21 AUGUST 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds (substitute for Mrs A Green)
Mrs B McGoun (substitute for Mrs V Uprichard)
N Smith (substitute for Miss B Palmer)
B Cabbell Manners – Cabinet Member for Planning
T FitzPatrick - observing
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mrs N Turner – Housing Team Leader - Strategy
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Mr C Skinner – Solicitor, NP Law
Mr A Willard – Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(62)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A R Green, Miss B
Palmer and Mrs V Uprichard. Three substitute Members attended the meeting as
shown above.
(63)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(64)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared in all applications to be discussed:
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as his
grandson attended the school.
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as he
owned a holiday let in Holt.
Personal, non-pecuniary interest in the
following applications as he had come to
the end of his fixed term appointment as
a Governor in June.
Councillor R Reynolds
Councillor M J M Baker
Development Committee
1
21 August 2014
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as she
was the co-owner of property in Holt.
Knew many people who were attending
the meeting.
Councillor P W High
(65)
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
The Head of Planning reported that a request had been received from the applicant
to consider all three applications together given the facilitating development issues.
Having taken advice on this request, the introductory report would be presented first,
upon which there would be no public speaking, followed by the presentation, public
speaking and debate on each application in turn. No proposals would be sought
from the Committee until all three applications had been presented and debated and
Members had an understanding of the interrelationship between the proposed
developments. Members would then be invited to make proposals on each
application in turn.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the Officers’ report, the Committee
reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(66)
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF GRESHAMS SCHOOL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN HOLT
The Team Leader (Major Developments) presented an introductory report which
outlined the principal issues to assist the Committee in making an informed decision.
He presented an aerial photograph showing all three sites. Detailed comments on
the Officer’s reports had been received from the applicants and circulated to the
Committee.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to the case put forward by the
applicants for funding of improvements to school facilities and the principal reasons
given in the applicants’ report which was appended to the report.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to Counsel’s advice regarding
facilitating developments, a summary of which was appended to the report.
Provision of finance could be material provided there was a relevant and sufficient
connection between the two developments and real public benefit would flow from
the linked development.
Development Committee
2
21 August 2014
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to the planning history of the sites,
particularly in relation to site 1 (PO/14/0283) and issues relating to site allocations
and enabling development. The Inspector’s binding report did not form part of the
Development Plan but could be taken into account as an “other material
consideration”.
In respect of Development Plan considerations, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) stated that legal advice had been sought as to the current primacy of
the Core Strategy, given its publication prior to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF). In the view of Officers, the Council’s housing policies were not
out of date and Officers were confident that the housing figure for Holt could be
achieved without the need to approve other large scale developments. He referred
to the relevant policies in the Core Strategy.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to a confidential report in respect of
viability which had been submitted by the applicants, an executive summary of which
was appended to the report. He explained the difference between the conventional
method of assessing viability based on residual land value and the method which had
been adopted by the applicants.
Whilst the applicants now appeared to be questioning the methodology used in
calculating the five year land supply, previously they had indicated that this was not
the main point in arguing their case for approval.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to the Heads of Terms of the
Section 106 Obligation in the event of permission being granted, and in particular, to
issues concerning the uplift clause being proposed by the applicants, which was not
the normal form of uplift and carried an increased risk that there would be no
additional funding for affordable housing.
In conclusion, all applications were departures from Development Plan policy, not
only in their location but also in terms of some of the Council’s key housing policies.
(67)
HOLT - PO/14/0283 - Residential development for a maximum of 126 dwellings;
Land South of Cromer Road and East of Grove Lane for Endurance Estate
Strategic Land Ltd and Gresham's School
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr B Whiffen (objecting)
Mr M Burnham (objecting)
Mr I Furness (supporting)
Mr D Jenkins (supporting)
Mr N Flower (supporting)
Mr J Morgan (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) displayed photographs of the site, including
an aerial photograph and outlined the main concerns. The recent submission by the
applicants had argued that the site was sustainable. He reminded the Committee that
the planning applications were first and foremost for housing development. He
recommended refusal of this application as stated in the report.
