OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 OCTOBER 2010

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 OCTOBER 2010

Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION

1. 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), 5 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

INTRODUCTION

Applications 20090777 and 20090818 are being reconsidered, together with application 20100920 (for the first time), because the determination of each planning application will influence the outcome of the other, particularly in light of Government advice and Development Plan policy on the consideration of retail proposals and as the Council’s appointed retail consultant has previously advised that significant adverse impacts would arise if supermarkets in both locations were approved.

•

•

•

Applications 20090777 and 20090818 were last considered by the Combined

Development Control Committee on 4 March 2010 when it was resolved:

That subject to seeking legal advice and consideration of that advice, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to: a) refuse application 20090818 for the following reasons:

•

Failure to comply with Core Strategy policy EC5 on grounds that the proposed store will have a detrimental impact on the sustainability and viability of the town by reason of its size.

Contrary to the appeal decision in respect of 20070217 in terms of size.

The design is incompatible with the town and conflicts with Policy EN4.

Failure to meet the tests of PPS4; and

Development Control Committee

1

14 October 2010

b) approve application 20090777 as the Committee considers that insufficient weight has been given to the ethos, design and sustainability of the

Weybourne Road proposal and its connection with the town, and to benefits of the electric bus service and the food academy, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Following the Committee meeting on 4 March 2010, legal advice was sought from

Counsel (who acted for the District Council on the previous appeals by Tesco Stores

Limited which were the subject of a Public Inquiry in July 2008). A summary of

Counsel’s advice in respect of the decisions made by Committee on 4 March is attached at Appendix 10 together with the previous reports and appendices prepared for the meeting on 4 March at Appendices 1-9 .

Counsel advised that, having regard to the applications before the Committee on 4

March and the issues that they raised, a decision to approve the Weybourne Road application and refuse the Cromer Road application ought to be legally defensible in principle but the reasons for the Council’s decision would need to be proper, adequate and intelligible.

He emphasised that the determination of planning applications gives rise to a series of planning judgments by reference to policy which are matters of judgment for the decision maker (and not matters of law). Planning policy is not statute or a set of legal rules; the statutory requirement as set out in Section 38 (6) of the Planning and

Compensation Act 2004 is that the Council’s decisions need to be taken in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

On 25 August 2010 a representation was submitted from Ashurst LLP on behalf of

Tesco Stores Limited (a copy of which is attached at Appendix 12 ). This submission

(amongst other things) suggests that “The newly constituted Committee should consider the applications afresh”.

The first part of this report reflects the Officers’ understanding of the reasons for refusal/approval advanced as part of the resolution of Committee on 4 March 2010 based on the content and discussion points within that meeting as outlined in the minutes of the meeting as approved as a correct record on 8 April 2010 (see

Appendices 10 and 11 ). In so far as the Officers do not articulate or amplify those reasons fully, the first part of the report is directed to the Members of the original

Committee with a request for them to provide that articulation or amplification to reflect the decision taken at that time. It is important that those requests are made to ascertain or amplify the decision taken by the original Committee on 4 March 2010 and not as a request for reconsideration of the merits of the proposals by those

Committee Members.

The second part of the report concerns the current Committee and the fact that the two previous applications and the new application have now been referred to the current Committee by Officers because they consider it necessary for the Council to consider material planning issues which have arisen since the applications were last considered, as a result of representations made or any changes in planning circumstances. The current Committee therefore needs to decide how to determine these applications finally, having regard to the previous resolution and reasons which are to be ascertained through the first part of this report, and the new issues outlined in the second part of this report.

Members have visited both application sites and the applicants have also given presentations to District and Town Councillors at pre-application stage.


2

14 October 2010

1 st

PART OF REPORT - REASONS FOR REFUSAL/APPROVAL ADVANCED AT

MEETING ON 4 MARCH 2010 (20090777 AND 20090818 ONLY)

APPLICATION 20090818 (CROMER ROAD)

On 4 March 2010 the Committee resolved that subject to seeking legal advice and consideration of that advice, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse application 20090818 for the following reasons:

1.

2.

3.

Failure to comply with Core Strategy policy EC5 on grounds that the proposed store will have a detrimental impact on the sustainability and viability of the town by reason of its size;

Contrary to the appeal decision in respect of 20070217 in terms of size;

The design is incompatible with the town and conflicts with Policy EN4; and

Failure to meet the tests of PPS4.

4.

These reasons are considered in turn below.

1. Failure to comply with Core Strategy policy EC5 on grounds that the proposed store will have a detrimental impact on the sustainability and viability of the town by reason of its size.

In respect of impact, whilst the Council’s appointed Retail Consultant had expressed a contrary view to that advanced by Committee on 4 March, the Committee is nonetheless entitled to make a different planning judgement from that of its Officers or appointed consultees. The Officers seek amplification from the original Committee as to the phrase “detrimental impact on the sustainability and viability of the town centre”.

Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth considers the issue of impact through Policy EC.16 - The impact assessment for planning applications for main town centre uses that are not in a centre and not in accordance with an up to date development plan. This policy identifies six criteria (a-f) against which applications should be assessed in the context of impact.

It is clear from the minutes of the meeting on 4 March that there is concern about the impact of the Cromer Road store on existing shops in Sheringham. Given that planning permission goes with the land and not with a particular operator the impact in question cannot be one related to the identity of the intended operator but must be based on the principle of an A1 (retail) unit of the size proposed in that particular location. The original Committee is asked for amplification as to the impacts it concluded would arise.

Based on the approved minutes of the meeting on 4 March and in the context of impact and Policy EC16.1 of PPS4, the Committee considered that the proposed store at Cromer Road fails to comply with part b) ” the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and the range and quality of the comparison and convenience retail offer” and part e) “if located in or on the edge of a town centre, whether the proposal is of an appropriate scale (in terms of gross floorspace) in relation to the size of the centre and its role in the hierarchy of centres”. The original Committee is asked to confirm that these represent the

Committee’s reasons on 4 March 2010.


3

14 October 2010

2. Contrary to the appeal decision in respect of 20070217 in terms of size.

This reason for refusal is directly linked to Reason 1) above in that it relates to size and therefore presumably the associated impacts of the proposed supermarket. The previous appeal decision in relation to application reference 20070217 is a material consideration to which considerable weight can be attached and can be used as a point of reference when determining the current application. It is considered that this reasoning properly forms part of the first reason for refusal, rather than a separate freestanding reason for refusal, and can be articulated as such. Again, the original

Committee is asked to confirm that this represents its intention at the time.

3. The design is incompatible with the town and conflicts with Policy EN4.

In respect of matters of design, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager expressed a contrary view contrary to that suggested by the Committee. The

Committee is entitled to make a different planning judgement from that of its Officers or appointed consultees, but the Officers request amplification as to the aspects of the design which the original Committee considered to be incompatible with the town and to conflict with Policy EN4.

The minutes of the Committee meeting on 4 March 2010 make reference to matters of design, in part, but do not explain exactly what elements of the design were considered to be “incompatible with the town”. The size of the proposed store at

Cromer Road compared with the average shop size in Sheringham inevitably creates design considerations in terms of scale and external appearance. The applicant has appointed a renowned architectural practice to design the store with the aim of reducing the scale of the building (particularly compared to the previous appeal scheme) and producing a building that helps to reinforce local distinctiveness.

Reference is made in the minutes to the conclusion that the design of the Cromer

Road store was appalling but the Officers request amplification as to the elements of the design that were in question to articulate the reason for refusal fully.

Other design discussions principally focussed on the pedestrian link between the store and the town centre and it was clear that some members of Committee considered that “in functional terms, it [the walkway] failed to provide effective pedestrian links”. Again, this may have formed the basis of the Committee’s objection on these grounds, but amplification as to why the footpath failed to provide an effective pedestrian link and what the resultant impact was considered to be is requested. In particular, based on the discussion that took place and the approved minutes of the meeting on 4 March 2010, Officers are seeking clarification as to whether it was the narrowness of the pedestrian link that was of primary concern to

Committee and/or the lack of intervisibility between the supermarket and the town centre and whether it was considered that the result of any deficiencies of this type would be a reduction in the likelihood of linked trips taking place between the store and the Town Centre of Sheringham and therefore whether there would be a reduction in the ability to be able to offset the impact that a store of the size proposed would have on the vitality and viability of the town centre of Sheringham.

4. Failure to meet the tests of PPS4.

This reason for refusal is the one where the Officers require particular clarification as there are many aspects contained within Planning Policy Statement 4 – Planning for

Sustainable Economic Growth.


4

14 October 2010

Reason 1) as explained above, already draws upon some aspects of PPS 4 (Policy

EC.16). Beyond the reference to Policy EC.16 of PPS 4 included within Reason 1

Officers require clarification as to whether and in what respects the Committee concluded that any other tests in PPS4 were not met. The original Committee is therefore requested to identify whether it concluded that there were any other specific elements of PPS4 which the Cromer Road application was considered to contravene.

The Officers consider it necessary to seek such amplification particularly given the issues regarding sequential assessment in PPS 4 which the Committee had to consider in determining the applications. The Officers would welcome clarification as to whether the Committee considered:- a) 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 which, in the

Committee’s view, outweighed that sequential preferability of the Cromer

Road site; or b) Whether, because of any perceived deficiencies in the pedestrian linkage between the proposed Cromer Road store and the town centre of

Sheringham (as referred to in Reason 3) above), or for any other reason, it was considered that the proposed Cromer Road store was not sequentially preferable to the Weybourne Road store .

If the Committee took the view set out in a) then Officers consider that the reasons in respect of PPS4 related to the Committee’s view of the adverse impact of the Cromer

Road store on the vitality and viability of Sheringham town centre and the Officers consider that this would naturally form part of Reason 1) above. Given the advice in

PPS4 at Policy EC17 that proposals should be refused “where the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach”, the

Officers would request further explanation as to the Committee’s approach to this policy.

