OFFICERS’ REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE – 21 MARCH 2013
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
Proposed designation of Local Development Order on land at Egmere,
Walsingham to accommodate onshore support facilities related to offshore
wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast
To advise the Development Committee of, and invite comment upon, the proposed
designation of a Local Development Order by the District Council on land at Egmere,
Walsingham; to accommodate onshore support facilities related to offshore wind
energy developments off the North Norfolk coast.
At the meeting of the Council’s Cabinet held on 13 December 2012, authority was
provided to officers to undertake a process of public consultation on the proposed
designation of a Local Development Order on land at Egmere, west of Walsingham in
support of inward investment associated with the development, operation and
maintenance of offshore wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast. The
Cabinet report detailing the proposed LDO at Egmere is attached as background to
this report (Appendix 1).
It is proposed that a Local Development Order (simplified planning regime) be
established covering an area of approximately 30 hectares on land adjoining the
B1105 road at Egmere, south of Wells-next-the-Sea and west of the village of
Walsingham. This location has been chosen as it lies beyond the Norfolk Coast Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty; on the principal access route to Wells from the south;
and is set against an established area of employment uses / buildings; where SCIRA,
the operators of the Sheringham Shoal wind farm, have recently developed their
operations and maintenance facilities, including a new build two-storey office block
and warehouse facility with associated car parking / landscaping.
The proposed LDO would cover a mix of brownfield and greenfield land, in two
principal land ownerships, so as to provide a choice of new build development
opportunities, as well as allowing the re-use of existing vacant buildings without the
need for change of use permission. Existing business operations within the area
proposed for LDO designation would not be affected by the designation. If approved,
developments directly supporting the operational and maintenance requirements of
the offshore wind energy sector such as offices, warehouses and ancillary facilities,
as well as electronic communications equipment – ie masts, aerials and satellite
dishes up to a maximum height of 25 metres, would be allowed in principle, subject
to compliance with a published Design Guide which would specify a number of
matters including building height, density, use of materials, design of fencing,
boundary enclosure and lighting. Development proposals falling outside of the
prescribed list of uses would be the subject of normal planning processes.
If approved, the Local Development Order would need to be supported by an Access
Strategy and Landscaping Plan and the issues to be addressed through such
Development Committee
1
21 March 2013
documents have been the subject of discussion with County Highways Officers and
the Council’s Landscape Officer; with final versions of the documents to be prepared
once both the principle and the detail of any area to be covered by the Local
Development Order designation are agreed at the end of the public consultation
process.
Following endorsement of the Cabinet report, Officers prepared promotional material
in support of the public consultation process as per the attached consultation leaflet
(Appendix 1) and put in place arrangements to widely promote understanding of and
invite comment upon the proposed Local Development Order. The consultation
period on the proposal has run from 21 January to 15 March and has been supported
by the following activity:Public exhibition events staged in Wells-next-the-Sea and Walsingham;
followed by presentations and Question and Answer sessions at the
respective meetings of Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council and Walsingham
Parish Council. Both of these events were attended by the Leader of the
Council and Corporate Director.
Details of the proposal and consultation process were displayed on the North
Norfolk District Council website – northnorfolk.org and by following the links to
the Egmere LDO proposal, allowing people to make on-line comments on the
proposal.
Promotion of the consultation and the proposal through media releases
issued by the District Council.
Personal letters were sent to the owners / occupiers of 38 residential
properties within a mile of the proposed LDO advising them of and inviting
them to submit comments on the proposal.
Letters sent to town and parish councils in the B1105 corridor – ie Wells-nextthe-Sea and Fakenham Town Councils and Barsham, Holkham, Sculthorpe,
Walsingham and Wighton parish councils advising them of and inviting them
to submit comments on the proposed LDO.
Posters promoting the public consultation process displayed in the vicinity of
the proposed LDO and on parish notice boards in the above-mentioned
parishes.
Copies of the consultation leaflet displayed and available in the offices of
Wells Harbour Commissioners, Wells and Fakenham libraries.
More recently following receipt of a representation from a resident of
Burnham Thorpe in the Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council area,
consultation on the proposed Local Development Order has also been
undertaken with the Borough Council and the parish councils of North and
South Creake and Burnham Market, Overy and Staithe.
The public consultation period is due to end on 15 March and the Development
Committee will be updated verbally on the number and nature of representations
received at its meeting. It is then proposed that a report summarising the
representations received and detailing any proposed changes to the proposed Local
Development Order be reported to the meeting of Cabinet to be held on 15 April; at
which time the Cabinet will be asked to either endorse the proposed Local
Development Order, with or without amendment, or resolve that the Order not be
pursued. If the Cabinet does endorse the proposal to proceed with the proposed
designation of the Local Development Order, the necessary consent for the Order will
need to be sought from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government.
Development Committee
2
21 March 2013
Given that the designation of a Local Development Order would established a simplified
planning regime for certain types of development within the designated area which
would otherwise be the subject of control through the Council’s Development
Management service / Development Committee; the Development Committee is invited
to make comment on the proposed Local Development Order so as to assist the
Cabinet in the development / approval of the proposed Order.
The Development Committee is therefore invited to comment on the proposed Local
Development Order for Egmere.
(Source: Steve Blatch, Corporate Director, ext 6232)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEMS FOR DECISION
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Note :- Recommendations for approval include a standard time limit condition as Condition
No.1, unless otherwise stated.
2.
HOLT - PF/12/0929 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and
erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated accesses, car parking and
servicing area; Thaxters of Holt Ltd, Old Station Way for Norwood Homes
(Westgate) LLP
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Employment Area
Contaminated Land
Controlled Water Risk - Medium (Ground Water Pollution)
Archaeological Site
Unclassified Road
Development within 60m of Class A road
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19760831 HR - Proposed retention of workshop
Approved 16/07/1976
PLA/19771235 HR - Erection of temporary garage
Approved 09/09/1977
PLA/19771411 HR - Steel framed asbestos clad building to replace existing old,
unsuitable Nissen hut
Approved 06/12/1977
PLA/19801546 KX - Light industrial
Approved 12/12/1980
PLA/19810441 HR - Proposed building for storage
Approved 11/05/1981
PLA/19811336 PF - Retention of workshop
Approved 21/08/1981
PLA/19900860 PF - Store and workshop
Approved 11/09/1990
PLA/19940078 PF - Erection of extension and change of use to part retail
Approved 13/04/1994
Development Committee
3
21 March 2013
PLA/19940787 PF - Erection of two single-storey portable buildings for
workshop/store/retail usage
Approved 25/07/1994
PLA/19960924 PA - Installation of a fifteen metre mast, six sector antenna, four
dish antenna, a telecommunications cabin and development ancillary thereto
Refused 12/08/1996
PLA/19970702 PA - Installation of telecommunication apparatus
Refused 13/06/1997
PLA/19980205 PA - Erection of 15 metre free-standing telecommunications mast
with three directional antennas and one dish antenna and the provision of equipment
cabin
Approved 16/03/1998
THE APPLICATION
Seeks to demolish all buildings on the site (save for a telecommunications mast and
associated equipment) and erect a retail supermarket with a gross floor area of
approximately 1,500 square metres on a site area of approximately 0.5 hectares
(1.24 acres). The proposal also includes the provision of 90 vehicle parking spaces
(including 5 disabled bays), 4 motorcycle and moped spaces, 16 cycle spaces for
customers, 20 cycle spaces for staff together with provision of a service yard.
The net sales area of the store would be approximately 1,014 square metres using
the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of sales area and 895 square
metres using the Competition Commission (CC) definition of sales area (see
Appendix 2 for full definition of sales areas).
Access to the site would be gained from Old Station Way which in turn is accessed
from Hempstead Road. The main A148 Holt bypass runs along the northern
boundary of the site. Service vehicles would have their own entrance to the east of
the proposed building with the customer entrance on the western elevation of the
building. The edge of Holt town centre is approximately 400 metres away by foot with
a further walk of 80m to reach the defined Primary Shopping Area. Pedestrians
would cross the A148 bypass by using the existing underpass.
The applicant has adopted a thematic approach in respect of the architecture of the
store and the design has drawn strong influence from the architecture of the Midland
and Great Northern Railway (MGNR). The building itself would be approximately 46m
wide x 35m deep with a maximum height of approximately 8.5m.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the complex
planning issues involved.
TOWN COUNCIL
No objection to the proposal subject to:
The provider being a reasonably priced operator; and
S106 benefits relating to improvements to the access between Old Station
Way and the town.
REPRESENTATIONS
779 Representations have been received, 615 objecting, 154 in support and 10
commenting only.
Summary of comments in objection:
1. Proposal does not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework;
Development Committee
4
21 March 2013
2. Holt’s unique selling point is its trading heart that represents hard working
individuals who work tirelessly to make the town an attractive and welcoming
place to visit – this proposal could threaten that USP;
3. The store will be too small to compete with Morrisons in Cromer and Tesco with
Fakenham and people will still shop out of town;
4. The store will compete directly with the town centre;
5. Would be better if the whole site became a car park for the benefit of the town;
6. Employment will not increase in net terms if existing shops close a s a result;
7. Poorly located in terms of generating linked trips;
8. Traffic submissions appear flawed;
9. Impact on key junctions will be significant;
10. Holt is a success, why risk this;
11. Would adversely affect independent traders;
12. We need more parking not a supermarket;
13. Holt stands to lose its identity;
14. Does Holt need another supermarket?
15. It will negatively impact on the vitality and viability of Holt town centre;
16. It is contrary to policies within the North Norfolk Local Development Framework;
17. Following the public consultation the ‘Holt Vision’, commissioned with £30,000 of
public funding by North Norfolk District Council and Holt Town Council, did not
identify the necessity for another supermarket;
18. The existing older building on site is of historic merit and should be retained;
19. Is on the wrong side of the bypass;
20. If it ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it;
21. Please do not allow this application to succeed;
22. Too remote from the town;
23. Would cause traffic problems;
24. This traditional Georgian town will be harmed by this proposal;
25. One supermarket is enough for a town of this size;
26. Public transport links are too remote;
An objection has also been submitted on behalf of the Holt Independent Traders on
grounds of:
Unsuitability of the site,
Demolition of a prominent landmark building,
The proposed development is car-dependent;
The development would have a negative impact on the vitality and viability of
Holt town centre, and a wider negative impact on the local economy;
There is no demonstrated need for another supermarket in Holt; and
The assumption that granting permission for this development would prevent
an out—of –town development in the future
A number of submissions in objection to the proposal have been submitted on behalf
of Musgrave Retail Partners GB (MRP) and C T Baker Ltd (CTBL) in relation to,
amongst other things, national planning policy guidance, retail impact, linked trips
and highway impacts.
Summary of comments in support:
1. Existing foods shops in the town are too expensive;
2. This will provide much needed competition;
3. Will bring more business into the town
4. People will still use butchers and greengrocers in the town;
5. New jobs would be much welcomed;
Development Committee
5
21 March 2013
6. Extra parking for the town would be welcomed;
7. Lower paid workers will benefit from the effects of competition this proposal will
bring;
8. It is not going to suck the life out of the town;
9. Town centre will not see a dramatic loss of footfall as some predict;
10. Will encourage more people not to shop elsewhere and return back to the town
for their weekly shop;
11. Given the 400 proposed new homes on the southern side of the bypass, this
proposal will be in the right place to serve the wider needs of the town;
12. Would reduce the need to travel to Cromer of Fakenham to do a weekly shop;
13. The current lack of choice is bad for those who cannot drive elsewhere to do their
shopping;
14. Will help alleviate congestion in the town centre;
15. Would also welcome a good petrol filling station for the town;
16. Very impressed with the thoughtful and sympathetic design;
17. A town of this size needs another supermarket;
18. Only a short walk to the town centre;
19. Would be a welcome addition;
20. Will be a great asset for the town;
21. There is a monopoly in the town which needs to be changed in the interests of
shoppers;
22. Other towns are afforded choice of supermarkets, why not Holt
Summary of comments only:
1. Car park entrance close to blind bend near to existing businesses;
2. Would like a designated parking bay on Old Station Way, as a resident on
Hempstead Road;
3. Could we have a sports fitness centre here instead?
CONSULTATIONS
Holt Chamber of Trade – Objection – Members voted unanimously against the
proposal.
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions including those limiting
hours of opening of the store and hours of delivery to the store.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions and S106 Obligation
- Whilst the Highway Authority considers that the highway network is capable of
accommodating the traffic associated with the application, it would wish to monitor
the operation of the A148/Hempstead Road junction. To this end it would wish the
applicant to complete a S106 Agreement to cover its costs should the need arise for
fine-tuning of the junction.
The Highway Authority has commented indicating that „…it is satisfied that the
establishment of the store will not have adverse implications for the operation of the
adjacent highway network.
The site is relatively close to the retail core of Holt and the bus interchange at a walk
distance of 450m.The link has continuous footway provision with a subway under the
A148 Holt Bypass. The site is well located in respect of the residential area to the
south of the bypass, and it is intended to enhance the pedestrian link to the store
from Neil Avenue with the provision of a zebra crossing of Old Station Way and a
footway on the southern side of the latter road.
Development Committee
6
21 March 2013
Provision is to be made for cyclists with stands being available for both for customers
and staff.
Turning to car parking, the intended provision of 90 spaces falls short by 13 of the
maximum standard contained in the Core Strategy. The applicant justifies his position
by making reference to the superseded PPG 13. Whilst it is acknowledged that there
are parking issues in Holt, it is not considered that this proposal will add to the
problem. Furthermore, the applicant is making provision for the retention, and
enhancement, of on-street parking on Old Station Way by the provision of a layby.
It is accepted that the majority of traffic attracted to the store will already be on the
highway network and will have diverted from other retail stores; the applicant cites
Budgens. Whilst the Highway Authority considers that the highway network is
capable of accommodating the traffic associated with the application, it would wish to
monitor the operation of the A148/Hempstead Road junction. To this end it would
wish for the applicant to complete a S106 Agreement to cover its costs should the
need arise for fine-tuning of the junction.
It is the desire of the Highway Authority to soften the impact of the A148 highway
corridor, and the applicant‟s proposal to landscape the splitter islands in the middle of
the carriageway to reinforce the „place setting‟ of the highway corridor is welcomed.
Having in mind the content of NPPF section 32, the Highway Authority would not
wish to raise an objection to the application‟ [subject to the imposition of conditions
and subject to the completion of a S106 Obligation should the need arise to improve
the A148 junction].
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Whilst some concerns
exist about the amount of space available for landscaping, on balance there are no
objection in principle subject to conditions.
The application was supported by a Bat and European Protected Species Survey,
prepared by Eco-Native Ltd and dated 25 September 2012. This details the results of
a desk top and site survey, as well as a bat emergence survey carried out on 20
September 2012. The surveys concluded that the site and existing building are not
used by bats or other protected species for roosting, foraging or commuting. The
buildings and site offer very limited potential for wildlife, with the only feature of any
interest being the native hedge around the perimeter of the site (this is recommended
to be retained and enhanced as part of the development).
Given that there is an existing mature hedge along the eastern boundary and that
this is recommended to be retained as part of the ecology survey, it would be prudent
to retain this as part of a landscaping strategy. A landscaping scheme has not been
submitted with the application but some indicative planting is indicated on Drawing
No. A1-03. This includes the provision of new landscaping to the eastern boundary,
suggesting that the existing hedge will be removed [whereas] the retention of the
hedge is preferable.
Further work is also required for the landscaping strategy for the site. A key view of
the development will be from the north, as viewed from the by-pass and Station
Road. The site is currently dominated by the three-storey mill building, which pulls
together the landscaping to the east and west of the site. The new proposed building
Development Committee
7
21 March 2013
will sit lower and adjacent to the trees on the east of the site, leaving a large expanse
of car parking and fencing to the west.
