree Protection order (TPO). It was noted that should development be proposed close to the tree  in the future, tree protection measures should be included as part of those proposals and could therefore be assessed and controlled as appropriate at that time.

Members were advised that an Informative note is proposed to advise the applicant of the tree’s protection and that no excavating or storing of heavy materials within the RPA should occur without an application for works to the TPO tree or as part of an application for other forms of operational development.

The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that some changes were proposed to the conditions and informatives from the original report, as a result of the above. Two new informatives are proposed, one in relation to the protected oak tree, and another referring to any future application for boundary treatments. These are as follows

• Condition 1 is proposed to be amended to clarify the extent of what the permission covers.

• Condition 2 is proposed for removal from the Recommendation.

• Conditions 3 and 4 are proposed to be amended to improve the precision and enforceability of the conditions.

• It is recommended that two additional informative notes are attached to any permission granted.

Councillor Capewell sought clarification on the removal of permitted development rights and how this affected the application site. The Senior Planning Officer provided clarification on this matter and advised that this was usual practice for these types of application.

Councillor Galer asked if there were any known plans for re use of the railway line that ran almost through the application and sought clarification as to whether any of the proposed development was to be built over the line. The Head of Planning advised that the current proposal, together with the previously approved garden extension, does encroach upon the former railway alignment..

The Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Mogford commented with regard to the railway line and whether these lines were protected to ensure tracks could be reused. The Head of Planning and Growth advised that it would not be possible to re-establish the railway line, however this was considered as part of the Local Plan which looked at tracks being re-used for cycling or walking lanes, he advised however there was currently no funding in place for this. The Head of Planning further advised that there would still be scope within the village to use some of the railway line for connectivity in the future if required.

Proposer : Councillor T Wright

Seconder : Councillor B Williamson

That application 06/22/0473/CU be approved as per the amended recommendations and planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as amended within the Senior Planning Officers report.

APPROVED

There was no other business discussed at the meeting.