If the Committee took the view set out in b) it is presumed that the Committee’s decision related to views of the relative impacts of the Weybourne Road store and the Cromer Road Store, including consideration of the smaller net sales area of the

Weybourne Road store and the Committee concluded that Sheringham could only accommodate one supermarket of the size proposed to meet its needs, and it considered that the Weybourne Road store was preferable, and it was considered that the Cromer Road store, by virtue of the size of store proposed, would have a significantly detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of Sheringham town centre and that the associated impact of the development on the town centre would not be likely to be offset by way of linked trips. Again, the Officers require confirmation as to whether or not this reflects the Committee’s reasoning at the time.

As to approach b) and PPS 4 (Policy EC.15 in particular), if the Committee did consider the two sites to be sequentially equal in terms of location, this would amount to a conclusion that it has treated the Cromer Road site as out of centre and not edge-of-centre, and that it does not regard the site to be within easy walking distance of the primary shopping area. As this conclusion would conflict with the view taken by the Planning Inspector in relation to the previous 2008 public inquiry at which the

Inspector concluded that the Cromer Road site was edge of centre, the Officers seek further explanation as to the Committee’s reasons for this conclusion.


5

14 October 2010

During the meeting on 4 March 2010, reference to PPS4 was made by one Councillor who referred to Page 6 of the Committee report and the suggestion was made that the Committee’s “judgement should err on the side of caution”. The words quoted by the Councillor were in fact taken from the Council for the Protection of Rural England

(CPRE) comments on page 6 of the Committee report and not from the text of the

PPS 4 document. Officers therefore do not consider this can be part of the

Committee’s reasoning of a failure to meet the tests of PPS4 as this requirement is not expressed within the Development Management policies contained within PPS 4.

SUMMARY

In summary, the Officers have identified what they understand to be the reasons for refusal in relation to application 20090818 (Cromer Road) which were expressed by the Committee, but some of those reasons for refusal require amplification or explanation if the Council is to provide proper, adequate or intelligible reasons for its decision. In light of the recommendations made on 4 March 2010, the Committee is requested to provide such further amplification or explanation as set out above. The

Committee is requested to confine its task to the provision of such amplification or explanation of its reasoning at the time of the Committee meeting on 4 March 2010.

It is not being asked to revisit the merits of the decisions or to carry out a further consideration of the relative merits of the applications.


6

14 October 2010

APPLICATION 20090777 (WEYBOURNE ROAD)

On 4 March 2010 the Committee resolved that subject to seeking legal advice and consideration of that advice, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve application 20090777 for the following reasons:

“ the Committee considers that insufficient weight has been given to the ethos, design and sustainability of the Weybourne Road proposal and its connection with the town, and to benefits of the electric bus service and the food academy, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions”.

In approving application 20090777, the Committee needs to be satisfied that the summary reasons for approval, which will be attached to any decision notice, accurately reflect the views expressed by Committee on 4 March 2010. Officers have taken the above resolution together with the minutes of 4 March to articulate its understanding of the summary of the reasons for approval.

Officers have drafted the following versions of the statement that would have been applied to such a decision notice. These versions depend upon clarification as to the

Committee’s reasoning in respect of the Cromer Road site application (for which clarification has been sought in the terms set out above):-

“The Proposal has been considered against relevant Development Plan Policies (i.e.

Planning Policy Statement (PPS)1- Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS 4 -

Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth, PPS 5 - Planning for the Historic

Environment, PPS 9 - Biodiversity and Geological Conservation, PPS 22 -

Renewable Energy, PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk, Planning Policy

Guidance (PPG) 13 – Transport, North Norfolk Core Strategy Policies SS 1:

Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk, Policy SS 4: Environment; Policy SS 5: Economy,

Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure, Policy SS 12: Sheringham, Policy EN1:

Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads, Policy EN 2:

Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character, Policy EN 4:

Design, Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency, Policy EN 8:

Protecting and enhancing the historic environment, Policy EN 9: Biodiversity & geology, Policy EN 10: Flood risk, Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation, Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development,

Policy CT 2: Developer contributions, Policy CT 5: The transport impact of new development; and Policy CT 6: Parking provision)

[Assuming that Committee accept Approach a) – See page 6]

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the

Council to determine the planning application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. On the basis that there is only a justifiable need for one supermarket of the size proposed to serve the needs of

Sheringham, whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed supermarket at Weybourne

Road (out of centre) is sequentially less preferable than the proposed supermarket at

Cromer Road (edge of centre), there are material considerations that outweigh the identified policy conflicts arising from its location. These material considerations include the fact that the Weybourne Road supermarket would have a smaller net sales area of 927sqm. (using the Competition Commission definition) compared with

1,175sqm. for the Cromer Road supermarket, the design, ethos and sustainability benefits associated with the Weybourne Road scheme, the proposed improved pedestrian linkages to the town and electric bus service together with the community benefits associated with the Food Academy.


7

14 October 2010

Therefore, subject to appropriate conditions and a S106 obligation, the Council has decided to approve the Weybourne Road proposal”.

[Assuming that Committee accept Approach b) – See page 6]

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the

Council to determine the planning application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. On the basis that there is only a justifiable need for one supermarket of the size proposed to serve the needs of

Sheringham and given that, as a result of the ineffective pedestrian linkage between the proposed alternative Cromer Road store and the town centre of Sheringham, the

Weybourne Road store is not considered to be sequentially inferior to that proposed at Cromer Road.

The Weybourne Road supermarket would have a smaller net sales area of 927sqm.

(using the Competition Commission definition) compared with 1,175sqm. for the

Cromer Road supermarket and the resultant impact of the Weybourne Road store on the vitality and viability of Sheringham town centre is considered to be generally acceptable.

In addition, other material considerations including the design, ethos and sustainability benefits associated with the Weybourne Road scheme, the proposed improved pedestrian linkages to the town and electric bus service together with the community benefits associated with the Food Academy which are considered to give considerable weight in favour of approving the application notwithstanding its location out-of-centre and relative to the Cromer Road store proposal.

Therefore, subject to appropriate conditions and a S106 obligation, approval of the

Weybourne Road proposal is considered appropriate in all the circumstances.

The Committee is advised to confirm which of the above two formulations reflects its approach on 4 March 2010. If neither accords with its reasoning at the time,

Committee is asked to agree amended or alternative wording where applicable to reflect its decision at the time.


8

14 October 2010

2

ND

PART OF REPORT – DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS 20090777

(WEYBOURNE ROAD), 20090818 (CROMER ROAD) AND 20100920 (CROMER

ROAD)

OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS – FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS

Since the meeting on 4 March 2010, many further letters of representation have been received in respect of both sites including representations in relation to amended plans proposed in respect of the Cromer Road application (ref:09/0818) together with representations relating to a new planning application received in respect of the

Cromer Road site (ref:10/0920) which is considered later within this part of the report.

Whilst many of the representations rehearse earlier support, objection or comment in relation to each application, some of this correspondence raises new issues and matters which need to be taken into account by the Council before finally determining the applications.

These include, in relation to both applications considered on 4 March 2010, a covering letter from Bidwells dated 15 March 2010 together with a document entitled

“Greenhouse Community Project – Reasons to Approve”. This document was copied to all Members by the applicant’s agent. The document was written as an account of the meeting of 4 March 2010. However, Officers consider that this does not accurately reflect the deliberations at the Committee meeting and should not therefore be considered as an accurate record. The accurate record is considered to be the minutes as approved by the Committee on 8 April 2010. However, in making a final decision on the applications and subject to this, the Committee may consider and discuss the contents of the letter of 15 March 2010.

A copy of proposed planning conditions and draft S106 Obligation Heads of Terms in relation to the Weybourne Road proposal is attached at Appendices 13 and 14 .

A letter was also received from CPRE Norfolk dated 10 April 2010 with an accompanying 42 page report which examines PPS 4 and the two planning applications. An additional letter from CPRE Norfolk has also been received dated 10

June 2010 setting out views as to the correct interpretation of Government advice as set out in PPS 4. A copy of this letter was forwarded by the CPRE to all Councillors.

A further letter of representation from the CPRE dated 16 September 2010 (copy enclosed at Appendix 15 ) has also been received which now sets out CPRE’s assessment of all three applications against PPS 4. CPRE conclude that both

Cromer Road proposals are unacceptable whilst the Weybourne Road scheme would be acceptable in respect of compliance with PPS 4.

On 30 June 2010 a 31 page representation was submitted from Ashurst LLP on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited dated June 2010 (A copy of the Executive Summary is attached at Appendix 16 ). This documents (amongst other things) sets out their assessment of the Weybourne Road and Cromer Road supermarket proposals (and related development) which were considered by Committee on 4 March 2010 and sets out their view as to how the Committee should proceed in the determination of the two applications. A subsequent representation dated 25 August 2010 has been received from Ashurst LLP on behalf of Tesco Stores Limited. This representation

(amongst other things) comments on the background of the Tesco proposals, the composition of the Committee, further representations, amendments to the 2009

Cromer Road application, the new 2010 Cromer Road application and other matters including representations as to how the Committee should proceed. The letter suggests that “The newly constituted Committee should consider the applications afresh”.


9

14 October 2010

A copy of proposed planning conditions and draft S106 Obligation Heads of Terms in relation to the Cromer Road proposal is attached at Appendices 17 and 18 .

In respect of the representations submitted by Ashurst LLP on behalf of Tesco Stores

Limited dated June 2010 (A copy of which is attached at Appendix 16 ), the Council’s appointed Retail Consultant was asked to comment on the contents of the letter and he has set out his views as follows:

“I have read the representations by Ashurst (June 2010) submitted on behalf of

Tesco Stores Ltd and I wish to deal with one point in particular raised in paragraphs

4.3.17 and 4.3.19 of their submission.

The identification of Waitrose as the proposed operator of the supermarket proposed at Weybourne Road does allow the Applicant [Greenhouse Community Project] the opportunity of re-examining the potential impact based on a named operator.

