OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 21 AUGUST 2014
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning 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 – ITEMS FOR DECISION
1.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF GRESHAMS SCHOOL FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN HOLT
This report concerns three outline planning applications for residential development
in Holt on land associated with Greshams School. The report provides an overview of
planning policy related issues and precedes individual reports on each application.
Note
This report is for informative purposes only. It is intended to assist members of the
committee in their understanding of the principal issues relating to the planning
applications which are subject to individual reports later on this agenda. Members are
invited to ask questions of officers regarding the contents of the report, but it is not
subject to public speaking. The opportunity for public speaking will take place when
the individual reports on each planning application are considered.
Introduction
Three outline planning applications for residential development have been submitted
for separate parcels of land owned partly by Greshams School and partly by the
Worshipful Company of Fishmongers with which the school has historic ties. Each
application approximates the number of dwellings proposed, and in the case of two of
the applications, details of access are included at this stage.
The applications are as follows:

Ref: PO/14/0283 (referred to as Site 1) - Residential development for a maximum
of 126 dwellings - Land south of Cromer Road and east of Grove Lane, Holt.

Ref: PO/14/0284 (referred to as Site 2) - Residential development for a maximum
of 19 dwellings - Land south of Cromer Road and west of Grove Lane, Holt

Ref: PO/14/0274 (referred to as Site 3) Residential development for a maximum
of 8 dwellings - Land to the north of Grove Lane, Holt.
Each application represents a departure from the current development plan in that all
three sites lie outside the development boundary for Holt. The Council will need to
reach a separate decision in relation to each application.
The case put forward in support of the applications is that with the benefit of planning
permission, the revenue received from the sale of the sites will go towards funding
new development and refurbishment improvements to the school.
The purpose of this report is to draw attention to recent planning history relevant to
Development Committee
1
21 August 2014
the current proposals and to address certain issues which are common to all three
proposals, namely:




The case being put forward in support of the applications
The main planning policy implications of the proposals
Development viability
Proposed S.106 Obligation – Heads of Terms
In addition as part of considering the current planning applications officers have
sought Counsel‟s advice on a number of legal issues which are referred to in this
report. A summary of Counsel‟s advice is attached in Appendix 1.
Individual reports and recommendations for each application follow on from this
report.
The Case for Development put forward by the Applicants
As referred to above, the reason put forward in support of the three applications is to
provide funding for improvements at Greshams School. These specifically comprise:


A new sixth form centre building (planning permission approved - 22 November
2013 - ref PF/13/1116)
Improvements to boarding facilities (both internal and extensions).
It is stated that the combined current cost of both of these projects is £9.541m
(£4.412m for the 6th form centre and £5.129m for the boarding improvements).
The applicants place great emphasis on the importance of these two projects for
ensuring the successful future of the school, citing in particular the following factors:









Greshams School has existed for over 450 years and occupies a key position in
Holt's built form, its social history and local economy.
It is one of the top private schools in the country, providing education for children
between the ages of 3 - 18.
The school employs 375 people in Holt and is the town's largest employer
(including a £11m spend on wages)
The school contributes significantly to the economy of Holt.
Public consultation exercises show that the continued success of the school is
viewed as important locally.
The school contributes to the cultural life of North Norfolk.
Private education is a highly competitive market and the school cannot stand still
in such circumstances. It has to invest in new facilities in order to retain pupil
numbers in the short to medium term and to increase numbers in the longer term.
Compared to its competitors the school is in danger of falling behind in terms of
new facilities.
The school is unable to fund the necessary investments other than through the
sale of land for development.
A confidential Viability Assessment has been submitted in support of the applications.
The applicants claim this demonstrates that the sale of the three sites, plus a limited
amount of borrowing will just cover the £9.541m cost of the two projects along with
the associated legal, planning and master planning fees and the 10% promoter‟s
return. This is based on a maximum of 10% affordable housing being provided as a
proportion of the total number of dwellings proposed.
Development Committee
2
21 August 2014
Draft Heads of Terms (S.106 Planning Obligation) included with the applications
include the 'ring-fencing' of funds from the sale of the three sites towards the capital
works of the new 6th form building and boarding house improvements.
The applicants contend that securing the future of Greshams School is a significant
material consideration in determining the applications which outweighs the fact that
approval would represent a departure from current development plan policy.
In addition the applicants consider that the granting of permission in these cases
would assist the Council in rectifying a shortfall in the district‟s five year land supply.
A full version of the applicants' case („The Context for the Submission of the
Applications‟) is attached in Appendix 2.
Given that the principal reason put forward in support of these applications is to
provide funds to facilitate development and improvements at Greshams School it is
important to be clear on the legitimacy in planning terms of such „facilitating‟
development. The advice of Counsel (which is based on case law) is that the
provision of finance towards enabling other development can be material to the
determination of a planning application, provided that there is a relevant and
sufficient connection between the two developments, and that real public benefits will
flow from the linked development.
Relevant Planning History Background
Site 1 (ref: PO/14/0283) comprises an area of land (5.8 ha) of which a smaller portion
(4.0 ha) was previously promoted as a site for residential development as part of the
Draft North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). Under draft
Policy H15 the site was proposed for approximately 120 dwellings. Subsequently,
following the public examination into the DPD, the Inspector in his report (December
2010) recommended that Site H15 be deleted in favour of another site in Holt (Site
HO1 land to the west of Woodfield Road). The Inspector concluded that "... H15's
peripherality to the town, its distance from the town centre, its inferior sustainability
score, and its lack of advantages in terms of both landscape impact and traffic and
transport considerations, make it an inferior choice compared with the similarly sized
but better located and more sustainable site HO1".
Regarding the rationale which was put forward for site H15 (which was in part its
potential financial contribution to the future of Greshams School), the inspector
commented as follows; " While no one doubts the longstanding and continuing
contribution of this famous school to the economy and life of the town, that does not
put it in a privileged position (vis a vis) other prospective developers) when seeking
planning permission for non-education related development".
In August 2010 an outline planning application was submitted by Greshams School
for residential development on Draft Allocation Site H15, but was subsequently
withdrawn following publication of the Inspector's report.
The adopted version of the Site Allocations DPD includes two sites for residential
development in Holt. These are:

Site HO1 – Land west of Woodfield Road. (Outline planning permission granted
for up to 85 dwellings of which 45% are to be affordable dwellings).
Development Committee
3
21 August 2014

Site HO9 – Land at Heath Farm / Hempstead Road. An approved development
brief provides for up to 290 dwellings plus commercial / employment uses.
(Development Committee resolved on 17th April 2014 to grant outline planning
permission on a large part of the site for up to 215 dwellings of which 24% are to
be affordable dwellings).
The question arises as to the status of the Inspector‟s report with specific reference
to the determination of the current application on Site 1. Counsel has advised that the
binding report does not form part of the development plan, but is potentially relevant
as an “other material consideration” when reaching a decision in relation to the
current proposals. In short, the decision maker is not bound by the previous
comments of the inspector but should give them appropriate consideration (weight)
alongside the other considerations which are relevant to the determination of the
application.
Development Plan Considerations
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined
in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The development plan for North Norfolk comprises:


The North Norfolk Core Strategy (adopted 2008), and
The North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted 2011)
As part of considering the current planning applications officers have sought
Counsel‟s advice with regard to the primacy of the development plan, specifically in
relation to the relevant policies on housing development. The advice received centres
around guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and in
particular paragraph 14 which provides for a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. In relation to decision-making, this requires that proposals which
accord with the development plan should be approved without delay, and that
permission should be granted where the “development plan is absent, silent or
relevant policies are out-of-date”, unless “any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the
policies of this Framework taken as a whole".
The relevance of this to the determination of the current planning applications is that
if the Core Strategy housing policies are considered to be out of date then there is a
presumption in favour of granting planning permission provided that a proposed
development does not run contrary to the policies of the NPPF as a whole.
The Council's Core Strategy (2008) pre-dates the publication of the NPPF (2012).
The NPPF however makes it clear that the mere fact that policies in a local plan (I.e.
Core Strategy) were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF does not mean that
they should be considered out of date (para. 211).
In April 2012 the Council‟s Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party considered
a report on the NPPF and its consequences upon the Core Strategy. Cabinet
subsequently agreed the Working Party‟s resolution that pending further
consideration of three specific policy areas the Council should continue to apply full
weight to the adopted Core Strategy policies. These policy areas did not affect the
principal housing policies relevant to the current applications.
It is considered therefore that the relevant Core Strategy policies in relation to
housing development in the district are not out of date and therefore the
Development Committee
4
21 August 2014
circumstances where departures from adopted policies might be justified in
paragraph 14 of the NPPF does not apply in the case of these applications. The
primacy of the development plan prevails and to quote the NPPF: "Proposed
development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and
proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise".
The following therefore is an assessment of the current applications in relation to the
housing policies of the Core Strategy:
Core Strategy Policy SS3 (Housing) spells out the Council's strategy to provide for
at least 8000 new dwellings during the plan period (2001-2021). In the case of Holt
700 new dwellings are proposed (also referred to in Policy SS9 – Holt). This figure is
to be achieved by a combination of past and existing planning permissions, future
windfall sites and land allocations.
To date 304 new dwellings have been built in Holt since the start of the plan period1.
The two allocations (sites HO1 and HO9) will provide up to a further 375 dwellings.
With the addition of windfall sites coming forward during the remainder of the plan
period and sites which already have planning permission but are yet to be built., it is
predicted that the 700 new dwellings in Holt by 2021 should be easily achieved,
without the addition of further large scale developments needing to come forward.
It is important to note that dwelling numbers which are included with the adopted
policies are expressed as minimums to be provided rather than upper limits which
should not be exceeded.
The sites subject to the current three applications are all outside of the development
boundary for Holt. They are situated in the 'Countryside' policy area. Core Strategy
Policy SS2 (Development in the Countryside) states that proposals which do not
fall within a specified list of development types which require a rural location will not
be permitted. The only types of housing developments which fall within this list are
'exception' affordable housing schemes and the re-use of existing buildings. Hence
the three applications do not accord with the development plan.
Notwithstanding the above or the case for Greshams School being put forward by the
applicants, it is important to focus on the fact that these are applications for housing
development and so they also need to be considered in terms of the key Core
Strategy housing policies.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 (Dwelling Mix and Type) requires on schemes of five or
more dwellings, at least 40% of the dwellings incorporate 2 bedrooms or fewer. The
purpose of this policy is to help re-balance a higher than average proportion of larger
house types in the district and to help meet the demand for smaller, more affordable
properties in all tenure types.
Although the current applications are in outline form with full details reserved for
future submission, in each of their supporting documents, a breakdown of the
expected house types is provided. As these are also included as part of the
submitted Viability Assessment it is both reasonable and relevant to consider the
issue at this stage. The viability has been based on 126 dwellings on Site 1, 19
dwellings on Site 2 and 6 dwellings on Site 3.
1
North Norfolk Residential Land Availability Statement 2014
Development Committee
5
21 August 2014
Site 1 is the only application to include properties with 2 or less bedrooms. 59 such
dwellings are indicated which corresponds to 46%, which more than meets the policy
requirement. Sites 2 and 3 however do not include any properties with 2 or less
bedrooms. Site 2 is exclusively for 4/5 bedroom units and Site 3 for 4 bedroom units.
Across all three sites, properties with 2 or less bedrooms represent 39% of the total.
Core Strategy Policy HO2 (Provision of Affordable Housing) requires on all
schemes of 10 or more dwellings or sites of more than 0.33 hectares, that not less
than 45% of the total number of dwellings are affordable (subject to viability). This
policy is applicable to all three applications. The applications fail significantly to
accord with this requirement with just 10% (i.e. 15 dwellings) being proposed as
affordable, with all of these being proposed on Site 1. The applicants contend that
any increase on this level would not provide the land sale value which they are
seeking to achieve.
Core Strategy Policy HO7 (Making the Most Efficient Use of Land) states that
residential developments should optimise the density of the site in a manner that
protects or enhances the character of the area. It goes on to state that densities in
main settlements should not be less than 40 dwellings per hectare. The proposed
densities of the three sites are as follows (dw/ha = dwellings per hectare):
Site 1 - 29 dw/ha (the developable area excluding a surrounding tree belt which
forms part of the application site).
Site 2 - 12.4 dw/ha
Site 3 – 12,5 dw/ha
Whilst to achieve developments of 40 dw/ha may be challenging in balancing the
efficient use of land with creating attractive and well-designed new communities (and
several recently approved major housing developments in the district have densities
more in the region of 30-35 dw/ha), the proposed densities for Sites 2 and 3 are
particularly low. In this respect the failure to comply with Policies HO1 and HO7 are
inter-related.
Development Viability
As referred to above a confidential development viability report has been submitted in
support of the applications. The applicants have provided an Executive Summary of
their viability report which is attached in Appendix 3. The report does not however
adopt the conventional approach to assessing development viability. Specifically it
does not accord with guidance provided by the Royal Institute of Chartered
Surveyors guidance or the guidance which accompanies the NPPF relating to how
land values should be established as part of considering development viability.
In brief, a conventional development viability report will firstly assess all the costs
involved in completing a housing development. These costs will in the main include
construction, infrastructure, exceptional costs (such as land de-contamination), fees
and S.106 contributions. Secondly an assessment will be made of sales values of the
completed dwellings. A „residual‟ land value is then calculated by deducting the costs
(which will also include a developer profit) from the total sales value.
Issues often arise when the residual land value is below a level which the landowner
is willing to sell. In these circumstances a developer will look at ways in which to
reduce costs and increase values. This is usually the point when the developers will
look at reducing the proposed amount of affordable housing provision and will submit
a viability assessment in an attempt to justify this. In such circumstances the local
Development Committee
6
21 August 2014
planning authority should be satisfied that the submitted viability report accurately
reflects the financial variables of the development, is reasonable in terms of land
value and developer profit, and does not unreasonably prejudice the level of
affordable housing provision and other community related contributions.
The significant difference with the viability report submitted with these applications is
that the land value has been set as a starting point to reflect the costs associated
with the building of the new sixth form centre (£4.412m) and refurbishment of the
school boarding facilities (£5.129m). The need to generate this level of land value
with the addition of planning fees, legal fees (£0.49m) and a 10% promoter‟s return
(£1.03m), has resulted in a viability assessment which shows that it is only viable to
provide 10% of the proposed number of dwellings as affordable dwellings.
The Council has commissioned an external consultant to comment on the submitted
viability report. The conclusions reached are as follows:
 The sales values used for the proposed market dwellings are too cautious.
 The agent fees were out of kilter with the market.
 The planning and master planning fees are high in relation to what would be
expected.
 The promoter‟s fee of 10% of the net land value (after planning, master planning
and legal fees are deducted from the receipt from the sale of the three sites) is
not a standard cost.
 Increasing the sales values increases the land value as a result there should be a
strong argument to increase the percentage of affordable housing. Allowing for
45% social (affordable housing), would provide a positive capital receipt to the
land owners – notwithstanding the specific issues relating to Gresham‟s School
and their requirement to build new teaching and housing blocks.
Subsequently following this initial consideration of the viability, the applicant
submitted a revised viability assessment which increased the sales income to reflect
sales values at June 2014 and also updated the build costs to reflect costs at June
2014 as the original viability assessment had used build costs for June 2013. The
external consultant has commented further as follows:
 There remain issues with the planning and master planning fees.
 The achieved land value is favourable for its location.
 The promoter‟s return of 10% is not unrealistic.
It should be noted however, that in using a promoter, a land owner would expect their
return from the sale of the land to be reduced by the promoter‟s return, as the
promoter has taken on the risk of not securing planning consent. In this case, the
methodology used for the calculation of the land value, includes the promoter‟s return
as a cost which the receipt from the sale of the land must cover and has served to
increase the receipt which is required to be received.
It is clear that the most notable factor affecting the viability of the three sites to
provide more than 10% affordable housing is the land value, which is considered to
be significantly higher than if a standard methodology for assessing land value had
been used.
For a further commentary on the viability issue the committee‟s attention is drawn to
the comments of the Council‟s Housing Team Leader - Strategy in each of the
application reports.
Development Committee
7
21 August 2014
Five Year Land Supply
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that proposed
development which accords with an up-to-date plan should be approved, and
proposed development which conflicts should be refused unless other material
considerations indicate otherwise. Where a development plan is out of date the
NPPF requires that development proposals should be approved unless the adverse
impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or the
proposals would be contrary to the policies of the NPPF. The guiding principle of the
NPPF is that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development.
The NPPF states that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be
considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year
supply of deliverable housing sites. In other words there is a presumption in favour of
approving applications for housing development where there is an absence of a five
year land supply and where the proposals represent a sustainable form of
development.
The applicant‟s Planning Statement refers to the Council‟s published Statement of
Five Year Land & Housing Trajectory (April 2013) which indicated a supply
equivalent to 4.68 years. On this basis it is contended that the Council should be
granting planning permission to make up this shortfall.
However the Council has recently published its Statement of Five Year Land &
Housing Trajectory as of April 2014. This demonstrates a supply equivalent to 5.4
years. The Council has obtained legal advice from Counsel confirming that the
relevance of the five year land supply position should be considered at the time of
determining a planning application rather than at the time of the application‟s
submission. On this basis it is not considered that there is currently a case to be
made in terms of five year land supply, for the Council to permit new housing
developments which do not accord with the development plan.
Section 106 Heads of Terms
The applicants have submitted draft heads of terms for a S.106 Obligation in the
event of all three applications being granted permission (see Appendix 4).These
include financial contributions towards the following:
Education
Libraries
Health Service
Visitor pressure mitigation
Travel Planning
Local „hopper‟ bus service
Bus shelter maintenance
Off-site public open space
Also included would be an obligation to „ring fence‟ funds received from the land
sales towards the capital works for the sixth form academic block and the boarding
house refurbishments. This would be after deduction of the costs of obtaining
planning permission and 10% promoters return. The monies are to be spent on these
projects within 5 years.
With reference to the provision of affordable housing the following terms are
proposed:
Development Committee
8
21 August 2014
1) Timed phasing of the 10% affordable dwellings on Site 1 during that site‟s
development.
2) An „uplift‟ clause specifying that in the event of there being a surplus of funds
from the final sale of land (i.e. not spent or committed on the capital works) this
would be split 50/50 between affordable housing provision and bursaries for local
children to attend Greshams School.
3) An additional „uplift‟ clause to provide a share of any gross development value
uplift in the event of an overage mechanism agreed through land sales.
4) A requirement to ring fence money from the sale of Sites 2 and 3 equivalent to
the value of providing 3 affordable dwellings until a similar number of affordable
dwellings are delivered on Site 1. If after a (unspecified) period the 3 dwellings
have not been delivered on Site 1, the monies to be paid to the Council for
affordable housing elsewhere in the district.
With reference to the above it should be made clear that (2) does not represent the
normal form of development uplift as it is related to land sales as opposed to
completed development sales. Whilst there is always a risk that uplift clauses linked
to development sales will not deliver any funding towards affordable housing, this risk
is increased with the form of uplift clause being proposed. Similarly with (3) the
likelihood that this would bring forward any funding towards affordable housing is
questionable.
Summary and Conclusions
The three planning applications under consideration all represent departures from the
development plan. They depart from the plan not only in terms of their location but
also with regard to key policies on the type and mix of housing development
proposed, in particular with regard to the provision of affordable housing.
Putting aside their location and momentarily supposing that the sites were allocated
for residential use, it is more than likely that the applications would be recommended
for refusal in view of the method of development viability used and the consequent
significantly low proportion of affordable housing being proposed. This under
provision is highlighted in comparison with what has been proposed elsewhere in the
district and on the two allocated sites in Holt in particular.
Because the development plan is regarded as up to date in relation to housing
policies the presumption is that planning permission should be refused, unless there
are material considerations to justify the grant of permission.
The material considerations which can be taken into account in determining the
applications are:
 The inspector's 2012 report with reference to site 1
 Any public benefits perceived to arise from the facilitating development
 Policies of the NPPF where they are relevant to the proposed development
 Any other considerations relating to the use and development of land in the
public interest
The key issue is what level of weight should be attached to each of these material
considerations, bearing in mind that they do not all pull in the same direction. The
Development Committee
9
21 August 2014
weight to be attributed to a material consideration is entirely for the decision maker
(subject to a possible challenge through the courts). Advice from Counsel is that the
Council may reasonably attach weight to the facilitating development case but in
doing so this should be assessed in terms of the real public benefits which will flow
from the linked development.
The view of officers is that first and foremost these applications are for housing
development and the primary consideration should therefore be that they are
assessed on this basis. Whilst weight may legitimately be attached to the facilitating
development argument, it is considered that, as proposed, there is an imbalance
between the interests of the school against the housing policies of the development
plan and the overall public interest which should reasonably flow from housing
developments of this nature.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
2.
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
Major Development
- Target Date: 10 June 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
C Road
Within 60m of Class A road
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site Public Rights of Way Footpath
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PO/10/0921 PO
Residential development
Withdrawn by Applicant 07/12/2010
THE APPLICATION
The application is to develop an open field which is surrounded on two sides by a
substantial woodland belt (5.8 ha. in total). The only detail applied for at this stage is
for access.
The site which is triangular in shape borders Cromer Road to the north and Grove
Lane to the west. The woodland belt extends the whole of the Cromer Road frontage
and over half of the Grove Lane frontage. The site's curved south/eastern boundary
backs onto the A148 (Holt by-pass) and land which is reserved for the potential
extension of the North Norfolk steam railway.
Vehicle access is proposed from approximately midway along the Cromer Road
frontage. A new 1.8m wide footway is proposed between the site entrance and the
junction of Cromer Road with Grove Lane. Further sections of new footway would
extend further along Cromer Road to connect with an existing footway leading
towards the town centre and along Grove Lane. 'Build-out' features are also
proposed on Grove Lane intended as traffic calming measures.
An indicative layout plan submitted with the application shows an estate style layout
of 126 dwellings. The dwellings are based on a mix of 16 one/two bedroom
Development Committee
10
21 August 2014
apartments, 42 two bedroom houses/bungalows, 38 three bedroom
houses/bungalows and 29 four bedroom houses. Small pockets of public open space
are indicated within the housing development and the surrounding woodland belts
are proposed for public access. Two points of pedestrian / cycle / emergency vehicle
access are shown linking with Cromer Road and Grove Lane respectively.
Amended plans have been submitted with references to 'no dig' methods of footpath
construction to protect tree roots.
The applicants have confirmed in writing that the following financial contributions are
being offered by means of a S.106 Planning Obligation:








SPA/SAC visitor pressure
Bus shelter maintenance
Off-site public open space
Healthcare (NHS)
Education
Libraries
Hopper bus service
Travel Planning
- £50 per dwelling
- £7,500
- £51,000
- £44,200
- £383,566 (approx)
- £60 per dwelling
- £35,000
- £20,000 (max)
The application is supported by the following documents:
Air Quality Assessment
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Archaeological Assessment
Design and Access Statement
Ecological Appraisal
Reptile Survey
Bat Survey
Energy Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment
Services Report
Heritage Statement
Noise Assessment
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Site Waste Management Report
Ground Investigation Report
Transport Assessment
Sustainable Travel Report
Travel Plan
Cost Models for school capital works
Viability Assessment (confidential)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is a significant major development which represents a departure from
current policy. A Committee site visit was held on 8th May.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports with the following conditions: That the number of low cost properties i.e affordable homes is negotiated and
increased
 Town Centre car parking is introduced. As a number of these new householders
could potentially drive to Holt, car parking must be made available i.e extend the
parking at Greshams Old School House.
Development Committee
11
21 August 2014










A contribution to the 'hopper bus' to encourage residents to use this facility.
Grove Lane is made access only, to allow residents and their visitors usage of
the road, but restrict other traffic which should complement the proposed pinch
points.
To address the problem of the second half of Grove Lane having no
pavement. NCC recently withdrew the scheme to make a footway at this point,
but we feel some measures must be introduced, preferably a footway, or some
other scheme to protect pedestrians.
That the maximum number of dwellings on this site should never exceed 126
properties
That the development should create new, safe and accessible environments
which are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping.
That the clustering of low cost (affordable) properties as illustrated on the
indicative layout is avoided and that they are integrated throughout the site
That the indicative additional tree line shown running between the site and the
proposed Orbital Railway Line and Holt bypass should be substantially increased
to provide a belt of appropriate landscaping to screen the site and act as a noise
barrier.
Consideration of a care home facility on this site
Street lights on Cromer Road leading down to Station Road
Street lights as required on Grove Lane
REPRESENTATIONS
39 letters of objection received which are summarised as follows:

















Contrary to the development plan.
The suitability of the site for housing has previously been rejected by a
government inspector and there have been no subsequent changes in
circumstances.
The funding of Greshams School should not be a planning consideration and
should not influence local housing decisions.
The needs of Greshams School should not override the legality and merits of the
application in planning terms.
Modernisation of Greshams School should not be to the detriment of the local
community.
The housing growth for Holt as identified in the Local Development Framework
has been satisfied by the two allocated sites in the town. Any further development
should be based on a particular need and adequate infrastructure to support it.
Need should be related to housing, not to achieve substantial private profit.
Inadequate local infrastructure to cater for additional housing (e.g. schools,
doctor's surgeries, car parks and sewage treatment).
Holt has no secondary school and limited capacity at the primary school.
Unsustainable development for Holt in terms of state schooling, health provision,
local employment, transport and recreation.
Lack of local employment opportunities to support additional housing.
The housing is not planned for local people.
Would result in the over-development of the town.
Loss of farmland, woodland and open green space.
Site is detached from the town and would result in an isolated estate.
Site not within reasonable walking distance to the town centre.
Site is remote from the town centre and primary school and would result in
dependence on car use.
Would exacerbate Holt's parking problems.
Development Committee
12
21 August 2014