Proposed fencing will be lost within the array of cars and will not stand out sufficiently
to provide an appropriate boundary style. The fencing would work better if it was
seen against the back drop of a hedge however there is currently no room in the
proposed car parking layout to have meaningful landscaping along this northern
boundary. In addition, in order to tie in the landscaping to the east and west of the
site, further landscaping is required within the site itself, particularly along the
northern edge. Some specimen tree planting in this location would bring the scheme
together, enhance the site, and provide some continuity to the landscaping along the
by-pass as a whole.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation and Design) - No
objection to proposed demolition of existing buildings and no objection to proposed
supermarket market subject to the imposition of conditions to secure high quality
material and finishes are used.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager has provided the following
comments:
The adopted architectural theme is unashamedly one of 'railway heritage'. So the
design of the building is inherently 'pastiche'. But on this occasion this may not be
wholly inappropriate. Finding a theme for a building of this type is a valid approach.
At least it will give some local connection and 'local distinctiveness.
The site of the proposed development lies well outside across the Holt Conservation
Area but in a very prominent position alongside the A148 Holt By-Pass. So a quality
building is needed. Given the general design theme and the 'traditional' form and
appearance of the proposed buildings it will be important to ensure that 'quality' lies
at the heart of the development. In this context the use of traditional building
materials is vital. It is heartening to note that the proposed facing materials, including
roofing, are to be brickwork and tiles and that Staffordshire Blue brickwork is being
suggested for some of the architectural detailing and that furthermore lattice fencing
and M&GN colour coding for joinery and signs are being considered.
Some further consideration should be given to surface treatments. Blue
Staffordshire paving blocks or similar could be used for the car parking areas. In
these areas the specification for lighting also needs to be agreed. Information in
respect of trolley bays and cycle stands is also needed prior to commencement of
any approved development, as is of course a fully worked up landscaping
scheme and more details of signs for both the building itself and the site as a
whole.
Whilst the existing timber merchant buildings are of some historic and
architectural interest due to their connection with the 'railway age' and in
particular the Midland and Great Northern Railway (M&GN) I do not consider that
they are sufficiently important or significant to justify their retention or inclusion
within any re-development. The buildings have been substantially altered and
their appearance denuded over the many decades that have passed since the
railway was closed. Furthermore today the site and its surrounds has changed so
much that the relationship with the past is now very much diluted.
Development Committee
8
21 March 2013
In conclusion, is of the opinion that …with appropriate planning conditions… there
can be no objection to the proposal. It would have no detrimental impact on the
town's setting or its Conservation Area.
Mark Wood Associates (Retail Consultant) - The proposal would have some adverse
impacts but is not likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and
viability of Holt town centre. However some mitigation would need to be secured to
offset some of the adverse impacts identified. Copies of the report are attached at
Appendix 3.
Norfolk Historic Environment Services - The proposed development involves the
demolition of an industrial building described as a flour mill (and later used as a seed
warehouse).
The application asserts that the mill was not constructed by the railway company and
was not owned by the company. This is supported by the date of the building
(between 1906 and 1946) and the lack of associated sidings. That said, the building
contributes to the industrial archaeological record, and hence is a heritage asset of
local significance.
If planning permission is granted, we request that it be subject to the following
condition, in accordance with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF:
No development shall take place until the applicant, their agent or successors in title
have secured the implementation of a programme of historic building recording in
accordance with a brief issued by Norfolk County Council Historic Environment
Service.
The programme of works in this instance will comprise a programme of historic
building recording.
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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended 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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 9: Holt (identifies strategic development requirements).
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Development Committee
9
21 March 2013
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
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 EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2. Planning Policy Context
3. Principle of Development
4. Retail Matters
5. Highway Safety and Accessibility
6. S106 Obligations
7. Impact on Residential Amenity
8. Design
9. Sustainability
10. Impact on Buildings of Local Interest
11. Impact on Biodiversity
12. Landscape
13. Flood Risk and Drainage
14. Contamination
15. Other Material Considerations
16. Summary
APPRAISAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. The proposed development would involve the construction of a supermarket
and car park which would be likely to have impacts related to the physical
construction of the supermarket building, impacts from hard surfacing works to
provide the car park and impacts relating to additional traffic movements into and out
of the site. Nonetheless, whilst the proposal would have some impacts it is not
considered that those impacts would be significantly adverse on the receiving
environment so as to justify the proposal being EIA development. In any event, the
impacts of the proposal can be properly considered through the normal planning
application process, including consideration of any necessary mitigation.
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Development Committee
10
21 March 2013
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). At regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May
2008) no longer remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke
the EEP being laid before Parliament on the 11 December 2012 and which took
effect on 3 January 2013.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC
5 which suggests that retail units with a net sales area of 750sqm or greater will only
be permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a large town
centre, whereas Holt is defined as a Small Town Centre. However, under Policy EC
5, retail proposals which do not comply may be permitted provided that:A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations); and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or
nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Although the thrust of the previous policy in
PPS 4 has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed.
However, most of the supporting guidance has been retained for the time being
including the Practice Guidance to PPS4 – Planning for Town Centres.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict
between the Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters
relevant to the determination of this application.
Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should
‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the
country needs…[and]…….take account of the different roles and character of
different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas’ The Framework policy
on ensuring the vitality of town centres is set out in Section 2, a copy of which is
attached at Appendix 4.
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
Development Committee
11
21 March 2013
„Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance
with an up-to-date Local Plan…‟.
Paragraph 26 of the Framework states:
„When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of
town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local
planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over
a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold….This should include assessment
of:
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local
consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to five years
from the time the application is made.‟
Paragraph 27 of the Framework states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused‟.
In considering the advice contained within the Framework, consideration should also
be given to the ministerial advice released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister
for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. Whilst this
was issued a full 12 months prior to the publication of the Framework, the Ministerial
advice has not been superseded by the Framework (except in relation to reference to
PPS4) and states, amongst other things, that:
„When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably….and that they can give clear reasons for
their decisions‟.
Development Committee
12
21 March 2013
The advice within ‘Planning for Growth’ generally accords with the Framework at
paragraph 18 which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country‟s inherent
strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon
future‟.
National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should
afford appropriate weight when making its decision.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available,
suitable or viable in Holt; on the basis that the applicant can demonstrate that the
proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt
town centre; on the basis that there are no significant highway objections or other
Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other material considerations
that would warrant a departure from Development Plan policies.
If these criteria can be met, the principle of redeveloping this brownfield site for a
supermarket would be considered acceptable.
RETAIL MATTERS
The proposed retail store would, according to the applicant’s retail reports and
submitted plans, have a gross floor area of approximately 1,500sqm (approx
16,146sqft) with net sales areas of approximately 895sqm (9,633sqft) using the
Competition Commission (CC) definition of net sales area or 1,014sqm (10,915sqft)
using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area. (See
Appendix 2 for definition of net sales area).
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area would consist of 90%
convenience goods and 10% comparison goods. Using the Competition Commission
definition this would provide convenience floor space of approximately 805sqm and
comparison floor space of 90sqm.
Having regard to the requirements of local and national policy, the applicant has
submitted a retail report which, amongst other things, seeks to set out the
development proposed and address the sequential test and impact test
requirements. The applicant has provided further information, where requested, to
enable the Council to determine the proposal.
The Council has sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in
order to assess the information supplied by the applicant in support of the proposal.
Copies of the retail consultant’s reports are attached at Appendix 3.
Sequential Test
In respect of the sequential test, Officers consider the Thaxter’s site to be in an ‘outof-centre’ location and therefore before permission could be granted, all other
sequentially preferable sites within the town centre or edge of centre would have to
be considered as to their availability, suitability and viability. At pre-application stage
the applicant sought to agree with the Council a number of possible sequentially
preferable sites in Holt in order to assess their availability, suitability and viability for
retail development. The following alternative sites have been assessed by the
applicant (in no order of preference):
Development Committee
13
21 March 2013
Albert Street car park;
Land off Station Road (west side);
White Lion car park;
Land opposite Holt Primary School, Norwich Road;
Playing field opposite A148 roundabout;
Garage and car showroom, Cromer Road;
Land next to Gresham School (H15);
Land off Station Road (east side); and
Land opposite Hempstead Road fronting A148
The applicant has concluded for various reasons in the retail report and additional
submissions that none of the above sites were either available, suitable or viable for
retail development of the type proposed.
In considering alternative sites, the Council’s appointed retail consultant has
commented that:
„The Practice Guidance confirms that compliance with the sequential approach to site
selection is an important aspect of retail policy. It makes clear that the onus is upon
the Applicant to demonstrate compliance. However it also advises that if a [Local
Planning Authority] LPA proposes to refuse an application involving town centre uses
on the basis of the sequential approach, it should be on the basis that it considers
there is, or maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity
coming forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as
the application is intended to meet. If a LPA suggest alternative, more central sites as
being sequentially preferable, they should be satisfied that the alternatives are
genuinely likely to be suitable for the scale/form of town centre uses proposed,
having regard to their planning policies, their stated intentions for the site, and any
other planning conservation or environmental constraints affecting the site.‟
Whilst there is general agreement that most, if not all, of the above listed alternative
sites are not likely to be considered available, suitable or viable, representations
were received on behalf of Gresham’s School indicating that land of Station Road,
partly comprising the Old School House and land within the control of Gresham’s
School, would be available for a retail supermarket of a similar size to that proposed
at the Thaxter’s site. Indicative plans were prepared for the alternative site and a
public consultation exercise was carried out by the school. However, following the
results of the public consultation exercise, Gresham’s School has indicated that it no
longer wishes to pursue a retail supermarket on land off Station Road and has
therefore withdrawn its objection to the proposal. Therefore the land to the east of
Station Road within the control of Gresham’s School cannot be considered to be
available. In any event, even if the Gresham’s School site were considered to be
available and viable, consultees including English Heritage and Norfolk County
Council Highways had raised concerns about the suitability of the alternative site and
these concerns may have prevented its consideration as a sequentially preferable
alternative to Thaxter’s site.
Based on the available evidence, Officers conclude that the requirements of the
sequential test have been met.
Impact Test
In respect of the impact test, the applicants had originally set out an assessment of
impact in their retail report. However, Officers considered that the applicants' original
submission did not sufficiently address impact to demonstrate that the scheme would
Development Committee
14
21 March 2013
not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of Holt town centre.
Further information was therefore requested from the applicants, which has now
been received.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant, using his extensive knowledge and
experience, has sought to assess critically the methodology and conclusions
contained in the applicants' additional retail submissions. A copy of his report in
respect of impact is attached at Appendix 3.
Having considered the available evidence, in respect of impact the Council’s
appointed retail consultant considers that:
„…while some diversion of trade from the town centre would occur, an inevitable
consequence of out-of-centre retail schemes, the [proposed] food store is not likely to
give rise to a significant adverse impact on the centre as a whole.’ The Councils’
appointed retail consultant goes on to state that ‘…we do not believe that the impact
is likely to reach a threshold of being significantly adverse because of the following:There is predicted to be a surplus of both convenience and comparison goods
expenditure to 2017 which is capable of supporting the proposed floorspace
within the foodstore. This is largely due to clawing back expenditure lost from
sector 2.
The town retains only a relatively limited proportion of convenience goods
expenditure generated within its primary catchment area. Thus the proportion
drawn from the town centre will be proportionately less than that drawn from
centres and stores further afield.
The town centre is relatively vibrant and robust.
The Budgens store within the town centre is the only main supermarket and
this appears to trade well. In our view it is very unlikely to surrender its prime
position even assuming a higher level of trade draw and lower pre-impact
turnover to that predicted in the RIA. It would still be able to retain its role as
meeting the main and top-up shopping needs within the central shopping
area.
The smaller independent convenience goods shops are on the whole more
specialist and appear to trade reasonably well notwithstanding the out-ofcentre competition. They offer a good range of locally grown products.
On the whole the proposed store is likely to compete with other similar types
of store and this is likely to involve diversions from Tesco and Morrisons in
Fakenham and Morrisons in Cromer. It would also allow the town as a whole
to compete more effectively with the planned Tesco store in Sheringham.
The applicant does not provide a figure for the proportion of comparison
goods expenditure which could be diverted from the town centre. Given the
predicted growth of comparison goods expenditure within the catchment area
and the predicted increase in town centre trade, we believe that this element
of the scheme is unlikely to give rise to a significant adverse impact‟.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant goes on to conclude that ‘There would be
an impact on the town centre but this is not by itself determinative because the
Development Committee
15
21 March 2013
Practice Guidance recognises the inevitability of such effects where out-of-centre
retail development is proposed. Our overall conclusion is that this would not be
significantly adverse [on Holt town centre] so as to undermine its vitality and viability
as a whole. Nonetheless the Council should recognise that a not insignificant
proportion of convenience goods trade would be ‘lost’ from the town centre and it
would in our view be appropriate to request that the Applicant accepts the need to
mitigate this impact and agrees to fund improvements which would directly address
the loss of trade from the town centre.
Officers support the conclusions of the Council’s appointed retail consultant in
respect of overall retail impact on the vitality and viability of Holt town centre.
SUMMARY OF RETAIL MATTERS
The Council’s appointed retail consultant has concluded that, with the exception of
the Gresham’s school site, there are no sequentially preferable sites closer to the
town centre that are available, suitable and viable for retail development comparable
in scale and kind to that proposed on the Thaxters site and it is ultimately a matter of
planning judgment as to whether the Gresham’s school site could be considered
suitable.
However, Gresham’s School has since withdrawn its site as an alternative following
the results of a public exhibition and have therefore withdrawn their objection to the
Thaxters proposal. In light of this news Officers conclude that there is no
sequentially preferable site closer to the town centre that is available, suitable and
viable for retail development comparable in scale and kind to that proposed on the
Thaxters site.
In respect of impact it is considered that a store of the size proposed would not be
likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability Holt town
centre. However, it will be important to mitigate any impacts. In this regard the
applicant has been forwarded a copy of the report produced by the Council’s
appointed retail consultant and is, at the time of writing this report, seeking to
establish the most appropriate and effective ways to mitigate any impacts associated
with the proposed development. The Committee will be updated orally in respect of
this matter, but mitigation is likely to be required through S106 Obligation.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
In respect of accessibility, on foot and using existing pedestrian facilities, the
application site is approximately 480m from the edge of the primary shopping area of
Holt. The town centre is not directly visible from the proposed supermarket site until
pedestrians walk along Station Road.
The applicant proposes 36 cycle parking spaces (16 for customers and 20 for staff to
cater those wishing to arrive by bicycle. In respect of vehicle parking 90 spaces are
proposed.
Based on the advice provided by the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition
of conditions and completion of a S106 Obligation as required by the Highway
Authority, the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan Policies CT5
and CT 6.
S106 OBLIGATIONS
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements with applicants, often referred to as planning obligations,
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
Development Committee
16
21 March 2013
financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy
Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Council also has its own adopted policy which sets out the approach to be taken
to secure financial contributions, in certain circumstances, to offset any potential
impacts of development.
In respect of the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a
S106 Obligation, the Council’s appointed retail consultant has commented that ‘…it
would in our view be advantageous for the Applicant to agree to appropriate
measures to mitigate the direct and indirect effects of the scheme. The proportion of
trade drawn from the town is likely to be higher [than predicted by the applicant] and
the loss of expenditure will lead to some reduction in the number of shoppers within
the centre. We acknowledge the Applicant‟s claim that people would continue to visit
the town irrespective of the proposed store since they will still require other shopping
and service needs to be met. Nonetheless we do believe that some mitigation is
justified‟.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant goes on to suggest that mitigation
measures could include:
Improving the pedestrian route and underpass leading to and from the town
centre to facilitate linked shopping and other trips on foot.
Providing an appropriate level of financial funding for improvements to shop
fronts and other environmental enhancement within the town centre.
Improving existing bus stops in the town centre including the possibility of
installing real time information systems.
Providing a financial contribution towards the Council’s strategy for improving
the quality of car parking in the town centre.
Officers therefore conclude that a request for mitigation is justified and would accord
with the CIL Regulations and guidance within the Framework.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The closest residential properties are those located on Hempstead Road (in
particular Nos. 5 to 13 (odds)) and Coronation Road (in particular Nos. 2 to 32
(evens). Whilst the properties on Hempstead Road would face the proposed
development, the properties on Coronation Road would have their rear elevations
facing the proposed development.
Officers note that Nos. 7 to 13 (odds) on Hempstead Road currently have front doors
which open directly onto Hempstead Road and it is these residents who would notice
the greatest impact from the proposed development, primarily from vehicle
movements into and out of the site. However Officers do not consider that the
proposed development would result in any overbearing or overshadowing impacts on
nearby residents, nor would development on the site be likely to cause noise or
disturbance issues.