Paragraph D.34 of the Practice Guidance does not explicitly require an impact assessment to be based on a known retailer although it is potentially beneficial in ensuring that the most likely design year turnover is used along with a consideration of the particular operating characteristics and breadth of shopping offer factored in.

As I have made clear in the Supplementary Retail Update (February 2010), on the basis of the information submitted by the Applicant, a supermarket at Weybourne

Road is not PPS4 compliant. I have previously estimated from the Applicant’s own assessment, that the food and convenience goods retailers in the town centre are likely to achieve a total combined turnover £1.8m below sustainable trading levels in

2013 after the opening of the proposed supermarket. This is 27% below that judged necessary by the Applicant to sustain in the longer term the vitality and viability of the convenience goods retail base in the centre and does not include the higher turnover likely to be generated by a Waitrose store. If I had not undertaken a critical review of the underlying methodology I believe that the scheme would reduce the town’s turnover in food and convenience goods to unacceptably low and unsustainable levels contrary to criterion d. of Policy EC 16.1.

The additional turnover generated by Waitrose will inevitably lead to a greater impact on the town centre. However the net uplift in the convenience goods turnover in the order of £1m would not be likely to give rise to a significant impact in part because this would be distributed amongst a variety of locations. However this conclusion must of course be read in the context of the need to comply with the sequential approach. The key issue here is that a supermarket at Cromer Road has the ability to off-set any direct or negative impact on the town centre through additional spending as a result of linked trips. In my opinion a supermarket at Weybourne Road would singularly fail to meet this underlying policy objective. Thus while the negative impact of a supermarket at Weybourne Road would be acceptable the positive impacts from linked and spin off trips would be substantially less than those associated with a supermarket at Cromer Road. This is a key and in my view determinative difference between both proposals”.

20090777 (WEYBOURNE ROAD) – 40 letters have been received since the meeting on 4 March 2010 (18 in support, 17 objecting and 5 commenting). The following comments have been received in support of the proposal:-

1. I applaud the decision to approve the Greenhouse Community Project.

2. The trees on Cromer Road have been given a reprieve.


10

14 October 2010

3. Thank you for your decision of 4 March, your actions may have saved the town.

4. The proposal will bring people into the town.

5. Will offer the opportunity for renewal and regeneration.

6. The store is the right size and will not affect existing shops unduly.

7. It is in the right place and will cause little obstruction.

8. Will be good for the town;

9. The proposal offers a substantial package of benefits and, at a time of great economic uncertainty it would be foolish to pass up the offer of a first-class educational facility;

The following comments have been received objecting to the proposal:-

1. It now appears that the Food Academy is not to be sponsored by Waitrose. The

Food Academy is what the Councillors were voting for when they chose

Waitrose. What was stopping the Food Academy happening independently?

Waitrose wasn’t needed to make the Food Academy happen in Sheringham and this makes the outcome of the 4 March decision even more questionable.

2. The proposed Waitrose café at the Greenhouse Project will keep people away from the town for longer.

3. The Waitrose store will not “complement” the High Street when it will sell high quality food and local produce already available in our small shops.

4. Waitrose only promise not to sell non-food items, there is no guarantee.

5. It is likely that the store will sell chemist products.

6. The Food Academy needs considerable amounts of funding.

7. What happens if the Food Academy fails.

8. There is nothing to stop the Food Academy becoming an extension of the supermarket.

9. The Committee did not appear to base their decision on land-use planning issues alone.

10. The site is designated as Open Land.

11. There are better sites available closer to the town.

12. Tourism can continue to be a valuable servant of the local community but it must never become its master.

13. SCAMROD have lost all credibility by supporting the Greenhouse Community

Project supermarket, a scheme which will have greater impact on the town.

14. The Community benefits of the Cromer Road scheme were completely ignored in favour of the Food Academy which will benefit fewer people.

15. The Weybourne Road supermarket is further out of town than the Hilbre site previously considered to be inappropriate. Why approve an edge of town supermarket instead of a High Street supermarket solution – It shows very strange logic.

16. The Food Academy will take time out of the curriculum for pupils in travelling time at the expense of other important core subjects.

17. Travel time used to be a problem for students using Splash, why would it not now be a problem for those using the Food Academy.

18. There are no business plans associated with the Food Academy – how can we be sure it will succeed.

19. The Food Academy should be built nearer the schools it is intended to serve.

20. The Food Academy’s primary role seems to be as a bakery for commercial purposes as an extension of the superstore and not for educational purposes.

21. The Food Academy is a Trojan horse for what effectively is a Waitrose supermarket;

22. The proposal to update the Community Centre is not a material consideration for the supermarket;


11

14 October 2010

23. The land swap agreement between the Town Council and the applicant has not been transparent;

24. The Council will be made to look such fools if it approves the Weybourne Road supermarket;

25. The entrance to Splash suffers from flooding and this will impact upon users of the supermarket;

26. The site is a designated “Open Land” area;

27. The viability of the electric bus is unclear and will be reviewed after just one year and this could well mean that it will be cut.

28. The supermarket will have a direct impact on the town centre

The following comments have been received in respect of the proposal:-

1. Concerned about changes to the Committee structure;

2. Please give a fair judgement

3. Concerned about the misinformation relating to the Weybourne Road proposal.


12

14 October 2010

APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

RELATING TO THE WEYBOURNE ROAD APPLICATION (20090777)

In respect of the Weybourne Road proposal, there are no material changes to the application since it was last considered by Committee on 4 March 2010.

However, at a recent consultation event organised by the applicant reference was made to proposals to provide a refurbished Community Centre on Cromer Road in the event that the Cromer Road supermarket schemes are refused. Clarification has been received from the agent in respect of the Weybourne Road scheme that “the proposals for the existing Community Centre, which were launched at our recent consultation event in the town, have no direct relationship with planning application

PLA/20090777 which is currently under consideration by the Local Planning

Authority”. A copy of the agent’s letter is attached at Appendix 19 .

In addition, in relation to a Parish Poll which took place in Sheringham on 30

September 2010, reference was made within question A) to a proposal to “build six affordable homes at the rear of the Fire Station.” This proposal does not form part of the application for determination by Committee.

No application has been submitted for either of these mentioned developments and therefore the Officers consider that the Committee is unable to attach any material weight to the proposed refurbishment of the Community Centre on Cromer Road or the proposal to build six affordable homes at the rear of the fire station on Cromer

Road when determining the current applications at Weybourne Road or Cromer

Road.

In summary, as analysed in the original reports to Committee for the meeting in

March 2010, taken at face value the retail statement submitted in support of the

Greenhouse Community Project appeared to predict impacts that would significantly harm the vitality and viability of Sheringham town centre. However, the Council’s appointed retail consultant used his own judgement and experience to carry out a critical analysis of that retail statement and highlighted what he considered to be a number of flaws in the report which suggest, in his view, that the impacts would not be quite as severe as stated by the applicant. He has now set out his view that whilst the announcement of Waitrose as the proposed operator would increase the likely turnover of the store and resultant potential impact, on balance the Council’s appointed Retail Consultant considers that these negative impacts would be broadly acceptable. However, his view is that where the scheme significantly differs from the

Cromer Road proposal is in respect of the physical distance of the proposed

Weybourne Road store from the town centre and the potential for linked trips and, in the view of the Council’s appointed Retail Consultant, the positive impacts from linked and spin off trips would be substantially less than those associated with a supermarket at Cromer Road. This is considered by him to be the key and determinative difference between the two proposals.

FURTHER POLICY ISSUES RELATING TO WEYBOURNE ROAD SITE

In response to the Council’s proposals in the Site Specific Proposals Development

Plan, Bidwells, acting on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project, have made representations that the allocation of the Weybourne Road application site as an

Open Land Area in the Core Strategy is now out of date insofar as it does not reflect the fact that the allotments on the site have been relocated to an alternative location.

They submitted that a more appropriate designation would be to identify the


13

14 October 2010

Weybourne Road site as employment land which, up until the adoption of the Core

Strategy, was its designation in the former North Norfolk Local Plan. If this were not deemed appropriate it is suggested that designation of the site as part of the residential area of the town should be considered.

These representations were considered as part of the Examination in Public held by the Inspector who is currently examining the Site Specific Proposals. The Council maintained its position as to the existing allocation of the site as Open Land Area.

The Inspector’s report is awaited but it is unlikely to be available before the end of

November 2010.


14

14 October 2010

20090818 (CROMER ROAD) – 30 letters were received between 4 March 2010 and the placing of an advertisement of amended plans on 30 July 2010 (8 in support, 10 objecting and 12 commenting). The following comments were received in support of the proposal:-

1. Cannot understand why Committee considered the five independent units to be unacceptable – Many other shops in the town are leased – where’s the problem?

2. The decisions of 04 March appeared to be made on non-planning grounds (anti-

Tesco).

3. I fully support the proposals as they will help provide a new Community Centre accessible to all and much improved over the existing facility which is not wheelchair friendly.

4. More would be lost if the Council reject Tesco and approve Waitrose – Fire

Station, Community Centre, Affordable Housing.

5. The decision made on 04 March beggars belief and would be contrary to

Planning policy.

6. Making the wrong decision has huge implications not only for Sheringham but the

Council Tax payers of North Norfolk.

7. The decision should be delegated to officers and not subject to the unprofessional bias of the Councillors.

8. The Community Centre needs replacing now and refusing Tesco will not deliver the benefit of a new centre.

9. Sheringham will still function as a tourist destination with Tesco.

10. The Tesco proposal, with all of the benefits and new facilities is a very good one and looks much better than the Greenhouse scheme.

11. Approve Tesco in Sheringham and stop wasting such a significant amount of money from those who do not use Sheringham.

12. People are crying out for flexible shopping hours in Sheringham.

13. Are we really keeping Sheringham traditional by keeping Tesco out? – It’s a different place to what it was in the 60’s.

14. If shops have a strong customer base our market towns can survive with a

Tesco.