Adverse effect upon character of Holt.
Represents urban sprawl.
The attractive surroundings to Holt are important to retain.
Development would be visible from the Holt bypass.
Would join up Holt and High Kelling, changing their identities.
Adverse impact upon local flora and fauna.
Local traffic safety.
Grove Lane is unsuitable to cater for further traffic.
Would lead to increased traffic using Grove Lane as a 'rat run', which has a lack
of continuous footpaths, resulting in a danger to pedestrians.
Proposals assume footpath improvements to southern side of Grove Lane by
Norfolk County Council, which have now been cancelled.
Footpaths along Cromer Road are in many places narrow.
Misleading statements made about local services available - Greshams School
(private), Holt railway station (tourist), Kelling Hospital (mainly rehabilitation).
Site better suited for employment or mixed use related development.
Understand that the number of additional houses required for Holt has already
been met.
30 signed copies of an identical letter received. The letter objects to the application
on the following grounds:
 Over-development - site not allocated in the Local Development Framework.
Would be larger than many Norfolk villages without any additional public services
to make it sustainable.
 Inspector's decision - The 2010 decision by the Government Inspector made it
clear that safeguarding Greshams School was not a planning consideration.
 Local identity - The development would join up Holt with High Kelling, changing
the identity of the local area for ever. Road features to Grove Lane would change
its semi-rural nature.
 Sustainability - Not sustainable in terms of state schooling, local employment
opportunities, transport and recreation. Site is remote from the town centre and
local services. Would increase dependency on the car.
 Road safety (Grove Lane) - Increased use as a rat run. Lack of footpaths /
pedestrian safety.
 Green space - Loss of.
Letter received from the RSPB objecting to the application on grounds that the
potential for recreational impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC and Ramsar
site has not been assessed. Quote:
"The Appropriate Assessment (AA) of the Site Allocations DPD concluded that
Adverse Effects on the Integrity (AEOI) of these sites as a result of increased visitor
pressure from housing developments could not be ruled out without a scheme of
mitigation in place. As a result, all housing allocations in the Holt area have a
requirement for a scheme of mitigation in the relevant policies of the Site Allocations
DPD. The RSPB consider that it is not possible to demonstrate that there is no AEOI
from this site in combination with those in the Site Allocations DPD, and that a
scheme of mitigation should therefore be required for this site." The letter concludes
by recommending that an Appropriate Assessment is carried out, and that "prior
approval of a scheme of mitigation" will be required.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is at present available capacity in the foul
sewerage network and at Holt Sewage Treatment Works to cater for the
development.
Requests a surface water drainage strategy is conditioned in the event of planning
Development Committee
13
21 August 2014
approval.
Environment Agency - No objection in terms of flood risk issues, subject to a
condition requiring the submission of a surface water scheme to be submitted with
any applications for reserved matters.
In terms of sewage disposal comments as follows:
'Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) both the Agency and local authorities
have a duty to ensure there is no deterioration of a watercourse, in this case the
River Glaven which currently has ‘very good’ status. To be compliant with the
Directive a scheme must not cause deterioration in a waterbody’s status or prevent
its achievement of good ecological status in the future.
The additional loading on Holt Sewage Treatment Works from this and other new
developments within the catchment may individually or cumulatively necessitate
Phosphate removal at the works in order to maintain the very good status of that
waterbody. As such there may be an issue with accommodating the full quantum of
growth proposed for Holt in the LDF over the longer term. This site was not allocated
in the LDF and so these housing figures could be over and above those considered
at that time - these extra houses could therefore limit the number of allocated houses
that can be built.'
Recommends a condition requiring that no development shall begin until a report
demonstrating that there is sufficient foul water capacity for the development has
been submitted and approved by the local planning authority. Where necessary the
report should include a scheme for improvement of the sewerage system and the
condition should require that no dwellings shall be occupied until the scheme as
approved has been implemented.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to a number of conditions
including the prior submission and approval of detailed plans for both on-site and offsite highway works, as well a financial contribution towards future maintenance of the
proposed bus shelter to be secured as part of a S.106 Obligation.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 Obligation:
£465,760 towards primary education (a combined sum relating to Sites 1,2 & 3).
£2,676 for 4 fire hydrants
£60 per dwelling for library provision.
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - No objection subject to a condition
requiring the prior submission and approval of a Materials Management PlanMinerals (MMP-M), the purpose of which will be to establish the extent to which onsite materials which could be extracted and used during the course of development.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - If planning permission is
granted, requests a condition requiring an agreed archaeological investigation to be
undertaken on the site.
County Council (Public Rights of Way) - Holt footpath no.9 is within the
development site. The submitted plan states that the short east-west section of this
route from Grove Lane into the proposed development is to be a shared pedestrian
and cycle access. As this is designated as a public footpath, there is no public right
for cycling on this section. The status of this short section of the footpath will need to
be appropriately upgraded to accommodate cycles.
The north-south section of footpath currently has unobstructed views eastwards
Development Committee
14
21 August 2014
across the field. This view will be restricted by the development, and presumably by
fences at the rear of the houses. It is not clear from the plans how wide the area with
the public footpath will be between the existing hedge and the rear gardens. The
width will need to be discussed with a public rights of way officer .
NHS England (NHSE) - Raises a 'holding objection'.
Comments that: "a residential development of up to 126 dwellings is likely to have a
significant impact on the NHS funding programme for the delivery of healthcare
provision within the local area, and specifically within the health catchment area of
the development. NHSE would therefore expect these impacts to be fully assessed
and mitigated by way of a developer contribution secured through a Section 106
planning obligation. The planning application does not include an assessment of the
likely healthcare impacts arising from the proposed development. A Healthcare
Impact Assessment (HIA) has therefore been prepared by NHSE to provide the basis
for a developer contribution towards capital funding to increase capacity within the
GP Catchment Area".
On the above basis NHSE request that a developer contribution of £44,200 should
be secured by a S.106 Planning Obligation. This calculation is based on an optimum
capacity of 1800 patients per GP. There are currently 8 GPs at the Holt practice
equating to an overall optimum capacity of 14,400 patients. This number is currently
exceeded by 163 patients and the additional estimated number arising from 126 new
homes is a further 312 patients. The sum of £44,200 equates to the addition of 0.17
of a GP and 22.1 sqm floorspace to respond to this additional demand.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions in respect of surface water,
sewage disposal, noise insulation measures (traffic noise) and land contamination.
Strategic Housing Comments relate to the three applications submitted on
behalf of Greshams School and the single submitted development viability
assessment:
There is a need for affordable housing in Holt with 100 households on the Housing
Register and in addition there are a further 109 households on the Transfer Register
and 646 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that they
require housing in Holt. The proposed development would therefore assist in meeting
some of the proven housing need.
It is noted that all three sites are outside of the settlement boundary for Holt. The
applicants are seeking planning permission on the basis that a material consideration
is the need for Gresham‟s School to expand its education provision and the
associated benefits to the economic prosperity of Holt of this.
The submitted viability assessment adopts a non-standard approach, as the land
value used in the viability assessment reflects Gresham‟s School‟s requirement that it
receives a receipt from the sale of the three sites which will fund (with some
borrowing) the construction of a new sixth form academic block (£4,412,000),
improvements to its boarding houses (£5,129,000) and the costs of planning, master
planning, legal costs and the promoters fee, totalling £11,062,215. The need to
generate this level of land value has resulted in a viability assessment which shows
that it is only viable to provide 10% of the proposed number of dwellings as
affordable dwellings. The approach taken to the assessment of what is an
appropriate land value for the three sites conflicts with the Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors guidance and Planning Practice Guidance on financial viability
in planning on how land values should be established.
Development Committee
15
21 August 2014
The proposal that the affordable housing is only be provided on site 1 is reflective of
the desire to maximise the land value across all three sites.
Gresham‟s School has stated that they are not able to borrow to fully fund the cost of
the construction of the sixth form block and improvements to boarding houses and
are only able to borrow part of the cost.
A review of the financial information
submitted by Gresham‟s School in the viability assessment has concluded that
school can only borrow a proportion of the costs of the proposed works.
The submitted viability assessment was considered internally and by an external
consultant. The initial consideration of the submitted viability by the external
consultant showed that:
 The sales values used for the proposed market dwellings are too cautious.
 The agent fees were out of kilter with the market.
 The planning and master planning fees are high in relation to what would be
expected.
 The promoter‟s fee of 10% of the net land value (after planning, master planning
and legal fees are deducted from the receipt from the sale of the three sites) is
not a standard cost.
 The land value can increase and there should be a strong argument to increase
the percentage of affordable housing. Allowing for 45% social (affordable
housing), would provide a positive capital receipt to the land owners –
notwithstanding the specific issues relating to Gresham‟s School and their
requirement to build new teaching and housing blocks.
It was therefore clear that all of the factors identified above are impacting negatively
on the viability of the three sites and the amount of affordable housing which they can
support. In addition there was concern that site 3, which the outline application
proposes is developed to provide up to 8 dwellings was not maximising the value of
this site. 6 larger dwellings would be more beneficial to the viability.
These views were discussed with the applicant who subsequently submitted a
revised viability assessment to reflect the sales values identified by the external
consultant. As these sales values reflected values at June 2014, the applicant also
updated the build costs within the viability assessment to reflect build costs at June
2014, as the original submitted viability assessment used June 2013 build costs. In
addition site 3 was amended to reflect 6 larger dwellings and the total number of
dwellings across the three sites reduced to 151. The revised viability assessment
however, still showed that it was only viable to provide 10% of the total number of
dwellings as affordable (15 dwellings).
The external consultant has considered the revised viability assessment and stated
that:
 The promoters return at 10% is not unrealistic to reflect the risk associated with
the scheme and the uncertainty that planning consent will be granted.
 Further clarification is needed of the planning and master planning fees which are
excessive.
 The increase in build costs has countered the increase in sales values, however,
the achieved land value per acre is favourable for its location.
 The argument put forward is looking at viability in reverse, as X {the cost of the
works and associated costs - £11,062,215} is needed to make it work. If the
school had no capital expenditure to make, the discussion would be different.
It should be noted, that whilst the promoter‟s fee at 10% of the net land receipt is not
Development Committee
16
21 August 2014
considered to be unrealistic, in normal practice this fee would be deducted from the
landowner‟s receipt for the land and so would reduce the return they receive. This is
not the case here. The sum the applicants need to achieve from the sale of the three
sites has been calculated as the cost of the proposed works to the school plus the
planning, master planning and legal fee and the promoters return. Therefore, the
total sum needed to be received from the sale of the three sites has been increased
by the requirement to pay the promoter‟s return of 10% of net land value. The
revised viability assessment shows that with 10% affordable housing, this sum is
almost achieved, leaving only a small amount which the applicant would need to fund
through a loan.
It is clear that had a standard approach been used in the viability assessment to the
value of the land for each of the three sites that it would be viable to provide more
than 10% affordable housing or 15 out of 151 new dwellings. The fact that
Gresham‟s School require such an extensive receipt from the sale of the site has
significantly affected the viability of these sites. In addition the issue around the
planning and master planning costs and the promoters return are contributing to the
viability issue. If a standard approach to the valuing of these three sites had been
used, it would be viable to provide more affordable housing.
It is proposed that if these three sites are granted planning permission, that there will
be a Section 106 Agreement which will contain an uplift arrangement to provide for a
possible contribution for affordable housing. The proposed uplift arrangement is not
the standard affordable housing uplift which the Council has used elsewhere.
Affordable housing uplifts are used where the Council has accepted a lower
percentage of affordable housing due to viability issues at the point of application in
order to capture any increase in viability once the site is developed. The Council‟s
standard wording captures increases in viability due to changes in costs and
increases in the sales values achieved for the completed market dwellings where this
results in more profit for the developer. The proposal for the three sites is instead,
that the receipt from the sale of the three sites will be placed into a ring fenced pot for
the works to build a sixth form college and remodel the boarding houses. After 5
years from the receipt of the final payment, the applicants will submit a viability
statement showing how the land receipt has been spent on the works and associated
on costs. Any funding left over would then be split 50/50, with the Council receiving
50% up to a cap of £2,000,000 for affordable housing and the remaining 50% being
used to support bursaries for local people to attend Gresham‟s School. This
proposal would limit the uplift available for a financial contribution for affordable
housing, as it is dependent on an increase in the receipt from the sales of the three
sites beyond what is shown in the viability assessment as required. In addition the
ability to receive a payment for affordable housing would be dependent on the costs
of the construction of the sixth form college and improvement works to the boarding
houses not increasing above the cost currently shown by the applicant. There is
always a risk that the Council will not receive any funding for affordable housing
through the operation of an Affordable Housing Uplift, however, the proposed
arrangement for this site does increase that risk as the uplift does not relate to the
costs of the development of the site, but instead to the land receipt and costs
incurred by the applicant on works to Gresham‟s School.
The applicants have also offered an additional affordable housing uplift clause which
would enable a share of any uplift in the sales income from the completed dwellings
to be provided to the Council. The share the Council would receive is not stated and
the exact detail of what is proposed is not known. However, this offer is reliant on the
applicants negotiating the inclusion of this clause as part of the sale of the three sites
with the purchaser(s). It is therefore, not possible to comment on whether this would
Development Committee
17
21 August 2014
be a more acceptable uplift clause to the Council or whether this would increase the
likelihood of receiving monies to provide additional, offsite, affordable housing.
To conclude, assessment of the original and revised viability assessments has
shown that the viability of the site has been constrained by the non-standard
methodology used to establish the land values for the three sites and has resulted in
a lower level of affordable housing than it would otherwise be possible to provide.
The applicant‟s proposal for an affordable housing uplift is again non-standard and
would increase the risk that the Council would not receive a financial contribution for
affordable housing. Strategic Housing therefore objects to the approval of the
planning applications as they will not deliver the viable amount of affordable housing.
Conservation, Design Officer - No substantive comments at this stage on the
basis that the proposed development would; a) not impact upon any designated
heritage assets, and b) is in outline form with only access to be considered.
Nonetheless makes the following two points:
1. If the illustrative layout is intended to be a demonstration that any future scheme
would be locally distinctive and provide a strong sense of place, it appears less than
successful in its aims. Instead, the impression given is of a fairly conventional
suburban layout with rows of standard house types laid out in less than imaginative
ways.
2. As existing, Cromer Road marks the transition out of the town into the
countryside. It therefore seems rather unfortunate to introduce a new footway all the
way along the southern side of the road. Particularly with alternatives available on the
northern side of the road and within the boundaries of the site, the further
suburbanisation of this rural route is not something that should be encouraged.
Landscape Officer - Comments are divided into four issues: landscape/visual
impact, trees (arboriculture), ecology and cumulative impact:
Landscape and Visual Impact
The site lies within the „Wooded with Parkland‟ landscape as defined in the North
Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment. Any development in this location should
seek to retain the wooded character which is so distinctive of this part of Holt. This
woodland edge to the town reflects its Anglo-Saxon origins (the word Holt means
„wooded‟). The proposals appropriately retain the 40m wide woodland strip along the
north and west boundaries of the site.
The illustrative layout proposes a high density settlement that is not typical of this
part of Holt.
The tree and shrub belt along the southern boundary would require substantial
enhancement and widening if it is to provide an effective visual and noise screen
from the by-pass. A lower density allowing for much more tree and shrub planting
within the site reflecting the mature woodland surrounds and a higher proportion of
open space would be a more appropriate solution.
The proposed footway along Cromer Road will reduce the semi-rural character that
typifies this part of the outskirts of Holt. It will probably require the removal of trees.
Given that there is an existing footway on the other side of the road, the requirement
for another footpath is questioned.
Arboricultural Issues
The proposed access off Cromer Road will require the loss of a number of trees.
Given the density and extent of the mature woodland belts making up this site, this
loss can be accommodated, so long as there is extensive replacement planting within
Development Committee
18
21 August 2014
the whole scheme.
The area within the woodland proposed for the public open space does give rise to
concern. This will inevitably necessitate the loss of more trees in a prominent part of
the site where the mature woodland presently provides important and effective
screening. It is suggested that the open space could be accommodated elsewhere
within the site, perhaps adjacent to the inner edge of the woodland belt, providing a
part wooded, part open public landscape.
The loss of trees from the woodland belt would have to be mitigated by substantial
planting within the proposed development. This would be an opportunity for the