Development Committee
17
21 March 2013
In reaching its decision, the Committee should be aware that land to the south of the
Holt Bypass has been allocated for development and this will include the provision of
a new access onto the A148. The net benefit of this new access is likely to be a
reduction in the number of commercial vehicles currently using Hempstead Road and
this benefit would be likely to be achieved within the lifetime of the proposed
supermarket development, if the Committee were minded to approve it.
Therefore whilst Officers understand the concerns raised by representations, taken
as a whole the wider public benefits of the proposal could be considered to outweigh
any identified impact on the amenity of those residents living adjacent to the site.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
relevant Development Plan policy.
DESIGN
In respect of design matters, whilst located outside the central core of the town and
not within the Conservation Area, the application site is in a prominent location
adjacent to the Holt bypass. Having regard to its setting and context, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considers that ‘design of the highest
possible quality should be sought’.
The applicant has adopted a thematic approach in respect of the architecture of the
store and the design has drawn strong influence from the architecture of the Midland
and Great Northern Railway (MGNR) and this extends to the suggested use of
external materials.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised no objection to the
proposal and, based on this advice, Officers consider that subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions the proposal would comply with relevant Development Plan
design policies.
SUSTAINABILITY
In consideration of the proposal against Core Strategy Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of conditions to secure the measures outlined by the applicant within the
submitted sustainable construction checklist and a condition to require 10% of the
energy required by the development to be secured from decentralised and renewable
or low-carbon energy sources, the proposal is considered to comply with
Development Plan policy
IMPACT ON BUILDINGS OF LOCAL INTEREST
The proposal would involve the demolition of all existing buildings on site to make
way for the proposed development. Representations have raised concerns about the
loss of the existing brick building on site and a number of representations have
suggested that the building should be considered for local listing.
The industrial building concerned is described as a flour mill (and later used as a
seed warehouse). The applicant has indicated that the mill was not constructed by
the railway company and was not owned by the company. Norfolk Historic
Environment Services consider this is supported by the date of the building (between
1906 and 1946) and the lack of associated sidings. That said, Norfolk Historic
Environment Services note that the building contributes to the industrial
archaeological record, and hence is a heritage asset of local significance.
Development Committee
18
21 March 2013
In respect of demolition the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that he does not consider the existing buildings are sufficiently important
or significant to justify their retention or inclusion within any re-development.
Therefore, whilst the views of representations have been taken into account in
respect of the existing buildings on site, Officers consider that refusal of the
application on the grounds that the existing historic buildings should be retained
or incorporated into the development could not be substantiated. In any event the
loss of any historic fabric has to be balanced against the fact that the proposed
replacement building is considered to be acceptable in design terms.
Officers therefore consider that, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure
a photographic record of the building (which the applicant has previously agreed
to undertake), the proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan
Policy EN 8.
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has noted that the methodology
and conclusions of the Bat and European Protected Species Survey adhere to
recognised guidelines for ecological surveys and appear sound and considers that
‘The development will have a negligible impact on protected species and is
consistent with policy EN9 of the Core Strategy‟.
LANDSCAPE
In respect of landscaping considerations, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has some concerns about space for landscaping and boundary treatment
as outlined within her consultation response detailed above.
The applicant has been made aware of these concerns. Whilst no solution has yet
been agreed Officers are fully aware that the application site is relatively compact
and space is therefore at a premium. Whilst it is certainly desirable to secure an
appropriate degree of landscaping in order to satisfactorily merge the development
with its surroundings, ultimately it is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee
in weighing the benefits of the proposal against any dis-benefits. Refusal based on
lack of appropriate landscaping would certainly not be recommended by Officers.
Suitably worded planning conditions would be the most appropriate way to resolve
this matter and to try and deliver the best solution within the space available. Subject
to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would generally accord with relevant
Development Plan policies.
FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE
The proposal development is not considered to give rise to significant flood risk
concerns subject to appropriate drainage systems being utilised. The Environmental
Protection Officer has requested conditions to agree the type of drainage systems to
be used and subject to these conditions the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the applicant has submitted a Phase 1 investigation
report. Given the existence of buildings and structures on site there remains a degree
of uncertainty as to the likely contamination. However, given the various intervening
uses, contamination may be likely and the Contaminated Land Officer has
recommended that a Phase 2 investigation be carried out given the uncertainties that
exist.
Development Committee
19
21 March 2013
The Contaminated Land Officer considers that the Phase 2 investigation should be
undertaken post demolition, and should include an assessment into surface
contamination, potential ground gas and ground water. Specific emphasis should be
placed upon the potential storage and use of timber treatment (creosote etc.), the
presence of fuel storage facilities and the potential presence of filled ground onsite.
Once the Phase 2 investigation is completed and submitted the Contaminated Land
Officer will then be able to provide further comment.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the remediation of any
contamination in the event that contamination is found, the proposal would accord
with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify a
departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
In this case, the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to
which the Committee should afford appropriate weight.
In addition to the retail guidance set out within the Framework at paragraphs 24, 26
and 27 and the ministerial advice issued by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP concerning
Planning for Growth, as highlighted above, the Committee is entitled to give weight to
the economic benefits of the proposal with reference in particular to paragraph 18 of
the Framework which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity…‟.
In this regard the applicant has indicated that the proposal would directly create 100
new full-time/part-time jobs equating to 80 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs). Taken as a
whole the employment and prosperity prospects associated with the proposal are
considered to be a material consideration to which some weight can be attached.
SUMMARY
The proposed development seeks the erection of an A1 retail food store with a gross
floor area of and a net sales areas of approximately 895sqm using the Competition
Commission (CC) definition of net sales area or 1,014sqm using the National Retail
Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area.
The proposed store is considered to be in an out-of centre location and, in respect of
compliance with the sequential test, notwithstanding the previous indication that an
alternative site was available on land belonging to Gresham’s School off Station
Road, since this alternative site has now been withdrawn from consideration, it is
considered that the Thaxters proposal is the closest site to the town centre that is
available, suitable and viable to accommodate a store of the size proposed.
In respect of impact, whilst a number of objections have been received including
representations from existing traders in the town who are concerned about potential
adverse impacts, having considered the available evidence the Council’s appointed
retail consultant considers that, whilst there would undoubtedly be some impacts
arising from the opening of a new retail supermarket, taken as a whole these impacts
are not considered to be significantly adverse.
Development Committee
20
21 March 2013
Nonetheless it is considered that further mitigation to offset any adverse impacts
should be sought and the applicant is in the process of preparing a package of
mitigation to be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration.
In all other respects, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed
development is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policy.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to approve, subject to the receipt of an appropriate
package of mitigation measures to offset any adverse impacts and in respect
of Highway Improvements as and where required (to be secured by S106
Obligation), and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
those suggested by consultees including conditions limiting the sales area of
the supermarket.
3.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0945 - Erection of A1 (retail) store (5,574 sqm gross
floor area, 3,623 sqm net sales area), new access onto A149 Cromer Road,
petrol filling station and ancillary development including 412 space car park,
service yard and landscaping.; Former Marricks Wire Ropes Premises, Cromer
Road for Scott Properties Ltd
Major Development
- Target Date: 16 November 2012
Case Officer: Mr G Lyon
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Countryside (part)
Employment Area (part)
Brownfield site (part)
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
PLA/19761423 PF - Steel rope and wire repairs by hydraulically operated
machinery for agricultural use
Approved 14/12/1976
PLA/19891149 PO - Supermarket with car parking & 30 dwellings with car parking
Refused 25/08/1989 WD 17/07/1990
PLA/19891925 PO - Supermarket, car parking & residential development
Refused 11/01/1990
PLA/19900445 PO - Supermarket & car park for 445 cars
Approved 05/06/1990
PLA/19930776 PO - Supermarket and car park
Refused 25/11/1993
PLA/20060618 PO - Residential development
Refused 18/07/2006
PLA/20071135 PO - Residential development
Refused 23/11/2007 D 13/08/2008
PLA/20071136 PO - Residential development
Refused 23/11/2007 D 13/08/2008
PLA/19960666 PO - Demolish existing buildings and erect retail supermarket with
petrol filling station, parking, service areas and access
Refused 09/01/1997
Development Committee
21
21 March 2013
THE APPLICATION
Seeks permission to demolish all buildings on the site and erect a retail supermarket
with a gross floor area of approximately 5,600 square metres (60,000 sqft) on a site
area of approximately 3.1 hectares (approximately 7.6 acres). The proposal also
includes the provision of petrol filling station at the site entrance, together with the
provision of a new vehicular entrance off Cromer Road comprising alterations to
Bradfield Road.
Within the site 412 vehicle parking spaces are proposed (including 19 parent and
child spaces, 18 disabled spaces and 25 staff parking places), together with 3
motorcycle and moped spaces and 16 cycle spaces for customers. Whilst all vehicles
would share the same access point onto Cromer Road, service vehicles wishing to
access the service yard would then have their own access lane directly off the main
entrance which would also provide access for staff parking together with a proposed
bus lay-by, with the rest of the site accessible to customers.
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area of the proposed store would be
approximately 3,623 square metres. Based on the submitted plans, it would suggest
that the net sales area has been defined using the National Retail Planning Forum
(NRPF) definition of sales area (see Appendix 5 for full definition of sales areas).
The applicant has indicated that, based on a net sales area of 3,623 square metres,
2,536 square metres would be used for the sale of convenience goods whilst 1,087
square metres would be used for the sale of comparison goods.
The proposed supermarket building would have a rectangular footprint with a
frontage width of approximately 91 metres, a depth of approximately 61 metres and a
maximum height of 11.7 metres (front entrance). An enclosed service yard
measuring approximately 25 metres x 65 metres would also be provided on the north
western side of the building. The store would be constructed from a range of
materials including brick and flint, timber posts and louvred panels, composite
insulated panels, standing seam metal roof (to pitched sections) and membrane
covered flat roof.
A petrol filling station is proposed at the front of the site which would enable 12
vehicles to use the filling station at the same time. A kiosk of approximately 90
square metres is also proposed. The kiosk building would have curved walls made of
brick and flint with a height of approximately 4 metres. The canopy above the petrol
filling station would measure approximately 14.5 metres x 21 metres with a ceiling
height of 4.7 metres and a maximum overall height of 5.6 metres
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of the Head of Development Management in view of the complex
planning issues involved.
TOWN COUNCIL
Supports the proposal.
Still has concerns over the size, location and highways issues but supports the
application subject to the following conditions being imposed:1) The proposed access to and from the site and Cromer Road be reviewed to avoid
potential traffic congestion and ultimately public safety. The particular shortcoming in
the proposed layout relates to vehicles turning right out of the site into Cromer
Road. The Town Council is not satisfied with the answers given by the Highway
Authority regarding the concerns they previously highlighted;
Development Committee
22
21 March 2013
2) To mitigate the adverse impact on the town centre (as evidenced by NNDC's
independent audit of the retail impact assessment and planning statement provided
by the applicant);
3) The total area devoted to the display and sale of goods (excluding check outs)
shall be limited to 3623sqm net and not more than 1087 sqm net shall be used for
the sale of comparison goods.
4) The sale and display of goods shall not include separate retail outlets for
hairdressing, dry cleaning, travel agency, florists (could be added to). Further any
ancillary cafeteria shall be limited in capacity so as not to discourage use of and
unfairly compete with cafeteria establishments within the town centre.
5) A scheme is provided at the proposed retail store to advertise and promote
businesses located in and around the town centre.
6) Have Section 106 obligations that provides funding :
to provide street furniture and plantation and other ancillary facilities to
enhance the appearance of the town centre in accordance with its status as a
conservation area.
to promote and market businesses and retail provision in the town centre.
to provide a free town centre car park and extend the period of free car
parking in other town centre car parks.
to establish a fund to assist in the removal of derelict land/empty properties in
the vicinity of the town centre.
to establish a fund to assist small businesses wishing to start up in the town.
to assist in providing an improved bus interchange in the town centre and
thus remove unnecessary bus congestion.
The funds for these activities are to be held by NNDC but administered by an
appropriate body in the town.
7) The Town Council wishes to be consulted on and appropriately involved in by
NNDC on matters set out in this resolution. Once the discussions with Scott
Properties have been completed the Town Council may wish to review this situation.
REPRESENTATIONS
11 Representations have been received, 7 objecting, 3 supporting and 1 comment
only
Summary of comments in objection:
1. North Walsham does not need 4 supermarkets;
2. What will this do to our already fragile shops;
3. Will increase traffic along Cromer Road
4. Will increase noise along Cromer Road, especially at night;
5. Increases further risk to Cromer Road railway bridge from strikes;
6. The population of North Walsham cannot support this an existing stores in the
town;
7. Will have severe trading impacts on the town centre shops;
8. Increased traffic will prevent people accessing and leaving their homes on
Cromer Road;
9. See no merit in two supermarkets so close to each other on Cromer Road;
10. The majority of the site currently is and has always been agricultural land and not
part of the former Marrick’s Wire site;
11. This is one of the worst sites possible for a supermarket in the town;
12. The site is only served by one road
13. We need a petrol filling station but not another supermarket;
14. The site slopes and there are real concerns about the impact of surface water
drainage, especially for the lowest part of the site in the north-eastern corner;
Development Committee
23
21 March 2013
15. Highway safety will be compromised with the high volumes of traffic using
Cromer Road;
16. A site closer to the town centre should be sought;
17. Why not find a brownfield site;
18. There is wildlife in the area that would be adversely affected by the proposal.
Summary of comments in support:
1. Would be good to clear up the front part of the site;
2. Will create local employment;
3. Will draw people into the town;
4. Will kick-start regeneration of this important gateway site;
5. Petrol filling station is a welcome addition;
6. The town centre is in decline, not from out of town shopping but from the internet;
7. This proposal will bring commerce back into the town;
8. It would bring something better to North Walsham.
Summary of comments only:
1. If the proposal is approved, conditions should be imposed to require a
landscaping buffer strip between the site and adjacent residential properties on
Suffield Close
A representation of objection has been submitted on behalf of Waitrose on the basis
that the proposal fails the retail tests in terms of site selection and on impact grounds.
A sequentially preferable site exists and which was not available at the time of
submission of their application. The store is twice the size of that at Waitrose and
impact on the town centre would be significantly adverse. The proposed development
would reduce trade from the Waitrose store and this in turn could affect local
suppliers and could result in job losses.
Representation from applicants in response to the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager’s comments on design.
“Poole & Pattle [the architects] took the design of the building and the site layout very
seriously. We read and took account of the North Norfolk Design Guide… The guide
recognises that it would be wrong to attempt to disguise a building of such a size as
some version of former building types but for which there are no historic precedents.
It also acknowledges that previous advice – tending inevitably towards pastiche –
was misguided. Instead, it encourages “innovative and honest solutions which reflect
the true use of these buildings”. This is the approach that we have taken. We have
not tried to disguise the scale or the purpose of the building. Instead, we have
focused on allowing the building to signal clearly, its function, its key elements and its
relationship with its site and the wider context.
We have..[used]..a palette of traditional materials across the front elevation – facing
brick, flint panels and timber posts supporting timber louvered screens in an honest,
modern arrangement which clearly signals the main entrance. Whilst the form is
“honest” and modern, these are materials which make references to traditional local
construction methods and with whose scale – a human scale - we are all familiar.
We have varied the height of the building across its front elevation to signal and
emphasize the entrance, whilst reducing the scale away from the entrance on the
eastern side closest to the rear gardens of the properties in Suffield Close‟.
CONSULTATIONS
Anglian Water - No objection subject to conditions.
Development Committee
24
21 March 2013
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (C& D) – The proposed store will be
a substantial structure, reaching nearly 12 metres in height at its maximum over the
main entrance/lobby. Given that the site is located towards the edge of North
Walsham and borders open countryside there is potentially a substantial landscape
impact.
In terms of architectural design once again we are faced with the usual design
approach: a primarily glazed shop frontage with all other elevations being a bland mix
of composite cladding and metallic roofing. Some measure of interest is provided
through the use of timber louvred panels over the front entrance and timber posts for
the piers supporting the roof overhangs. Facing brick and flint panels are also
proposed for those parts of the south elevation of the building not glazed.