Development Committee
3
21 August 2014
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, Cabinet Member for Planning, stated that this was a
very important application, not only for Gresham’s School, but for North Norfolk and
Norfolk as a whole. The benefits to the school were huge, but he considered that
everyone would gain from its economic growth. There was a need to support this
important facility.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, considered that all public speakers had raised
valid points. He was aware of the economy of Holt and the economic benefits the
school brought to the town. He considered that the school should be supported, but
the application had to be considered on planning grounds and not the viability of the
school. There were planning grounds on which to refuse the application. He referred
to affordable housing issues, access to Grove Lane and existing housing allocations.
Councillor M J M Baker, the local Members, stated that he wished to hear from other
Members before making comments.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that Grove Lane was narrow and it was difficult to
manoeuvre. He considered that traffic from the development should not use Grove
Lane. He considered that the 10% affordable housing being offered was unfair and
requested clarification as to how any surplus would be spent. He referred to car
parking in the town. He considered that the footpath should be improved
immediately and commented that the Highway Authority supported the application.
He considered that green space should not be lost and that the school should
provide additional playing fields to compensate for those being lost.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that site 1 had access onto Cromer
Road and he anticipated that the majority of traffic would use Cromer Road rather
than Grove Lane. There were no proposals to prevent the use of Grove Lane, but
there were proposals for traffic calming. Car parking in the town was not an issue
related to this application.
The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained the form of affordable housing uplift
which the applicants were proposing. It provided less certainty than the standard
form of affordable housing uplift.
The Landscape Officer stated that the proposals represented development in the
Countryside and would result in a net loss of green space to the town of Holt.
The Highways Officer stated that whilst there would be some traffic from the site
turning into Grove Lane, he considered that the increase would be minimal and that
children from the site would walk to school.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that both the school and tourism were important to Holt.
The school was important in terms of employment and revenue. He stated that the
proposals were very important to the school but had to be within the planning laws.
He considered that small one and two bedroom houses and apartments could be
considered to be affordable and therefore he was not too concerned that 10%
affordable housing was being proposed.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that she understood that all the applications were
departures from policy, but had come forward as there were other possible
considerations. She had researched Gresham’s school, and the Fishmongers’
Company, which appeared to be a property company. She referred to the NPPF
which appeared to smooth the way for challenging sites. She stated that Greshams
needed to remain relevant and increase its attractiveness to its market, and consider
Development Committee
4
21 August 2014
all ways of raising funds. However it was a balancing act. She referred to the
sustainability score and questioned whether any real public benefits would flow from
this application. She was very disappointed at the low percentage of affordable
dwellings. She expressed concern that the proposed dwellings, in addition to the
proposed dwellings on the allocated sites, would put too much pressure on
infrastructure.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained that the current proposal
envisaged 150 dwellings in addition to those proposed on the allocated sites. He
referred to the infrastructure contributions the applicants had agreed as set out in the
report, as requested by the Norfolk County Council and the NHS.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked how the developers had arrived at the
mix of housing on each site and how quickly the houses would be delivered. She
also asked if the school facilities would remain available to the public, eg. theatre and
swimming. She requested the exact number of employees and the wages bill. She
requested an explanation of the difference between “planning fees” and
“masterplanning fees”.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained that planning fees related to the
cost of submitting a planning application. Masterplanning was a wider concept which
he considered did not apply in this case as it related to land use and phasing on
larger sites.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Furness, on behalf of the applicant, explained
that planning also took into account other costs such as energy assessment advice
and agent’s fees. Advice had been sought from Savills as to the most appropriate
house types and it had been suggested that there was a need for larger houses.
There had been a strong interest from housebuilders and, if approved, reserved
matters applications could be submitted by the end of the year, with completion
towards the end of 2015. A representative of the School gave details of the payroll
and number of employees.