developer to provide a quality scheme that would blend in with the surrounding area.
In the event of outline planning permission being granted, any subsequent detailed
application would need to include an updated arboricultural method statement, a long
term management plan and details of supporting funding for managing the northern
tree belt as recreational open space, plus a landscaping plan with details of
establishment and longer term management.
Ecological Issues
The application is accompanied by an Ecological Appraisal, a Bat Survey, and a
Reptile Survey. The reports have been prepared by qualified ecologists in
accordance with recognised standards and procedures.
The Ecological Appraisal indicates that the strip of plantation woodland on the
Cromer Road (and to a lesser degree Grove Lane) has the greatest ecological value
on the site. The woodland has significant potential for bats (specifically Barbastelle)
as both a roosting location but also for commuting and foraging. The grassland holds
some potential for reptiles.
The Bat Survey report records a variety of six species of bat using the woodland for
foraging and commuting. The report concludes that the trees within the woodland
area affected by the proposed access route did not at the time of survey hold any
significant bat roosts (i.e. maternity colonies). However, the transient nature of the
species means that it remains a possibility that an individual tree could potentially
have a roost at any given time.
The importance of the woodland belt along the Cromer Road for foraging bats is
significant. Some foraging activity was observed along the northern side of the belt
(under the canopy alongside the road), whilst other foraging activity was observed to
the south of the belt up to 20m into the field. There is the possibility that by opening
up the woodland canopy (creation of the access road and open space) the activity of
the bats will be disrupted. However, the report suggests that most bat species will
habituate to small gaps if left unlit.
Barbastelle bats are particularly sensitive to light and are locally listed as a Priority
Species; therefore mitigation will be required to ensure that the site remains an
attractive foraging and commuting area for them. The report recommends that no
artificial lighting is directed towards the woodland belt along the west and northern
boundaries. In addition the report recommends that no artificial light is used to
illuminate the new access roads and that excessive light spill from the new dwellings
is kept to a minimum.
Whilst such mitigation measures are in theory possible, the indicative layout leaves
very little room for a buffer strip to be provided along the woodland belt to the north.
A marginal strip of land adjacent to the woodland is shown to be given over to an
access road, which is likely to be required to be lit for safety reasons. Therefore the
recommended levels of light reduction would not be achievable on the basis of the
indicative layout. If the number of dwellings were reduced then it may be possible to
develop the site without impacting upon bats using the woodland. Otherwise it is
considered that it would be difficult to conclude that the development would achieve a
net gain in biodiversity as per the requirements of the NPPF.
The site is within 1.5km of the Holt Lowes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
Development Committee
19
21 August 2014
which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and just
over 5km from the North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the
North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA). These sites are under extreme
pressure and risk of disturbance from increasing numbers of visitors, which is having
a negative impact on some of the conservation interests of those sites. As the
proposed development is not located on one of the site allocations in the Local
Development Framework it has not previously been subject to a Habitats Regulations
Assessment. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by the
Council (as a 'competent authority' under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010) in respect of the current proposals.
The Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the proposed development would
not adversely affect the integrity of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC; however, without
mitigation, the development would adversely affect the integrity of the North Norfolk
Coast sites. The applicants are offering a financial contribution towards a scheme of
monitoring and mitigation to minimise impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC
arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, similar to that achieved on sites
which have been allocated for residential development. This together with on-site
comprehensive green infrastructure/public open space, will ensure that adverse
effects on the integrity of the North Norfolk Coast sites are avoided.
Cumulative Impact
This is one of three sites proposed for residential development in close proximity to
one another. Their combined cumulative effect will be extend the built form of the
town eastwards into its woodland setting.
Given that these sites are all outside the defined settlement boundary and are
therefore contrary to policy, there should be greater design emphasis than that
already demonstrated on retaining the „edge of town‟, woodland character and thus
to minimise the „suburban‟ effects of the three adjacent developments.
Natural England - Initial comments received referred to the proximity of the
proposed sites to both national and international designated habitat sites which are
afforded protection under the 'Habitats Regulations', namely the Holt Lowes Site SSSI (national) and the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (international),
and the issue of visitor pressure from new residential developments which may
impact upon the sensitivity of these sites. The advice received was that it is not
possible to conclude that the proposals are unlikely to result in significant effects
upon these sites. Accordingly Natural England advised that the District Council
should not grant permission before, in its role as competent authority under the
Habitats Regulations, it has received sufficient information to screen the proposals
for the likelihood of significant effects.
Following the applicants subsequent response and offer to contribute £50 per
dwelling towards a scheme of mitigation for impacts upon these sensitive sites in
combination with those of allocated sites within the wider area Natural England have
commented as follows:
"I have reviewed the documents that the applicant has provided and am pleased with
the approach that they have taken. It is my view that it is still not possible to
determine no Likely Significant Effect at the initial stage of Habitats Regulation
screening; whilst we accept that the application is only a relatively small proportion of
development planned for the District, recreational disturbance and therefore its
effects are a cumulative issue. Whilst it is for you as the competent authority to
determine whether or not you have the information needed to complete a Habitat
Regulations Assessment, my advice is that the proposed mitigation is likely to be
sufficient to enable a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. I
Development Committee
20
21 August 2014
would suggest, should you be minded to grant consent, that you include an
appropriately worded planning condition (and possibly S1.06 agreement) which
ensures the mitigation measures, including the contribution towards delivery of
strategic green infrastructure are secured."
Countryside and Parks Manager - Advises that a development of 126 dwellings
generates an open space requirement of 0.92ha. This requirement is satisfied as the
developers are proposing about 1.3Ha if both the woodland and open space land
within the development is included.
In terms of children's play provision the areas indicated within the development itself
are too small. Play areas need to be of sufficient size to allow recreational use
without adjacent residents being inconvenienced through noise and disturbance
generated by users. As the development proposes few affordable houses (and as
such there will be low numbers of children), it would make sense for an off-site
contribution to be made rather than implementing play provision on-site. The 126
dwelling site would generate a contribution of £51,000 which could be used in
improving the Peacock lane recreation ground and play area in Holt.
The Council‟s approach to the future management and maintenance of public open
space relates to its likely future use. Where open space is of benefit to the new
residents only, then the Council would not normally adopt the land. Where the open
space has a greater potential use in that it would provide an amenity and resource for
the wider community, then the Council would be prepared to adopt the land. In this
case the open space and woodland is likely to be used by residents of the
development only. Therefore, should the scheme proceed, the developer should
make arrangements for the woodland and open space to be managed independently
of the Council.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Development Committee
21
21 August 2014
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy.
2. Landscape and ecological impacts / settlement character.
3. Dwelling mix, density and affordable housing.
4. Access.
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda
which relates both to this application and the other two applications submitted on
behalf of Greshams School (refs: 14/0284 & 14/0274).
The application site is located beyond the eastern built up fringe of Holt. The main
part of the site comprises a single open field. It also includes woodland belts on two
sides bordering with Cromer Road and Grove Lane.
A smaller part of the site was proposed as a housing allocation at the draft version
stage of the North Norfolk Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD).
However following the examination in public the inspector rejected the site in favour
for an alternative site off Woodfield Road (Site HO1). In coming to this decision the
inspector described the site and compared it to site HO1 in the following terms:
'.... the site is about 1 km. from Holt town centre, and is located within a peripheral,
semi-rural area which is detached from the main built-up parts of Holt. It is largely
surrounded by other farmland, woodland, and school playing fields. As a result it has
a significantly lower sustainability score in the Sustainability Appraisal compared with
site HO1. It is much less well integrated with the town, and the proposed 120
dwellings would appear as a somewhat detached, even anomalous outlying
residential estate.'
The site lies within the 'countryside' policy area where under Policy SS2 of the Core
Strategy housing development is not permitted (apart from 'exception' affordable
housing developments and the re-use of existing buildings). The application therefore
represents a departure from the development plan.
Core Strategy Policy EN2 which is applicable to this application states that
development proposals should protect, conserve and, where possible enhance,
amongst other issues, settlement character and distinctive landscape features (such
as watercourses, woodland and ecological corridors for wildlife).
In terms of the physical impact of housing development in this location, the site is
well screened by the woodland belts on two sides and to a lesser extent by trees /
hedgerows around its remaining borders, so it would not be visible in the wider
landscape. However the comments of the previous inspector are still relevant in that
the proposed development '... would appear as a somewhat detached, even
anomalous outlying residential estate'.
Furthermore the indicative layout plan submitted with the application provides little
confidence that development of the site would provide sufficient quality or mitigation
to counter the loss of this part of Holt's undeveloped rural fringe. For example the
plan makes no suggestion that any tree planting would be integrated within the
development itself to soften what, as shown, would otherwise resemble a fairly
characterless suburban estate. In addition the absence of any significant landscaping
Development Committee
22
21 August 2014
buffer along the boundary with the A148 Holt by-pass would result in the existing
landscaped approach to the town taking on a much more urban appearance, as well
as raising amenity issues to future residents of the site. The layout would also appear
to contradict the recommendations of the submitted bat survey in terms of avoiding
artificial lighting towards the woodland. In terms of open space the layout shows no
practical provision within the housing development itself, but rather relies on this
being provided within the surrounding woodland including an area where trees are
indicated to be removed for this purpose. These factors only add to the more
fundamental misgivings regarding the proposal, although this is not to say that a
more acceptable form of layout could not be designed.
In terms of the specific housing policies of the Core Strategy, Policy HO2 requires
that on schemes of 10 dwellings or more, not less than 45% of the total number of
dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing (subject to viability). The
proposal falls well short of this requirement. The applicants are proposing that 10% of
the combined total of dwellings on both this site and Sites 2 & 3 (refs: 14/0284 &
14/0274) are delivered solely on this site. As proposed this would equate to a
maximum of 15 affordable dwellings. This maximum offer of affordable housing is
derived from the submitted development viability assessment which assumes a total
land value from the three sites in the region of £11.067m. The committee's attention
is drawn to the comments of the Council's Strategic Housing Officer (above) with
specific reference to the submitted viability assessment, the conclusions reached by
the Council's independent consultant regarding development viability and the
consequences upon the low provision of affordable housing.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. Whilst details of
the house types are not applied for at this stage the submitted design and access
statement (revised) refers to a housing mix comprising 46% properties with two
bedrooms or less which would more than meet the policy requirement.
Core Strategy HO7 advocates housing densities of not less than 40 dwellings per
hectare (dw/ha) in Principal Settlements such as Holt, but this is subject to the
proviso that the density of a site 'protects or enhances the character of an area'.
Maximum densities approved on allocated greenfield sites over the last year or so
have tended to be more in the region of up to 35 dw/ha. On this site, excluding the
area of woodland belt which borders it, 126 dwellings would equate to a density of 29
dw/ha. Whilst this is not a particularly high density, as referred to above, the
submitted indicative layout plan fails to provide any particular comfort that 126
dwellings would result in a development which would respect the landscape
character of the area, provide adequate relief between the housing and adjacent
main road, properly address issues of wildlife mitigation and provide a reasonable
amount and type of public open space.
Core Strategy EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or
indirect adverse effect to nationally designated sites or protected species will not be
permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the adverse
impacts and suitable prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are
provided. The issue relates to increased visitor pressure arising from new residential
development in the district, in particular upon the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA.
Natural England has subsequently advised that the applicants' offered payment of
£50 per dwelling (secured by S.106 Obligation) towards measures to mitigate against
the effects of increased visitor pressure should be sufficient to address this particular
concern. Similarly the Appropriate Assessment (Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010) undertaken by the Council has reached the same
Development Committee
23
21 August 2014
conclusion.
Finally the only physical detail being applied for at this stage relates to the access
arrangements to serve the proposed development. These involve both the road
access onto Cromer Road as well new footway provision along lengths of Cromer
Road and Grove Lane. Technically these details are acceptable to the highway
authority, although visually they will have an impact upon the wooded character of
this approach into the town, including the loss of certain trees. In the case of the
footway along the Cromer Road frontage, there is the possibility that an alternative
route could be directed within the development site, subject to it meeting the highway
authority's adoption standards.
Conclusions
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined
in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The principle of housing on this site does not accord with the development
plan (Policy SS2 - Development in the Countryside). Neither does the proposal
accord in terms of specific housing policy (Policy HO2 - Provision of affordable
housing). In addition it is considered that the site is a far from ideal one to develop
for housing (a fact concluded by the previous planning inspector), one which would
have a potentially negative effect upon the rural character of the area and ecology of
the site (Policies EN2 and EN9). Whilst these latter impacts represent the sort of
compromises which sometimes have to be made in circumstances where there is a
recognised need to provide new sites for housing or other forms of development, this
is not currently the case with this site.
The submission put forward by the applicants (referred to in detail in the preceding
report) is that the interests of Greshams School (and in turn the benefits which
accrue from the school to the economy of Holt) represent a material consideration
sufficient enough to outweigh the development plan in this case. Notwithstanding the
arguments put forward by the applicants, first and foremost this is a planning
application for residential development and as such it should be determined on that
basis. For the reasons referred to both in this report and the preceding report it is not
considered that the case put forward by the applicants is sufficient to outweigh the
significant departures from the development plan which this application represents.
Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 3 - Housing
SS 9 - Holt
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
The proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development which would be
contrary to the development plan in the following respects:
(a) The application site lies outside of the development boundary for Holt in an area
designated as 'countryside' in the adopted Core Strategy. Housing development
Development Committee
24
21 August 2014
(apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the conversion of
existing buildings) is not a use permitted in the countryside policy area under Core
Strategy Policy SS 2. The proposal would lead to the creation of an outlying
residential estate detached from the existing built up area of Holt and most of the
town's services and facilities.
(b) The proposal fails to provide for an appropriate proportion of affordable housing,
contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy HO 2.
(c) Contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy EN 2, the applicants have failed
to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact
upon the character and appearance of the rural fringe to Holt, and in particular the
approach into the town along the A148.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no material considerations or
public benefits associated with the proposed development, of sufficient weight, to
indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the
development plan.
3.
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
Major Development
- Target Date: 10 June 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Unclassified Road
C road
Tree Preservation Order
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/20001224 PF
Change of use from agricultural land to school playing field
Approved 29/01/2001
THE APPLICATION
The application is to develop an existing school playing field (1.53ha) for 19
dwellings. The only detail applied for at this stage is for access.
The site which is rectangular in shape has road frontages to three sides (Cromer
Road to the north and Grove Lane to the east and south) and its western boundary
borders the grounds of a listed building (The Grove).
Vehicle access is proposed from the eastern side of the site onto Grove Lane. New
1.8m wide footways are proposed alongside the site‟s three road frontages,
extending beyond the site‟s Cromer Road frontage linking with an existing footway
beyond the western boundary of The Grove. Similarly the footway would be extended
along Grove Lane to link with the footway proposed along the frontage of site 3
(application ref: 14/0274). 'Build-out' features are also proposed on Grove Lane
intended as traffic calming measures. Amended plans have been submitted with
references to 'no dig' methods of footpath construction to protect tree roots.
Development Committee
25
21 August 2014
Illustrative plans submitted with the application indicate 19 detached dwellings served
from an access road running north/south centrally within the site. The dwellings are
based on a mix of six 4 bedroom properties and thirteen 4/5 bedroom properties. No
public open space is indicated.
The applicants have confirmed in writing that the following financial contributions are
being offered by means of a S.106 Planning Obligation:




SPA/SAC visitor pressure
Off-site public open space
Education
Libraries
- £50 per dwelling
- £7,000
- £57,839 (approx)
- £60 per dwelling
The application is supported by the following documents:
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Archaeological Assessment
Design and Access Statement
Ecological Appraisal
Energy Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment
Services Report
Heritage Statement
Noise Assessment
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Site Waste Management Report
Ground Investigation Report
Transport Assessment
Sustainable Travel Report
Travel Plan
Cost Models for school capital works
Viability Assessment (confidential)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application is a significant major development which represents a departure from
current policy. A Committee site visit was held on 8th May.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports with the following conditions: That the maximum number of dwellings on this site should never exceed 19
properties
 That the development should create new, safe and accessible environments
which are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping.
 That the garage blocks for Plot 1, Plot 4, Plot 10 and Plot 14 as shown on the
indicative layout, are repositioned away from the extreme edges of the site to
enable a substantial belt of appropriate landscaping to screen and fully
encompass the site.
 That all existing trees are retained.
 The number of affordable homes should be negotiated and increased.
REPRESENTATIONS
24 letters of objection received which are summarised as follows:

Contrary to the development plan.
Development Committee
26
21 August 2014



























The funding of Greshams School should not be a planning consideration and
should not influence local housing decisions. (As per inspectors decision).
The needs of Greshams School should not override the legality and merits of
the application in planning terms.
Consent has been granted for approximately 700 new houses in Holt under
the strategic plan. Holt has not got the infrastructure to cope with even more
houses.
Modernisation of Greshams School should not be to the detriment of the local
community.
The housing growth for Holt as identified in the Local Development
Framework has been satisfied by the two allocated sites in the town. Any
further development should be based on a particular need and adequate
infrastructure to support it. Need should be related to housing, not to achieve
substantial private profit.
Inadequate local infrastructure to cater for additional housing (e.g. schools,
doctor's surgeries, car parks and sewage treatment).
Limited capacity at the primary school.
Unsustainable development for Holt in terms of state schooling, health
provision, local employment, transport and recreation.
Lack of local employment opportunities to support additional housing.
The housing is not planned for local people.
Would result in the over-development of the town.
Loss of open green space which should be retained for sport.
Site is detached from the town and would result in an isolated estate.
Site not within reasonable walking distance to the town centre.
Site is remote from the town centre and primary school and would result in
dependence on car use.
Would exacerbate Holt's parking problems.
Adverse effect upon character of this part of Holt.
Represents urban sprawl.
The attractive surroundings to Holt are important to retain.
Would join up Holt and High Kelling, changing their identities.
Local traffic safety.
Grove Lane is unsuitable to cater for further traffic.
Would lead to increased traffic using Grove Lane as a 'rat run', which has a
lack of continuous footpaths, resulting in a danger to pedestrians.
Footpaths along Cromer Road are in many places narrow.
Loss of sports field.
Loss of attractive open space.
Insensitive impact upon adjacent listed building.
30 signed copies of an identical letter received. The letter objects to the application
on the following grounds:
 Over-development - site not allocated in the Local Development Framework.
 Inspector's decision - The 2010 decision by the Government inspector made
it clear that safeguarding Greshams School was not a planning
consideration.
 Local identity - Road features to Grove Lane would change its semi-rural
nature.
 Sustainability - Not sustainable in terms of state schooling, local employment
opportunities, transport and recreation. Site is remote from the town centre
and local services. Would increase dependency on the car.
 Road safety (Grove Lane) - Increased use as a rat run. Lack of footpaths /
pedestrian safety.
 Green space - Loss of.
Development Committee
27
21 August 2014
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to a number of conditions
including the prior submission and approval of detailed plans for both on-site and offsite highway works.
Anglian Water - Confirms that there is at present available capacity in the foul
sewerage network and at Holt Sewage Treatment Works to cater for the
development.
Requests a surface water drainage strategy is conditioned in the event of planning
approval.
Environment Agency - No objection in terms of flood risk issues, subject to a
condition requiring the submission of a surface water scheme to be submitted with
any applications for reserved matters.
In terms of sewage disposal comments as follows:
'Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) both the Agency and local authorities
have a duty to ensure there is no deterioration of a watercourse, in this case the
River Glaven which currently has „very good‟ status. To be compliant with the
Directive a scheme must not cause deterioration in a waterbody‟s status or prevent
its achievement of good ecological status in the future.
The additional loading on Holt Sewage Treatment Works from this and other new
developments within the catchment may individually or cumulatively necessitate
Phosphate removal at the works in order to maintain the very good status of that
waterbody. As such there may be an issue with accommodating the full quantum of
growth proposed for Holt in the LDF over the longer term. This site was not allocated
in the LDF and so these housing figures could be over and above those considered
at that time - these extra houses could therefore limit the number of allocated houses
that can be built.'
Recommends a condition requiring that no development shall begin until a report
demonstrating that there is sufficient foul water capacity for the development has
been submitted and approved by the local planning authority. Where necessary the
report should include a scheme for improvement of the sewerage system and the
condition should require that no dwellings shall be occupied until the scheme as
approved has been implemented.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 Obligation:
£465,760 towards primary education (a combined sum relating to Sites 1,2 & 3).
£892 for 1 fire hydrant
£60 per dwelling for library provision.
County Council (Minerals and Waste) - No objection subject to a condition
requiring the prior submission and approval of a Materials Management PlanMinerals (MMP-M), the purpose of which will be to establish the extent to which onsite materials which could be extracted and used during the course of development.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) archaeological work.
Confirms no requirement for
Sport England Objects on grounds that the proposal would result in the
permanent loss of an existing playing field without being replaced by a new playing
field. Accordingly it is considered that the proposal would not satisfy Sport England's
Development Committee
28
21 August 2014
policy on the loss of playing fields, or the advice contained within para. 74 of the
National Planning Policy Framework.
Should the Council be minded to grant planning permission the application should be
referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning
(Consultation) (England) Direction 2009.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions in respect of surface water,
sewage disposal and land contamination.
Strategic Housing
- Comments relate to the three applications submitted on
behalf of Greshams School and the single submitted development viability
assessment:
There is a need for affordable housing in Holt with 100 households on the Housing
Register and in addition there are a further 109 households on the Transfer Register
and 646 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that they
require housing in Holt. The proposed development would therefore assist in meeting
some of the proven housing need.
It is noted that all three sites are outside of the settlement boundary for Holt. The
applicants are seeking planning permission on the basis that a material consideration
is the need for Gresham‟s School to expand its education provision and the
associated benefits to the economic prosperity of Holt of this.
The submitted viability assessment adopts a non-standard approach, as the land
value used in the viability assessment reflects Gresham‟s School‟s requirement that it
receives a receipt from the sale of the three sites which will fund (with some
borrowing) the construction of a new sixth form academic block (£4,412,000),
improvements to its boarding houses (£5,129,000) and the costs of planning, master
planning, legal costs and the promoters fee, totalling £11,062,215. The need to
generate this level of land value has resulted in a viability assessment which shows
that it is only viable to provide 10% of the proposed number of dwellings as
affordable dwellings. The approach taken to the assessment of what is an
appropriate land value for the three sites conflicts with the Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors guidance and Planning Practice Guidance on financial viability
in planning on how land values should be established.
The proposal that the affordable housing is only be provided on site 1 is reflective of
the desire to maximise the land value across all three sites.
Gresham‟s School has stated that they are not able to borrow to fully fund the cost of
the construction of the sixth form block and improvements to boarding houses and
are only able to borrow part of the cost.
A review of the financial information
submitted by Gresham‟s School in the viability assessment has concluded that
school can only borrow a proportion of the costs of the proposed works.
The submitted viability assessment was considered internally and by an external
consultant.
The initial consideration of the submitted viability by the external
consultant showed that:
 The sales values used for the proposed market dwellings are too cautious.
 The agent fees were out of kilter with the market.
 The planning and master planning fees are high in relation to what would be
expected.
 The promoter‟s fee of 10% of the net land value (after planning, master
Development Committee
29
21 August 2014