Overall the form and massing of the proposed store is ‘box-like’ and ‘functional’.
Other than the materials mentioned above there is little attempt in the design to
reflect local character or distinctiveness or to find an architectural theme which would
resonate with the locality. The proposed store is ‘industrial‘ in scale on the edge of
the built-up area of North Walsham. Whilst the area of the application is one of mixed
character with employment uses previously located on the site and housing nearby
there does not appear to have been a serious attempt to raise the standard of design
or to take a more innovative approach.
Of general concern must be the scale and massing of the store. The building itself
would be located at the back of the site with parking dominating views of the store
from Cromer Road. The opportunities for landscaping and tree or shrub planting are
very few and far between.
[In respect of the proposed petrol filling station] the designers have tried to create
some interest through the interlacing of brick and flint bands in a wall which will be 4
metres in height. Given that the petrol filling station will be the first structure you will
see as you approach the store by car… it is a very disappointing design.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) – Objection on grounds
that the development together with the landscaping enhancement scheme will not
preserve or enhance the character and quality of the area.
The site contains a variety of different habitats and some structures and can be
usefully broken down into four distinct areas. These include a pair of derelict semidetached dwellings (Area 3), a derelict light industrial use type building to the rear
(Area 2), an area of brownfield land given over to scrub and ruderal vegetation (Area
1) and finally an agricultural field to the north of the site (Area 4).
The site is bordered in part by native hedgerows and hedgerow trees and in other
parts by fencing both wooden and chain link. To the north of the site and separated
by a small field is the main Sheringham to Norwich Railway line, to the west of the
site lies Bradfield Road a single track country lane and further west the former Crane
Fruehauf industrial area. To the south of the site is the main A149 Cromer road, and
south of the road lay agricultural fields and open countryside, and to the east are
residential areas and the Travis Perkins Builders Yard. Some connectivity for the site
to the wider countryside is possible through the railway line and hedgerows.
The site does not contain any designated sites for nature conservation; the nearest
site is Bryants Heath SSSI which is 1.6km to the south west. Field surveys were
conducted in June and July 2012. Area 1 comprised areas of open land, rubbish piles
and hard standing and was considered to have good potential for reptiles and
Development Committee
25
21 March 2013
amphibians. Further investigation revealed the presence of Common Lizard, and a
small population is expected. Area 2 includes a redundant brick and tile building and
a metal profiled sheet building, both in various states of disrepair. The buildings did
not reveal any evidence of protected species utilising the buildings and were unlikely
to hold suitable habitat for roosting opportunities. Area 3 included the brick and tile
semi-detached properties to the south of the site and adjacent to the main road. The
dwellings were in a poor state of repair and were draughty. They did not hold any
potential for roosting bats and no evidence was found of their presence. Area 4 was
in arable cultivation at the time of the survey and held little opportunity for protected
species. The trees along the boundary of the field were inspected for evidence of
roosting bats, but none were found.
No evidence of roosting bats was found on the site either in buildings or trees;
however bats were found to forage and commute along the field boundaries along
Bradfield Road. Based on the field survey results, approximately twelve species of
bird are expected to breed within the site and over thirty species were recorded on or
around the site. The only other protected species that are considered to find the site
suitable are Common Lizards for which a small population was found within the site
(approximately 25 animals). The Phase One Habitat
Survey recorded eight spikes of flowering Bee Orchid in the southern section of Area
1.
Based on the results of the survey, the development is not considered to have a
significant impact on biodiversity or protected species. Common Lizards are
protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) from deliberate
destruction, therefore mitigation will be required to capture and translocate the small
population from the site to another suitable site.
Further details of capture programme and receptor site would be required. Mitigation
would also be required in terms of avoiding clearing vegetation in the bird breeding
season and retaining a dark corridor along Bradfield Road for commuting bats. Some
opportunities for enhancement are available through the provision of bird boxes and
enhancing the existing boundary vegetation through a native landscaping scheme. If
planning approval is granted then I would recommend that conditions are attached to
the permission to implement the mitigation and enhancement recommendations of
the report.
In respect of landscape considerations, the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment
(LVIA) notes that the… site is not within any specially designated or valued
landscapes such as AONB or Conservation Area…The existing baseline conditions
for the landscape within and surrounding the site is one of contrast, with varying
influences such as industrial, residential and rural connotations…
The general visibility of the site is generally confined by trees, landform and existing
development, and generally limited to the streets surrounding the site. The sensitivity
of surrounding receptors range from high to low, this depends on the type of
receptor, existing screening, orientation and distance from the site.
The LVIA recommends landscaping should seek to integrate the new development
with the surrounding development through the use of the existing trees and new
planting, including the use of trees to screen the development from the bungalows on
Suffield Close.
The petrol filling station would be a prominent feature on the Cromer Road frontage.
It is envisaged that the effects of the development would reduce from moderate to
slight following a 15 year period and the establishment of the landscaping.
Development Committee
26
21 March 2013
The LVIA suggests that retaining most of the existing vegetation together with the
proposed landscaping would mitigate for the impact of the development, however it is
considered that the landscaping proposals are limited and do little to enhance the
edge of town character, particularly the stark built up form of the petrol filling station.
County Council (Highways) - No objection subject to conditions including those
relating to the provision of parking spaces, details relating to construction
management, off-site highway works and completion of a travel plan.
Environment Agency - No objection subject to conditions relating to surface water
drainage and contamination
Environmental Health - No objection subject to conditions including those relating to
the demolition of the existing buildings, hours of delivery to the store, lighting and
details of any extractors to be installed.
Mark Wood Associates (Retail Consultant) - The proposal would be likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre.
Appropriate mitigation would need to be secured before permission could be granted.
A copy of the report is attached at Appendix 6a. (Appendices to the MWA report are
available only on the Council’s website and in the Members’ Room due to size of
document – see Appendix 6b).
Network Rail - No objection
Norfolk County Council's Historic Environment Service - No objection
North Walsham Chamber of Trade, C/o Hughes Electrical - No response
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - No objection subject to conditions
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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, refusal of this application as recommended 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 SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 2: Development in the Countryside (prevents general development in the
countryside with specific exceptions).
Policy SS 4: Environment (strategic approach to environmental issues).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 10: North Walsham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Development Committee
27
21 March 2013
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 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN 6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN 9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN 10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy EN 13: Pollution and hazard prevention and minimisation (minimises pollution
and provides guidance on contaminated land and Major Hazard Zones).
Policy EC 5: Location of retail and commercial leisure development (specifies
appropriate location according to size).
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 CT 6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
2. Planning Policy Context
3. Principle of Development
4. Retail Matters
5. Highway Safety and Access
6. S106 Obligations
7. Impact on Residential Amenity
8. Design
9. Sustainability
10. Impact on Biodiversity
11. Landscape
12. Flood Risk and Drainage
13. Contamination
14. Other Material Considerations
15. Summary
APPRAISAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Officers have considered the proposal under the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and guidance within Circular
02/99. The proposed development would involve the construction of a large
supermarket, car park and petrol filling which would be likely to have impacts related
to the physical construction of the supermarket building and petrol filling station,
impacts from hard surfacing works to provide the car park and impacts relating to
additional traffic movements into and out of the site. Nonetheless, whilst the proposal
would have some impacts it is not considered that those impacts would be
significantly adverse on the receiving environment to justify the proposal being EIA
development. In any event, the impacts of the proposal can be properly considered
through the normal planning application process including consideration of any
necessary mitigation.
Development Committee
28
21 March 2013
PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the Development
Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The Development Plan currently comprises the North Norfolk Core Strategy (CS)
(adopted Sept 2008). At regional level the East of England Plan (EEP) (adopted May
2008) no longer remains part of the Development Plan following an Order to revoke
the EEP being laid before Parliament on the 11 December 2012 and which took
effect on 3 January 2013.
Local Policy
The relevant CS policies are set out above, the key significant policy being Policy EC
5 which suggests that retail units with a net sales area of 750sqm or greater will only
be permitted in the defined Primary Shopping Area of settlements with a large town
centre such as North Walsham. However, retail proposals which are located outside
the defined primary shopping area may be permitted provided that:A need exists within the catchment area for the scale and type of development
proposed; and
no sequentially preferable site is available, suitable and viable (starting with town
centre, edge of centre sites, then out-of-centre locations), and
the proposed development would not, individually or cumulatively, have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres or
nearby Service Villages or Coastal Service Villages; and
the proposed development would be accessible by a choice of means of
transport, including public transport, walking, cycling and the car.
National Policy
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27
March 2012. The Framework replaced a series of national policy statements,
circulars and guidance including Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for
Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Although the thrust of the previous policy in
PPS 4 has been carried forward into the Framework, the wording is more condensed.
However, most of the supporting guidance has been retained for the time being
including the Practice Guidance to PPS4 – Planning for Town Centres.
Significantly, Annex 1 to the Framework reaffirms that planning law requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Paragraph 214
also provides that full weight should be given to policies in Local Plans adopted since
2004, even if there is a limited degree of conflict with the Framework. The definition
of Local Plans here includes the Core Strategy and other current development plan
documents. The CS was adopted as recently as 2008 and there is no obvious conflict
between the Framework and the relevant provisions of the CS in so far as matters
relevant to the determination of this application.
Core principles of the replacement Framework are now that planning should
‘proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the
homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the
country needs…[and]…….take account of the different roles and character of
different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas’ The Framework policy
on ensuring the vitality of town centres is set out in Section 2, a copy of which is
attached at Appendix 4.
Development Committee
29
21 March 2013
Paragraph 24 of the Framework states:
„Local Planning Authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for
main town centre uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance
with an up-to-date Local Plan…‟.
Paragraph 26 of the Framework states:
„When assessing applications for retail, leisure and office development outside of
town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date Local Plan, local
planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over
a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold….This should include assessment
of:
The impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private
investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and
The impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including
local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and wider area, up to
five years from the time the application is made.‟
Paragraph 27 of the Framework states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant
adverse impact on one or more of the above factors, it should be refused‟.
In considering the advice contained within the Framework, consideration should also
be given to the ministerial advice released from the Rt Hon Greg Clark MP – Minister
for Decentralisation concerning Planning for Growth dated 23 March 2011. Whilst this
was issued a full 12 months prior to the publication of the Framework, the Ministerial
advice has not been superseded by the Framework (except in relation to reference to
PPS4) and states, amongst other things, that:
„When deciding whether to grant planning permission, local planning authorities
should support enterprise and facilitate housing, economic and other forms of
sustainable development. Where relevant - and consistent with their statutory
obligations - they should therefore:
(i) consider fully the importance of national planning policies aimed at fostering
economic growth and employment, given the need to ensure a return to robust
growth after the recent recession
(ii) take into account the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land for
key sectors, including housing
(iii) consider the range of likely economic, environmental and social benefits of
proposals; including long term or indirect benefits such as increased consumer
choice, more viable communities and more robust local economies (which may,
where relevant, include matters such as job creation and business productivity)
(iv) be sensitive to the fact that local economies are subject to change and so take a
positive approach to development where new economic data suggest that prior
assessments of needs are no longer up-to-date
(v) ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development.
In determining planning applications, local planning authorities are obliged to have
regard to all relevant considerations. They should ensure that they give appropriate
weight to the need to support economic recovery, that applications that secure
sustainable growth are treated favourably….and that they can give clear reasons for
their decisions‟.
Development Committee
30
21 March 2013
The advice within ‘Planning for Growth’ generally accords with the Framework at
paragraph 18 which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country‟s inherent
strengths, and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and a low carbon
future‟.
National policy advice is a material consideration to which the Committee should
afford appropriate weight when making its decision.
PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
Support in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there are no sequentially preferable sites that are available,
suitable or viable in North Walsham; on the basis that the applicant can demonstrate
that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability
of North Walsham town centre; on the basis that there are no significant highway
objections or other Development Plan policy conflicts or unless there are other
material considerations that would warrant a departure from Development Plan
policies.
RETAIL MATTERS
The proposed retail store would, according to the applicant’s retail reports and
submitted plans, have a gross floor area of approximately 5,600sqm (approx
60,000sqft) with net sales areas of approximately 3,623sqm (approx 39,000sqft)
using the National Retail Planning Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area. (See
Appendix 5 for definition of net sales area).
The applicant has indicated that the net sales area would consist of 70%
convenience goods and 30% comparison goods. Using the National Retail Planning
Forum definition this would provide convenience floor space of approximately
2,536sqm (approx 27,300sqft) and comparison floor space of 1,087sqm (approx
11,700sqft).
Having regard to the requirements of local and national policy, the applicant has
submitted a retail report which, amongst other things, seeks to set out the
development proposed and address the sequential test and impact test
requirements. The applicant has provided further information, where requested, to
enable the Council to determine the proposal.
The Council has sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in
order to assess the information supplied by the applicant in support of the proposal.
Copies of the retail consultant’s reports are attached at Appendix 6a.
Sequential Test
In respect of the sequential test, having regard to the Development Plan, the
application site sits partially within allocated employment land (the former Marrick’s
Rope site adjacent to Cromer Road), whilst the larger proportion of the site and the
land where the supermarket building is proposed to be located sits outside the
development boundary of North Walsham and is therefore within the Countryside
policy area. Given the location of the proposed supermarket building, Officers
consider the former Marrick’s Rope site should be assessed as being in an ‘out-oftown’ location and therefore before permission could be granted, all other
sequentially preferable sites within the town centre, edge of centre or out of centre
would have to be considered as to their availability, suitability and viability. At preapplication stage the applicant sought to agree with the Council a number of possible
Development Committee
31
21 March 2013
sequentially preferable sites in North Walsham in order to assess their availability,
suitability and viability for retail development. The following alternative sites have
been assessed by the applicant (in no order of preference):
Vicarage Street car park;
St Nicholas Precinct;
Community Centre and Library (New Road);
Former HL Foods site (Norwich Road)
Midland Road site;
Laundry Loke
The applicant has concluded for various reasons in the retail report and additional
submissions that none of the above sites is available, suitable or viable for retail
development of the type proposed.
Whilst there is general agreement by Officers that most of the above listed alternative
sites are unlikely to be considered available, suitable or viable, the Committee may
recall that Officers previously advised, when considering the Waitrose application
(ref: PF/12/0310), that the HL Foods site could arguably be judged to be better
connected with the town centre, particularly given the guidance at paragraph 24 of
the Framework, which states that in respect of out of centre proposals, preference
should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to existing centres.
However the Committee may recall that it reached a view that the HL Food site and
former Focus DIY building (now Waitrose) were considered to be sequentially
equivalent in planning terms (both being out of centre). That decision therefore has
some bearing in the determination of the current application (albeit that the Marrick’s
site is technically ‘out of town’ development, although it is broadly the same distance
from the town centre as the Waitrose store).
Irrespective of whether one views the HL Food site to be sequentially preferable,
Officers are of the understanding that the HL Food site is no longer considered to be
available for retail supermarket development as there is no longer retail developer
interest and it is understood that the landowners are not pursuing such development
as part of their proposals for the wider site. The HL Food site is therefore ruled out in
sequential terms. This means that none of the above sites identified by the applicant
is considered to be available, suitable or viable and all can be ruled out in sequential
terms.
In respect of consideration of any other sequentially preferable sites, in response to a
recognition of the problems faced by North Walsham town centre, voiced through the
North Walsham Leadership of Place initiative, the Council sought to gather evidence
and has used its resources to help try and realise opportunities for the town in order
to, amongst other things, help improve the vitality and viability of the Town Centre
and stem the overall decline in footfall that has been occurring over recent years for
various reasons. As part of that information gathering process, the Council has given
consideration as to whether it would be possible to assemble a site within or adjacent
to the Town Centre of sufficient size to accommodate a supermarket comparable in
size to that proposed at the Marrick’s site.
Consultants appointed by the Council to undertake this task (Aspinall Verdi)
concluded that a sequentially preferable site was potentially available within North
Walsham town centre on the Paston College Lawns site. They also concluded that
supermarket development would likely be viable and potentially suitable in that
location. However, representatives of Paston College raised concerns as to whether
Development Committee
32
21 March 2013
the benefits of the proposal (involving either relocation or consolidation of the college
on their Griffon site and/or Station Road site) would outweigh the potential longer
term harm to the college. At that time there was no identified developer interest in the
Paston College site (partly due to the fact that the Marrick’s proposal was yet to be
determined) but nonetheless the College indicated that they would not be pursuing
development of their Lawns site and Officers therefore were of the view that the site
was not considered to be available.