The following comments were received objecting to the proposal:-

1. The location and size of the store would have a significant impact and would change the character of Sheringham.

2. Refusing the application is the right decision.

3. The appeal decision, PPS4 and all the change in local circumstances strengthen the requirement to refuse this very similar proposal.

4. The store would be an eyesore as you approach the town.

5. Impact on traffic would be horrendous.


15

14 October 2010

AMENDED PLANS (20090818 – CROMER ROAD)

Since 4 March, amended plans/proposals have been submitted on behalf of the applicant for the Cromer Road store. These amendments include:-

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 proposal 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.

In view of the fact that these amended proposals represent a material change to application 20090818, further consultation and publicity has been undertaken.

REPRESENTATIONS - 199 letters have been received since the amended proposals were advertised on site, 98 in support, 99 objecting and 2 commenting.

Many rehearse earlier support and objection as outlined above within this report and the report to Committee on 4 March 2010.

The following new grounds for comment have been received in support of the amended proposal:-

1. The amendments address concerns raised by Committee regarding the independent units

2. This is still the best option for the town

3. Fully support the amended proposal

4. This is still the best supermarket site, especially if you are disabled like me

The following new grounds for comment have been received objecting to the amended proposal:-

1. The Committee should not entertain the amended proposal and re-affirm its decision of 4 March;

2. The amendment has only caused confusion

3. The plans differ little from the previous scheme apart from the removal of the two independent units

4. The amended plans will not resolve concerns about highway impact

5. This is still the wrong site for a supermarket

6. The sales space has not been reduced

7. The pedestrian walkway is still too narrow and ineffectual

8. Traffic numbers would still be the same

9. Protected trees would still be lost

10. My original objections still stand

11. The vitality and viability of the town would still be impacted upon;

12. The offer to demolish buildings requires separate planning permission and should not be considered as a material consideration

Representations have been received from Bidwells on behalf of the Greenhouse

Community Project. Whilst much of the content of these representations is summarised within the above representations, a copy of this document is attached at

Appendix 20 .


16

14 October 2010

Sheringham Chamber of Trade – Comments awaited

Sheringham & District Preservation Society – Objects to the amended application which incorporates minor amendments which do not address the problems which we have previously flagged up. Why have these amendments been accepted – a new application should be submitted.

SHERINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL – Objection – As the amended planning application does not materially alter anything, the Town Council does not change position and rejects the amended planning application.

CONSULTATIONS

Anglian Water – No objection – Advisory Comments only.

Building Control – No Objections

Community Safety Manage r – My previous comments still stand. In addition, in light of the recent spate of criminal damage to the boarding surrounding the perimeter of the [Fire Station] site, I would strongly recommend that should this planning application go ahead then a condition should be imposed requiring that any boarding erected to enclose the demolition site should be protected by the placing of a perimeter barrier of Harris Fencing with a clear gap of at least 6 inches between itself and the boarding. The purpose of this additional barrier is to prevent the boarding being used as a site for fly posting and/or graffiti.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) I refer to the amended plans and documents received on 12 th

July 2010 from the agents in respect of the above proposed development. These plans differ mainly from the plans submitted originally in that the two independent retail units shown in the scheme design situated opposite the store are removed. Some ‘public art’ is suggested together with additional ‘community space’.

The comments below need to be read in conjunction with those made by my service in regard to ‘landscape’ and also my comments on the parallel application 10/0920

(which includes for demolition of some existing properties to further enhance the pedestrian link with Station Road and enlarge the forecourt/piazza area in front of the store).

There is no change in the architectural style from that considered by Committee in

March. Now as then the design is generally a refreshing one and an innovative one.

The architects have responded well to the design comments of the Inspector who dismissed the 2008 appeal. Food stores of this type tend to be somewhat bland with similar designs popping up all over the country. This is not the case with this proposal. There has been a specific and bespoke approach adopted and the architects have endeavoured to give the building design a distinctive flavour. Roof structure and elevational treatment are unique and this combined with the careful choice of materials provides a clear resonance with Sheringham. Furthermore there is a general compliance with the Council’s sustainable design objectives. As with its parallel application the scale and form and massing of the main food store fits well within the town’s urban grain. The general location of the food store, positioned as it is as close as possible to one of Sheringham’s main shopping streets, is the major advantage (this is equally the case for the other application currently being considered). Being closer to the rest of the town centre means that the development


17

14 October 2010

sits well within Sheringham and its overall built form. In operational terms the position of the store promotes a better linkage for shoppers with the rest of the town centre.

Fundamentally and for many good town planning and civic design reasons the location represents the best currently available in the town.

Having said the above, as with the other application now being considered, there is still a need to address the following:

•

The general ‘presentation’ of the shopping development on to the ‘high street’ and from the store’s car park

•

The length and treatment of the pedestrian linkage with the rest of the town centre.

•

The nature, quality and pattern of surface materials within the associated pedestrian areas.

•

•

The boundary treatments, particularly along the railway.

The extent to which signs and public art can be used to create a distinctive identity both for the development and the town.

In respect of ‘presentation’ and ‘connection’ of the proposed development with the rest of the town centre the removal of the new units in front of the store’s main entrance would provide a larger ‘forecourt/piazza’ space. However the amended application is inferior to the more recent application because of the longer length of the walkway between the development and Station Road. This is because, should the new application be approved and implemented it would give a shorter length of

‘walkway’ between the store and Station Road. It would also provide for an even better public space in front of the main store. As with the other application however,

‘presentation’ and visual connection or legibility could be further improved through the use of some type of ‘architectural announcement’ such as a ‘three-dimensional’ entrance feature that would be clearly visible both by shoppers in Station Road, the adjacent car park and from the roundabout at the junction of Cromer Road and

Station Road. Indeed a similar ‘architectural announcement’ could be installed at the other end of the walkway near to the store entrance and car park. This would help to draw shoppers in to the site from both the food store’s dedicated car park and also from Station Road.

As with the previously submitted schemes the store does tend to turn inwardly on itself with a relatively blank and inactive wall for the most part fronting the store’s car park. This is one of the design challenges that all architects face when designing food stores. In this instance the patterned use of brick and flint walls and limited glazing would offer some ‘relief’ and variety’.

As with the other application I am unsure about the quality of the hard landscaping within the pedestrian areas (NB. Please see the comments made in respect of

Landscape). It would be preferable to have some ‘richer’ materials. It would also in my view be advisable to achieve some distinction between the walkway leading from

Station Road and the more intimate ‘forecourt/piazza’ areas in front of the store. This would give the new public areas formed within the development more identity and a stronger character. Consequently we are suggesting that a change of surface material be considered at the end of the pedestrian ‘passage’ running from Station

Road and where the space opens out into the ‘forecourt/piazza’.

It is heartening to see the incorporation of ‘Public Art’. The pedestrian entrances and the boundary enclosure along the railway, as well as the surfaces within the pedestrian areas offer substantial scope.


18

14 October 2010

In conclusion in terms of planning and design both this amended application and the more recent application from the same applicant, Tesco Stores Limited, is more than acceptable. The quality of architecture is of a high standard and the layout and pattern of development fits well within the town centre. The architects have found a design solution which satisfies most of the design criteria set for them In terms of form, massing, scale and originality of architecture the development proposed corresponds with both Sheringham’s scale and character. Sustainable design objectives and energy conservation requirements have been, I understand, for the most part met. The design is ‘bespoke’ and relevant to the site and to the town. A major effort has been made to respect the setting and context of the site and to place this retail development as close as possible to the rest of the ‘commercial core’. In short I have no overriding design objections providing that the applicants address the issues raised above and in my comments in respect of ‘landscape’.

This amended application is slightly inferior to the more recent one (10/0920) due to the proposed retention of more buildings between the store and Station Road and the resultant longer length of narrower footway . Notwithstanding this I have no hesitation in recommending that this application be approved with relevant conditions.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) These comments should be read in conjunction with those made under ‘Conservation & Design.

The amendments to this application include omission of the two independent retail units on the north side of the ‘forecourt/piazza’. Generally these changes create a more expansive space outside the main store entrance and an improved pedestrian link to the town centre. Indeed the effectiveness of the ‘linkage’ of this scheme with the established shopping streets to the north-west of the site is a key design issue. It is the length and dimension of the pedestrian link to Station Road which is the most important consideration. Attention to levels, surface treatments and built features such as walling/enclosures are all elements that could be imaginatively incorporated into the landscape design for the development and enhance it. Moreover the general setting and aspect of the store from Station Road can also be improved.

The amended application now includes for the commissioning of ‘public art’ within the expanded ‘piazza’. This certainly has the potential to bring local distinctiveness and a special identity to the space, but needs to be integral to the landscape design proposals and not an ‘add on’ after the space has been designed and laid out.

Indeed there are other opportunities for public art and these should be explored too

(see comments under Conservation and Design).

The hard and soft landscape design proposals submitted with this amended application relating to the expanded public realm area are somewhat unimaginative.

A single material is proposed for the hard landscape which will appear very bland over the relatively large area. Planting proposals are minimal and weak, as is the treatment of the prominent boundary with the railway. This improved space is the showcase for the whole store and surely demands a more inspired soft and hard landscape design to create a significant new piece of public space for the town, one with a distinctive identity and one which complements the rest of the ‘public realm’ and the town centre as a whole.

To summarise the widened ‘forecourt/piazza’ resulting from these amendments is clearly an improvement. Whilst concerns remain regarding the overall length and dimension of the pedestrian link with Station Road, there has certainly been an improvement on that considered in March. (NB. Application 10/0920 is superior as far


19

14 October 2010

as the link is concerned). A high quality and detailed landscape design is still vital.

However subject to the attachment of relevant conditions on landscape design, signage and lighting I have no overriding landscape objections.

County Council Highways – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions - It is noted that the overall retail floorspace has been reduced by the omission of the two retail units to have been erected on the north side of the link to Station Road.

