14 OCTOBER 2010
Minutes of an Extraordinary meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held
in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were
present:
Councillors
S J Partridge (Chairman)
J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman)
H C Cordeaux
P W High
S C Mears
J H Perry-Warnes
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs L Walker
P J Willcox
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - substitute for J D Savory
Mrs B McGoun - substitute for Mrs A R Green
Mrs J P Moss - substitute for Mrs M Seward
Members of 4 March Committee
B Cabbell Manners
Miss C P Sheridan
Other Members
Mrs P Bevan Jones - Sheringham North Ward
B J Hannah - Sheringham North Ward
Mrs H T Nelson - Sheringham South Ward
Ms V R Gay - Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Planning
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mrs E Duncan - Legal and Democratic Services Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr M Wood - Retail Consultant
Mr M Rayner - Highway Engineer (Norfolk County Council)
(91)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A R Green, J D Savory
and Mrs M Seward. There were three substitute Members in attendance as listed
above.
(92)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Chairman stated that all Members had been inundated with correspondence in
respect of these applications.
Development Control Committee
1
14 October 2010
Councillor Mrs J P Moss declared a personal interest in these applications as she
owned a café business in Sheringham, which was recorded on the Council’s Register
of Interests. She stated that she had been subject to a Code of Conduct hearing
following the meeting on 4 March 2010 but had been exonerated. She had no
prejudicial interest in these applications, her circumstances had not changed since 4
March and she had sought advice in writing and orally from officers of the Council. In
addition, she had been advised by Dr David Ward as part of the Business Link
advisory service for catering. As Dr Ward could be appointed as principal of the food
academy he had had said he could no longer advise her. She considered that there
was no reason why this link would prejudice her judgement.
The Legal and Democratic Services Manager confirmed that Councillor Mrs Moss
had a personal, non -prejudicial interest.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in these applications
through his commercial interests.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan requested advice on whether or not she could speak
during the first part of the meeting. She stated that she had no personal or
prejudicial interest. She had also been exonerated following an inquiry into her
conduct at the meeting on 4 March.
The Legal and Democratic Services Manager confirmed that Councillor Miss
Sheridan had no personal or prejudicial interest in these applications.
Councillor B J Hannah declared a personal interest in these applications as an
NNDC Member (as owner of part of one of the sites) and as a Member of Norfolk
County Council in relation to the education asset of the proposed food academy.
Councillor S C Mears declared a personal interest in these applications as a member
of his family was employed by Tesco on a part-time basis.
Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones declared a personal interest as an officer of Excel
2000 which had an office in the Community Centre.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he was a Member of Norfolk County Council.
(93)
SHERINGHAM - 20090777 - Erection of A1 (retail Supermarket) and D1 (Norfolk
Food Academy) with Associated Kitchen Garden, Parking, Landscaping and
Infrastructure at Sheringham Town Allotments, Land South of Weybourne
Road, Sheringham for Greenhouse Community Projects
SHERINGHAM - 20090818 - Demolish all Buildings Except numbers. 7, 9 and 11
Cromer Road and Erection of A1 (Retail Supermarket), 2 Class A1/A3 Retail
Units, 2 Flats and A Class D1/D2 Community Space with Associated Access,
Landscaping, Car Parking and Servicing Arrangements at Land at Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Tesco Stores Ltd
SHERINGHAM – 20100920 - Demolition of all buildings except 7, 9 & 11 Cromer
Road and erection of A1 retail food store, 2 A1/A2/A3 retail units, 2 residential
units and D1/D2 community space, with associated access, landscaping, car
parking and servicing and pedestrian link to Station Road at Land at Cromer
Road, Sheringham for Tesco Stores Ltd
Development Control Committee
2
14 October 2010
1. REASONS FOR REFUSAL/APPROVAL ADVANCED AT MEETING ON 4
MARCH 2010 (20090777 AND 20090818 ONLY)
The reasons for refusal/ approval advanced at the meeting on 4 March 2010 were
considered and debated by those Members who were present at that meeting;
namely Councillors Cabbell Manners, Cordeaux, High, Mrs McGoun, Mears, Mrs
Moss, Partridge, Perry-Warnes, Miss Sheridan, Smith, Mrs Sweeney, Mrs Trett,
Willcox and Wyatt.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) outlined the decisions made at
the meeting on 4 March 2010 and the need to amplify and articulate the reasons for
those decisions. He reminded the Committee of the plans that had been considered
at the meeting on 4 March.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan referred to the complaint made against her following
the meeting on 4 March, which had been the subject of a five-month long inquiry
resulting in her exoneration.