However, at the time of writing this report, Officers understand that developer interest
has recently emerged for the Paston College Lawns site and that an offer has been
put to the college for consideration. However, Officers are not aware that Paston
College has yet responded to the offer.
In considering alternative sites, the Council’s appointed retail consultant has
commented in respect of retail proposals generally that:
„The Practice Guidance confirms that compliance with the sequential approach to site
selection is an important aspect of retail policy. It makes clear that the onus is upon
the Applicant to demonstrate compliance. However it also advises that if a [Local
Planning Authority] LPA proposes to refuse an application involving town centre uses
on the basis of the sequential approach, it should be on the basis that it considers
there is, or maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity
coming forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as
the application is intended to meet. If a LPA suggest alternative, more central sites as
being sequentially preferable, they should be satisfied that the alternatives are
genuinely likely to be suitable for the scale/form of town centre uses proposed,
having regard to their planning policies, their stated intentions for the site, and any
other planning conservation or environmental constraints affecting the site.‟
Having regard to the above advice, in considering the Marrick’s proposal, the
Committee needs to satisfy itself that there are no sequentially preferable sites that
are available, suitable and viable. In the event that Paston College accept the offer
for their Lawns site from the interested developer, then the Committee would have
little option but to accept that a sequentially preferable site has become available for
a development of comparable scale to that proposed at the Marrick’s site.
The Council is aware from its appointed consultants that development is likely to be
viable at the Lawns site and that would leave the Committee to consider whether
development of the Paston College Lawns site was suitable in planning terms. In
respect of suitability, other than the indicative sketch proposals prepared as part of
the work of Aspinall Verdi, the Local Planning Authority has no detailed design
drawings in relation to possible supermarket development on the Lawns site. The site
is partly within and adjacent to the North Walsham Conservation Area and there are
Grade II and Grade II* listed buildings nearby. Clearly there are a number of
development constraints but, in light of developer interest and a firm offer to the
college to buy the Lawns site, the Committee would be entitled to come to a view that
there was a reasonable prospect of a sequentially preferable opportunity coming
forward which is likely to be capable of meeting the same requirements as the
application is intended to meet.
In the situation where a sequential site exists, guidance within the National Planning
Policy Framework (paragraph 27) states:
„Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test….it should be refused‟.
Development Committee
33
21 March 2013
However, if Paston College maintains its previous position that the Lawns site is not
for sale and therefore not available for retail supermarket development then the
Committee would have to come to the view that there are no sequentially preferable
sites and the Marrick’s proposal would have complied with the requirements of the
sequential test.
The Committee will be updated orally in the event that the position regarding the
availability of the Paston College site has been confirmed.
Impact Test
In respect of the impact test, the applicants have set out an assessment of impact in
their retail report.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant, using his extensive knowledge and
experience, has sought to assess critically the methodology and conclusions
contained in the applicant’s additional retail submissions. A copy of his report in
respect of impact is attached at Appendix 6a.
Having considered the available evidence, in respect of impact the Council’s
appointed retail consultant has noted that the applicant has provided an „…estimate
of the impact of the proposed development taking into account the Waitrose store at
Cromer Road. The analysis is undertaken in a two step process. The impact of
Waitrose in 2013 is modelled and then in 2016 the impact of the proposed
development is then estimated‟.
The applicant has set out the predicted impacts on existing operators within the town
centre (including Sainsbury’s and Lidl). In terms of the impact on town centre as a
whole, the Council’s appointed retail consultant, having taken the figures provided by
the applicant, indicates that „Waitrose in isolation would lead to a loss [in trade in the
town centre] of £9.47m equating to an impact of 21.7% in 2013‟. The Committee will
recall that the Council’s appointed retail consultant considered the impact on the
town centre of the Waitrose store to be adverse, although not significantly adverse.
However the cumulative impact on the town centre of the Waitrose store together
with the proposed store at the Marrick’s site „would equate to a loss of £20.62m in
2016 [and] this would equate to an impact of around 47% [on the town centre].
This led the Council’s appointed retail consultant to state that:
„In our view despite the claims to the contrary… [made by the applicant], …the
cumulative impact would be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality
and viability of the town centre. At a time when town centres are under particular
pressure from the economic downturn, the rise of internet shopping and the
expansion of out-of-centre stores, we believe that the scale of the proposed store is
excessive and would have a materially harmful impact on the town centre.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant went on to conclude that
„In respect of the impact on the town centre we conclude that the submitted
assessment fails to provide sufficient information to enable us to conclude that it
would not be likely to have a significant impact on the town centre. In particular the
cumulative impact when taken in combination with the Waitrose store would
suppress trading levels within the town centre and the main food stores to
unacceptable levels. The Sainsbury‟s store would experience very dramatic
reductions in turnover along with the Lidl supermarket and both of these stores are
important in maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of the town centre.
Development Committee
34
21 March 2013
We are therefore unable to conclude that the scheme complies with Policy EC5 of
the Core Strategy and paragraph 26 of the NPPF‟.
The applicants, having considered the audit from the Council’s appointed retail
consultant, stated that they disagreed with the conclusions reached by the Council’s
appointed retail consultant and submitted letters suggesting inaccuracies had been
made in reaching those conclusions.
Having considered this further submission from the applicants, the Council’s
appointed retail consultant provided some further observations, a copy of which is
available to view at Appendix 7.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant noted that the figures used within his
original audit were based on those provided by the applicant and therefore by
criticising his audit they were, in effect actually criticising their own submissions.
Therefore having considered carefully the further response from the applicant the
Council’s appointed retail consultant went on to conclude that „We…reaffirm our view
that the Applicant‟s comments have not altered our conclusion on the significance of
the potential impact on the town centre which on the Applicant‟s own analysis rightly
includes the trade diversion from both Sainsbury‟s and Lidl. In our opinion the impact
is likely to be significantly adverse given that the town would lose almost one third of
its total trade in 2016. We do not believe that the Applicant has demonstrated why
the effects „on the ground‟ would not be significantly damaging with little analysis of
the consequences of reducing the town‟s turnover by the scale envisaged‟.
Officers support the conclusions of the Council’s appointed retail consultant in
respect of overall retail impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town
centre.
SUMMARY OF RETAIL MATTERS
Officers have concluded that, at the time of writing this report, there was no
sequentially preferable site closer to the town centre that was known to be available,
suitable and viable for retail development comparable in scale and kind to that
proposed on the Marrick’s site. Whilst developer interest in the sequentially
preferable Paston College Lawns site has recently emerged and an offer has been
submitted to the College for consideration, it is not known whether the site will be
made available by the College. Therefore, whilst the Paston College Lawns site has
been considered previously by the Council to be potentially viable and suitable for
retail development, at this moment in time and based on previous views expressed
by the College, Officers have assumed the site is unlikely to be made available and
the site is likely to have to be ruled out in sequential terms. Committee will be
updated if this position has changed.
In respect of impact it is considered that a store of the size currently proposed would
be likely to have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability North
Walsham town centre and as such it will be important to consider whether the
identified significant impacts can be appropriately mitigated which will be important
for the long term interests of the Town Centre.. If the impacts cannot be appropriately
mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the CIL Regulations then Officer
advice to the Committee would be to refuse the application.
In respect of impact mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail consultant indicated
within his further observations that „Although we have concluded that this level of
impact is likely to be incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements or
Development Committee
35
21 March 2013
other measures, we accept that this is ultimately a matter for the Council to
determine‟.
At the time of writing this report, Officers have sought to try and agree the level of
impact with the applicants. Officers have asked the applicants to accept the impact
findings of the Council’s appointed retail consultant but, the applicant is reluctant to
agree this in writing, choosing instead to ‘agree to disagree’. Officers are the opinion
that it is imperative that the applicants accept that their proposal would have
significant adverse impacts otherwise any decision, particularly one involving
mitigation, remains open to potential legal challenge, in respect of which the
applicant is fully aware.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation measures for consideration (a
copy of which is available at Appendix 8). Any mitigation is likely to be secured
through a S106 Obligation.
Having considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact. Officers concur with this view.
The applicant has been made aware of the inadequacy of their mitigation and the
Committee will be updated orally if the proposed mitigation package is substantially
amended.
HIGHWAY SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY
The applicants have submitted a Transport Assessment with the proposal and have
indicated that the proposed development would be served by a new vehicular and
pedestrian access off Cromer Road. This would comprise a new ghost-island priority
junction onto Cromer Road and would replace existing access facilities onto Bradfield
Road. Access to Bradfield Road would still be maintained but is intended to be
accessed off the proposed new supermarket entrance.
The applicants propose the provision of bus stops on both sides of Cromer Road
together with a pedestrian refuge in the centre of Cromer Road. The applicants also
propose to allow a Community Bus to directly access the site and a dedicated on-site
bus lay-by is proposed.
Pedestrian and cycle access would be provided via a dedicated access adjacent to
the proposed petrol filling station and within the site to the store entrance. In respect
of accessibility on foot and using existing pedestrian facilities, the application site is
approximately 1.2km (3/4 mile) from the edge of the primary shopping area of North
Walsham. The town centre is not directly visible from the proposed supermarket site
until pedestrians walk approximately 1km up Cromer Road and past the traffic light
junction of the A149/B1145 (from where the church tower of St Nicholas in the centre
of the town becomes visible).
The applicants propose to provide a footway on Cromer Road outside the store of 3m
in width to provide shared pedestrian/cycle access. This would taper down in width
where it meets existing footways. The applicants also propose to provide a hard
dressing to a currently unsurfaced pedestrian footpath between Queensway and
Greens Road so as to enable improvement of pedestrian links to the store from a
southerly direction.
The applicants propose to provide 412 vehicle parking spaces (including 19 parent
and child spaces, 18 disabled spaces and 25 staff parking places), together with 3
Development Committee
36
21 March 2013
motorcycle and moped spaces and 16 cycle spaces for customers. Having
considering the proposal the Highway Authority has commented:
„Whilst the application site is remote from the town centre and much of the residential
areas of North Walsham, the distance is less than is the case with the permitted
Waitrose development.
Whilst there is little opportunity for modal shift to cycling, the proposal makes
provision for bus stops on Cromer Road, close to the store, and for the community
bus to enter the store complex; the latter aspect will be the subject of S106
discussions. The intention to improve the link from Queensway to Greens Road
would enhance walking to the store from the south-western quadrant of the town, but
it is difficult to understand how this can be achieved without significant impact upon
the environment.
It is proposed to provide 412 parking spaces at the store, which exceeds the Core
Strategy parking standard by 14 spaces.
Five junctions in North Walsham have been assessed as part of the study. The
modelling indicates that the only junction which will operate over capacity, albeit
minimally, is the junction between the store access and Cromer Road. This occurs
during the Friday pm peak and involves left turn movements leaving the store; this is
not considered to be a problem. All other junctions will continue to have adequate
reserve capacity, although there will be less at the signal controlled junction between
the A149/Cromer Road/B1145.
The assessment is considered robust and demonstrates that the highway network is
capable of catering for the development traffic.
The lack of accident cluster sites indicates that there is no need for any accident
remedial work on the surrounding highway network.
Access to the application site is to be taken from Bradfield Road and the junction
between this road and Cromer Road is to be provided with a ghost island right turn
facility. These aspects have been the subject of safety audit and any issues arising
from the audit are capable of being addressed at the design stage, if the proposal is
consented.
The Highway Authority considers that the proposal satisfies the criteria set out in
NPPF.
Consequently, if your Council is minded to grant consent, please include…conditions
and informatives‟.
Having considered the comments of Norfolk County Council Highways, North
Walsham Town Council had raised some concerns (highlighted below in bold) in
relation to access and highway safety in respect of which the Highway Authority
responded (comments in italic)
1. Is Cromer Road wide enough to provide the three lanes of traffic needed for
the ghost-island right turn? - The carriageway of Cromer Road will be widened
to accommodate the ghost island right turn facility.
2. What happens if more than eight vehicles want to turn right into the store
will this not block the free flow of the Cromer Road? - The data does not
indicate that a queue of 8 or more vehicles will occur.
Development Committee
37
21 March 2013
3. In addition what if people want to turn right out of the store – will this not
block/ slow down people leaving the store? - A twin lane exit is to be
provided. Right turning vehicles will have to await an opportunity to enter Cromer
Road, as happens at Waitrose exit.
4. At busy time would people not be tempted to rat—run around Bradfield
Road to avoid queues and how would that be discouraged? - NCC proposed
closure of Bradfield Road to prevent rat-running, but this met with opposition from
the Town Council and was dropped as a consequence!
5. What happens at busy times when Waitrose and the Magic Kingdom
scheme are all also operational? - The network will continue to function.
6. At busy times, is it not likely that any buses serving the development would
get stuck on site in traffic queues when trying to leave? - Having no
knowledge of the hours of operation of the community bus, I cannot comment
other than to note that the Transport Assessment does not highlight problems
occurring.
7. With a single-point of access, what would happen if there was an incident at
the garage (e.g. a fire) how would people leave the site? - It is imagined that
the PFS manager would open the tanker exit for the emergency services.
Officers are aware that discussions between the applicants and North Walsham
Town Council continue to take place regarding highway safety concerns.
In respect of highway safety considerations, the Committee needs to have in its mind
the advice contained within paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework
which states, amongst other things, that „…Development should only be prevented or
refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development
are severe‟. Given that the Highway Authority has not raised an objection to the
proposal and on the basis that there is no other sequentially preferable site closer to
the town centre that is available, suitable or viable, Officers would advise against
refusal on highway safety grounds provided that appropriate conditions and
informatives are attached in the event that the Committee is minded to approve the
application.
Subject to the imposition of conditions and completion of a S106 Obligation as
required by the Highway Authority, the proposal is considered to comply with
Development Plan Policies CT5 and CT 6.
S106 OBLIGATIONS
The legislation providing local planning authorities with the powers to enter into legal
(Section 106) agreements with applicants, often referred to as planning obligations,
so as to regulate the use and development of land which might involve payment of a
financial contribution for off-site works, is set out in the Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (para. 122) and restated in the National Planning Policy
Framework published on 27 March 2012. The guidance indicates that planning
obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
directly related to the development; and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The Council also has its own adopted policy which sets out the approach to be taken
to secure financial contributions, in certain circumstances, to offset any potential
impacts of development.
Development Committee
38
21 March 2013
In respect of the proposed development and the possible requirement to enter into a
S106 Obligation, whilst the Council’s appointed retail consultant has suggested that
the level of significant adverse impacts on the vitality and viability is „likely to be
incapable of being mitigated by town centre improvements or other measures‟ he
nonetheless accepts ‘that this is ultimately a matter for the Council to determine‟.
The level of mitigation required to address the identified impacts is likely to be
unprecedented within this District and there remains an element of doubt as to
whether the business model of the applicant would be capable of securing the
degree of mitigation to address those identified impacts. Officers remain firmly of the
view that the Local Planning Authority has a clear role to act in the wider public
interest and, with this in mind, the financial gain for the applicant in selling the land
with planning permission for a supermarket should not be at the expense of North
Walsham town centre. It is therefore imperative that the right level of mitigation is
secured, especially as there is only one opportunity to do so in relation to this
development.
A list of possible mitigation proposals has been submitted by North Walsham Town
Council and these together with other appropriate mitigation can be considered, but
only on the basis that they comply with the CIL Regulations.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation which has been submitted to the
Council for consideration (a copy of which is available at Appendix 8). Any mitigation
is likely to be secured either through S106 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking,
Having considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact. Officers concur with this view.
The applicant has been made aware of the inadequacy of their mitigation and the
Committee will be updated orally if the proposed mitigation package is substantially
amended.
IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
The closest residential properties are those located on Suffield Close and Cromer
Road. Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 Suffield Close have a direct boundary with the site, as does
Worstead Lodge on Cromer Road.