planning and legal fees are deducted from the receipt from the sale of the
three sites) is not a standard cost.
The land value can increase and there should be a strong argument to
increase the percentage of affordable housing. Allowing for 45% social
(affordable housing), would provide a positive capital receipt to the land
owners – notwithstanding the specific issues relating to Gresham‟s School
and their requirement to build new teaching and housing blocks.
It was therefore clear that all of the factors identified above are impacting negatively
on the viability of the three sites and the amount of affordable housing which they can
support. In addition there was concern that site 3, which the outline application
proposes is developed to provide up to 8 dwellings was not maximising the value of
this site. 6 larger dwellings would be more beneficial to the viability.
These views were discussed with the applicant who subsequently submitted a
revised viability assessment to reflect the sales values identified by the external
consultant. As these sales values reflected values at June 2014, the applicant also
updated the build costs within the viability assessment to reflect build costs at June
2014, as the original submitted viability assessment used June 2013 build costs. In
addition site 3 was amended to reflect 6 larger dwellings and the total number of
dwellings across the three sites reduced to 151. The revised viability assessment
however, still showed that it was only viable to provide 10% of the total number of
dwellings as affordable (15 dwellings).
The external consultant has considered the revised viability assessment and stated
that:
 The promoters return at 10% is not unrealistic to reflect the risk associated
with the scheme and the uncertainty that planning consent will be granted.
 Further clarification is needed of the planning and master planning fees which
are excessive.
 The increase in build costs has countered the increase in sales values,
however, the achieved land value per acre is favourable for its location.
 The argument put forward is looking at viability in reverse, as X {the cost of
the works and associated costs - £11,062,215} is needed to make it work. If
the school had no capital expenditure to make, the discussion would be
different.
It should be noted, that whilst the promoter‟s fee at 10% of the net land receipt is not
considered to be unrealistic, in normal practice this fee would be deducted from the
landowner‟s receipt for the land and so would reduce the return they receive. This is
not the case here. The sum the applicants need to achieve from the sale of the three
sites has been calculated as the cost of the proposed works to the school plus the
planning, master planning and legal fee and the promoters return. Therefore, the
total sum needed to be received from the sale of the three sites has been increased
by the requirement to pay the promoter‟s return of 10% of net land value. The
revised viability assessment shows that with 10% affordable housing, this sum is
almost achieved, leaving only a small amount which the applicant would need to fund
through a loan.
It is clear that had a standard approach been used in the viability assessment to the
value of the land for each of the three sites that it would be viable to provide more
than 10% affordable housing or 15 out of 151 new dwellings. The fact that
Gresham‟s School require such an extensive receipt from the sale of the site has
significantly affected the viability of these sites. In addition the issue around the
Development Committee
30
21 August 2014
planning and master planning costs and the promoters return are contributing to the
viability issue. If a standard approach to the valuing of these three sites had been
used, it would be viable to provide more affordable housing.
It is proposed that if these three sites are granted planning permission, that there will
be a Section 106 Agreement which will contain an uplift arrangement to provide for a
possible contribution for affordable housing. The proposed uplift arrangement is not
the standard affordable housing uplift which the Council has used elsewhere.
Affordable housing uplifts are used where the Council has accepted a lower
percentage of affordable housing due to viability issues at the point of application in
order to capture any increase in viability once the site is developed. The Council‟s
standard wording captures increases in viability due to changes in costs and
increases in the sales values achieved for the completed market dwellings where this
results in more profit for the developer. The proposal for the three sites is instead,
that the receipt from the sale of the three sites will be placed into a ring fenced pot for
the works to build a sixth form college and remodel the boarding houses. After 5
years from the receipt of the final payment, the applicants will submit a viability
statement showing how the land receipt has been spent on the works and associated
on costs. Any funding left over would then be split 50/50, with the Council receiving
50% up to a cap of £2,000,000 for affordable housing and the remaining 50% being
used to support bursaries for local people to attend Gresham‟s School. This
proposal would limit the uplift available for a financial contribution for affordable
housing, as it is dependent on an increase in the receipt from the sales of the three
sites beyond what is shown in the viability assessment as required. In addition the
ability to receive a payment for affordable housing would be dependent on the costs
of the construction of the sixth form college and improvement works to the boarding
houses not increasing above the cost currently shown by the applicant. There is
always a risk that the Council will not receive any funding for affordable housing
through the operation of an Affordable Housing Uplift, however, the proposed
arrangement for this site does increase that risk as the uplift does not relate to the
costs of the development of the site, but instead to the land receipt and costs
incurred by the applicant on works to Gresham‟s School.
The applicants have also offered an additional affordable housing uplift clause which
would enable a share of any uplift in the sales income from the completed dwellings
to be provided to the Council. The share the Council would receive is not stated and
the exact detail of what is proposed is not known. However, this offer is reliant on the
applicants negotiating the inclusion of this clause as part of the sale of the three sites
with the purchaser(s). It is therefore, not possible to comment on whether this would
be a more acceptable uplift clause to the Council or whether this would increase the
likelihood of receiving monies to provide additional, offsite, affordable housing.
To conclude, assessment of the original and revised viability assessments has
shown that the viability of the site has been constrained by the non-standard
methodology used to establish the land values for the three sites and has resulted in
a lower level of affordable housing than it would otherwise be possible to provide.
The applicant‟s proposal for an affordable housing uplift is again non-standard and
would increase the risk that the Council would not receive a financial contribution for
affordable housing. Strategic Housing therefore objects to the approval of the
planning applications as they will not deliver the viable amount of affordable housing.
Conservation and Design Officer
The site lies well outside the Holt Conservation Area and there is no apparent
archaeological interest in the area. Therefore the only heritage asset which needs to
be considered is the Grade II Listed building 'The Grove' which borders the western
Development Committee
31
21 August 2014
boundary of the site. This is an early 19th century building which mixes Tudor and
Gothic detailing to create an attractive and elegant end result. Despite the college
buildings having encroached to the northwest, it still stands in relative isolation within
its own grounds – a fact which is clearly pertinent given the development now
proposed on both sides.
Looking at historic maps, it would appear that the Grove has always had a relatively
insular existence based upon its well defined curtilage. Certainly there is no
suggestion of it having ever addressed the wider landscape to either the west or
east. Hence, Conservation & Design concur with the submitted heritage statement
which states that “the open character of the asset‟s wider surroundings is therefore
an incidental part of the setting rather than a designed aspect”.
However, there has always been a narrower tree belt on the eastern side of The
Grove (which has been further thinned recently). Hence existing views towards and
out from The Grove would clearly be affected by the proposed scheme. Whilst these
views may well be incidental and intermittent, they have nonetheless now opened
The Grove up to wider appreciation and have helped it establish new connections
with the countryside beyond. With the proposed development potentially creating two
banks of housing, it is probable that these views would be largely lost with the new
build taking centre stage and affectively hemming in the heritage asset on its eastern
side. On this basis it is concluded that the scheme would result in “less than
substantial harm” being caused to the setting of the heritage asset (as defined by the
NPPF).
More generally, as the application is in outline form with only access to be
considered, it is not necessary at this stage to delve too deeply into the illustrative
layout. This said, it is certainly worth noting that the indicative scheme presents a far
from convincing case for the development sitting comfortably within its semi-rural
setting. Instead it appears to depict an essentially suburban layout where the
buildings have been laid out less than imaginatively around a central roadway and a
pair of hammerheads.
Therefore, should the public benefits accruing from the scheme be considered to
outweigh the heritage harm (and any other material considerations), Conservation
and Design would certainly look for a more informal layout which befits its location.
This should provide for greater variations in built form and grouping, and should be
based around a more informal arrangement of private drives and courtyards.
Finally, it is considered unfortunate that the informal verge and semi-rural character
of Grove Lane should be sacrificed in order to provide a new footpath around the
perimeter of this development. . Re-routing these paths through the development
would be much preferred - as would deleting the two artificial islands within the
carriageway which would have a similarly damaging impact upon the rural feel of the
area.
Landscape Officer - Comments that the site has a distinctly rural character, by
virtue of the surrounding mature woodland and soft road verges which along Grove
Lane create a „country lane‟ appearance. Retention of this distinct character should
be a key aim of any development proposals in this area. The submitted proposals fail
to emulate this and offer a rather suburban development by virtue of the layout and
the highway elements. The eastern end of Grove Lane currently works well as a
shared surface. The inclusion of footpaths, kerbing, associated gullies and traffic
calming measures would seem to be unnecessary and expensive elements that
would have a negative impact on the semi-rural character of this part of Holt.
The development proposes the removal of the eastern and southern hedgerows
Development Committee
32
21 August 2014
which is regrettable. This is a positive feature of the site and should be retained to
give established character to any finished scheme. It provides a soft boundary that is
in keeping with this area on the outskirts of Holt and is of ecological value. It would
be difficult to replicate this with replacement planting. The loss of a section of the
hedgerow and grassed verge to accommodate visibility splays is acceptable,
however there should be extensive soft landscape planting within the site in
recognition of the woodland nature of the area. Trees on the site have been
described as important in the arboricultural report and their retention as part of the
proposed development is welcomed. Suburban close board fencing would not be
appropriate in this location.
Design details should reflect the edge of settlement location and pick up on local
building vernacular from buildings in the locality, such as the former agricultural
buildings on Cromer Road and the older dwellings at the eastern end of Grove Lane.
The illustrative layout submitted presents a somewhat suburban arrangement
inappropriate for this setting. A more mixed approach based on clusters of dwellings
within a landscape setting would be more fitting.
The site is within 1.5km of the Holt Lowes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and just
over 5km from the North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation and the North
Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA). These sites are under extreme
pressure and risk of disturbance from increasing numbers of visitors, which is having
a negative impact on some of the conservation interests of those sites. As the
proposed development is not located on one of the site allocations in the Local
Development Framework it has not previously been subject to a Habitats Regulations
Assessment. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by the
Council (as a 'competent authority' under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010) in respect of the current proposals.
The Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the proposed development would
not adversely affect the integrity of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC; however, without
mitigation, the development would adversely affect the integrity of the North Norfolk
Coast sites. The applicants are offering a financial contribution towards a scheme of
monitoring and mitigation to minimise impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC
arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, similar to that achieved on sites
which have been allocated for residential development. This will ensure that adverse
effects on the integrity of the North Norfolk Coast sites are avoided.
Natural England Initial comments received referred to the proximity of the
proposed sites to both national and international designated habitat sites which are
afforded protection under the 'Habitats Regulations', namely the Holt Lowes Site SSSI (national) and the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (international),
and the issue of visitor pressure from new residential developments which may
impact upon the sensitivity of these sites. The advice received was that it is not
possible to conclude that the proposals are unlikely to result in significant effects
upon these sites. Accordingly Natural England advised that the District Council
should not grant permission before, in its role as competent authority under the
Habitats Regulations, it has received sufficient information to screen the proposals
for the likelihood of significant effects.
Following the applicants subsequent response and offer to contribute £50 per
dwelling towards a scheme of mitigation for impacts upon these sensitive sites in
combination with those of allocated sites within the wider area Natural England have
commented as follows:
" I have reviewed the documents that the applicant has provided and am pleased
with the approach that they have taken. It is my view that it is still not possible to
Development Committee
33
21 August 2014
determine no Likely Significant Effect at the initial stage of Habitats Regulation
screening; whilst we accept that the application is only a relatively small proportion of
development planned for the District, recreational disturbance and therefore its
effects are a cumulative issue. Whilst it is for you as the competent authority to
determine whether or not you have the information needed to complete a Habitat
Regulations Assessment, my advice is that the proposed mitigation is likely to be
sufficient to enable a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. I
would suggest, should you be minded to grant consent, that you include an
appropriately worded planning condition (and possibly S.106 agreement) which
ensures the mitigation measures, including the contribution towards delivery of
strategic green infrastructure are secured."
Countryside and Parks Manager As the site does not include any on-site
provision of open space suggests that a contribution of £7,000 is made towards off
site play provision.
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
Development Committee
34
21 August 2014
character of the area).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy.
2. Dwelling mix, density and affordable housing.
3. Landscape and ecological impacts / settlement character.
4. Loss of playing field
5. Setting of listed building.
6. Access.
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda
which relates both to this application and the other two applications submitted on
behalf of Greshams School (refs: 14/0283 & 14/0274).
The application site is located just beyond the eastern built up fringe of Holt. It
comprises a rectangular playing field surrounded on three sides by Cromer Road and
Grove Lane, and borders 'The Grove' on its remaining side.
The site lies within the 'countryside' policy area where under Policy SS2 of the Core
Strategy housing development is not permitted (apart from 'exception' affordable
housing developments and the re-use of existing buildings). The application therefore
represents a departure from the development plan.
In terms of the specific housing policies of the Core Strategy, Policy HO2 requires
that on schemes of 10 dwellings or more, not less than 45% of the total number of
dwellings should be in the form of affordable housing (subject to viability). The
proposal falls well short of this requirement. The applicants are proposing that 10% of
the combined total of dwellings on both this site and Sites 1 & 3 (refs: 14/0283 &
14/0274) are delivered solely on Site 1. As proposed this would equate to a
maximum of 15 affordable dwellings. This maximum offer of affordable housing is
derived from the submitted development viability assessment which assumes a total
land value from the three sites in the region of £11.067m. The committee's attention
is drawn to the comments of the Council's Strategic Housing Officer (above) with
specific reference to the submitted viability assessment, the conclusions reached by
the Council's independent consultant regarding development viability and the
consequences upon the low provision of affordable housing.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. Whilst detailed
house types are not applied for at this stage, it is clear from the submitted indicative
layout plan and accompanying documentation, that this is a proposal wholly
comprising 4/5 bedroom detached dwellings.
Core Strategy HO7 advocates housing densities of not less than 40 dwellings per
hectare (dw/ha) in 'Principal Settlements' such as Holt, but this is subject to the
proviso that the density of a site 'protects or enhances the character of an area'.
Maximum densities approved on allocated greenfield sites over the last year or so
have tended to be more in the region of up to 35 dw/ha. This proposal is for a very
low density development equating to approximately 12 dw/ha. This low density
reflects the type of housing proposed and absence of smaller more affordable
properties.
Core Strategy Policy EN2 which is also applicable to this application states that
development proposals should protect, conserve and, where possible enhance,
Development Committee
35
21 August 2014
amongst other issues, settlement character and distinctive landscape features. The
site at present provides an attractive open transition between the eastern built up
perimeter of Holt and the adjoining countryside. Grove Lane which borders the site
on two sides has a distinctly semi-rural character. This will irrevocably change as a
result of the proposed development, not just as a result of the housing development
itself, but also as a result of the engineered highway works (including formalised
footways) which are proposed and are a requirement of the highway authority.
The proposed development will result in the loss of an existing sports field which has
been used as a senior size football pitch. Formerly in agricultural use the field was
granted planning permission for the change of use to a school playing field in 2001.
The committee will note the objection raised by Sport England to the loss of this
playing field. In terms of planning policy Core Strategy Policy CT1 states that the
whole or partial loss of open space will not be permitted unless the space does not
contribute to the character of the settlement and is surplus to requirements (in terms
of its function), or where provision of equal or greater benefit is provided in the
locality. Similarly the NPPF states that sports land should not be built on unless it is
demonstrated that the land is surplus to requirements; or the loss is replaced by
equivalent or better provision; or the development is for alternative sports / recreation
provision.
The applicants have responded to Sport England's objection by stating that the
playing field is surplus to requirements having regard to its location on the "wrong
side" of Cromer Road to the school's main campus and other sports facilities. They
have also demonstrated that the pitch can be capable of being provided within the
school's main playing fields area (doubling up with cricket pitches). Sport England
have however maintained their objection on the basis of the net loss of playing field
provision and they point out the requirement to refer the application to the Secretary
of State in the event of the Council being minded to grant planning permission.
Core Strategy EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or
indirect adverse effect to nationally designated sites or protected species will not be
permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the adverse
impacts and suitable prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are
provided. The issue relates to increased visitor pressure arising from new residential
development in the district, in particular upon the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA.
Natural England has subsequently advised that the applicants' offered payment of
£50 per dwelling (secured by S.106 Obligation) towards measures to mitigate against
the effects of increased visitor pressure should be sufficient to address this particular
concern. Similarly the Appropriate Assessment (Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010) undertaken by the Council has reached the same
conclusion.
The site borders with the eastern boundary of 'The Grove' a grade 2 listed building.
The conclusions of the Council's Conservation and Design Officer (see above) are
that when considered against the advice provided in the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) the scheme would result in 'less than substantial harm' upon the
setting of the listed building. The NPPF makes a distinction between proposed
developments which would lead to 'substantial harm' to a heritage asset and those
which would result in 'less than substantial harm'. In the case of the latter the NPPF
advises that the harm caused should be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal. The implication being that planning permission can legitimately be refused
where the public benefits of a proposal are considered to be of lesser 'weight' than
the harmful impact upon a heritage asset.
Development Committee
36
21 August 2014
Finally the only physical detail being applied for at this stage relates to the access
arrangements to serve the proposed development. These involve the road access
onto Grove Lane, the provision of visibility splays, new footways along the three
roadside boundaries of the site (and extending beyond the site along Grove Lane
and Cromer Road), together with small sections of 'build outs' on Grove Lane with
the effect of reducing the carriageway width at these points to single lane only.
Technically these details are acceptable to the highway authority, although visually
they will have an impact upon the semi-rural character of Grove Lane. At present this
section of Grove Lane gives the impression of a relatively quietly trafficked, partcountry lane where vehicles and pedestrians use the carriageway in relative
harmony. The resulting highway works will create a much more urban environment.
Conclusions
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined
in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The principle of housing on this site does not accord with the development
plan (Policy SS2 - Development in the Countryside). Neither does the proposal
accord in terms of specific housing policies (Policies HO1, HO2 and HO7).
In addition it is considered that the proposed development would adversely impact
upon the existing semi-rural character of the area (Policies EN2). Whilst such an
impact represents the sort of compromise which sometimes has to be made in
circumstances where there is a recognised need to provide new sites for housing or
other forms of development, this is not currently the case with this site. The impact on
the adjacent listed building is less measurable. When balanced against the public
benefits provided by new housing development per se and the fact that an
appropriately designed development on the site could mitigate any harmful impacts
upon the listed building, it is not considered that this particular aspect represents a
sufficient objection to the application.
The submission put forward by the applicants (referred to in detail in the preceding
report) is that the interests of Greshams School (and in turn the benefits which
accrue from the school to the economy of Holt) represent a material consideration
sufficient enough to outweigh the development plan in this case. Notwithstanding the
arguments put forward by the applicants, first and foremost this is a planning
application for residential development and as such it should be determined on that
basis. For the reasons referred to both in this report and the preceding report it is not
considered that the case put forward by the applicants is sufficient to outweigh the
significant departures from the development plan which this application represents.
Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 3 - Housing
SS 9 - Holt
HO 1 - Dwelling mix and type
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
HO 7 - Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
EN 2 - Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
Development Committee
37
21 August 2014
CT 1 - Open space designations
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would result in an
unsustainable form of development which would be contrary to the development plan
in the following respects:
(a) The application site lies outside of the development boundary for Holt in an area
designated as 'countryside' in the adopted Core Strategy. Housing development
(apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the conversion of
existing buildings) is not a use permitted in the countryside policy area under Core
Strategy Policy SS 2. The proposed development (together with the associated
highway works) would have an adverse impact upon the existing open appearance of
the site and the semi-rural character of the immediate area contrary to the objectives
of Core Strategy Policies EN 2 and CT 1.
(b) The proposal fails to provide for an appropriate proportion of affordable housing,
contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy HO 2.
(c) The proposal would result in a low density development of relatively large dwelling
types, contrary to Core Strategy Policies HO 1 and HO 7.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no material considerations or
public benefits associated with the proposed development, of sufficient weight, to
indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the
development plan.
4.
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
Minor Development
- Target Date: 06 May 2014
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Outline Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside
Unclassified Road
Listed Building Grade II - Consultation Area
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Tree Preservation Order
THE APPLICATION
The application is to develop a linear strip of land (0.48ha) which fronts on to the
northern side of Grove Lane. The site is currently part of a larger recreational field
within school grounds. All matters of detail are reserved at this stage. An illustrative
plan submitted with the application indicates eight detached dwellings each with
individual driveways onto Grove Lane. Subsequently the applicants have indicated
that they envisage a more likely layout would involve six 4 bedroom dwellings. Plans
also indicate a new 1.8m wide footway along the frontage of Grove Lane with the
corresponding section of Grove Lane widened to 5.5m. A number of trees are shown
to be removed. Amended plans have been submitted with references to 'no dig'
methods of footpath construction to protect tree roots.
Development Committee
38
21 August 2014
The applicants have confirmed in writing that the following financial contributions are
being offered by means of a S.106 Planning Obligation:



SPA/SAC visitor pressure - £50 per dwelling
Education
- £24,353 (approx)
Libraries
- £60 per dwelling
The application is supported by the following documents:
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Archaeological Assessment
Design and Access Statement
Ecological Appraisal
Energy Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment
Services Report
Heritage Statement
Planning Statement
Statement of Community Involvement
Site Waste Management Report
Transport Statement
Sustainable Travel Report
Travel Plan
Cost Models for school capital works
Viability Assessment (confidential)
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application represents a significant departure from current policy. A Committee
site visit was held on 8th May.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports subject to the following conditions: That the maximum number of dwellings on this site should never exceed 8
properties.
 That the development should create, new safe and accessible environments
which are visually attractive a s a result of good architecture and appropriate
landscaping.
 That the dwelling shown as Plot 7 on the indicative layout is repositioned to
prevent the loss of a category A tree described as “ a significant loss” in the
Arboricultural impact assessment report.
 That prior to the site being sold for development a substantial belt of appropriate
landscaping is provided by Gresham‟s School along the entire length of the North
boundary to screen the proposed properties from Cromer Road and to mitigate
for the loss of category A, B and C trees and hedges scheduled for removal from
Grove Lane.
REPRESENTATIONS
14 letters of objection received which are summarised as follows:
 Contrary to the development plan.
 The funding of Greshams School should not be a planning consideration and
should not influence local housing decisions. As per inspectors decision.
 Modernisation of Greshams School should not be to the detriment of the local
community.
 The housing growth for Holt as identified in the Local Development Framework
has been satisfied by the two allocated sites in the town. Any further development
Development Committee
39
21 August 2014