The amendment has no adverse implications for the operation of the highway network and it may well be that there will be a minor reduction in traffic generation. In view of the content of the proceeding paragraph, the comments and suggested highway conditions set out in my letter of 23 November 2009 remain relevant in the further consideration of the application by the Committee.

County Council Planning – Contribution required for 150mm fire hydrants (£766 each) and their location should meet the requirements of Building Regulations

Approved Document B.

Environment Agency - No information has been submitted advising us that the applicants intend to redesign the surface water scheme in light of these revisions.

Assuming therefore that there are no plans for this we do not have any further comment to make on the proposal.

Environmental Health – As proposed by the applicant and to prevent this proposal having any detrimental effects on the nearby residential properties I would like to see conditions attached to any permission relating to the installation of plant, sound insulation of the loading bay, restrictions on delivery times (no deliveries between

10pm and 7am), conditions regarding noise, contamination and lighting.

Network Rail – No objection to the development subject to conditions or notes concerning intention to commence development, method of demolition and construction scaffolding.

Norfolk Fire Service – (See above comments from County Council Planning)

Planning Policy Manager – No further comments to add.

Property Services Manager – No further comments to make

Retail Consultant - The amendments to the submitted scheme are outlined in the letter from the agents. I have asked for clarification on a number of points but these have not yet arrived. In summary the proposed changes include:

•

Removing the two business units (Class A1, A2 and/or A3) on the north side of the ‘piazza’. It is proposed that the space will be used to create a wider footpath and more substantial area of public realm with commissioned public art. Although not explicitly stated this change reduces the space from 316 sqm. (based on five units) to 86 sq.m. (based on 2 units).

•

The two business units (Class A1, A2 and/or A3) on the southern side are to be retained and the Applicant has indicated that rental levels within these units would be agreed with the Council. These two units extend to 86 sqm.

•

The fifth unit is no longer proposed for retailing but would be available for a community use. I therefore estimate that the community space within the scheme therefore increases from 76sq.m. to 208 sqm.

The Applicant has also re-affirmed a willingness to accept conditions limiting the net

(sales) area within the supermarket including a further limit on the total amount of comparison goods space. A further condition is proposed which would prevent any of the separate business units from being operated by Tesco Stores Ltd. A planning obligation would control rental levels within them.

In addition the Applicant has confirmed that control over of land required to deliver a wider pedestrian link has been achieved and it is agreeable to entering into a


20

14 October 2010

planning obligation which would require implementation of the route prior to the commencement of the rest of the development. This would involve the demolition of small shops units opposite the Plaza Café.

As the Council is aware I have previously advised that in my opinion the scheme as originally submitted prior to the amendments, is PPS4 compliant. The additional changes now proposed are a further attempt to ensure that the scheme as a whole fulfils its full potential to act effectively as an edge-of-centre development, improving the range of food and convenience shopping while maximising its ability to deliver spin off and other benefits for the town centre. Paragraph 6.19 of the Practice

Guidance to PPS4 states that consideration should be given not only to a site’s location but also the degree to which a scheme would integrate with a primary shopping area. In my opinion the development has been carefully planned and designed to create an effective and attractive extension to the town centre.

The additional changes by virtue of a reduction in scale and the increased control over rents, would reduce any concern that the smaller shop units would detract from rather than enhance the vitality and viability of the rest of the centre. Having regard to the advice in paragraph 6.20 of the Practice Guidance I conclude that as proposed:

•

The nature of the scheme would deliver a high level of ‘functional linkage’ and the propensity of shoppers to walk between the centre and the development will be maximised in the main through the ability to walk through a wider, convenient and accessible area.

•

The link involving the demolition of existing units would be even more attractive and pedestrian friendly.

In relation to the proposed conditions I have examined Part 8 of the Practice

Guidance and I believe that they would assist in managing the impact and operation of the proposed development. A limit would be placed on the total net (sales) floorspace within the store and the mix of convenience and comparison goods. I believe that this control could effectively be monitored and enforced. Ensuring that any food store operator could not utilise the space within the two smaller units would also ensure that the scheme delivered a variety of uses without being dominated by a single retailer. The Council’s ability to control the rental levels would also assist in ensuring that these units were let within a reasonable period of time thereby avoiding the risk of creating an area of ‘dead’ frontage along the pedestrian route to and from the supermarket. A further condition could control the type of A1 use within the store i.e. if necessary preventing the creation of a post office, dry cleaners, opticians, travel agents and pharmacy which would all be permitted under Class A1 unless otherwise excluded.

Strategic Housing – Whilst the addition of two new affordable flats is to be welcomed, there are a number of issues which need to be considered before we can fully commit to taking the proposed flats as affordable housing including details of transfer, size, parking, proximity to supermarket and associated noise. The affordable housing should comply with Scheme Development Standards and should be provided to a Registered Social Landlord without the need for any Social Housing

Grant or other public subsidy.

Update - Further to your memorandum of the 24 th

September 2010 relating to the above applications and my original comments set out in my memorandum of the 24 th

August 2010 and Tesco’s response.


21

14 October 2010

I again re-iterate that in principle, I would welcome the addition of two new affordable flats, my comments relating to Tesco’s response are set out below:

•

Tesco is proposing to transfer the flats to Broadland Housing Association on completion. It is extremely unlikely that Social Housing Grant will be available either from the Homes and Communities Agency or NNDC to support the transfer. Therefore Tesco will need to confirm that the transfer will be at a price which will allow Broadland HA to charge social rents without the requirement for grant.

•

Tesco have confirmed that special measures will be taken to mitigate airborne and structure–borne sound and vibration arising from plant and vehicular movements, we find this acceptable subject to the measures being to the approval of Environmental Health.

Finally in addition, the existing plan layout for the flats is not particularly clear, therefore the final layout of the flats will need to be agreed in consultation with

Broadland HA and NNDC Strategic Housing to ensure that the use of the space is most suitable for future tenants. Can this be secured by condition?

Sustainability Co-ordinator – The application complies with Policy EN 6. Planning permission should be granted with conditions including those relating to the

Sustainability Construction Checklist, Code for Sustainable Homes and Energy

Statement.


22

14 October 2010

APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO AMENDED PLANS (20090818 - CROMER ROAD)

The amended proposals submitted in respect of the Cromer Road application are material considerations for the Committee to take into account before making its final decision. The weight to be attached to these amendments is a matter for the

Committee to decide but it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendments that the applicant is seeking to attempt to overcome some of the concerns that were expressed by the Committee on 4 March 2010.

The most significant physical change is the deletion of two of the independent units on the pedestrian footpath link between the store entrance and the town centre to be replaced with public art.

Whilst the Committee has previously been advised by Officers that the erection of the small-scale independent units is considered to be compliant with the Council’s policy, the Committee had expressed concern that the shops would, in effect, be an extension of the supermarket and that the rents and the type of operator locating in the independent units would be closely controlled by the applicant and could lead to the units remaining unoccupied and susceptible to being incorporated into the store some time in the future on the grounds of lack of up-take. In order to try to allay these fears, the applicant has proposed to allow the District Council to agree the rents to be set for the two remaining units on the pedestrian walkway.

In respect of the two remaining independent units built within the store, the applicant has advised that the two remaining units cannot be deleted because the applicant considers this would have fundamentally altered the design of the store and the applicant considers this would have been to the significant detriment of the architectural quality of the building and in particular the roof. It is proposed that the two remaining independent units would be used for either A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services) or A3 (restaurant/cafe) uses and this element of the proposal is again considered by Officers to be policy compliant.

The other changes to the scheme involve changes to the uses of proposed buildings, with the applicant now proposing that the larger independent unit on Cromer Road be given over for community use, which would be physically linked with the community space previously proposed. Whilst no particular end-user for the community space has been proposed, subject to an appropriate condition it is considered that such a use would accord with Development Plan policy.

In respect of the provision of affordable housing the applicant has confirmed that the two flats proposed above the community space would be given over for affordable housing. Following the comments of Strategic Housing further discussions have taken place with the applicant. The applicant is proposing to transfer the affordable flats to Broadland Housing Association on completion but will need to confirm that the transfer will be at a price which will allow Broadland Housing Association to charge social rents without the requirement for grant. The internal layout also needs to be agreed with the Housing Association. The applicant has confirmed that special measures will be taken to mitigate airborne and structure–borne sound and vibration arising from plant and vehicular movements. Subject to the imposition of related conditions and S106 Obligation, Officers consider that there would be no objection to the proposed affordable housing element.

Finally, in relation to the width and suitability of the pedestrian footpath link between the supermarket entrance and the town centre of Sheringham, the applicants have advised that they now have control of a number of the buildings adjacent to the


23

14 October 2010

railway line, many of which are currently vacant. The applicants have stated in supporting documents that, should the Committee consider it necessary, the pedestrian walkway could be widened by demolishing the buildings now under their control and, in so doing, create a wider pedestrian footpath link between the supermarket entrance and the town centre. This proposal does not form part of the formal amended plans. Members will note that a new application (ref: 10/0920) has been submitted in respect of the Cromer Road site which, whilst in many respects substantially the same as application 09/0818, formally proposes this change and the demolition of buildings in order to facilitate a widened pedestrian link to the town centre. This application is also before the Committee for determination at this meeting.

Whilst Officers had previously advised that the originally proposed footpath link would have adequately served the development and facilitated linked trips, Officers consider that widening part of this access further would be of significant benefit to the town as it would improve the intervisibility between the supermarket entrance and the town centre of Sheringham, thus helping to ensure the potential for linked trips to take place. The issue of intervisibility was a concern which was expressed by some

Members and which formed part of the justification for refusal on 4 March 2010. It is considered the proposed amendments would give greater weight to the sequential preference of this site compared with that at Weybourne Road.

Notwithstanding the fact that Officers have previously advised the Committee that the

Cromer Road scheme considered on 4 March was acceptable and complied with

Development Plan policy, it is considered that these changes are an initiative which seeks to address some of the concerns previously expressed by Committee. The

Committee therefore needs to consider these carefully, together with proposals submitted under application reference 20100920 before making a final decision.