Officers consider that the main impacts on adjacent residents from the proposed
development would be in relation to noise from vehicles (deliveries and shoppers)
and also from shoppers on site as they go about their business. It is not considered
that the proposal would give rise to any overlooking or overbearing impact concerns.
This is because the supermarket building itself would be approximately 27m away
from the boundary of the nearest property and more than 40 metres away from actual
dwelling houses. In addition the applicant has pitched the roof of the supermarket
away from residents and the closest point of the supermarket would have a height of
approximately 4.5m at this point.
However lighting to buildings and the car park is one aspect that could give rise to
concerns for residential amenity, but only if lighting is poorly designed and allowed to
spill onto neighbouring land.
Other neighbouring land along the western, northern and southern boundaries of the
site is in commercial or agricultural use and the proposal is therefore unlikely to give
rise to substantive amenity impacts.
Development Committee
39
21 March 2013
Responses from the Environmental Protection Officer suggest that, if permission is
granted, a number of planning conditions would need to be imposed including
restricting hours of delivery, lighting, details of any mechanical ventilation or extract
equipment to be installed and details of proposed methods of demolition of the
existing buildings in order to prevent nuisances from dust.
Subject to the imposition of conditions the proposal is considered to comply with
relevant Development Plan policy.
DESIGN
In respect of design matters, the site is located well outside the town centre and is
surrounded by a mixture of commercial, retail and agricultural uses. The existing
buildings on the site include a derelict former residential property and commercial
buildings. Officers are of the opinion that there is no overriding or strong prevailing
design character within the immediate area from which to draw.
The proposed supermarket building would have a rectangular footprint with a
frontage width of approximately 91 metres, a depth of approximately 61 metres and a
maximum height of 11.7 metres (front entrance). An enclosed service yard
measuring approximately 25 metres x 65 metres would also be provided on the north
western side of the building. The store would be constructed from a range of
materials including brick and flint, timber posts and louvred panels, composite
insulated panels, standing seam metal roof (to pitched sections) and membrane
covered flat roof.
A petrol filling station is proposed at the front of the site which would enable 12
vehicles to use the filling station at the same time. A kiosk of approximately 90
square metres is also proposed. The kiosk building would have curved walls made of
brick and flint with a height of approximately 4 metres. The canopy above the petrol
filling station would measure approximately 14.5 metres x 21 metres with a ceiling
height of 4.7 metres and a maximum overall height of 5.6 metres
In considering the proposal the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
raised concerns about the design of the supermarket building and the petrol filling
station as set out within his consultation reply.
The applicant has responded to the criticisms of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager and a letter was submitted outlining why they have made
certain decisions.
Having considered the views of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
and the response from the applicant, it is considered that a pragmatic approach
should be taken in respect of design in this case. Whilst one might conclude that the
design lacks local distinctiveness, the Committee should be aware that there are no
historical precedents for a supermarket building of this size (this would be the largest
supermarket in the District). Whilst it may be preferable to have the building sited
adjacent to the road, the shape of site does not readily allow for this and the
applicant would have to purchase the adjacent builders merchant in order to make
this happen.
They key test is whether the proposal should be refused on design grounds
(assuming all other matters are satisfactorily addressed). Ultimately it is a matter of
judgement for the Committee in weighing the public benefits of the proposal against
any negative design points. Given the clear steer from central government to Local
Planning Authorities to get Britain building and to generate jobs and wealth, refusal
Development Committee
40
21 March 2013
purely on grounds of poor design may be difficult to defend. The Committee may
have to accept that building is in essence a ‘box’ dressed with some vernacular
materials. To pretend it is anything other than a machine for shopping would be
architecturally disingenuous and the key is to ensure that the best quality materials
are used in the buildings and surfaces.
On balance, whilst the concerns expressed by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager are respected, it is considered that refusal on design grounds
alone would be difficult to substantiate. As such, subject to the imposition of
conditions to secure the use of high quality external materials, the proposal is
considered to comply with Development Plan policy relating to design.
SUSTAINABILITY
In consideration of the proposal against Core Strategy Policy EN 6, subject to the
imposition of conditions to secure a BREAM rating of ‘Good’; the use of sustainable
drainage systems for disposing of roof water and water from the highway and parking
and a condition to secure 10% of the energy required by the development to be
secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy sources, the
proposal is considered to comply with Development Plan policy
IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY
The application was accompanied by a Biodiversity/Habitat Report, prepared by
Aurum Ecology Ltd. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has
indicated that the survey was undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist at an
appropriate time of year.
Based on the advice of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, subject
to the imposition of conditions to secure mitigation, the proposal would accord with
relevant Development Plan policy.
LANDSCAPE
In respect of landscaping considerations, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager has noted that „the Landscaping Report [submitted as part of the
application] comprised a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) prepared
by Greenwillows Associates and a Management Statement. This assessed the likely
effects of the proposed retail store and petrol filling station on the existing landscape
resource and the range of visual receptors within the study area. The study has been
prepared in accordance with the guidelines set out [by the] Landscape Institute and
the methodology, magnitude and sensitivity criteria have been defined‟.
Having considered the proposed development and suggested mitigation, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager has raised concerns that landscape
mitigation will not adequately preserve or enhance the character and quality of the
area and, as such, do not meet the requirements of Policy EN4. The applicant has
been made aware of these concerns.
Ultimately it is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether any
adverse landscape impacts associated with this proposal can be adequately
mitigated or whether there are any other material considerations which would
outweigh these concerns.
It is considered that it may be possible to add further landscaping within the site but
this would require the potential loss of parking spaces to make way for planting
areas. There is potential scope for this to happen, particularly as the Highway
Authority has indicated that the proposal has 14 parking spaces more than is
Development Committee
41
21 March 2013
required by the Core Strategy parking standards. However this would not necessarily
address the concerns about the starkness of the entrance and boundary treatment
next to the proposed petrol filling station but again this is a matter which could be
resolved by way of planning condition to seek further landscape planting.
Whilst it is certainly desirable to secure an appropriate degree of landscaping in order
to satisfactorily merge the development with its surroundings, ultimately it is a matter
of planning judgment for the Committee in weighing the benefits of the proposal
against any dis-benefits. Refusal based on lack of appropriate landscaping would
certainly not be recommended by Officers. Suitably worded planning conditions
would be the most appropriate way to resolve this matter and to try and deliver the
best solution within the space available. On balance, subject to the imposition of
conditions, the proposal would generally accord with relevant Development Plan
policies.
FLOOD RISK & DRAINAGE
The site is not located within a flood risk area but, given the size of the site,
consideration needs to be given to surface water flooding risks and this is an issue
that has been raised by residents living of Suffield Close. Following discussions
between the applicant and the Environment Agency, a revised surface water
drainage strategy, prepared by ASD Engineering and dated 7 November 2012 was
submitted. Based on these revised details, The Environment Agency have confirmed
that the proposed development would not give rise to significant flood risk concerns
subject to appropriate drainage systems being utilised. These can be secured by
appropriate conditions.
Anglian Water have raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to
ensure the use of sustainable drainage systems.
Therefore subject to these conditions the proposal would accord with Development
Plan Policy EN 10.
CONTAMINATION
In respect of contamination, the applicant has submitted a Phase 1 Desk Study
report.
The Desk Study report indicates that potential sources of contaminants have been
identified for the site, associated with its former uses, particularly in the southern and
central parts, that may pose a risk to controlled waters. It therefore recommends that
an intrusive investigation is undertaken to determine the extent of any potential
contamination within the soil and groundwater.
Some intrusive investigations were previously undertaken and whilst these
investigations did not identify any levels of contaminants that would appear likely to
pose significant risk to controlled waters, the Environment Agency have noted that
the chemical testing carried out so far is considered insufficient to make conclusions
regarding ground contamination. Further investigation is therefore recommended to
be undertaken.
The Environment Agency has noted that the extent of the investigation undertaken in
the main area of concern (associated with the former Marricks Wire Rope Premises
in the southern part of the site) was very limited, with the chemical testing of soil from
only one sampling location. Further investigation is therefore required, particularly in
this area, including beneath any on-site structures, such as buildings and hard
standing following their removal.
Development Committee
42
21 March 2013
Given the potential contamination issues associated with the site’s redevelopment, to
ensure it is subject to adequate investigation, assessment and remediation as may
be necessary for the protection of controlled waters, the Environment Agency have
requested conditions are appended to any approval granted.
Subject to the imposition of conditions to secure the remediation of any
contamination in the event that contamination is found, the proposal would accord
with Development Plan Policy EN 13.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
It is a matter of planning judgment for the Committee as to whether or not there are
material considerations either in favour or against the proposal which would justify a
departure from adopted Development Plan policies.
In this case, the National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration to
which the Committee should afford appropriate weight.
In addition to the retail guidance set out within the Framework at paragraphs 24, 26
and 27 and the ministerial advice issued by Rt Hon Greg Clark MP concerning
Planning for Growth, as highlighted above, the Committee is entitled to give weight to
the economic benefits of the proposal with reference in particular to paragraph 18 of
the Framework which states: „The Government is committed to securing economic
growth in order to create jobs and prosperity…‟.
In this regard the applicant has indicated that the proposal would directly create 250
new full-time/part-time jobs. Whilst the employment and prosperity prospects
associated with the proposal are a material consideration to which some weight can
be attached, Officers are of the view that the provision of jobs associated with this
proposal would not be sufficient in itself to override the need for adequate impact
mitigation. This is because the proposal would be likely to result in a net loss of jobs
in the town centre following the loss of one third of trade for the town centre, as
identified by the Council’s appointed retail consultant.
Impact mitigation will be necessary to ensure, amongst other things, that a strategy
for the town centre can be developed and this may well be predicated on the basis of
a transition to a predominantly service function for the town centre, combined with a
regeneration strategy. Without securing appropriate levels of mitigation, Officers are
of the opinion that the development would have a seriously harmful impact on North
Walsham town centre, particularly if levels of footfall and resultant loss of trade
occurs as predicted following the opening of the Marrick’s store.
SUMMARY
The proposed development seeks the erection of an A1 retail food store with a gross
floor area of approximately 5,600 square metres (60,000 sqft) with net sales areas of
approximately 3,623sqm (approx 39,000sqft) using the National Retail Planning
Forum (NRPF) definition of net sales area.
The proposal also includes the provision of petrol filling station at the site entrance
together with the provision of a new vehicular entrance off Cromer Road comprising
alterations to Bradfield Road.
The proposed store is considered to be in an out-of town location and, in respect of
compliance with the sequential test, subject to confirmation that the sequentially
preferable Paston College Lawns site remains unavailable, it is considered that the
Development Committee
43
21 March 2013
Marrick’s proposal on the Cromer Road site is the closest site to the town centre that
is available, suitable and viable to accommodate a store of the size proposed.
In respect of impact, having considered the available evidence the Council’s
appointed retail consultant considers that the proposal would be likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre.
As such, the proposal could only be considered acceptable in planning terms subject
to a package of appropriate mitigation measures to address the identified significant
adverse impacts.
The applicant has prepared a package of mitigation which has been submitted to the
Council for consideration (a copy of which is available at Appendix 8). Having
considered the proposed package of mitigation, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant is of the opinion that the mitigation falls well short of what may be required
to mitigate the identified significant adverse impact and Officers concur with this view.
In all other respects, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, the proposed
development is considered to be compliant with Development Plan policy.
Therefore, based on the package of mitigation submitted at the time of writing this
report, Officers are of the opinion that approval of the application could not be
supported, particularly as the package of mitigation is well short of what would be
required to offset the identified significant adverse impacts of the vitality and viability
of North Walsham town centre.
CONCLUSIONS
The recommendation to Committee is dependent upon a number of scenarios:
SCENARIO A) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is considered to be
available, suitable and viable in sequential terms, Officers would advise that the
application be refused on grounds that there is a sequentially preferable site closer to
the town centre that is considered to be available, suitable and viable for retail
supermarket development comparable in scale and kind to that proposed at the
Marrick’s site on Cromer Road.
In addition, the reasons for refusal outlined in Scenario B) may also apply.
SCENARIO B) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is not considered to
be available in sequential terms but appropriate mitigation has not been provided to
offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, Officers would
advise that the application be refused on grounds that the proposed development
would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham
town centre and the applicant has failed to properly mitigate the identified impacts.
Having considered all the available evidence it is considered that there are no other
material considerations that would justify the clear departure from Development Plan
policy.
SCENARIO C) In the event that the Paston College Lawns site is not considered to
be available in sequential terms and appropriate mitigation has been provided to
offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, Officers would
advise that the application be approved under delegated powers subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees and subject
to completion of a S106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation and
subject to a S278 Agreement to secure required off-site highway improvements
works.
Development Committee
44
21 March 2013
At the time of writing this report, the package of mitigation submitted by the applicant
is considered to be wholly inadequate to address the identified significant adverse
impacts and, on that basis, the recommendation has to be one of refusal for the
reasons outlined under Scenario B above. Currently, the position of Paston College
remains unresolved in respect of the future of their Lawns site. If the College do
decide to make their Lawns site available for development of a supermarket of
broadly the same size as that proposed at the Marrick’s site then the reasons for
refusal outlined under Scenario A above would also apply.
RECOMMENDATION:
Delegated authority to refuse, subject to the outcome of information
concerning the availability of the Paston College Lawns site and to the
possible inclusion of an additional reason for refusal relating to the sequential
test, for the following reason:
The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on the
vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre and the applicant has failed
to properly mitigate the identified impacts. Having considered all the available
evidence it is considered that there are no other material considerations that
would justify the clear departure from Development Plan policy.
4.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0007 - Erection of 123 dwellings with public
park and open space and associated landscaping, drainage and highway
infrastructure; Land off Two Furlong Hill and Market Lane for Hopkins Homes
Ltd & Holkham Estate
Major Development
- Target Date: 10 April 2013
Case Officer: Mr J Williams
Full Planning Permission
CONSTRAINTS
Residential Use Allocation
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
Archaeological Site
Contaminated Land
Countryside
Open Land Area
THE APPLICATION
The proposed housing development would include a mix of 1 & 2 bedroom
apartments and 2,3 & 4 bedroom houses/bungalows. These would comprise a
combination of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, plus some
apartment 'blocks'. A mix of single, two storey and buildings comprising three floors
of accommodation is proposed. 55 of the dwellings are proposed to be 'affordable'.
Of this figure 40 units are to be affordable rented properties and 15 units are to be
what is described as 'shared equity dwellings' sold by the developer at 75% open
market value'.
A band of open space is proposed running east-west across the site, as well as a
smaller area of open space in the south-western corner of the site, designed to
accommodate some of the surface water run-off from the development. the open
space would include some form of children's play facility.
Development Committee
45
21 March 2013
The main vehicle access to serve the development is proposed from Two Furlong Hill
(B1105) close to the south-western corner of the site. This road would take a sinuous
route through the development serving dwellings directly from it as well as other
access roads and private drives linking off it. Market Lane would act as a secondary
route serving a total of 14 dwellings. The proposals do not allow for a vehicular link
through the development linking Two Furlong Hill with Market Lane (but there would
be pedestrian / cycle access). Off-site highway proposals include the introduction of a
20mph speed limit along a section of Burnt Street (A149) together with certain works
to the carriageway and footpaths on its route. (Market Lane connects with Burnt
Street. Burnt Street which forms part of the busy coastal route through Wells would
be part of the route pedestrians would take between the development site, the town
centre and the local primary school). It is also proposed to extend the 30mph limit
along Two Furlong Hill (B1105) to a point approximately midway along the site's
western boundary.
The application is accompanied by proposed 'Heads of Terms' for a S.106 Planning
Obligation. The issues covered relate to affordable housing, open space, a financial
contribution towards libraries and a financial contribution towards mitigating
increased visitor impacts on the nearby Norfolk Coast SPA /SAC.
The application is supported by the following documents:
Planning Statement
Design and Access Statement
Landscape and Visual Assessment Report
Statement of Community Involvement
Transport Assessment
Travel Plan
Flood Risk Assessment
Archaeology Report
Ecology Report
Land Contamination Report
Drainage / Utilities Reports
S.106 Heads of Terms
Amended plans have been submitted which affect some aspects of the internal
layout as well as a number of the building designs.
REASONS FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
The application was deferred at a previous meeting of the Committee.