should be based on a particular need and adequate infrastructure to support it.
Need should be related to housing, not to achieve substantial private profit.
Inadequate local infrastructure to cater for additional housing (e.g. schools,
doctor's surgeries, car parks and sewage treatment).
Holt has limited capacity at the primary school.
Lack of local employment opportunities to support additional housing.
Loss of open green space. Should be kept for sport.
Site not within reasonable walking distance to the town centre.
Site is remote from the town centre and primary school and would result in
dependence on car use.
Would exacerbate Holt's parking problems.
Adverse effect upon character of this part of Holt in combination with the other
two applications.
Local traffic safety.
Grove Lane is unsuitable to cater for further traffic.
Would lead to increased traffic using Grove Lane as a 'rat run', which has a lack
of continuous footpaths, resulting in a danger to pedestrians.
Proposals assume footpath improvements to southern side of Grove Lane by
Norfolk County Council, which have now been cancelled.
Loss of trees.
Loss of outlook.
Should be retained for sports/recreation field.
30 signed copies of an identical letter received. The letter objects to the application
on the following grounds:
 Site not allocated in the Local Development Framework. Would be larger than
many Norfolk villages without any additional public services to make it
sustainable.
 The 2010 decision by the Government inspector made it clear that safeguarding
Greshams School was not a planning consideration.
 Road safety along Grove Lane.
 Road features along Grove Lane would change it‟s rural identity.
 Sustainability - Not sustainable in terms of state schooling, local employment
opportunities, transport and recreation. Site is remote from the town centre and
local services. Would increase dependency on the car.
 Road safety (Grove Lane) - Increased use as a rat run. Lack of footpaths /
pedestrian safety.
 Loss of green space.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to a number of conditions
including the prior submission and approval of detailed plans for both on-site and offsite highway works.
Environment Agency - No objection in terms of flood risk issues, subject to a
condition requiring the submission of a surface water scheme to be submitted with
any applications for reserved matters.
In terms of sewage disposal comments as follows:
'Under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) both the Agency and local authorities
have a duty to ensure there is no deterioration of a watercourse, in this case the
River Glaven which currently has „very good‟ status. To be compliant with the
Directive a scheme must not cause deterioration in a waterbody‟s status or prevent
its achievement of good ecological status in the future.
The additional loading on Holt Sewage Treatment Works from this and other new
Development Committee
40
21 August 2014
developments within the catchment may individually or cumulatively necessitate
Phosphate removal at the works in order to maintain the very good status of that
waterbody. As such there may be an issue with accommodating the full quantum of
growth proposed for Holt in the LDF over the longer term. This site was not allocated
in the LDF and so these housing figures could be over and above those considered
at that time - these extra houses could therefore limit the number of allocated houses
that can be built.'
Recommends a condition requiring that no development shall begin until a report
demonstrating that there is sufficient foul water capacity for the development has
been submitted and approved by the local planning authority. Where necessary the
report should include a scheme for improvement of the sewerage system and the
condition should require that no dwellings shall be occupied until the scheme as
approved has been implemented.
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-ordinator) - Requires the following
financial contributions to be secured via a section 106 Obligation:
£465,760 towards primary education (a combined sum relating to Sites 1,2 & 3).
£60 per dwelling for library provision.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - Confirms no requirement for
archaeological work.
Environmental Health - Recommends conditions in respect of surface water and
sewage disposal.
Strategic Housing - Comments relate to the three applications submitted on behalf
of Greshams School and the single submitted development viability assessment:
There is a need for affordable housing in Holt with 100 households on the Housing
Register and in addition there are a further 109 households on the Transfer Register
and 646 households on the Housing Options Register who have stated that they
require housing in Holt. The proposed development would therefore assist in meeting
some of the proven housing need.
It is noted that all three sites are outside of the settlement boundary for Holt. The
applicants are seeking planning permission on the basis that a material consideration
is the need for Gresham‟s School to expand its education provision and the
associated benefits to the economic prosperity of Holt of this.
The submitted viability assessment adopts a non-standard approach, as the land
value used in the viability assessment reflects Gresham‟s School‟s requirement that it
receives a receipt from the sale of the three sites which will fund (with some
borrowing) the construction of a new sixth form academic block (£4,412,000),
improvements to its boarding houses (£5,129,000) and the costs of planning, master
planning, legal costs and the promoters fee, totalling £11,062,215. The need to
generate this level of land value has resulted in a viability assessment which shows
that it is only viable to provide 10% of the proposed number of dwellings as
affordable dwellings. The approach taken to the assessment of what is an
appropriate land value for the three sites conflicts with the Royal Institute of
Chartered Surveyors guidance and Planning Practice Guidance on financial viability
in planning on how land values should be established.
The proposal that the affordable housing is only be provided on site 1 is reflective of
the desire to maximise the land value across all three sites.
Development Committee
41
21 August 2014
Gresham‟s School has stated that they are not able to borrow to fully fund the cost of
the construction of the sixth form block and improvements to boarding houses and
are only able to borrow part of the cost.
A review of the financial information
submitted by Gresham‟s School in the viability assessment has concluded that
school can only borrow a proportion of the costs of the proposed works.
The submitted viability assessment was considered internally and by an external
consultant. The initial consideration of the submitted viability by the external
consultant showed that:
 The sales values used for the proposed market dwellings are too cautious.
 The agent fees were out of kilter with the market.
 The planning and master planning fees are high in relation to what would be
expected.
 The promoter‟s fee of 10% of the net land value (after planning, master planning
and legal fees are deducted from the receipt from the sale of the three sites) is
not a standard cost.
 The land value can increase and there should be a strong argument to increase
the percentage of affordable housing. Allowing for 45% social (affordable
housing), would provide a positive capital receipt to the land owners –
notwithstanding the specific issues relating to Gresham‟s School and their
requirement to build new teaching and housing blocks.
It was therefore clear that all of the factors identified above are impacting negatively
on the viability of the three sites and the amount of affordable housing which they can
support. In addition there was concern that site 3, which the outline application
proposes is developed to provide up to 8 dwellings was not maximising the value of
this site. 6 larger dwellings would be more beneficial to the viability.
These views were discussed with the applicant who subsequently submitted a
revised viability assessment to reflect the sales values identified by the external
consultant. As these sales values reflected values at June 2014, the applicant also
updated the build costs within the viability assessment to reflect build costs at June
2014, as the original submitted viability assessment used June 2013 build costs. In
addition site 3 was amended to reflect 6 larger dwellings and the total number of
dwellings across the three sites reduced to 151. The revised viability assessment
however, still showed that it was only viable to provide 10% of the total number of
dwellings as affordable (15 dwellings).
The external consultant has considered the revised viability assessment and stated
that:
 The promoters return at 10% is not unrealistic to reflect the risk associated with
the scheme and the uncertainty that planning consent will be granted.
 Further clarification is needed of the planning and master planning fees which are
excessive.
 The increase in build costs has countered the increase in sales values, however,
the achieved land value per acre is favourable for its location.
 The argument put forward is looking at viability in reverse, as X {the cost of the
works and associated costs - £11,062,215} is needed to make it work. If the
school had no capital expenditure to make, the discussion would be different.
It should be noted, that whilst the promoter‟s fee at 10% of the net land receipt is not
considered to be unrealistic, in normal practice this fee would be deducted from the
landowner‟s receipt for the land and so would reduce the return they receive. This is
Development Committee
42
21 August 2014
not the case here. The sum the applicants need to achieve from the sale of the three
sites has been calculated as the cost of the proposed works to the school plus the
planning, master planning and legal fee and the promoters return. Therefore, the
total sum needed to be received from the sale of the three sites has been increased
by the requirement to pay the promoter‟s return of 10% of net land value. The
revised viability assessment shows that with 10% affordable housing, this sum is
almost achieved, leaving only a small amount which the applicant would need to fund
through a loan.
It is clear that had a standard approach been used in the viability assessment to the
value of the land for each of the three sites that it would be viable to provide more
than 10% affordable housing or 15 out of 151 new dwellings. The fact that
Gresham‟s School require such an extensive receipt from the sale of the site has
significantly affected the viability of these sites. In addition the issue around the
planning and master planning costs and the promoters return are contributing to the
viability issue. If a standard approach to the valuing of these three sites had been
used, it would be viable to provide more affordable housing.
It is proposed that if these three sites are granted planning permission, that there will
be a Section 106 Agreement which will contain an uplift arrangement to provide for a
possible contribution for affordable housing. The proposed uplift arrangement is not
the standard affordable housing uplift which the Council has used elsewhere.
Affordable housing uplifts are used where the Council has accepted a lower
percentage of affordable housing due to viability issues at the point of application in
order to capture any increase in viability once the site is developed. The Council‟s
standard wording captures increases in viability due to changes in costs and
increases in the sales values achieved for the completed market dwellings where this
results in more profit for the developer. The proposal for the three sites is instead,
that the receipt from the sale of the three sites will be placed into a ring fenced pot for
the works to build a sixth form college and remodel the boarding houses. After 5
years from the receipt of the final payment, the applicants will submit a viability
statement showing how the land receipt has been spent on the works and associated
on costs. Any funding left over would then be split 50/50, with the Council receiving
50% up to a cap of £2,000,000 for affordable housing and the remaining 50% being
used to support bursaries for local people to attend Gresham‟s School. This
proposal would limit the uplift available for a financial contribution for affordable
housing, as it is dependent on an increase in the receipt from the sales of the three
sites beyond what is shown in the viability assessment as required. In addition the
ability to receive a payment for affordable housing would be dependent on the costs
of the construction of the sixth form college and improvement works to the boarding
houses not increasing above the cost currently shown by the applicant. There is
always a risk that the Council will not receive any funding for affordable housing
through the operation of an Affordable Housing Uplift, however, the proposed
arrangement for this site does increase that risk as the uplift does not relate to the
costs of the development of the site, but instead to the land receipt and costs
incurred by the applicant on works to Gresham‟s School.
The applicants have also offered an additional affordable housing uplift clause which
would enable a share of any uplift in the sales income from the completed dwellings
to be provided to the Council. The share the Council would receive is not stated and
the exact detail of what is proposed is not known. However, this offer is reliant on the
applicants negotiating the inclusion of this clause as part of the sale of the three sites
with the purchaser(s). It is therefore, not possible to comment on whether this would
be a more acceptable uplift clause to the Council or whether this would increase the
likelihood of receiving monies to provide additional, offsite, affordable housing.
Development Committee
43
21 August 2014
To conclude, assessment of the original and revised viability assessments has
shown that the viability of the site has been constrained by the non-standard
methodology used to establish the land values for the three sites and has resulted in
a lower level of affordable housing than it would otherwise be possible to provide.
The applicant‟s proposal for an affordable housing uplift is again non-standard and
would increase the risk that the Council would not receive a financial contribution for
affordable housing. Strategic Housing therefore objects to the approval of the
planning applications as they will not deliver the viable amount of affordable housing.
Conservation and Design Officer - The site lies well outside the Holt Conservation
Area and there is no apparent archaeological interest in the area. Therefore the only
heritage asset which needs to be considered is the nearby Grade II Listed building
'The Grove'. which borders the western boundary of the site. Part of the application
site comprises a section of garden land which appears originally to have been a
discrete, enclosed space within the landscaped surroundings of this listed building.
The Grove is an early 19th century building which mixes Tudor and Gothic detailing to
create an attractive and elegant end result. Despite the college buildings having
encroached to the northwest, it still stands in relative isolation within its own grounds
– a fact which is clearly pertinent given the developments now proposed on both
sides.
Historic maps indicate that the Grove has always had a relatively insular existence
based upon its well defined curtilage. Certainly there is no suggestion of it having
ever addressed the wider landscape to either the west or east. Hence, Conservation
& Design concur with the submitted heritage statement which states that “the open
character of the asset‟s wider surroundings is therefore an incidental part of the
setting rather than a designed aspect”. Therefore, in this particular case, with the tree
belt providing strong visual separation between the application site and The Grove, it
is not considered that development here would result in any demonstrable harm
being caused to the setting and significance of the heritage asset.
As the application is in outline form with all matters reserved, no substantive
comments need be made on the illustrative layout at this stage. This said, it is
certainly worth noting that the regimented row of building-drive/building-drive, etc
presents a far from convincing case for the development sitting comfortably within its
context. Whilst there may well be a precedent for ribbon development along Grove
Lane, it is for more incremental in nature and generally lacks the kind of suburban
rhythm shown in the submitted layout plan.
Should the principle of development ever be accepted here, Conservation and
Design would look for a more informal layout which befits this rural part of the lane;
i.e. by introducing some shared drives and greater variations in built form. There
would also be a preference for any future development respecting the original
western boundary of The Grove rather than cutting through it as shown on the
indicative plan. Currently defined by a low hedge, this space may have been a walled
garden in the past and would in theory better support an individual property within it.
Finally, it is considered unfortunate that the informal verge and semi-rural character
of Grove Lane should be sacrificed in order to provide a new footpath past the
development.
Landscape Officer - Refers to the fact that a tree preservation order (TPO) was
recently served on the site. Whilst it would be acceptable to fell some of the trees
which front onto Grove Lane it would not be acceptable to fell an oak tree within the
site which is shown to be removed on the submitted plan.
The defined garden area at the eastern end of the site should remain as a feature
Development Committee
44
21 August 2014
and accommodate a single plot. Detailed proposals should include soft landscaping
(trees and hedging) along the rear (northern) boundary.
As with Site 2 (ref:14/0284) further along Grove Lane, the issue of suburbanisation
through highway features such as footpaths, kerbing and traffic calming measures is
an issue and should be minimised. Every effort should be made to retain the informal
semi-rural character of this part of Grove Lane.
In terms of ecology the oak tree shown to be removed may well have bat roosting
potential which is another reason for its retention. Any detailed proposals for the site
should be informed by a bat survey on this tree.
The site is within 1.5km of the Holt Lowes Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
which is part of the Norfolk Valley Fens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and just
over 5km from the North Norfolk Coast Special Area of Conservation and the North
Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (SPA). These sites are under extreme
pressure and risk of disturbance from increasing numbers of visitors, which is having
a negative impact on some of the conservation interests of those sites. As the
proposed development is not located on one of the site allocations in the Local
Development Framework it has not previously been subject to a Habitats Regulations
Assessment. Accordingly an Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by the
Council (as a 'competent authority' under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2010) in respect of the current proposals.
The Appropriate Assessment has concluded that the proposed development would
not adversely affect the integrity of the Norfolk Valley Fens SAC; however, without
mitigation, the development would adversely affect the integrity of the North Norfolk
Coast sites. The applicants are offering a financial contribution towards a scheme of
monitoring and mitigation to minimise impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA/SAC
arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, similar to that achieved on sites
which have been allocated for residential development. This will ensure that adverse
effects on the integrity of the North Norfolk Coast sites are avoided.
Natural England - Initial comments received referred to the proximity of the
proposed sites to both national and international designated habitat sites which are
afforded protection under the 'Habitats Regulations', namely the Holt Lowes Site SSSI (national) and the North Norfolk Coast Special Protection Area (international),
and the issue of visitor pressure from new residential developments which may
impact upon the sensitivity of these sites. The advice received was that it is not
possible to conclude that the proposals are unlikely to result in significant effects
upon these sites. Accordingly Natural England advised that the District Council
should not grant permission before, in its role as competent authority under the
Habitats Regulations, it has received sufficient information to screen the proposals
for the likelihood of significant effects.
Following the applicants subsequent response and offer to contribute £50 per
dwelling towards a scheme of mitigation for impacts upon these sensitive sites in
combination with those of allocated sites within the wider area Natural England have
commented as follows:
" I have reviewed the documents that the applicant has provided and am pleased
with the approach that they have taken. It is my view that it is still not possible to
determine no Likely Significant Effect at the initial stage of Habitats Regulation
screening; whilst we accept that the application is only a relatively small proportion of
development planned for the District, recreational disturbance and therefore its
effects are a cumulative issue. Whilst it is for you as the competent authority to
determine whether or not you have the information needed to complete a Habitat
Regulations Assessment, my advice is that the proposed mitigation is likely to be
sufficient to enable a conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity to be reached. I
Development Committee
45
21 August 2014
would suggest, should you be minded to grant consent, that you include an
appropriately worded planning condition (and possibly S1.06 agreement) which
ensures the mitigation measures, including the contribution towards delivery of
strategic green infrastructure are secured."
HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS
It is considered that the proposed development may raise issues relevant to
Article 8: The Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 1 of the First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy CT 1: Open space designations (prevents inappropriate development and loss
of open space).
Policy CT 2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT 5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy HO 1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO 2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Development plan policy.
2. Dwelling mix, density and affordable housing.
3. Landscaping / trees / settlement character.
APPRAISAL
This report should be read in conjunction with the preceding report on this agenda
which relates both to this application and the other two applications submitted on
behalf of Greshams School (refs: 14/0283 & 14/0284).
Development Committee
46
21 August 2014
The application site fronts on to Grove Lane and comprises a linear section of land,
which forms the periphery to an existing school playing field and a small part of which
is a former garden area.
The site lies within the 'countryside' policy area where under Policy SS2 of the Core
Strategy housing development is not permitted (apart from 'exception' affordable
housing developments and the re-use of existing buildings). The application therefore
represents a departure from the Development Plan.
In terms of the specific housing policies of the Core Strategy, Policy HO2 requires
that on schemes of 10 dwellings or more or sites of more than 0.33ha (the latter
applies in this case), not less than 45% of the total number of dwellings should be in
the form of affordable housing (subject to viability). No affordable housing is
proposed as part of this application. The applicants are proposing that 10% of the
combined total of dwellings on both this site and Sites 1 & 2 (refs: 14/0283 &
14/0284) are delivered solely on Site 1.
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. Whilst detailed
house types are not applied for at this stage, it has been established through the
revised viability assessment and revisions to the design and access statement that a
total of six 4 bedroom dwellings are now proposed.
Core Strategy HO7 advocates housing densities of not less than 40 dwellings per
hectare (dw/ha) in 'Principle Settlements' such as Holt, but this is subject to the
proviso that the density of a site 'protects or enhances the character of an area'.
Maximum densities approved on allocated greenfield sites over the last year or so
have tended to be more in the region of up to 35 dw/ha. This proposal is for a low
density development equating to approximately 16 dw/ha. This low density reflects
the type of housing proposed and absence of smaller more affordable properties.
Such a density would be comparable to existing housing development on the
opposite side of Grove Lane to the site.
Core Strategy Policy EN2 which is also applicable to this application states that
development proposals should protect, conserve and, where possible enhance,
amongst other issues, settlement character and distinctive landscape features. This
part of Grove Lane marks a transition from the denser suburban part of Holt and the
semi-rural edge of the town. In order for residential development on the site to
sensitively relate to the character of the area, it would need to avoid the regimented
linear layout and loss of existing landscape features which the submitted indicative
plan presents.
Core Strategy EN9 states that development proposals that would cause a direct or
indirect adverse effect to nationally designated sites or protected species will not be
permitted unless the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the adverse
impacts and suitable prevention, mitigation and compensation measures are
provided. The issue relates to increased visitor pressure arising from new residential
development in the district, in particular upon the North Norfolk Coast SAC/SPA.
Natural England has subsequently advised that the applicants' offered payment of
£50 per dwelling (secured by S.106 Obligation) towards measures to mitigate against
the effects of increased visitor pressure should be sufficient to address this particular
concern. Similarly the Appropriate Assessment (Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2010) undertaken by the Council has reached the same
conclusion.
Development Committee
47
21 August 2014
Conclusions
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined
in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. The principle of housing on this site does not accord with the development
plan (Policy SS2 - Development in the Countryside). The proposal also does not
accord in terms of specific housing policies (Policies HO1, HO2 and HO7).
The submission put forward by the applicants (referred to in detail in the preceding
report) is that the interests of Greshams School (and in turn the benefits which
accrue from the school to the economy of Holt) represent a material consideration
sufficient enough to outweigh the development plan in this case. Notwithstanding the
arguments put forward by the applicants, first and foremost this is a planning
application for residential development and as such it should be determined on that
basis. For the reasons referred to both in this report and the preceding report it is not
considered that the case put forward by the applicants is sufficient to outweigh the
significant departures from the development plan which this application represents.
Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION: Refusal for the following reasons:
The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September 2008
for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered relevant to
the proposed development:
SS 1 - Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk
SS 2 - Development in the Countryside
SS 3 - Housing
SS 9 - Holt
HO 1 - Dwelling mix and type
HO 2 - Provision of affordable housing
HO 7 - Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density)
The proposal would result in an unsustainable form of development which would be
contrary to the development plan in the following respects:
(a) The application site lies outside of the development boundary for Holt in an area
designated as 'countryside' in the adopted Core Strategy. Housing development
(apart from 'exception' affordable housing developments and the conversion of
existing buildings) is not a use permitted in the countryside policy area under Core
Strategy Policy SS 2.
(b) The proposal fails to provide for an appropriate proportion of affordable housing,
contrary to the objectives of Core Strategy Policy HO 2.
(c) The proposal would result in a low density development of relatively large dwelling
types, contrary to Core Strategy Policies HO 1 and HO 7.
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority there are no material considerations or
public benefits associated with the proposed development, of sufficient weight, to
indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the
development plan.
Development Committee
48
21 August 2014
5.
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
A site inspection by the Committee is recommended by Officers prior to the
consideration of a full report at a future meeting in respect of the following
application. The application will not be debated at this meeting.
Please note that additional site inspections may be recommended by Officers at the
meeting or agreed during consideration of report items on this agenda.
HOLT – PO/14/0846 – Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; land south of Lodge Close for Gladman Developments Limited
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Planning as this is a significant major development
proposal which represents a departure from current policy.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is recommended to undertake the above site visit.
Development Committee
49
21 August 2014