DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MINUTES – 21 MARCH 2013
(243) 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
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in this application as he knew both the developer and landowner of the site. He would speak on the application but would abstain from voting.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was a Member of North Walsham Town
Council.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs J Belson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs M Stockdale (objecting)
Mr M Inkster, Mr I Roberts, Mr S Wynes and Mr M Scott (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that a meeting of the
Board of Governors of Paston College was due to be held shortly to discuss whether or not The Lawns site would be available for supermarket development. If so, The
Lawns site would be sequentially preferable to the application site. He stated that it might be necessary to delegate a decision based on those discussions.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that Officers considered that the development of a supermarket on the application site would have a significant adverse impact on the town centre. The mitigation currently proposed by the applicants was considered to be derisory. He had put forward a suggested mitigation package for consideration by the applicants, who had indicated informally that they would be prepared to consider appropriate mitigation. However, as currently submitted, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) was unable to recommend approval.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that North Walsham
Chamber of Business had reaffirmed its concerns that the proposal would have a significant impact on businesses in the town centre.
In response to a question by the Chairman as to whether or not there was a significant mitigation package on the table, Mr Scott stated that mitigation would need to be negotiated.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, stated that the use of retail facilities across the District and in North Walsham had increased by 20% since the retail study was carried out 8 years previously. She considered that this was possibly due to the increasing success and popularity of Paston College, whose students were using local shops. She did not favour the development of The Lawns site for a supermarket and referred to the Council’s Local Development Framework which stated that the site was not suitable for large scale retail development. She stated that the application site was currently derelict and an eyesore, which was a shame considering the redevelopment of the former Crane Fruehauf site. She considered

that the chance of the application site coming back into industrial use was remote and the proposal would create a large number of jobs for local people. She referred to the recent closure of the Sainsbury’s petrol filling station, which meant that the nearest facilities were at Roughton or Stalham. She requested that the Committee give delegated authority to approve this application subject to a Section 106
Obligation in respect of town centre mitigation, similar to that approved for Holt.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, referred to the comments made by the representative from the Chamber of Business. She was concerned that the mitigation being offered did not acknowledge the scale of the threat or address the concerns which had been raised. She considered that the application should be refused for that reason.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the proposal would have a considerable impact on the town centre. However, she considered that a supermarket development on The Lawns site would have more impact as it would be within 2 to 3 minutes of Market Street. She considered that the application site was the better of the two sites. She stated that the proposal was popular with residents of North
Walsham. Whilst she had been inundated with objections regarding the Holt application, she had received none in respect of this application. She considered that the mitigation package on offer was derisory.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported the application. He considered that the town had been in decline for some time and that an insufficient choice of supermarkets was causing leakage to other centres. He considered that if this application were refused, the leakage would continue and the town would continue to die. Alternatively, approval of this application would create badly-needed jobs both in the store and in its construction. Mitigation could be used as a catalyst for reinvention of the town centre, which would retain people in the town.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes supported this application. He considered that the biggest benefits would be from the creation of employment and development of the filling station. He considered that Officers could resolve the mitigation issues.
Councillor P Terrington stated that out of town stores had an impact on town centres.
In this case it was even more critical as money had been attracted from the Mary
Portas scheme to regenerate the town centre. He considered that the application should be refused as currently submitted.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that Scenario C as set out in the report would address the needs of the town.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that there would be a period when shops would close, but the town would regenerate as had happened in Stalham, where there was now only one empty shop in the town centre. She requested that careful consideration be given to the entrance into the lane leading to the site. She welcomed the regeneration of the site, which was currently an eyesore. However, she expressed concern at the design of the building, which in her opinion had the appearance of a warehouse, and requested that it be reconsidered.
The Head of Development Management stated that he would prefer to bring the mitigation package back to the Committee for consideration given the considerable difference between the mitigation considered necessary and that being offered by the developers.

Councillor R Reynolds considered that this was covered by Scenario C and proposed that in the event that Paston College Lawns site is not considered to be available in sequential terms and that appropriate mitigation has been provided to offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, that the Head of
Development Management be authorised to approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees and subject to completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation and subject to a Section 278 Agreement to secure required off-site improvement works. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard that consideration of this application be deferred to allow discussions on the mitigation package. There was no seconder.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the principle should be supported and that Officers discuss with the applicants and the Town Council with regard to the mitigation package.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the applicant needed to accept formally that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact, following which it would be necessary to work out what mitigation could be achieved.
He considered that this matter should be reported back to the Committee.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager referred to the comments made by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones regarding design. He stated that he also had concerns regarding design issues and referred to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which stated that good quality design should always be the aim.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the advice in the NPPF which stated that planning obligations should only be used where it was not possible to address impacts through conditions, and set out a number of tests which had to be met. He stated that the Committee, Town Council and the applicant would have very different aspirations as to the mitigation which was required.
In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Head of Development
Management stated that it would be necessary to resolve the situation with the
Paston College site to ensure that the Committee’s decision was sound. The decision could be made subject to the College’s decision regarding the site.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That in the event that Paston College Lawns site is not considered to be available in sequential terms and that appropriate mitigation has been provided to offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees and subject to completion of a
Section 106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation and subject to a Section 278 Agreement to secure required off-site improvement works.
Councillor Cabbell Manners abstained from voting on this matter.
The Committee discussed possible mitigation measures for discussion and confirmed that it was happy for the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) to negotiate with the developer, and in the event that a good package of mitigation measures could not be achieved the matter would be reported back to the Committee.