24

14 October 2010

NEW APPLICATION

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

A new planning application has been submitted on behalf of the applicant for the

Cromer Road store. The amendments in this application, in addition to those previously outlined above in relation to the amended 20090818 scheme, include a proposal to demolish 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.

REPRESENTATIONS - 171 letters have been received in relation to the new application, 63 in support, 102 objecting and 6 commenting.

The following comments have been received in support of the amended proposal:-

1. Fully support the proposal which is exactly what was being asked for by

Councillors and answers all previous concerns

2. The whole package including fire station and community centre is to be welcomed

3. The proposal will get people back into the town

4. The store is located close to good transport links by non-car modes

5. We have to drive to Cromer or further to do our weekly shop which is frustrating, time consuming and bad for the environment. We use local shops to top-up.

6. Existing stores in Sheringham are far too cramped and small to do a weekly shop and do not meet the needs of many people hence the reason why many shop elsewhere

7. This proposal would address the local need for a supermarket of a reasonable size

8. The existing supermarkets carry limited lines and choice is very limited and prices are neither competitive of affordable

9. The proposal will provide jobs

10. As a senior citizen the proximity of the Cromer Road proposal is far more agreeable, accessible and easier for local residents than having to pass the town to shop

The following comments have been received objecting to the amended proposal:-

1. No real difference to rejected plans

2. Would result in loss of protected trees

3. Arrangement of service areas has implications for noise disturbance on adjacent residential properties

4. Traffic impact on highway network would be very significant causing congestion

5. Sheringham is unique and should stay that way

6. Will have an adverse impact on the town centre and existing businesses

7. Pedestrian walkway between store entrance and town centre is still too narrow

8. Traffic will rat-run through narrow residential streets to avoid congestion

9. Will still result in 28,000 additional car journeys

10. Why does it feel like we’re being bullied into accepting this scheme

11. Will adversely impact on tourist trade

12. Demolishing the flats and relocating the Community centre seems a bad idea

13. The size of store is too big

14. Design is unacceptable and a blot on the landscape


25

14 October 2010

15. The proposal is causing huge levels of property blight

16. Please listen to the people of Sheringham

17. The Weybourne Road site is better

18. Loss of affordable housing is unacceptable

19. Will impact on existing traders nearby

20. Traffic data is out of date

21. Traffic models used are incorrect

22. Traffic noise will be unbearable

23. The proposal will cause a danger to highway safety

24. The applicant does not have authorisation to alter the existing steps on the route of the proposed pedestrian link without our consent and no consent has been requested

25. Lack of service arrangements for independent units

26. Poor design from Cromer Road

27. More parking spaces are required

28. Access for delivery lorries is poor

29. Does not comply with PPS 4

30. Policy EC13 of PPS4 says that “when assessing planning applications affecting shops” a planning authority should “take into account the importance of the shop[s] to the local community or the economic base of the area if the proposal would result in its loss or change of use”. Further it should “refuse planning applications which fail to protect existing facilities which provide for peoples day to day needs”.

Representations have been received from Bidwells dated 15 September 2010 on behalf of the Greenhouse Community Project which raise (amongst other things) concerns about impact on the vitality and viability of Sheringham town centre

(sequential issues, retail impact and compliance with PPS4), transport and traffic impacts, loss of affordable housing, loss of trees and S106 matters . A copy of this document is attached at Appendix 21 .

In respect of the representation submitted by Bidwells on behalf of the Greenhouse

Community Project dated 15 September 2010, the Council’s appointed Retail

Consultant has been asked to comment on the contents of the letter:

“Section 2 of the Statement of Objection deals with sequential and retail impact issues in respect of App. No. PF/10/0920.

(i) Sequential test

Bidwells argue that the widened pedestrian linkage is negated by the retention of

Nos. 57-73 Station Road. It is claimed that this will create a ‘pinch point’ which reduces the physical and visual linkages with Station Road and the town centre. The ability to create an effective link is also undermined by the presence of a taxi business it is stated thereby effectively rendering the Station Road site to an out-ofcentre location. Reference is made to the presence of the railway line

I have previously given advice to the Council in relation to the previous layout and design of the pedestrian route before the submission of App. No. PF/10/0920. Our observations on the proposed changes are set out above. I believe that page 55 of the Design and Access Statement prepared by Wilkinson Eyre provides a fair reflection of the design and layout of the route. This demonstrates that there will be a good level of intervisibility between Station Road and the store entrance. Although the walkway immediately in front of Nos. 57-73 is narrower than the remainder of the route, it is still considerably wider than many footpaths within the centre of

Sheringham. Moreover any deficiency which may be perceived in respect of this part


26

14 October 2010

of the scheme will of course be mitigated by the proposed quality of the paving, signposting, lighting and street furniture. The D&A makes clear that new paving and ramp will be provided along with contemporary lighting, places to sit and additional landscaping. We do not believe that this would form a badly connected, ‘inward looking’ retail development which paragraph 6.19 of the Practice Guidance seeks to avoid. I maintain my conclusion that the scheme would function as an edge-of-centre development consistent with the requirements of policy EC5 and PPS4.

In relation to the disaggregation of the two smaller units and locating these within the primary shopping area, we have dealt with this issue in our Supplementary Retail

Update (February 2010). The proposed provision of two units (as opposed to four originally) between the store entrance and Station Road would continue to form part of the town centre (although not the Core Retail Area) and coupled with the proposed layout would assist in encouraging linked shopping and other trips.

(ii) Retail impact

Bidwells maintain the view that the scheme would result in identifiable harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. No quantitative information is provided to support this conclusion so it is difficult for us to comment further on this aspect of the objection. I have accepted that the Retail Assessment submitted on behalf of Tesco

Stores Ltd in all probability underestimates the potential impact on the town centre.

However I have undertaken my own analysis of the impact and conclude that the trading effects would not justify the refusal of planning permission for the Station

Road proposal. There is nothing within App. No. PF/10/0920 to make me change this conclusion”.

Sheringham Chamber of Trade – Objection – The Chamber roundly condemns this proposal as harmful in every sense and asks that the Council takes the opportunity to refuse this application on the grounds that it is contrary to Policy EC5 and PPS 4 in relation to scale and impact and a serious threat to the vitality and viability of the town and the achievement of its vision; that it prepares and issues a planning brief for the retail opportunity site behind Central Garage in co-operation with the owner and terminates the land sale agreement with Tesco

Sheringham & District Preservation Society – Objection - Although we accept that certain minor details have been addressed we are still not happy about the outstanding major issues which the application has not or cannot address in respect of traffic impact, poor location of replacement community centre, impact on existing shops and no guarantee that affordable housing will be built in Sheringham from the commuted sum payment.

SHERINGHAM TOWN COUNCIL – Objection –Town Council members remain constant with objections on the same grounds as in response to planning application

PF/09/0818.

ADJACENT PARISHES

Beeston Regis parish Council – Objects to the application as there are concerns regarding impact of traffic on A149 and Britons Lane in Beeston Regis. If permission is granted then “affordable housing monies” should be directed to the Sheringham area.

Upper Sheringham Parish Council – Supports the application.

Weybourne Parish Council – Does not, overall, support the application, although is mindful of the need for a local retail outlet of this type. Reason – The major concern is the traffic issue at the junction of the A149 and Station Road and at the car park and loading bay entrances/exists on the A149 and the resultant congestion that will be experienced.


27

14 October 2010

CONSULTATIONS

Anglian Water – No objection – Advisory Comments only.

Building Control – No Objections – From the details provided there do not appear to be any means of escape or disabled access issues and access for fire service vehicles is also satisfactory.

Community Safety Manage r – My previous comments still stand. In addition, in light of the recent spate of criminal damage to the boarding surrounding the perimeter of the [Fire Station] site, I would strongly recommend that should this planning application go ahead then a condition should be imposed requiring that any boarding erected to enclose the demolition site should be protected by the placing of a perimeter barrier of Harris Fencing with a clear gap of at least 6 inches between itself and the boarding. The purpose of this additional barrier is to prevent the boarding being used as a site for fly posting and/or graffiti.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) I refer to the plans and documents received on 6 th

August 2010 from the agents and architects for Tesco Stores Limited, Alsop Verrill and Wilkinson Eyre in respect of the above proposed development. Please note that these comments should be read in conjunction with those made by my service in regard to landscape design.

In essence, architecturally the scheme submitted under application 10/0920 is much the same as that considered by the Council in March of this year. Indeed the architectural style is identical. On the whole it still represents a refreshing and contemporary approach to a most challenging design proposition. The scale and form and massing of the main food store fits well within the town’s urban ‘grain’ and as previously intimated the location of the food store as close as possible to

Sheringham’s main shopping streets a major advantage when it comes to functionality and operation. In this respect it complies with the spirit of the current

Planning Policy Statements PPS6 & 13 relating to retail planning and transport. In terms of ‘townscape’ quite simply since the location of the buildings proposed are close to the rest of the town’s built form there is subsequently a better fit with the town. This provides for better linkage for shoppers and others using the rest of the town centre. So fundamentally and for many good town planning reasons then this development layout and location of the main store still represents the best one available.

The new application remains generally acceptable in architectural terms. However there is still a need to address the following:

•

The general ‘presentation’ of the shopping development on to the ‘high street’

(Station Road)and from the direction of the store’s car park

•

The length, dimension and treatment of the pedestrian link with the rest of the town centre.

•

The nature, quality and pattern of surface materials within the associated pedestrian areas.

•

The boundary treatments, particularly along the railway line.

•

The extent to which signs and public art can be used to create a distinctive identity both for the development and the town.