The Chairman referred to the Officer’s report which stated that facilities would remain
available.
Councillor N Smith stated that businesses needed to update and raise funds, but the
houses would still be there in 100 years’ time, whereas there was no guarantee that
the school would remain in 10 years’ time.
Councillor B Smith stated that he was aware of the importance of Gresham’s to Holt
and the surrounding area, but the Committee was concerned with the planning
issues and not a financial proposition. Site 1 was outside the Development Plan, did
not conform to Core Strategy policies and he was concerned that approval would set
a precedent.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle stated that although the site was in designated Countryside,
it was adjacent to the Development Boundary, was not isolated, and not far from the
town centre. The proposal would provide housing, and she hoped that there would
be more emphasis on affordable housing.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern at the impact approval of this application
would have on the Council’s policies and planning law, impact on Grove Lane, loss of
Holt’s identity and destruction of green space and countryside.
Development Committee
5
21 August 2014
Councillor P W High referred to a previous scheme to deal with traffic issues which
had been put forward by the Highway Authority. Whilst this did not proceed, he
considered that it was proof that the Highway Authority had concerns.
The Highway Officer explained the reasons why the previous scheme had not
proceeded. He did not dispute the lack of footpath provision along parts of Grove
Lane. He stated that the access to Cromer Road was in accordance with normal
requirements for a development of this type and the increase of traffic on Grove Lane
would be minimal. He had no reason to dispute the findings of the traffic statement.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, stated that Holt was a lovely town and
people wanted to live there. People were drawn to the town by the school and
everything North Norfolk had to offer. The Committee was making a decision about
the most important employer in the area. He disputed comments which had been
made that only the school and the Fishmongers Company would benefit. He stated
that money would go back into the school, which was not in itself wealthy. He
referred to the employment issues and stated that £10m worth of building jobs would
be created. He stated that the school was central to North Norfolk and it was very
important that it was allowed to progress and remain competitive.
Councillor R Shepherd raised a point of order that Councillor Baker should declare
an interest as a major businessman in Holt. The Chairman stated that Councillor
Baker had taken legal advice on this matter.
Councillor P W High stated that Councillor Baker had spoken about Gresham’s
School rather than the planning issues.
(68)
HOLT - PO/14/0284 - Residential development for a maximum of 19 dwellings;
Land South of Cromer Road and West of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates
Strategic Land Ltd and Greshams School
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr D Jenkins (supporting)
Mr J Stronach (supporting)
Mr T Holmes (supporting)
Mrs Prior (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) presented photographs of the site and
surrounding area, including an aerial photograph. He stated that the proposals would
result in a change in the character of the area, not only from the change of use but
also because of the formal footpaths which were proposed. He presented an
illustrative plan showing the possible layout of the site. He recommended refusal of
this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the site was surrounded by housing or a
school campus. It was in the centre of an urban area. He considered that if the
access were designed properly, all traffic would use Cromer Road and it would be
possible to make Grove Lane one-way with traffic going away from the school. He
considered that the Inspector had not said that this site should not be developed,
only that H01 was a better site. He referred to the support by Holt Town Council and
the Chamber of Trade. He stated that this application was very important, not only to
Holt but to the surrounding area.
Development Committee
6
21 August 2014
Councillor P W High referred to the comments he had made on the previous
application regarding planning. He considered that planning policy outweighed the
running of the school. He referred to the site allocations and previous applications
submitted by Gresham’s School prior to the Inspector’s binding report.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the long term benefit to the area was a planning
issue and this application should therefore be supported.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the securing of contributions towards primary
school education and library provision through a Section 106 Obligation was a
material consideration which should be taken into account.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun asked for advice regarding precedent.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that in legal terms there was no precedent in
planning, however in practical terms it was likely that other developers would
consider the decisions taken at this meeting. He referred to a request on the agenda
to undertake a site inspection on another site in Holt. He referred to other
developments in Holt where the proportion of affordable housing had been much
higher.
The Head of Planning stated that whilst other developers would be paying attention
to these decisions, the applicants had put forward an argument on the basis of
facilitating development.
Councillor N Smith stated that jobs would be created whilst the houses were being
built, and then those jobs would move elsewhere. He asked if there was any
provision for additional employment in the area, as it seemed to be lacking.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that this application did not provide
for employment but there was mixed development on the larger, allocated sites. This
application was purely for housing development.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the sixth form centre and upgraded
accommodation would enable the facilities to be used outside the school term as a
conference venue and to support events for children during the summer holidays. He
considered that this would create a large number of jobs and employment was
therefore an important part of the overall scheme.
(69)
HOLT – PO/14/0274 – Residential development for a maximum of eight
dwellings; Land north of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd
and Greshams School
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr B Whiffen (objecting)
Mr D Jenkins (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) presented photographs of the site, including
an aerial photograph. The site was outside the development boundary, but adjacent
to it. Whilst the application referred to a maximum of eight dwellings, viability had
been based on six dwellings. A Tree Preservation Order had been served on trees
Development Committee
7
21 August 2014
on the boundary but the Landscape Officer had accepted that some of the trees
could be removed. An illustrative layout had been received. An off-site footpath was
proposed. He recommended refusal of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the site was surrounded by dwellings and
he considered it was difficult to argue that the site was unsustainable.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that there was an opportunity to address the
traffic problems associated with Grove Lane by the provision of a link between Grove
Lane to the left hand side of the site to Cromer Road. This would provide an
opportunity to make Grove Lane one-way.
In response to a question by Councillor P W High, the Landscape Officer explained
that a Tree Preservation Order had been served on a line of trees abutting Grove
Lane. It would be necessary to lose some of the trees but it was hoped that this
could be mitigated by other planting. There were concerns regarding an Oak tree
which would need to be felled, but as there was no layout submitted with this
application it was hoped that this could be resolved at a later stage. It would be
difficult to maintain the rural feel of Grove Lane. Councillor Baker expressed concern
that the trees abutting Grove Lane were not native species. The Landscape Officer
stated that this line of trees contained some broad leaved species.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun referred to the overall amenity value of the trees, the
removal of which would leave a large gap.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that unlike the previous applications,
this application was recommended for refusal purely on housing policy grounds.
(70)
DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS PO/14/0283, PO/14/0284 AND PO/14/0274
The Planning Legal Manager introduced Mr C Skinner, Solicitor, NP Law, who was
representing the Monitoring Officer.
The Solicitor stated that the applicant’s case was that money was needed from all
three developments to undertake improvements to the school, which was an enabling
argument. He advised that the enabling argument carried the greatest and most
significant weight if all three applications were approved. If one application was
refused, it would no longer be possible to undertake the work and therefore the
weight to be attached to enabling development diminished significantly. If one
application were refused, a similar decision could be expected on the other two
applications.
The Head of Planning referred to the need to weigh the issues in determining these
applications. The viability and enabling argument were material, as was planning
policy, traffic, impact on the economy and jobs. The Committee could give weight to
those issues as it saw fit.
Site 1 – PO/14/0283
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds that
this application be approved.
Councillor P W High stated that this was a very difficult application to discuss, but he
considered that all the planning issues went against approval and he supported the
Officer’s recommendation.
Development Committee
8
21 August 2014
The Chairman advised the Committee that, if it were minded to approve this
application, further discussions would be required in respect of the uplift.
The Head of Planning advised the Committee that it if were minded to approve, the
decision should be delegated to the Head of Planning subject to prior completion of a
S106 agreement to include:
 Amend uplift clause (to reflect the Council’s standard uplift)
 Amended affordable housing terms to reflect our standard terms
 Satisfactory time scale for completion of the enabling works including the
construction of the 6th form block
 Amended triggers to ensure that detailed information is submitted at the
reserved matters stage
 Phasing mechanism to ensure the provision of affordable housing on site 1 in
advance of the completion of development on site 2 and 3
 And all other commuted sums referred to in the Heads of terms attached as
Appendix 4; and
 Conditions as considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to prior completion of a S106 agreement to include:
 Amend uplift clause (to reflect the Council’s standard uplift)
 Amended affordable housing terms to reflect our standard terms
 Satisfactory time scale for completion of the enabling works
including the construction of the 6th form block
 Amended triggers to ensure that detailed information is
submitted at the reserved matters stage
 Phasing mechanism to ensure the provision of affordable
housing on site 1 in advance of the completion of development
on site 2 and 3
 And all other commuted sums referred to in the Heads of terms
attached as Appendix 4; and
Conditions as considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
At the request of Councillor M J M Baker, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
N Smith
(7)
Development Committee
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs B McGoun
R Shepherd
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
B Smith
(6)
(1)
9
21 August 2014
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
benefits as listed in Appendix 2 of the report at paragraphs 4.1 - 4.3.
Site 2 – PO/14/0284
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds that
this application be approved.
The Head of Planning requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to the provisos agreed under PO/14/0283. This application would also be
subject to referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town & Country
Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 as it related to the loss of a playing
field.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objections being raised following referral to the Secretary
of State in accordance with the Town & Country
Planning
(Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 and to prior completion of a
S106 agreement to include:






Amend uplift clause (to reflect the Council’s standard uplift)
Amended affordable housing terms to reflect our standard terms
Satisfactory time scale for completion of the enabling works
including the construction of the 6th form block
Amended triggers to ensure that detailed information is
submitted at the reserved matters stage
Phasing mechanism to ensure the provision of affordable
housing on site 1 in advance of the completion of development
on site 2 and 3
And all other commuted sums referred to in the Heads of terms
attached as Appendix 4; and
Conditions as considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
Development Committee
10
21 August 2014
At the request of Councillor M J M Baker, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
N Smith
(9)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
(5)
(0)
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
benefits as listed in Appendix 2 of the report at paragraphs 4.1 – 4.3.
Site 3 – PO/14/0274
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker that 1) this application be approved, and
2) that negotiations take place for a link between Grove Lane and Cromer Road, with
a one-way system being introduced on Grove Lane.
The Head of Planning stated that Officers could use their best endeavours to achieve
the latter part of the proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd requested that the oak tree be protected.
Councillor Baker stated that whilst he was happy to add such a proviso, the tree was
already protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded the proposal.
The Head of Planning requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to the provisos agreed under PO/14/0283. This application would also be
subject to referral to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town & Country
Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 as it related to the loss of a playing
field, in the event of an objection being raised by Sport England.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
1.
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objections being raised following referral to the Secretary
of State in accordance with the Town & Country Planning (Consultation)
Development Committee
11
21 August 2014
(England) Direction 2009 and to prior completion of a S106 agreement to
include:






Amend uplift clause (to reflect the Council’s standard uplift)
Amended affordable housing terms to reflect our standard terms
Satisfactory time scale for completion of the enabling works
including the construction of the 6th form block
Amended triggers to ensure that detailed information is
submitted at the reserved matters stage
Phasing mechanism to ensure the provision of affordable
housing on site 1 in advance of the completion of development
on site 2 and 3
And all other commuted sums referred to in the Heads of terms
attached as Appendix 4; and
Conditions as considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
2.
That Officers use their best endeavours to negotiate a link between
Grove Lane and Cromer Road, with a one-way system being introduced
on Grove Lane.
At the request of Councillor M J M Baker, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
(12)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs B McGoun
J A Wyatt
(1)
(1)
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
benefits as listed in Appendix 2 of the report at paragraphs 4.1 - 4.3.
Development Committee
12
21 August 2014
(71)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Members and Town Mayor be invited to attend:
HOLT – PO/14/0846 – Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; land south of Lodge Close for Gladman Developments
Limited
The meeting closed at 12.43 pm
Development Committee
13
21 August 2014