TOWN COUNCIL
Objects on the following grounds:
1) There is a concern that the main sewer on Burnt Street will not cope with the
connection of an additional 123 homes. The existing sewer is already at full capacity
and regularly blocks. If the new development is to be built it would be an appropriate
opportunity for a new sewer to be laid to the west with a new pumping station.
2) Market Lane and Burnt Street have on many occasions experienced significant
flooding caused by surface water runoff. There is a concern that the development will
exacerbate this situation and that the main foul water drain, taking the water to the
east, is already at capacity and more flooding will therefore occur.
3) The local development framework specifies there should be vehicular access onto
Two Furlong Hill and pedestrian access onto Market Lane. The proposed application
Development Committee
46
21 March 2013
has three vehicular access roads onto Market Lane which access garages and 29
parking spaces. The way the proposed housing is juxtaposed with Market Lane will
also encourage parking on Market Lane where families have more than one car.
Market Lane already serves a large housing estate, a High School, cemetery and
during the summer months, a large number of touring caravans using the school
field. The junction from Market Lane onto Burnt Street has poor visibility and there
have previously been accidents as a result. Market Lane is not suitable for the
proposed increase of traffic.
4) The proposed main vehicular access onto Two Furlong Hill (B1105) is also a
concern. The B1105 is the main road into Wells and is extremely busy. It is also a
main access road for tourist traffic onto the coast. The proposed new junction has no
central island to allow vehicles to move out of the flow of traffic when turning right.
Vehicles travelling into Wells, down Two Furlong Hill will have to stop behind vehicles
turning right, causing a significant danger for vehicles on the busy main road. It would
also be reasonable to consider a slip for vehicles turning left into the new site. The
LDF stipulates there should be ‘provision of safe vehicular access via Two Furlong
Hill with new footway links alongside the carriageway’. The application shows no
provision for a footway.
5) A development of this size will result in many more vehicle movements, including
large delivery and services vehicles. There will be a need for a number of additional
road safe measures in the vicinity. There is a suggestion within the application for a
20 mph zone on roads approaching the development. The Council would like to see
this extended to cover a larger area and would encourage a more detailed
consultation with the Town Council concerning any proposed implementation.
6) The original proposal in the LDF did not include the old railway embankment that
runs alongside northern boundary of the site. The application submitted for
consideration now includes removal of the embankment. Residents of Manor Farm
Drive to the north are concerned that their properties will be overlooked. These
residents have been in consultation with Hopkins Homes, who have offered to create
an eight metre buffer zone between the development and Manor Farm Drive, along
the path of the old railway embankment. The area of the buffer zone, on completion,
would be transferred to the Manor Farm Drive Management Company. However, this
arrangement has only been agreed verbally and it should be a condition of any
planning approval given. Even with the buffer zone in place, the residents of Manor
Farm Close are concerned about the height of the proposed new dwellings
overlooking their properties; it would have been preferable to keep the railway
embankment.
7) The proposed development includes several large public spaces and a playground
that will no doubt require adoption. As the Town Council arranges the grounds
maintenance throughout the town, details of who will be responsible in the long term,
any transfer of responsibility and recovery of costs will need to be outlined and
agreed in detail as a condition of any planning consent given.
8) The draft Section 106 Agreement includes a payment by the developer to help
address the impact of increased visitor pressure on the North Norfolk coast. The
developer argues against this and doesn’t believe the development will result in
additional visitor numbers. The Town Council is also surprised by this suggestion. Of
all the possible consequences of this development an increase in visitor numbers is
the least significant. An additional 123 homes in a town the size of Wells will impact
on a number of local services including health and social care; help for the Wells
Community Hospital may be a better use of any money available and would benefit
Development Committee
47
21 March 2013
the residents of Wells. Wells also has a real lack of community facilities compared
with other North Norfolk towns; any money that could help with schemes such as the
Maltings Project would be beneficial.
9) The Town Council is not against the proposed site off Market Lane being used for
housing but believes strongly that it is necessary to address the problems identified
above. The Government supports localism and believes that communities should
have a say in planning matters. A development of this nature will have a significant
impact on Wells and its residents. It is important that if the development goes ahead
we get the detail right for the benefit of everyone residing in Wells including those
that will eventually live in the new homes.
REPRESENTATIONS
Six letters of objection received raising the following concerns:
There should be no vehicular access from the development onto Market Lane.
Market Lane already serves approximately 100 dwellings, the high school,
cemetery and a seasonal 200 pitch caravan site. It is also used by visitors to the
town to park their cars in the high season. Accidents have occurred near to the
junction of Market Lane.
Market Lane and Burnt Street not capable of accommodating additional traffic.
The adopted Site Allocations Document stipulates that there should be no vehicle
access onto Market Lane.
One letter of objection is accompanied by a petition containing approximately 143
signatures from local residents objecting to any vehicle access onto Market Lane.
Sewage disposal. The existing foul sewerage network is currently inadequate and
residents have experienced problems as a result. The situation would worsen
unless the new development was served by a new sewer outfall as opposed to
linking into the existing network.
One letter is accompanied by a petition containing approximately 103 signatures
objecting to the impacts upon the capacity of the sewerage network.
Residential amenity. The position and proximity of certain plots adjacent to the
northern boundary of the site would cause overlooking to existing dwellings
adjoining the site. This overlooking would be exacerbated by the differing ground
levels.
Need for new housing questioned, particularly as there are no jobs available in
the area.
Nuisance caused to local elderly residents by the proposed children's playground.
Effect of the development upon an existing footpath which runs along the
northern boundary of the site.
Not enough capacity at local schools.
Impact upon local wildlife.
Three letters received offering comments:
Two from a local residents raising issues of potential overlooking onto neighbouring
properties; potential problems from surface water run-off; if the development follows
the pattern of recent developments in Wells, the majority of the homes will be for
second homes or holiday use; there is very little work available in Wells for future
residents.
One from the Conservation Officer of the RSPB regional office, who suggests that
the application should not be approved until prior consideration and approval of a
mitigation and monitoring scheme which provides confidence to the planning
authority that the development is not likely to result in significant impacts upon the
North Norfolk SPA/SAC, in accordance with the requirements of Policy WO1.
Development Committee
48
21 March 2013
Letter received from the head teacher of Alderman Peel High School. Expresses
support for the proposal for various economic reasons. However refers to the fact
that between approximately 8.15 and 8.45am and between 2.45 and 3.20pm there
are approximately six coaches either dropping off or picking up approximately 265
children. The coaches conduct a U turn at the end of Market Lane next to the
cemetery and park on Market Lane. The plans as they are will cause significant
issues as coaches will not be able to park on Market Lane allowing children to get on,
the coaches will block the access to the 26 spaces detailed on the plans. Concerned
also regarding safety issues during construction.
CONSULTATIONS
County Council (Planning Obligations Co-Ordinator) - Requires a payment
(secured by S.106 Obligation) of £7,398 towards library provision, £6,000 towards
green infrastructure, plus payment for three fire hydrants. Confirms that there is
currently sufficient capacity in local schools to accommodate additional pupil
numbers from the new development.
County Council (Highways) - Formal comments awaited, but in the interim has
raised a number of issues of detail which have been forwarded to the applicants.
County Council (Historic Environment Service) - Comments that the proposed
development area has been the subject of an archaeological field evaluation which
uncovered a number of features, including a number of roads. The report dated these
roads as post-medieval, but that dating was not based on any evidence. In fact , an
earlier date is more likely. In the event of planning permission being granted requests
conditions, in accordance with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF requiring submission and
approval of a Written Scheme of Investigation prior to the commencement of
development.
Environment Agency - Originally objected on the basis that the submitted Flood
Risk Assessment (FRA) did not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 9
of the Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework. However
following receipt of additional details the objection has now been lifted, subject to the
imposition of a condition requiring submission and approval of a detailed surface
water drainage scheme.
Anglian Water - Comments that the foul drainage from the development site is in the
catchment of Wells sewage treatment works that at present has available capacity for
these flows as well as the sewerage system connecting to it. Also comments that the
surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application
relevant to Anglian Water is acceptable, subject to surface water connecting to the
public surface water sewer in Burnt Street not exceeding 5 litres per second in all
storm events. Requests a condition preventing occupation of any dwellings until
works have been carried out in accordance with the surface water strategy.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Conservation & Design) Provides comprehensive comments on issues relating to the impact on heritage
assets, site layout, buildings and materials.
Heritage Assets:
There are no listed buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site which would be
impacted upon by the development. With the development also situated some way
from the town’s conservation area, the only discernible heritage impact would be
upon views of the Grade II* Church of St Nicholas. Even here, however, the current
Development Committee
49
21 March 2013
views are long range and involve only unplanned glimpses of the top of the tower.
Whilst the new dwellings would certainly impinge upon (and in some cases block)
these views, the low level of harm is not considered to be a sustainable ground for
objection.
Site layout
The submitted layout does not give rise to any substantive concerns. The changes of
alignment of the spine road, the separation of the footpaths and the regular provision
of trees should create a not unattractive progression through the middle of the site.
Either side of the spine road the spaces become more intimate and comprise a mix
of private drives and parking courts. These unfold into a series of enclaves and
appear to offer some variety. With the areas of open space also providing valuable
relief to the buildings, the layout has two-dimensional potential.
There are however a few minor points; a) It is perhaps a shame that there isn’t a
continuous cycle/footway through the smallest area of open space at the SW corner
of the site to help the residents in this area, b) It is also regrettable that the
‘affordable’ parking courts do not have a shingle surface to match the market
housing, and c) There are a number of small grassed areas which could be public or
private spaces - ownership and responsibility for these should be resolved to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Buildings
From the outset it was recognized that scale and form would be important
considerations given the site’s position and sloping profile. As proposed, however,
there are almost 40 units greater than two storeys and these have been concentrated
across the middle of the site. With this roughly corresponding to the crest of the rise,
the resultant ridge heights (which are over 11m in places) are extremely concerning.
Particularly when viewed from Mill Road, the landscape intrusion within the AONB
would be significant and would surely prevent the development being accepted
visually into the existing settlement. It is therefore maintained that any taller units
should be confined to the Market Lane frontage and to the lower parts of the site.
Of the other buildings across the site, there generally seems to be a good mix in
terms of built form and height. This variety in massing should help create some
interest through the scheme.
In terms of design, the units unsurprisingly point back in time and take their
influences from a range of styles and periods. This mix is perhaps more varied than
on some of our other housing allocation sites - certainly it contains a few more
architectural flourishes. Fundamentally, however, the majority of the units feature
familiar elevations with well-rehearsed detailing. Whilst for the most part offering
good proportions and well-structured facades, there is once again a disappointing
lack of genuine innovation or surprise. This should ensure that the scheme
architecturally makes only a neutral contribution to the District’s built environment.
There are however a number of individual areas where additional design work is
needed.
Materials
As the proposed materials are essentially the same as those specified at sites by the
same developer in Stalham and Cromer. The same comments about distinctive and
appropriateness apply even more so here. The only slight difference is that there is
more of a precedent for using cream-coloured bricks in this area; i.e. the local supply
of gault clay was used extensively throughout the Holkham Estate.
Development Committee
50
21 March 2013
Summary
In conclusion, the layout as submitted is considered generally acceptable.
Notwithstanding the usual concerns about the actual value of the architecture, the
majority of the units are also on balance acceptable. However, there are a series of
very real concerns (the scale and design of certain buildings) which it is considered
should be addressed prior to any approval being issued. Otherwise, the end result
would be an unduly imposing scheme which would both struggle to integrate
successfully with the existing built form and the surrounding landscape (AONB).
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) Provides
comprehensive comments on the landscape impacts of the proposed development
as well as its potential impacts upon nearby sites of international ecological
importance (Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA))
Landscape Impact
The site is located within the North Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB). The Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) submitted with the
application assesses the impact of the Site Allocation proposal and not the actual
proposed development. The LVIA analysed the landscape character and zone of
theoretical visibility for the site and provides a landscape strategy and set of design
principles which aim to reduce the potential impacts of development on the site. The
LVIA concluded that if the recommendations were implemented the allocation of
housing on the site would have a minor effect on the visual amenity and character of
the area including the North Norfolk Coast AONB. The LVIA has been prepared in
accordance with recognised industry guidelines and the recommendations and
conclusions are deemed sound.
The submitted Landscape Masterplan (included as part of the Design and Access
Statement) and development design has been assessed and analysed according to
the recommendations reported in the LVIA. Whilst the proposals have taken on board
some of the recommendations of the LVIA, notably the diagonally orientated open
space and the tree lined avenue running through the development, there are
significant issues with the location and heights of principal buildings within the
development and the impact this will have on the landscape. This major issue
together with the other issues result in a development that does not accord with the
requirements of Policy WO1 and other relevant Core Strategy policies. The
sensitivity of the site cannot be understated, situated as it is within the AONB and on
the edge of historic Wells. Therefore, it is considered that the current application
would result in significant detrimental impact to the AONB and the Landscape
Character.
Impact upon SAC & SPA
The site is located close to an international ecologically important coastline for
breeding, over-wintering and migratory birds, as well as having a number of
exemplary priority habitats such as salt-marsh, dunes, shingle ridges and mudflats.
The quality of the habitat and importance for bird species is recognised through the
designation of most of the coastline as a Ramsar Site, Special Area of Conservation
(SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), incorporating a number of Sites of Special
Scientific Interest (SSSI). Holkham National Nature Reserve (NNR) is less than 2km
from the site and is the most heavily visited NNR in the UK. The coast is subject to
extreme visitor pressure and a balance must be struck between conserving and
enhancing the habitats and species on the coast as well as providing for and
encouraging visitor and residents.
Development Committee
51
21 March 2013
Given the proximity of the development to the SPA and SAC sites (Natura 2000
sites), the development must comply with the requirements of the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), guidelines for which are provided by
Government Circular 06/95. In this respect, as part of the Site Specific Allocation
process, the site (W01) was subject to an Appropriate Assessment, whereby it was
concluded that the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact on
the Natura 2000 sites subject to a recommendation that a scheme of post
development monitoring is implemented and any impacts mitigated for.
Notwithstanding other policy considerations Policy W01 requires that at least 1ha of
open space is provided for within the development and the prior approval of a
scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast
SPA/SAC. The current allocation of open space falls just below 1ha; this should be
addressed to meet the policy requirements. In addition, funding should be secured to
ensure that the post development monitoring and mitigation scheme is implemented
to ensure no negative effects on the Natura 2000 sites.
Comments on amended plans awaited.
Natural England - No objection.
Comments that the site is within 1km of North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI). The closest part of this SSSI is within The Wash and North Norfolk
Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC), The North Norfolk Coast Special
Protection Area (SPA) and the North Norfolk Coast Ramsar. Other nearby parts of
the SSSI are also within the North Norfolk Coast SAC.
Advises that the proposal, if undertaken in strict accordance with the details
submitted, is not likely to have a significant effect on the interest features for which
the above sites have been classified. Also advises that the District Council is not
required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to assess the implications of this
proposal on the site’s conservation objectives.
"Whilst residential development in this location has the potential to lead to
disturbance to these designated sites this has previously been considered in the
Appropriate Assessment carried out for your authorities Site Allocations DPD.
Section 8.1.1 of the Appropriate Assessment describes the commitments made by
your authority to monitoring for possible increased recreational pressure at several
Natura 2000 sites within and close to the North Norfolk District as a result of new
residential development. The commitments also include providing mitigation such as
visitor management where any such impacts are detected. The applicants have
agreed to make a financial contribution to this project. Natural England would be
keen to hear from your authority on plans to implement these monitoring and
management requirements and would be willing to provide advice and assistance."
Notes that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support
of this proposal, and accordingly does not object to the proposed development. On
the basis of the information available advises that the proposed development would
be unlikely to affect a European Protected Species.
Does not believe that this development is likely to impact on the AONB.
Norfolk Coast Partnership - Accepts that the allocation of this significant area of
housing land in the Norfolk Coast AONB has been decided through the LDF process,
Development Committee
52
21 March 2013
and assume that policies in the LDF / Local Plan and the intentions expressed in the
documents supporting the planning application and the work done in developing
these proposals will ensure that impacts on the character of the existing settlement
and landscape will be minimised.