28

14 October 2010

In regard to ‘presentation’ and ‘connection’ the proposed removal of some existing buildings in the front of the store’s main entrance does result in a larger forecourt/piazza space and a reduced length of narrow walkway between the development and Station Road. This represents a major improvement. However it could be further improved through the use of some type of ‘architectural announcement’. A ‘three-dimensional’ entrance feature could be considered, one which is clearly visible both by shoppers in Station Road and the adjacent car park. A similar ‘announcement’ could be installed at the other end of the walkway near to the store’s entrance and car park. This would help to draw shoppers in to the site from both the food store’s own car park and Station Road.

As with the previously submitted schemes the store tends to turn inwardly on itself with a blank wall for the most part fronting the car park. However the patterned use of brick and flint walls and metal louvers does offer some ‘relief’ and ‘variety’ in the elevational treatment.

I am unsure about the quality of the hard landscaping within the pedestrian areas.

For the most part this is concrete in manufacture. It would be preferable to have a richer material. It would also be preferable if there was some distinction between the footway running from Station Road and the more intimate and enclosed

‘forecourt/piazza’ in front of the store entrance. This would give the new public areas within the development more identity. So in this respect I would suggest that a change of material be considered at the end of the pedestrian passage from Station

Road.

‘Public art’ offers an opportunity to introduce some ‘local resonance’ or ‘identity’. The entrances referred to above and the boundary enclosures along the railway, as well as the surfaces within the pedestrian areas offer substantial scope.

In conclusion it is apparent that the latest proposals from Tesco Stores Limited, despite the concerns expressed above, are still of a very high standard and possibly the best yet received. The architects have found a design solution which satisfies most of the design criteria in respect of form, massing, scale and respect for site context. Furthermore sustainable design objectives and energy conservation requirements have been, I understand, for the most part met. The design for this food store is ‘bespoke’. This is unusual. It shows that the applicants have done their utmost to relate the design of the store to its setting and that there has been attention has been paid to the Inspector’s comments made in respect of the Appeal heard in the summer of 2008.The location for the store is the best one available. I have no overriding design objections. I therefore recommend that the application be approved with relevant conditions and subject to further consideration and agreement on the detailed design issues raised and improvements suggested above.

Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) These comments should be read in conjunction with those made in respect of ‘Conservation & Design’.

This new application is similar to the extant application 2009/0818, but extends the site to incorporate land and buildings to the rear of 57-73 Station Road. As a result the pedestrian link with Station Road is enhanced and the ‘forecourt/piazza’ area is enlarged. These comments focus on this part of the scheme.

The increased space made available for the public realm in the vicinity of the main store entrance is clearly an improvement and substantially reduces the length of the narrow section of footway from Station Road to the ‘forecourt/piazza’. Pedestrian permeability with the rest of the town centre is significantly enhanced. This said the pedestrian linkage with the rest of the town centre remains a key design issue. A


29

14 October 2010

greater visual impact is needed. More definition and some kind of device is required adjacent to Station Road to indicate and announce the presence of the store. This can be achieved through surface treatments and imaginative use of the levels. This would help to define the various sub-spaces and provide a sense of place.

Furthermore some form of entrance feature at the junction of the pedestrian link with

Station Road would facilitate a much clearer and stronger visible connection with the town’s retail core. For example, a wall built in high quality materials could be appropriate with public art integrated into the design in some way.

The following comments give a more detailed response to the landscape proposals submitted.

Area in front of main entrance

The boundary with the railway is a very public and prominent area. Planting proposals along here are rather non-descript and suggest sun-loving species such as

Senecio which will not thrive in this north-facing space. The planting plan indicates only 3 trees in a space that is over 350m

2

. More interesting specimen trees are warranted in this area and these could provide some mitigation for the loss of the prominent mature Cupressus macrocarpa . The planting beds proposed are an awkward triangular shape that will get worn at the point and are hard to plant.

Surely there is an opportunity here for much more innovative landscape design to create public space of high quality? Public art incorporated into bespoke fencing or pleached hornbeam hedging could be considered . This is a showpiece area for the store and for visitors to and from the store, the car park and from the town and for all visitors to Sheringham arriving and departing by train. In this regard it really merits a more exciting design in terms of hard and soft landscape proposals.

The approaches to the ‘forecourt/piazza’ need to be considered from both east and west. Users of the car park to the east of the store will use the piazza as a pedestrian link to Sheringham town centre. The landscape design of all of the space to the north of the store should be the means to clarify access to the town through use of hard and soft elements, signage & lighting.

Area close to Station Road

The area of the ‘piazza’ near Station Road and the junction with Station Road have some complex level changes within the existing hard landscape which currently restricts the space. Opening out this space as is proposed provides an opportunity to incorporate this change in level more imaginatively within the designed scheme to provide a clearer access into the piazza off Station Road. There is currently a poor mix of floor materials and levels at this point. The careful treatment of levels and surfaces at this important junction is critical to the successful fusion of this scheme into the wider established townscape. In my opinion, this has not been developed fully enough within the current scheme.

Surface Treatments

Proposed hard surface materials are a mixture of grey and charcoal concrete paving slabs to be used throughout the plaza area. This is a rather uninspiring solution for such a key public space. As a principle, I would advocate that the same paving material as that laid in the public realm on Station Road should be used as far as the location of the proposed cycle racks to give continuity of surface from the main town through to the piazza. At the point where the space opens up, a change in material would be appropriate, perhaps reflecting the materials and finish in the building elevation. Changes in the surface treatment can denote a sense of arrival and identity. An important space such as this warrants high quality, distinctive materials.

In the car park more attention is needs to be given to the choice of surface treatments.


30

14 October 2010

Public Art & Lighting

The proposed ‘public art’ commission provides an opportunity to incorporate local distinctiveness and a bespoke aspect to the development and the general setting of the store. To be successful it must be an integral part of the landscape design and not seen as an ‘add-on’ once the scheme is complete. This could apply to the boundaries with the railway, the surface treatment within the piazza or in the form of entrance features along the pedestrian links. Details of the lighting in the car parking are required. Its quality as well as its height and style needs to be agreed.

Planting Amendments

On a specific note, these latest plans indicate some amendments to tree species selection.

In particular, 4no.

Cypressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress) proposed on the west boundary adjacent to the existing club have been substituted with 6 no. Carpinus betulus (Hornbeam). It had previously been suggested that the 4 Cypress would not thrive in such a confined space and I can only assume this is the reason for the amendment. The replacement hornbeam will not provide anywhere near the same impressive impact that the mature existing Cypress currently has on the local environment. Specimen Cypress should be specified elsewhere within the scheme to mitigate for the loss of this landmark tree at the town entrance.

In summary, this proposal represents a substantial improvement in regard to the connection of the development with the rest of the town centre. The quality and detail of the associated landscape design will be an important factor in the successful integration of the scheme into the town. However overall there is no overriding objection on landscape grounds.

County Council Highways – No objection subject to the imposition of conditions –

The application is in essence a consolidation of the earlier application (PF/09/0818) and subsequent amendments. The Highway Authority has no objection to the amended 2009 scheme and has no objection to the latest 2010 scheme subject to conditions.

County Council Planning – Contribution required for 150mm fire hydrants (£766 each) and their location should meet the requirements of Building Regulations

Approved Document B.

Environment Agency - No objection subject to imposition of conditions.

Environmental Health – As proposed by the applicant and to prevent this proposal having any detrimental effects on the nearby residential properties I would like to see conditions attached to any permission relating to the installation of plant, sound insulation of the loading bay, restrictions on delivery times (no deliveries between

10pm and 7am), conditions regarding noise, contamination and lighting.

Network Rail – No objection to the development subject to conditions or notes concerning intention to commence development, method of demolition and construction scaffolding.

Norfolk Fire Service – No Comment

Planning Policy Manager – These changes in themselves raise no new major planning policy issues. In terms of general observations, the creation of the public space associated with the Station Road link would, in my opinion, improve the quality and functionality of the pedestrian route to and from the town centre and the provision of affordable housing in a sustainable location in the town is welcomed.


31

14 October 2010

Property Services Manager – No further comments to make

Retail Consultant - The planning application generally replicates the proposed amendments to App. No. 2009/0818 although I note that the community space is stated as being 169 sqm and not 208 sqm. In addition a draft section 106 obligation is also submitted which sets out a proposed agreement in respect of the rental levels within the smaller units.

Our comments in respect of this additional application remain as set out above [in relation to the amended 09/0818 application] and as previously encapsulated within our previous reports to the Council. The size of the supermarket has not altered and therefore my conclusion on the potential impact also remains unchanged. I remain of the view that the scheme complies with national advice in PPS4 together with policy

EC5 of the Core Strategy.

Strategic Housing – Whilst the addition of two new affordable flats is to be welcomed, there are a number of issues which need to be considered before we can fully commit to taking the proposed flats as affordable housing including details of transfer, size, parking, proximity to supermarket and associated noise. The affordable housing should comply with Scheme Development Standards and should be provided to a Registered Social Landlord without the need for any Social Housing

Grant or other public subsidy.

Update - Further to your memorandum of the 24 th

September 2010 relating to the above applications and my original comments set out in my memorandum of the 24 th

August 2010 and Tesco’s response.

I again re-iterate that in principle, I would welcome the addition of two new affordable flats, my comments relating to Tesco’s response are set out below:

•

Tesco is proposing to transfer the flats to Broadland Housing Association on completion. It is extremely unlikely that Social Housing Grant will be available either from the Homes and Communities Agency or NNDC to support the transfer. Therefore Tesco will need to confirm that the transfer will be at a price which will allow Broadland HA to charge social rents without the requirement for grant.

•

Tesco have confirmed that special measures will be taken to mitigate airborne and structure–borne sound and vibration arising from plant and vehicular movements, we find this acceptable subject to the measures being to the approval of Environmental Health.

Finally in addition, the existing plan layout for the flats is not particularly clear, therefore the final layout of the flats will need to be agreed in consultation with

Broadland HA and NNDC Strategic Housing to ensure that the use of the space is most suitable for future tenants. Can this be secured by condition?

Sustainability Co-ordinator – The application complies with Policy EN 6. Planning permission should be granted with conditions including those relating to the

Sustainability Construction Checklist, Code for Sustainable Homes and Energy

Statement.