She stated that she had requested help with the
reasons at the meeting on 4 March which was not forthcoming. She considered the
decision to have been sound and correct, and subsequent legal advice had declared
the decision to be defensible. She stated that the 4 March meeting had been
intimidating and it had been very difficult for Members to do their jobs. There had
been a great deal of unfair publicity following that meeting. She expressed concern
that she had been invited to today’s meeting with little notice. She considered that
the report was complicated and placed Members in an equally difficult situation. She
referred to options a) and b) set out on page 5 of the report.
Councillor Miss Sheridan stated that she had been concerned at the size of the
proposed store on Cromer Road, which represented a substantial diversion from the
Core Strategy which had been endorsed by the Inspector. She had referred to the
policy at the meeting on 4 March. She stated that the proposed store would draw
expenditure from the town centre and have an impact on the retail function and
viability of the town. She referred to the situation in Stalham. She asked which
option would be the most defensible.
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that in terms of
sequential preference the Cromer Road site was preferable to the Weybourne Road
site.
On the basis of this advice, Councillor Sheridan stated that option a) was
appropriate. However, she highlighted the pedestrian link as an important issue and
stated that she was not aware of a pedestrian link that worked anywhere. She still
considered that the design was appalling and totally out of keeping with the present
simple street scene which greeted visitors.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun also referred to the short timescale given for perusal of the
documentation and expressed her anger at the treatment of Members in this respect.
She stated that at the meeting on 4 March she had expressed concern regarding the
size of the Cromer Road proposal and had made the point that it represented a
substantial diversion from Core Strategy policy. She had also expressed concern at
the applicant’s stated policy on growth and drew attention to the split between
convenience and comparison floor space. She referred to the difference of opinion
expressed by the applicant and the Council’s Retail Consultant regarding diversion of
trade from the town centre. She referred to the conclusions in the appeal Inspector’s
report that the previous Cromer Road proposal would harm the vitality, viability and
retail function of the town centre. She considered that the Cromer Road proposal
Development Control Committee
3
14 October 2010
was contrary to PPS4. She considered that the pedestrian link would not perform an
effective function and if it were not well connected to the town, the site could not be
termed ‘edge of centre’. In her opinion, both sites were out of centre sites.
Councillor Mrs McGoun supported option a). She considered that the Weybourne
Road proposal was an exciting and innovative way to draw young people back to the
earth. She considered that in terms of PPS4, the Weybourne Road proposal
achieved an overall positive impact with overall benefits which complemented the
town rather than damaged it. She considered that the proposal was a responsible
approach to climate change, encouraged economic growth, represented a smaller
net sales area and would claw back trade for the weekly food shop. She stated that
the site would be accessible by foot, electric bus and public transport. In her opinion,
the Cromer Road site was not well connected to the town centre and could not be
considered as an edge of centre site for the purposes of the sequential test. She
considered that it would not be possible to break up the elements of the Weybourne
Road proposal to locate them on other sites as it would destroy the ethos of the
scheme. The Weybourne Road proposal was likely to accord with the Core Strategy
vision for North Norfolk, would benefit Sheringham in the broader sense, deliver
education and community benefits and would be less likely to have an adverse
impact on the town.
Councillor Cabbell Manners considered that there was little difference between the
size of the Cromer Road store which had been refused on appeal and the current
proposal. He expressed concern at the possible expansion of the retail area in the
future. He stated that both stores were larger than 500m2-750m2 stated in the Core
Strategy and considered that both applications should be refused.
Councillor Miss Sheridan proposed option a), but also considered that the size and
detrimental effect of the Cromer Road site should be included.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) sought clarification of the
elements of the design of the Cromer Road scheme which were considered to be out
of keeping with the street scene.
Councillor Mrs McGoun considered that the proposed store had the appearance of a
large aircraft hangar on the entrance to the historic town which was the District’s
tourist gem. She was concerned at the relationship of the proposal to the small
feeling of the town.
Councillor Miss Sheridan considered that the proposed Cromer Road store was out
of keeping with the gateway site and did not enhance the entrance to the town. She
considered that the scale and massing of the buildings did not relate to the
surrounding area, contrary to Policy EN4.
The consensus of those Members who were eligible to consider this element of the
debate was that the Cromer Road store (edge of centre) was sequentially preferable
to the Weybourne Road store (out of centre) but there were other material
considerations associated with the Weybourne Road proposal, as explained during
this debate, which were considered to outweigh the sequential preferability of the
Cromer Road site. In addition, concerns were expressed regarding the design of the
Cromer Road proposal which was considered to be out of keeping with the street
scene of Sheringham.
2. DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS 20090777 (WEYBOURNE ROAD),
20090818 (CROMER ROAD) AND 20100920 (CROMER ROAD)
Development Control Committee
4
14 October 2010
Councillors B Cabbell Manners and Miss C P Sheridan took no further part in the
meeting.
In response to a question by Councillor B J Hannah as to why the Committee could
not at this stage reaffirm its decisions made on 4 March, the Planning Legal Manager
explained that the first part of the meeting had sought articulation and clarification of
the reasons for the decisions taken at that meeting to ensure that those decisions
were legally watertight. However, there was a legal requirement to take into account
all material considerations in determining the applications. There had been a number
of changes since 4 March which were material and it was therefore necessary to
consider the remainder of the report and make decisions on the applications.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) presented each of the
applications.
20090777 (Weybourne Road)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there were no
material differences in respect of the Weybourne Road application. He referred to
the Parish Poll which had included reference to the refurbishment of the Community
Centre and the construction of six affordable dwellings. He stated that the
refurbishment of the Community Centre and the affordable dwellings did not form
part of this planning application and should not be taken into consideration.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that 7 further letters of
representation had been received, many of which had referred to the Parish Poll.
None of the letters had raised any additional material planning issues. A letter had
been received from Bidwells, the applicant’s agent, which had been copied to all
Members and which made reference to a letter from Ashurst, Solicitors acting for
Tesco, dated 10 June 2010. A revised budget estimate for off-site highway works
had been received from the applicant.
Cromer Road
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the two applications
for the Cromer Road site were very similar. He outlined the changes that had been
made to the proposal which had been considered on 4 March.
20090818
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that 30 further letters
of representation had been received, none of which raised new planning grounds.
20100920
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that this application
was substantially the same as application number 20090818 except that it now
included firm proposals to demolish existing buildings adjacent to the railway line. A
further 29 letters of representation had been received, none of which raised
additional points. He referred to a letter sent to Members by Mr Kissman, a
representative of the applicant, dated 8 October regarding an offer to Norfolk County
Council in respect of the operation of the Community Centre. This Authority had not
Development Control Committee
5
14 October 2010
received confirmation of that offer. Proposals had been received in respect of hard
and soft landscaping. There had been some discussion with the applicants on this
matter but further discussion was needed. If the Committee were minded to approve
this application, a condition would be imposed to require hard and soft landscaping to
be agreed at a later date. A letter had been received from the agent reiterating a
request from Ashurst (Appendix 12 to the report) to consider the applications afresh.
An email had been sent to Members on 12 October by the CPRE regarding the
interpretation of PPS4.
The Retail Consultant referred to the letter from the CPRE contained in Appendix 15
of the report. He advised the Committee in respect of Policy EC10 and EC16.1, the
sequential approach and the impact of the proposals on the town centre. He stated
that on an individual basis both schemes were acceptable; however on face value he
considered that the Weybourne Road proposal would have a very harmful effect on
the town centre, based on the applicant’s retail assessment. In his view, the impact
would not be offset to any extent by linked trips to the town centre. He understood
the points made in respect of other material considerations, but on the basis of the
information submitted by the applicant he considered that the Weybourne Road
application would be harmful.
The Retail Consultant considered that there were very fundamental and significant
differences between the applications under consideration and the application which
was considered on appeal. Whilst it provided a context for the two applications, it
was not a determining factor.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) confirmed that the policy issues
were as contained in Appendix 1 (pages 42-43), with the exception of the Regional
Spatial Strategy which had been revoked by the Government.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Human Rights and Section 17 issues had
been omitted from the summary report on the Cromer Road applications, but that
these issues remained the same as those reported to the meeting on 4 March.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
recommendations contained on page 38 of the Officer’s report.
presented
the
The Committee adjourned for a short break.
Public Speakers
20090777
Mr Booth (Sheringham Town Council)
Objecting: Mr Ringer, Mr McGinn, Mrs Mold and Mr Alsop
Supporting: Mr Hay-Smith, Mr Alflatt, Mr Keen, Mr Roderick
20090818
Mr Booth (Sheringham Town Council) - also speaking on 20100920
Objecting: Mr Lawn, Mr Porter, Rev Durand, Mrs Glenn
Supporting: Mr Kissman, Mr Gant, Mr Read, Mr Legg
20100920
Objecting: Ms Mildmay, Mr Hewitt, Mr Herbert, Dr Shepherd
Supporting: Mrs Massingham, Mr McGinn, Mrs Mold, Mr Kissman
Development Control Committee
6
14 October 2010
The meeting was adjourned for lunch at 12.55 pm and resumed at 1.20 pm.
The Chairman reminded all those present that the Committee had to consider land
use issues only and not the individual Companies involved in these matters.
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, expressed his frustration over the planning
process and questioned its integrity. He stated that the Council was run by Members
and not by Officers. He referred to the Parish Poll and stated that, whilst the result
was close, there was an overall preference expressed for the Weybourne Road
application. He emphasised the importance of the decisions to be made at this
meeting, not only on a local level but also nationally. He stated that the decision
could put North Norfolk up as a beacon, or it could return to being a backwater. He
stated that the town had retained its strong sense of identity and pride in being the
primary tourist destination in North Norfolk. He disputed the comments of the
Highway Authority and asked the Committee to note the survey undertaken by
RATS. He considered that the Weybourne Road proposal was an unmissable
opportunity with benefits not only for Sheringham but for North Norfolk.
The Chairman stated that North Norfolk District Council was a Member-led authority,
with a robust Development Control Committee.
Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones, a local Member, stated that people came from many
miles away to enjoy Sheringham’s unique charm and was concerned that it could
become a clone town. She expressed concern regarding traffic congestion, rat runs
and the impact on emergency services. She stated that Officer’s recommendations
were based on law to assist Members who made the final decision, recognising their
democratic responsibilities and accountabilities. It was often the case that decisions
were made contrary to the recommendation. In respect of the Cromer Road scheme,
she expressed concern at the loss of centrally located housing of the size needed,
the loss of mature trees and the minimal difference in the size of the current proposal
compared to the scheme refused under application reference 20070217. In respect
of Weybourne Road, she supported the views expressed by the Town Council and
the Headmaster of Sheringham High School, and considered that the site would be
financially viable and sustainable. She stated that children would be shown how the
land sustains life. She stated that the site would be accessible by electric buses and
other forms of transport. She considered that the Weybourne Road proposal was a
one-hit chance for the town and considered that this Council could shine as a beacon
to other vulnerable communities or fail.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, Member for Sheringham South, referred to the resiting of
the fire station. She expressed concern at conflict between fire engines and cars and
considered that the Catholic Church and the large trees which flanked it could be
threatened.
She referred to Sheringham’s tourist offer and considered that
Sheringham deserved better than the Cromer Road proposal. She considered that
the pedestrian walkway was inadequate, and stated that it culminated in a taxi rank.
She considered that the Weybourne Road proposal had many benefits. She
considered that the green approach provided a far better entrance to Sheringham,
was more sensible in a tourist area and sensitive to the AONB. She referred to the
benefits of the food academy to young people, which would enable them to aspire to
better jobs in a tourist area.
Councillor Mrs J P Moss, Member for Sheringham South, declined to comment at this
stage as she preferred to hear the debate first.
Development Control Committee
7
14 October 2010
Councillor H C Cordeaux considered that Sheringham could cope with two small
supermarkets and proposed acceptance of both the Cromer Road and Weybourne
Road applications subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, as it would
increase consumer choice, retail competition and maximise the community benefits
for Sheringham. This was seconded by Councillor P W High.
In response to questions by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the Retail Consultant
explained the differences in the retail impact between the current Cromer Road
proposals and those given at the appeal against the previous refusal. He stated that
since then, Sainsbury had opened a store in the town which had increased the
underlying retail strength of the town. He could not comment on the impact of Tesco
on Stalham, but in terms of its impact on Fakenham, information had been provided
which suggested that there were more people shopping in the town since it opened.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had considered that both stores should
be approved, but he had been impressed by the supporters of the Weybourne Road
proposal and now considered that it was the best scheme. However, he considered
that even if both were approved there would be no impact as people loved
Sheringham and he was convinced that they would still go into the town.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett sought clarification as to why these applications had
been allowed to proceed as far as they had when Sheringham was a secondary town
and the requirement for retail floorspace had been identified as being 500m2 to
750m2.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that Policy EC5 did
not preclude stores of a size larger than 750m2 provided an applicant could provide
justification for exceeding this size. However, this requirement had been taken away
in PPS4. The Retail Consultant confirmed this view.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that both sides had argued their points and she
was seeing the proposals with fresh eyes. She referred to a comment made by one
of the speakers that pressure would be brought to bear on Members by Officers, and
stated that this was not the case. She stated that the Cromer Road proposal was
fully compliant with policy, and Weybourne Road was not compliant. She considered
that more attention to detail should be paid to the Cromer Road elevation and
requested conditions to require landscaping and softening of the Cromer Road
access. She requested that the voting be recorded for reasons of transparency.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett considered that there was little local distinctiveness in
the Cromer Road proposal.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that food stores of this
kind were difficult to design. However, the Cromer Road proposal was a distinct
design. He considered that the proposed store fitted in with the general scale of
Sheringham in terms of its form, scale, massing and dimensions. In terms of local
distinctiveness, there were subliminal connections with Sheringham in its roof
structure. The siting and positioning of the store generally represented good town
planning. He considered that the applicants had made every effort to consider the
context and setting of the store. He also stated that the design could be further
improved through minor changes to the elevational treatment on Cromer Road and
by making a greater architectural statement or ‘announcement’ in respect of the
pedestrian entrances to the development from Station Road and the Cromer Road
Car Park. With regard to the Weybourne Road proposal, he had concerns in respect
of its overall location and its landscape impact, adjoining as it would open
countryside.
Development Control Committee
8
14 October 2010
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett stated that she had no concerns with regard to the
design of the store, but was concerned at the large amount of red brick when the
vernacular was for small flints. She asked if it would be possible to condition the
incorporation of some flint in the design.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that in the event of approval it
would be possible to deal with this matter by condition.
Councillor P J Willcox queried the retail floorspace of the existing supermarkets in the
town.
The Retail Consultant gave details as requested. He explained that there was a
balance to be struck in that if any new store was too small it would impact more on
existing businesses as it would compete with a smaller market, whereas a larger
store had the ability to cater for the weekly shop. If the store was too small it would
not claw back the expenditure lost to larger stores elsewhere. He considered that the
Cromer Road proposal was a win-win situation which would enable people to make
linked trips to the town centre and enhance the town centre as a whole.
Councillor Willcox stated that there was still a traffic issue and a compromise of
having the back of the building at the front. He questioned whether Sheringham as a
secondary settlement should become a major shopping destination.
The Retail Consultant explained that the resiting of the store entrance between the
car park and Station Road would encourage people to walk from the store to the
town and vice-versa. In his opinion, the deficiencies of the 2008 scheme had been
remedied.
Councillor Mrs J P Moss, Member for Sheringham South, welcomed the contribution
given by the younger people who had spoken on these applications. She expressed
concern about the future vitality and sustainability of Sheringham and North Norfolk
and maintaining the future for them. She stated that there was no such thing as
cheap food. She referred to employment issues. She expressed concern at the
trend for automated checkouts in Tesco stores which were pervading medium and
smaller stores. She asked if the Retail Consultant considered that Sheringham could
sustain two supermarkets.
The Retail Consultant considered that two stores would not be sustainable. All
supermarkets would trade at well below company averages and there would be an
impact on smaller stores as well. He expressed the opinion that shoppers would be
attracted from Holt and there was a potential risk that Budgens could close. Neither
applicant had considered the impact of both stores. The Committee had the option of
approving both proposals but he advised the Committee to be aware of the
implications if it did so.
In answer to a question, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
confirmed that there was a Tree Preservation Order on trees on the site of the
proposed fire station and these would be retained as a condition of the planning
permission already granted for that development. With regard to the trees on the site
itself, this was an important issue but consideration had to be given to layout and
design. Trees would be replaced as part of the wider benefit of the scheme.
Development Control Committee
9
14 October 2010
Councillor Mrs L Walker requested that the proposal by Councillor H C Cordeaux be
amended or withdrawn. She proposed the Officer’s recommendation in respect of
both sites which was seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett.
Councillor H C Cordeaux, with the agreement of his seconder, withdrew his proposal.
Councillor S C Mears stated that he had not voted for or against any particular
company, but had voted for what he considered to be an innovative and unusual
proposal which would have led the country. He considered that the gateway view of
the Cromer Road proposal was unattractive and the massing was too large. He
expressed concern that the view could be made more unattractive by damage to the
gates by delivery lorries.
As an amendment, Councillor Mrs B McGoun proposed that the previous decision be
ratified as further articulated. This was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
Councillor P J Willcox proposed that both proposals be refused.
seconder.
There was no
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that the Council’s Standing
Orders did not allow an amendment to be a direct negative of the proposal. He
advised taking the propositions in order.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, as Cabinet Member for Tourism, stated that Councils
were being encouraged to do all they could to encourage tourism in advance of the
Olympic Games in 2012. She stated that the AONB, built heritage and natural
heritage were special treasures that should be promoted. She considered that it
would be detrimental to the District’s image if the entrance to Sheringham were
spoilt.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun questioned the advice given by the Planning Legal
Manager as her proposal accorded with the Committee’s previous decision.
The Chairman suggested that the decision be made in principle and any conditions
would be considered following the vote.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed that both applications be approved. This was
not seconded.
The proposal by Councillor Mrs L Walker, which had been seconded by Councillor
Mrs J Trett, was put to the vote.
At the request of Councillor Mrs L Walker, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposition
Against the proposition
H C Cordeaux
P W High
S J Partridge
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs L Walker
Mrs B McGoun
S C Mears
J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett
Mrs J P Moss
P J Willcox
J A Wyatt
(7)
Development Control Committee
(7)
Abstentions
(0)
10
14 October 2010
On the casting vote of the Chairman it was
RESOLVED
1.
20090818 CROMER ROAD
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve application 20090818 subject to the completion of a S106
Planning Obligation to secure the provision of off-site highway
improvements and affordable housing and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including (amongst other matters) a restriction
on the net sales area of the retail supermarket (Class A1) and the ratio
of comparison to convenience goods floor space as well as completion
of replacement Community Centre facilities and Fire Station before work
commences to demolish existing buildings on the Cromer Road site.
2.
20100920 CROMER ROAD
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve application 20100920 subject to the completion of a S106
Planning Obligation to secure the provision of off-site highway
improvements and affordable housing and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including (amongst other matters) a restriction
on the net sales area of the retail supermarket (Class A1) and the ratio
of comparison to convenience goods floor space as well as completion
of replacement Community Centre facilities and Fire Station before work
commences to demolish existing buildings on the Cromer Road site.
3.
20090777 WEYBOURNE ROAD
That application 20090777 be refused for the following reasons:The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the erection of a
supermarket on the application site would represent the best
sequentially available site for this type of development as required by
PPS4 and adopted Development Plan Policies.
The site is distant from the town centre in a location poorly served by
public and non-car modes of transport and consequently would fail to
comply with the accessibility requirements of PPS4 Policy EC10.2 b.
and adopted Development Plan Policies
Taking account of these factors, it is considered that the proposed
development would not have a positive impact on the vitality and
viability of Sheringham town centre and would be contrary to
Development Plan Policies.
The material circumstances put forward by the applicant have been
taken into account in the determination of this application but are not
considered to be of sufficient weight to justify a departure from
Development Plan Policies in this case.
Development Control Committee
11
14 October 2010
The Committee adjourned for a short break.
The Committee discussed the conditions to be attached to the planning permission,
as set out in Appendix 17 to the report, and additional conditions which were
recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control or had been requested
by Members.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that condition 23 of Appendix 17
should be amended to require no more than 13% of the total retail sales floor space
to be used for the sale of non-convenience goods to reflect the wishes of the
applicant. Condition 25 should be amended to refer to two independent units in
accordance with the amended proposal. In addition, he recommended additional
conditions to require:
Agreement of the design of the gates onto Cromer Road.
Agreement of the materials to be used on the Cromer Road elevation.
No mezzanine floor.
Landscaping, public art, lighting and signage to be agreed.
No sales to take place in the foyer area.
The second gateway to be included in condition 30 of Appendix 17.
Any other appropriate conditions to be delegated to officers.
Members also requested the installation of a barrier between the pedestrian walkway
and the taxi rank, and requested Officers to consider measures to ensure that
delivery vehicles were not waiting on the road or elsewhere until they could gain
access to the site. The Committee expressed a preference for low level lighting.
It was noted that signage was an issue for separate legislation and that opening
hours had been agreed under a previous appeal.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that not only would the decisions be scrutinised
but also the reasons for which they were made. He requested that the Committee
confirm its reasons for the decisions.
It was agreed that the decisions had been made for the following reasons:
The Committee considered that Sheringham could only accommodate one store of
the size proposed. There was a clear sequential preference for the Cromer Road
site. The Committee had taken into account the improvements to the Cromer Road
scheme, which was an amendment to application 20090818 and reflected by
application 20100920, as follows:
1. Deletion of two of the independent shop units along the pedestrian walkway;
2. Inclusion of public art in lieu of the two independent shop units;
3. A commitment that rents for the two small independent units be set at less than or
equal to the local market rents and to be agreed with the District Council;
4. Replacing the larger independent shop unit on Cromer Road with community
space (physically linked to the adjacent community space originally proposed);
5. Dedicating the two proposed flats for affordable housing; and
6. An offer to remove existing buildings adjacent to the railway line (now under the
control of the applicant) in order to facilitate widening the pedestrian link between
the proposed supermarket and the town centre.
Development Control Committee
12
14 October 2010
In refusing application 20090777 the Committee had endorsed the reasons put
forward in the Officer’s recommendation.
The meeting closed at 3.20 pm.
Development Control Committee
13
14 October 2010