Raises concern that if the policy for achieving 45% affordable housing on the site is
not achieved there would be pressure to approve further housing in the AONB,
beyond that allocated in the LDF.
Refers to paragraph (e) of Policy WO1 which relates to this allocated site, which
requires "prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on
the North Norfolk Coast SPA / SAC arising as a result of increased visitor pressure,
and on-going monitoring of such measures". Related to this, refers to the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and specifically paragraph 119 which states that
"The presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 14) does not
apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or
Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined".
Quotes paragraph 4.8 of the applicant's submitted Planning Statement which states
as follows:
“Hopkins Homes Ltd has agreed to provide a financial contribution to allow the
District Council and Natural England to spend on minimising and monitoring potential
visitor impacts on the SPA and SAC attributable to the development. Hopkins Homes
does not accept that there would be any demonstrable adverse impact on the SPA or
SAC because of increased visitor pressure arising from this development.”
Comments however that this is not a scheme of mitigation as required for prior
approval as part of the application process. Without such a scheme, it is not possible
to be confident that significant impacts on the European Site can be avoided. The
application should not be approved without prior consideration and approval of a
mitigation and monitoring scheme that provides confidence to the planning authority
and to Natural England that the development is not likely to result in significant
impacts on the SPA and SAC features. Assuming it appears that this can be
achieved, it would still require ongoing monitoring to ensure this is the case.
Countryside and Parks Manager -
Awaiting comments.
Strategic Housing - Supports the application (as originally submitted) as it provides
45% of the total number of dwellings as affordable housing. The proposed phasing
arrangements for delivery of the affordable housing is acceptable considering the
layout of the proposed scheme and the location of the affordable housing dwellings
within the scheme. The affordable housing provision must be protected through the
agreement of a Section 106 Agreement.
Raises concerns to the amended plans as they have resulted in the loss of the
wheelchair bungalows, this means that a need for wheelchair accommodation in
Wells will not be met and there is very little likelihood of this type of accommodation
being provided elsewhere in the town. Suggests that further amendments should be
made to address this loss. Also concerned that the impact of the changes has
resulted in an almost exclusively affordable housing area in the south- eastern corner
of the site. Should the adjoining area to the south of the site be developed as
intended as an 'exception' housing scheme this would add to the concentration of
affordable housing in this area of the overall development.
Development Committee
53
21 March 2013
Environmental Health Confirms satisfactory details have been submitted
regarding potential land contamination issues, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Comments regarding drainage awaited.
Sustainability Co-Ordinator - Confirms that details submitted with the application
demonstrate compliance with Core Strategy Policy EN6 in respect of the Code for
Sustainable Homes and renewable energy provision. Recommends conditions to
secure these aspects of the development.
Norfolk Police - Refers to the additional pressures to deliver effective policing and
securing safe and sustainable communities caused by new housing developments
and the need for developer contributions to assist in this delivery. Raises a holding
objection pending further guidance from the District Council as to what information is
required to advance the request for developer contributions.
Norfolk Police (Crime Prevention Design) - Content with general layout, but has
contacted the applicants directly regarding details of public access to three
properties.
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.
Having considered the likely impact on an individual's Human Rights, and the general
interest of the public, approval of this application as recommended 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 Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document (Adopted
February 2011)
Policy W01 (Land at Market Lane, Wells).
Land amounting to 4.6 hectares is allocated for residential development of
approximately 120 dwellings and at least 1hectare of open space. Development will
be subject to compliance with adopted Core Strategy policies including on-site
provision of the required proportion of affordable housing (currently 45%) and
contributions towards infrastructure, services and other community needs as required
and:
a) Provision of safe vehicular access via Two Furlong Hill with new footway links
alongside the carriageway and provision of pedestrian links to Market Lane and the
High School;
b) provision of significant internal open spaces, retention of boundary hedges
(access permitting), and tree planting within and adjacent to the site including a
landscaped buffer to the southern and western boundaries of the field;
c) provision of a public park incorporating children‟s play provision on an accessible
part of the site and other types of public open space in accordance with Core
Strategy policy;
d) site layout that could enable the land to the south to come forward as an
affordable housing „exceptions‟ scheme;
e) prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise potential impacts on the
North Norfolk Coast SPA / SAC arising as a result of increased visitor pressure, and
Development Committee
54
21 March 2013
on-going monitoring of such measures; and,
f) demonstration that there is adequate capacity in the foul sewerage network and
that proposals have regard to water quality standards.
This site is within the Norfolk Coast AONB, and development proposals should be
informed by, and be sympathetic to, the special landscape character of this protected
area. Proposals should also be informed by Development Control Policies EN1 and
EN2.
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS3: Housing (strategic approach to housing issues).
Policy SS6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS14: Wells-next-the-Sea (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO1: Dwelling mix and type (specifies type and mix of dwellings for new
housing developments).
Policy HO2: Provision of affordable housing (specifies the requirements for provision
of affordable housing and/or contributions towards provision).
Policy EN1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and The Broads
(prevents developments which would be significantly detrimental to the areas and
their setting).
Policy EN2: Protection and enhancement of landscape and settlement character
(specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including the Landscape
Character Assessment).
Policy EN4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
Policy EN6: Sustainable construction and energy efficiency (specifies sustainability
and energy efficiency requirements for new developments).
Policy EN9: Biodiversity and geology (requires no adverse impact on designated
nature conservation sites).
Policy EN10: Flood risk (prevents inappropriate development in flood risk areas).
Policy CT2: Development contributions (specifies criteria for requiring developer
contributions).
Policy CT5: The transport impact on new development (specifies criteria to ensure
reduction of need to travel and promotion of sustainable forms of transport).
Policy CT6: Parking provision (requires compliance with the Council's car parking
standards other than in exceptional circumstances).
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Principle of development
2.. Housing layout, mix and design
3. Landscape impact
4. Affordable housing
5. Open space / landscaping
6. Highway issues
7. Residential Amenity
8. Ecological Impacts
9. Drainage
10. S.106 requirements
APPRAISAL
The application site (4.8 ha.) is currently a single agricultural field located on the
south-western edge of Wells. Its northern boundary which follows a former railway
line and embankment adjoins existing housing development. Its eastern boundary
fronts onto Market Lane and is opposite the Alderman Peel High School. The
southern boundary adjoins open countryside and the western boundary borders with
Development Committee
55
21 March 2013
Two Furlong Hill (B1105) with open countryside beyond. The site slopes up markedly
from north to south (by approximately 8.0 metres).
At the time of preparing this report amended plans had recently been submitted.
These amendments which principally affect the internal layout of the development
together with the size and design of certain of the buildings are in response to Officer
concerns regarding issues of scale and landscape impact. The Committee will be
updated at the meeting on the responses of relevant consultees regarding these
amended plans.
Principle of Development
The application site includes the whole of the area of land allocated for residential
development by Policy WO1 of the adopted Site Allocations DPD. The principle to
develop the site for housing is therefore established and it is only the details of the
application which are for consideration.
Housing Layout, Mix and Design
It is considered that the general layout of the housing development is acceptable.
(Refer to the comments of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager,
above).
Core Strategy Policy HO1 requires that new housing developments should comprise
at least 40% of dwellings with no more than one or two bedrooms. The proposal (as
amended) is for 46% of the dwellings to meet this requirement. Accordingly the mix is
considered to be acceptable.
In terms of design, the concerns of Officers in response to the originally submitted
plans were mainly with regard to the larger buildings being proposed (see comments
of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager above). The amended plans
have been submitted to try to address these criticisms. The comments of the
Conservation, Design & Landscape Manager in respect of the amended plans will be
reported at the Committee meeting.
Landscape Impact
Although allocated for residential development the site does lie within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Whilst development within AONBs need to be
strictly controlled, this was a matter considered at the time of selecting a site in Wells
as part of the District-wide requirement for providing additional housing development.
This was considered to be the least damaging site taking into account the limited
opportunities on the edge of the town. Nevertheless the sensitive nature of the site
has been recognised both in reports commissioned by the applicants and the
reference to any proposals being sympathetic to the landscape character of the area
in Policy W01.
With this in mind, Officers raised concerns in response to the originally submitted
plans, specifically in respect of the siting of the larger and bulkier building being sited
on the higher and most prominent parts of the site (see comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, above). As already mentioned the
amended plans have been submitted in order to address these concerns.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager's comments on the amended
plans will be reported at the meeting.
Development Committee
56
21 March 2013
Affordable Housing
Core Strategy Policy HO2 requires residential developments of this size to comprise
45% affordable housing (subject to viability). The application complies within this
policy in that a total of 55 dwellings (which equates to 45%) are proposed as being
'affordable'. Of this total 40 dwellings would be affordable rented dwellings and 15
would be 'shared equity' dwellings which are to be sold by the developer at 75% of
their open market value (up to a specified maximum amount).
As referred to above, the Council's Strategic Housing Officer was supportive of the
originally submitted proposals, subject to the details being secured by means of the
S.106 Obligation. However, concerns have been raised regarding the amended plans
in respect of the loss of any wheelchair bungalows and the resultant concentration of
affordable properties in the south-eastern corner of the site. Policy HO2 states that
affordable housing should be mixed within the development in groups of not more
than eight units within each group. Whilst the original proposals did not accord with
this requirement they were considered acceptable when balanced with the fact that
the optimum amount of affordable housing is being proposed in terms of Core
Strategy policy. However it is a matter of concern that the amended plans have led to
less integration of affordable and market dwellings across the site.
Open space / Landscaping
Policy WO1 which relates to this site specifies that there should be at least 1.0 ha. of
open space provided. The amount proposed is marginally less than 1.0 ha. but is
nevertheless considered reasonable in the context of the overall scheme. The main
area of open space would run diagonally across the site which would help to break
up the development and allow pedestrian access through to Market Lane (and the
town centre beyond). Its layout would allow views from the site towards the Parish
Church beyond. Several of the dwellings would have outlooks over this open space.
It is considered to be an asset in terms of the quality of the overall scheme.
A smaller area of open space is proposed in the north-western corner of the site
adjacent to the main road entrance off the B1105. Part of its purpose is to allow a
natural drainage area for an element of the surface water drainage from the site. It
would also help to provide a softer landscaped entrance to the development.
Policy WO1 requires the retention of boundary hedgerows (access permitting) and
tree planting within and adjacent to the site including landscape buffers to the
southern and western boundaries. The plans indicate that the existing hedgerow
along the western boundary (with the B1105) would be retained where it does not
affect visibility splays, and would be supplemented with some additional tree planting.
Some indicative planting is shown along the southern site boundary but not in the
form of a buffer. This is however not considered critical given that it adjoins the area
where further housing development may occur in the future.
As part of the application a rectangular area of landscaping is included along a
section of the former railway line outside the allocated site. It is understood that this
has been included following discussions between the applicants and adjoining
property owners on Manor Farm Drive. Although not a planning matter it is also
understood that there may be agreement to transfer this land to adjoining property
owners. The area would provide a landscaped buffer between the existing dwellings
and the development site.
If planning permission is granted there would need to be a condition requiring
approval of a full landscaping scheme.
Development Committee
57
21 March 2013
Highway Issues
As referred to above the majority of the proposed development would be accessed
via a single estate road from Two Furlong Hill (B1105), the exception to this being 14
dwellings which would have vehicular access onto Market Lane in the form of three
separate accesses. This latter aspect of the proposal is the subject of local objection.
Policy W01(a) in respect of the site requires ‘Provision of safe vehicular access via
Two Furlong Hill with new footway links alongside the carriageway and provision of
pedestrian links to Market Lane and the high school’. The supporting text to the
policy expands upon this as follows: ‘Market Lane is unsuitable for vehicular access
for more than 100 dwellings. There are already a number of dwellings served from
the road, which when coupled with the poor visibility at the Market Lane / A149
junction and the number of pedestrians accessing the school, mean that Market Lane
is not considered suitable to provide a vehicle access to the site.’ This reflected the
advice of the Highway Authority at the time.
At the time of preparing this report the formal comments from the Highway Authority
were awaited. In the meantime the Authority has raised a number interim comments
regarding certain details of the scheme. These have been forwarded to the
applicants with a view for them to make a number of (relatively minor) amendments.
However these do not relate to the accesses onto Market Lane.
As also referred to above, it is proposed to undertake certain off-site highway works,
involving the introduction of a 20mph speed restriction along a section of Burnt Street
either side of its junction with Market Lane, together with an extension of the 30mph
speed limit along Two Furlong Hill. It is understood that the applicants’ traffic
consultants are in discussions with the Highway Authority regarding these details.
Residential Amenity
Concerns have been expressed by certain residents of Manor Farm Drive whose
properties adjoin the northern site boundary. The concerns relate to the potential of
overlooking from some of the adjoining new plots which it is contended would be
made worse by differing ground levels. The North Norfolk Design Guide considers
residential amenity issues associated with new developments. It specifies different
minimum distances between dwellings dependent upon what types of internal rooms
face towards each other. All of the proposed dwellings would comfortably exceed
these minimum requirements. Furthermore the landscaping belt along part of the
former railway line would assist in providing privacy between the existing and
proposed dwellings.
Ecological Impacts
Policy W01(e) requires 'prior approval of a scheme of mitigation to minimise
potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SPA / SAC arising as a result of
increased visitor pressure, and on-going monitoring of such measures'. This
requirement applies to most of the major residential allocations in the District as well
as to many smaller ones in villages. (This requirement for allocations in the southeastern parts of the District relate to impacts on the Broads SAC / Broadland SPA
sites).
These requirements stem from an Appropriate Assessment which was undertaken as
part of the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD, as required by the Habitats
Regulations (2010). The Council was required to undertake the Assessment in order
to consider the potential impact of significant new development in the District upon
these protected European sites. The conclusions of the Assessment were that on the
basis of the evidence at the time, additional visitor pressures on these sites could not
be ruled out. Consequently a precautionary approach was taken, resulting in this
policy requirement.
Development Committee
58
21 March 2013
The Committee will note the varying comments on this issue from the Norfolk Coast
Project, the RSPB, Natural England and the Council's Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (above).
The way in which the Council has addressed this policy requirement in granting
planning permission on other sites is by securing as part of a S.106 Obligation a
payment amounting to £50 per dwelling. It is accepted that this in itself does not
represent 'a scheme of mitigation' as referred to in the policy. However the intention
is that it can be used to help in funding firstly research into what if any additional
visitor pressures will arise cumulatively from these developments, and secondly help
to fund any projects which arise from that research. It is acknowledged that work
needs to be done on this issue in order to accord with the Appropriate Assessment
(the funds would be re-payable to the developer if not used within 5 years); however,
there is adequate time to do this before the impacts of these developments (if any)
would occur.
Drainage
In terms of surface water drainage the Environment Agency has confirmed that it is
satisfied with the submitted flood risk assessment (as amended). This is subject to
the imposition of a condition requiring more precise details being submitted regarding
the disposal of surface water. Because of varying ground permeability across the site
it is possible that the finally agreed scheme would involve a combination of
soakaways, diversion to drainage features on the site, and a regulated flow into a
nearby Anglian Water sewer.
Local concern has been raised regarding the disposal of sewage from the site. This
is based on the perceived inadequacy of the existing network and the contention that
the proposed development would only exacerbate this. Anglian Water (AW) have
however raised no objection, stating that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate
the development. The Council has been copied in on correspondence from AW to a
local resident. This is attached in Appendix 9. The letter provides further
confirmation that the sewage disposal proposals are satisfactory.
Summary
The proposed development would have the benefit of bringing forward this significant
residential allocation in accordance with the planned growth of the District up to
2021, as specified in the Council's adopted Core Strategy. The application also has
the benefit of providing the maximum level of affordable housing in accordance with
the adopted Core Strategy. The layout of the development, which includes a
significant area of public open space is considered acceptable.
At the time of preparing the report consideration of the amended plans was not
concluded and the formal response from the Highway Authority was awaited.
Members will be updated on these aspects at the meeting. Subject to satisfactory
outcomes in respect of the outstanding matters the application will be recommended
for delegated approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to the response of the Highway Authority and outstanding consultation
comments on the amended plans, delegated authority to approve, subject to
Officers satisfactorily resolving any outstanding issues of detail; subject also
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, and subject to the completion of
the Section 106 Planning Obligation.
Development Committee
59
21 March 2013