32

14 October 2010

APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO NEW APPLICATION (20100920 - CROMER ROAD)

The new application submitted in respect of the Cromer Road site is before the

Committee for determination along with the other two applications that have previously been considered. Officers consider that it is evident from the nature of the proposed amendments that the applicant is seeking to attempt to overcome some of concerns expressed by Committee on 4 March 2010 regarding the proposal for

Cromer Road.

The application is substantially the same as that described above under reference

20090818 save that it now includes a firm proposal to demolish existing buildings in order to deliver a widened pedestrian link between the proposed store entrance and the town centre.

In relation to the width and suitability of the pedestrian footpath link between the supermarket entrance and the town centre of Sheringham, the applicants have advised that they now have control of a number of the buildings adjacent to the railway line, many of which are currently vacant. The pedestrian walkway would be widened by demolishing the buildings now under their control and, in so doing, create a wider pedestrian footpath link between the supermarket entrance and the town centre. Whilst Officers had previously advised that the original proposed footpath link would have adequately served the development and facilitated linked-trips, it is considered that widening the access further would be of significant benefit to the town as it would improve the intervisibility between the supermarket entrance and the town centre of Sheringham, thus helping to ensure the potential for linked trips to take place. The issue of intervisibility was a concern which was expressed by some at the Committee on 4 March 2010. Officers consider that the proposed amendments would give greater weight to the sequential preference of this site that Officers have identified compared with that at Weybourne Road.

The Committee will note the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape

Manager concerning the revised piazza in front of the store and associated pedestrian link. It is considered that approval of the final design of the piazza and pedestrian link together with associated public art and landscaping should be a requirement of planning conditions and this matter can be referred back to

Committee for approval should this be considered necessary.

In respect of the provision of affordable housing the applicant has confirmed that the two flats proposed above the community space would be given over for affordable housing. Following the comments of Strategic Housing further discussions have taken place with the applicant. The applicant is proposing to transfer the affordable flats to Broadland Housing Association on completion but will need to confirm that the transfer will be at a price which will allow Broadland Housing Association to charge social rents without the requirement for grant. The internal layout also needs to be agreed with the Housing Association. The applicant has confirmed that special measures will be taken to mitigate airborne and structure–borne sound and vibration arising from plant and vehicular movements. Subject to the imposition of related conditions and S106 Obligation, Officers consider there would be no objection to the proposed affordable housing element.

Notwithstanding the fact that Officers have previously advised the Committee that the

Cromer Road scheme considered on 4 March was acceptable and complied with

Development Plan policy, Officers consider these changes are an initiative which seek to address some of the concerns previously expressed by Committee. The

Committee therefore should consider these changes carefully before making a final decision on the applications.


33

14 October 2010

OTHER ISSUES IN RESPECT OF THE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATIONS

20090777, 20090818 AND 20100920.

CONSULTATIONS RELATING TO DECISION ON 4 MARCH 2010

Following the meeting of 4 March 2010 and under the terms of reference of

Committee, the Head of Planning and Building Control has referred both applications to the Council’s Section 151 Officer and Monitoring Officer for comment.

Their comments are as follows:-

S.151 Officer – Thank you for formally consulting me as S151 officer with regard to the decision of the Combined DC Committee in respect of the Sheringham

Supermarket applications. On the basis of the independent advice received by the

Council I have no report of a financial nature that the Committee should receive at this stage.

Monitoring Officer (Tony Ing - Strategic Director & Deputy Monitoring Officer) -

Thank you for your request for my views (in my capacity as Deputy Monitoring

Officer) on the decisions taken by the Combined Development Control Committee on

4 March 2010 in relation to the Sheringham supermarket applications (20090777 and

20090818), in accordance with the prevailing terms of reference for the Committee.

I am satisfied that you have taken the necessary steps to secure independent legal advice in relation to the soundness of those decisions, along with the action now needed to conclude the planning process and determine the matters. As a consequence, I have no further comments to make.

PARISH POLL

On 30 September 2010 a Parish Poll was held in Sheringham in respect of the following questions:

A. Do you support the proposals from the Greenhouse Community Project

C. incorporating a Waitrose Supermarket, Food Academy and Kitchen Gardens on the

Weybourne Road site with a further proposal to remodel the Community Centre on its present site. Leave Lockerbie Flats and the Fire Station unchanged and build six affordable homes at the rear of the Fire Station land?

B. Do you support the Tesco proposals to build a Supermarket on the Cromer

Road site, purchase and demolish Lockerbie Flats and build a new Fire Station on the corner of Cremer’s Drift and build a Community Centre on the Hilbre site off

Holway Road?

Do you prefer Sheringham to remain without any Supermarket development?


34

14 October 2010

The results of the poll were as follows:

Question

A. Do you support the proposals from the

Greenhouse Community

Project incorporating a

Waitrose Supermarket,

Food Academy and

Kitchen Gardens on the

Weybourne Road site with a further proposal to remodel the Community

Centre on its present site.

Leave Lockerbie Flats and the Fire Station unchanged and build six affordable homes at the rear of the Fire Station land?

B. Do you support the

Tesco proposals to build a

Supermarket on the

Cromer Road site, purchase and demolish

Lockerbie Flats and build a new Fire Station on the corner of Cremer’s Drift and build a Community

Centre on the Hilbre site off Holway Road?

C. Do you prefer

Sheringham to remain without any Supermarket development?

Answer to the said questions

Yes No Unanswered

1165 1131 364

1180

523

1205

1568

267

563

Number of

Votes

2660

+ 3 rejected (B)

+ 4 rejected for this question

2652

+ 3 rejected (B)

+ 12 rejected for this question

2654

+3 rejected (B)

+10 rejected for

Electorate: 6017

Ballot Papers Issued: 2667

Turnout: 44.3%

Whilst the results of the poll provide an interesting summary of public opinion in

Sheringham on the questions asked, Officers consider that little weight can be afforded to it in relation to the determination of the current applications since the proposals before the Committee do not entirely accord with the questions asked, two of the questions referring to proposals which are not included in the current applications.

REVOCATION OF REGIONAL STRATEGIES

On 6 July 2010 the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government confirmed that Regional Strategies would be revoked and would no longer form part of the Development Plan for the purposes of S.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory

Purchase Act 2004. This means that the Regional Policies referred to in the report to


35

14 October 2010

the meeting of 4 March 2010 should no longer be taken into account. For the purpose of determining the current applications the Development Plan therefore principally comprises adopted Core Strategy Policies. National guidance in the form of Planning

Policy Statements and Planning Policy Guidance Notes continue to apply.

THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

Under regulations bought into force on 6 April 2010, Local Planning Authorities are able to impose a levy on landowners or developers for new developments of 100 square metres or more. The levy must be used to help pay for local infrastructure such as parks, health centres and schools, to offset the impact of developments on the local community.

DCLG published guidance in March 2010 to help councils in determining the rate of

CIL to be charged and the responsibilities in doing so. However, the coalition government has announced that it is looking again at the Community Infrastructure

Levy and intends to make a public announcement shortly.

The District Council has not yet considered whether to implement these regulations.

Accordingly the arrangements under S106 for dealing with infrastructure in relation to the current applications remain as set out in the applicants’ submissions which are included at Appendices 14 and 18 .


36

14 October 2010

RECOMMENDATIONS

Committee is reminded that these applications are being considered together because the determination of each planning application will influence the outcome of the other, particularly as the Council’s appointed retail consultant is of the view that there is only a justifiable need for one supermarket of the sized proposed to serve the needs of Sheringham. The starting point is the Committee’s resolution of 4 March

2010 on the two applications considered at that meeting.

Having considered all of the relevant material considerations the Committee essentially has three options available:

1. To re-confirm the decisions made on 4 March 2010 (given the reasons as clarified through the first part of the meeting by the original Committee);

2. To confirm the decisions made on 4 March 2010 but with amended reasons for the decisions; or

3. To reach different decisions in light of those earlier decisions and the further representations and material considerations summarised in this report.

In the event of the Committee reaching different decisions (option 3 above) the

Committee should articulate its reasons for doing so.

Committee is reminded that each of these applications should be determined in accordance with relevant adopted Development Plan policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning permission goes with the land and therefore the name of the intended operator is a material consideration to which little weight should be afforded.

Officers remain of the view that the Cromer Road applications are located on a sequentially preferable site that is available, suitable and viable and the proposals comply with relevant Development Plan policies, a view which is supported by the

Council’s appointed retail consultant.

By contrast, Officers remain of the view the Weybourne Road proposal is sequentially less preferable than the site at Cromer Road and would not have a positive impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre of Sheringham, primarily because of its distance away from the town centre and the limited opportunity for linked-trips to take place, a view which is supported by the Council’s appointed retail consultant. The material considerations put forward by the applicant in support of the

Weybourne Road proposal have been taken into account in the determination of this application but are not considered by Officers to be of sufficient weight to justify a departure from Development Plan Policies in this instance.

Therefore, notwithstanding the resolutions of the Committee on 4 March 2010 and having taken into account all relevant new material considerations received since that date, including the amended proposals in relation to the Cromer Road scheme together with the new submitted planning application, the Head of Planning and

Building Control makes the following recommendation:-


37

14 October 2010

20090818 CROMER ROAD

That the Committee gives the Head of Planning and Building Control delegated authority 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.

20100920 CROMER ROAD

That the Committee gives the Head of Planning and Building Control delegated authority 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.

20090777 WEYBOURNE ROAD

That the Committee refuses application 20090777 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.

(Source: Geoff Lyon, Ext: 6226)


38

14 October 2010

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 OCTOBER 2010

Electorate: 6017

Ballot Papers Issued: 2667

Turnout: 44.3%

Related documents

Products

Support

OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 14 OCTOBER 2010

Electorate: 6017

Ballot Papers Issued: 2667

Turnout: 44.3%

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib