29 JUNE 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman) (not present for minute (30))
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
E Seward - substitute for J A Wyatt
Ms V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
B J Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
Mrs A M Moore – North Walsham West Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
K Johnson – observer
N Lloyd – observer
P W Moore – observer
Miss B Palmer - observer
Officers
Mr S Blatch – Corporate Director
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Mr M Wood – Retail Consultant
(19)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor J A Wyatt. There was one
substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(20)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 31 May 2012 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(21)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
Development Committee
1
29 June 2012
(22)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, P W High, E Seward and Mrs V Uprichard declared
interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the items concerned.
(23)
DIRECTION UNDER ARTICLE 4(1) OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
(GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT) ORDER 1995 (as amended)
LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS. 7 – 29 NELSON ROAD
AND NOS 1 AND 3 HILLSIDE, SHERINGHAM
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he lived close to the site and
left the Council Chamber during discussion of this matter.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which recommended to Full
Council the confirmation of a Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (as amended), land to the
rear of 7 – 29 Nelson Road and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside, Sheringham.
The Development Manager updated the Committee in respect of the District Valuer’s
response regarding the issue of possible claims for compensation. The District
Valuer had concluded that claims for compensation would be limited at worst.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor B J
Hannah, a local Member, who had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of
this matter. Councillor Hannah supported the Officer’s recommendation.
The Development Manager stated that in view of the timescales involved, the
recommendation should be made direct to Full Council rather than Cabinet. A further
amendment to the recommendation was made to notify the Secretary of State of the
Council’s intention to confirm, rather than serve, the Article 4(1) Direction.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the recommendation but expressed a preference
for post and rail fencing in a dark colour rather than wire.
RESOLVED
That the Development Committee recommends to Full Council that the
Direction under Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) at nos. 7-29 Nelson
Road and nos. 1 and 3 Hillside, Sheringham be confirmed and to cover
the following matters:
•
the erection of fences, walls, gates or other means of enclosure,
being development comprised within Class A, part 2, Schedule 2
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995;
•
that formal notification of affected householders be carried out;
•
that a press advertisement be carried out;
•
that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government be notified of the Council’s intention to confirm an
Article 4(1) Direction.
Development Committee
2
29 June 2012
Furthermore, that the affected households also be advised that the
Council would be prepared to consider without prejudice an application
or applications for planning permission(s) for an agreed low key
uniform form of fencing for the plots in question.
(24)
WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ report in respect of a planning
application which was deferred at a previous meeting to allow further negotiations
with the applicant.
Public Speakers
Mr Smith (objecting)
Mr Knights (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a meeting had
been held between all parties, including representatives of Norman Lamb MP, to try
to address the problems. The Committee had to make a planning judgement as to
whether the concerns had been addressed. The applicants were awaiting a
response from their CCTV consultant as to whether the tannoy could be removed as
it was not required as a condition of insurance. In the meantime, noise issues
relating to the use of the tannoy were under investigation by the Environmental
Protection Officer.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that it was considered
necessary to undertake the remediation works quickly and retain them in place.
However, the applicant had indicated that there would be a delay in obtaining the
screening material and he suggested that a time limit of two months be given to
undertake the work.
Samples of the proposed screening material which had been supplied to the
neighbours were circulated.
The Chairman expressed concern regarding the quality and durability of the
screening material. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that
a condition would be imposed to require the retention of the material during the
lifetime of the development and this condition could be enforced if the material were
damaged.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed approval subject to a condition to require
replacement of the material within 14 days in the event of damage.
Councillor R Reynolds suggested a maintenance scheme to require the fence to be
inspected on a six-monthly basis, and that hedging be included as part of the
screening.
Councillor P W High stated that he maintained his view that the cameras represented
a gross invasion of privacy. He asked why camera 1 could not be restricted and
stated that cameras 9 and 10 had not been addressed at all. He had doubts as to
the suitability of the screening material. He proposed deferral of this application to
discuss the fixing of camera 1, the erection of stronger fencing and to address
overlooking by cameras 9 and 10.
Development Committee
3
29 June 2012
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the applicants had
stated at the meeting on site that the focal length of the cameras was 140m and it
was therefore not possible to see into the neighbours’ property. The applicants had
undertaken to provide the neighbours with a copy of the images from the cameras
but had not done so.
The Chairman invited Mr Knight to address the issues which had been raised and
asked why cameras were not required on the continent where such schemes were
commonplace.
Mr Knight stated that it was his understanding that cameras were the norm on the
continent, but public address systems were not. He passed around a laptop
computer showing images taken from cameras 9 and 10 and stated that it was clear
from the images that they were at a distance and pixelated. He confirmed that the
focal length was 140m. He stated that the field of view of camera 1 had always been
software limited. The screening was designed to address the perception of
overlooking. He explained the work which it was intended to undertake to the
fencing. He stated that the fencing would be inspected regularly together with the
solar panels, and that the CCTV could assist with monitoring the fencing.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney seconded the proposal to defer.
Mr Knights answered further questions put by the Committee. He stated that he had
failed to provide the images to the neighbours. Only cameras 1, 2 and 3 would be
used to monitor the fencing. Any images of the neighbouring properties from
cameras 9 and 10 would be blurred as shown on the images circulated at the
meeting because of the focal length of the cameras. With the consent of the
Chairman, he requested his technical expert, Mr Meacock, to explain issues
regarding coverage and limitation of the cameras.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the technical issues should have been
discussed with Officers. He considered that the Committee did not have the
necessary expertise and had to rely on the Officers for advice.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that conditions could be
imposed if the Committee had concerns regarding any aspects of the scheme, and in
the event of failure to comply with those conditions the applicants could be required
to remove the cameras.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded the proposal to approve this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes requested a condition to prevent any camera pointing
towards the cottages.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that such a
condition could not be defended as it would not be possible for the Authority to
monitor them constantly. He added that the longer this application took to determine,
the more impact there would be on the neighbours.
The proposal to defer this application was put to the vote and declared lost by 3
votes to 10.
Development Committee
4
29 June 2012
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no further grounds of objection from
the Environmental Protection Officer, resolution of the outstanding
issues including those raised by the Committee and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including details of screening
materials and a timetable for implementation of the agreed amendments
to be completed within 2 months, and replacement of damaged
screening within 14 days of the damage being reported.
(25)
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ report outlining the need to
establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham Allen Award for Conservation and
Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the
awards.
RESOLVED
1.
That the Graham Allen Award Judging Panel comprises nine Members,
one of whom will be elected Chairman, to be drawn from the following
nominees:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
2.
That the judging of the entries takes place on Thursday 2 August 2012
and that the date for the presentation, 8 October 2012, be noted pending
confirmation.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
Development Committee
5
29 June 2012
(26)
CROMER - PF/12/0376 - Erection of single-storey rear extension with glazed
link and replacement side extension, and proposed re-routing of Public Right
of Way FP11; The Lookout, East Cliff, Cliff Drive, Cromer for Mrs E ReadettBayley
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr P Harris (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Hills (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Ramblers’ Association had expressed a
preference for the footpath to be diverted to the south of the site. He reported that 11
letters of objection had been received in respect of the re-routing of the footpath, four
objecting to the vehicular access and one raising an objection to the extension. The
Countryside and Parks Manager had no objection.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the vehicular access was in existence
together with a right of way to the site, and there was sufficient space on site for car
parking. He recommended approval of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the vehicular access had been used for
many years when the building was in use as a lookout. He stated that the footpath
had been naturally diverted over time and questioned whether it was within the
Council’s remit to divert it.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that diversion of the path was a matter for
this Authority as it related to a planning application.
The Head of Planning and Building Control requested the Committee to make
specific reference to the footpath diversion in the resolution.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED
(27)
1.
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions in respect of boundary treatments, a programme
of historic building recording and materials.
2.
That a Diversion Order be made under Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of Cromer Footpath 11.
CROMER - PF/12/0406 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 98/0366 to permit permanent residential occupation; The Lookout,
East Cliff, Cliff Drive for Mrs E Readett-Bailey
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ report.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no objections had been received from the
Countryside and Parks Manager or the Ramblers’ Association. He recommended
approval of this application.
Development Committee
6
29 June 2012
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved.
One Member abstained from voting.
(28)
HOLT - PF/12/0471 - Erection of rear two-storey extension and detached double
garage with studio above; 31 Cromer Road for Mrs Elliott
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in this application as the
applicant was an employee but this did not affect his judgement of the application.
He had also lived at the property for a length of time in the past.
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest as he had met the applicant and the
objector.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mrs J Elliott (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Holt Town Council had no objection but
had requested that the windows be lowered to prevent overlooking.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that he had called in this application but
now realised that he need not have done so.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, stated that he had also called in the
application to allow the elderly neighbour to object if she wished to do so. However,
she had not done so. He stated that any overlooking would be over the adjacent
commercial garage.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the removal of permitted development
rights for the insertion of any additional first floor window or rooflight in
the western elevation of the extension or in the eastern roofslope of the
studio; the extension and garage/studio to be ancillary to the use of 31
Cromer Road as a dwellinghouse; tiles to match existing and the brick
to be agreed; submission of a landscaping plan and protection of trees
during construction in accordance with the submitted arborist’s report.
Development Committee
7
29 June 2012
(29)
HOVETON - PO/12/0350 - Demolition of hotel and erection of 17 apartments
with car parking below.; Broads Hotel, Station Road for Mr J Herbert
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mr R Smith (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that concerns raised regarding
ground water inundation of the car parking area had been raised with the applicant.
The applicant’s drainage consultant had responded by recommending that trial pits
be dug which would help establish the precise level of the parking area. The Team
Leader (Major Developments) stated that this requirement could be subject to a
planning condition.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to an email which had been
received from Councillor N D Dixon, the local Member, and which had been
forwarded to all Members of the Committee. Councillor Dixon had raised concerns
regarding the creation of a canyon effect in conjunction with development approved
by the Broads Authority on the opposite side of Station Road. The Team Leader
(Major Developments) displayed the plans approved by the Broads Authority. He
stated that Officers were comfortable with the relationship between the two
developments. In response to Councillor Dixon’s comments regarding timescale, the
Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended that condition 1 be amended to
refer to an application for all reserved matters to be submitted within 2 years rather
than 3.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended that clauses be inserted in
the proposed Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the demolition of the existing
building did not constitute commencement of the development, and the retention of
the oak tree until commencement of the new development.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed the Officer’s recommendation, as amended,
which was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes. He asked if a contribution
would be sought in respect of street lighting as requested by the Parish Council.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that contributions had to be directly
related to the development. The Parish Council had been informed of this and had
appeared to accept that a contribution could not be secured through this
development.
In response to a questions by Councillor E Seward, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) explained that the general car parking requirements would require 32
spaces to be provided, but as this was a central site with facilities and good transport
links the Council had discretion to accept a reduced number of car parking spaces.
In this case Officers considered that 25 spaces was reasonable. He also explained
that the S106 contribution towards off-site play facilities was in lieu of on-site open
space provision and the developer was willing to make this contribution.
In response to a request for landscaping by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Team
Leader (Major Developments) stated that landscaping would be considered under a
reserved matters application. There would be little room for landscaping of the site.
Development Committee
8
29 June 2012
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to secure a financial contribution towards off-site children’s
play provision, demolition of the existing building (together with
clearance and securing of the site) within one year of the grant of
planning permission, subject to the inclusion of a clause to ensure that
such demolition did not constitute commencement of the development,
and retention of the existing oak tree until commencement of
construction works in association with the new development; and
subject to the conditions listed in the report with an additional condition
to require trial pits to be dug in respect of ground water and the
amendment of condition 1 to require an application for approval of all
reserved matters within two years from the date of the permission.
(30)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0310 - Removal of Condition 15 and Variation of
Condition 16 of planning permission reference: 01/1523 to permit use of
building as A1 (retail store); Former Focus D I Y, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd
and the London and Capital Group
Councillor B Cabbell Manners was not present during discussion of this application.
Councillors E Seward and Mrs V Uprichard declared a personal interest in this
application as they were Members of North Walsham Town Council and had received
correspondence in respect of all supermarket applications in the town.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Gilhooly, Ms Karat and Mrs Stockdale (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the applicants had
indicated that, in the event that the Committee were minded to approve the proposal,
they would be prepared to accept a one year implementation condition in order to
demonstrate their commitment to early delivery of the retail store. However, they had
indicated that they would aim to open the store by October 2012.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that it was necessary for
the application to be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless
material considerations indicated otherwise. He stated that support for this proposal
in principle would, to a significant extent, be dependent upon the applicant
demonstrating that there were no sequentially preferable sites that were available,
suitable or viable in North Walsham, and that the proposal would not have a
significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre.
Approval would also be subject to there being no significant highway objections or
other Development Plan policy conflicts, or if there were such conflicts, that there
were other material considerations that would warrant a departure from Development
Plan policies.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that the applicants
were seeking permission for a retail store with a net sales area of 1,830 m2 (using the
National Retail Planning Forum definition) and this would be divided to give
Development Committee
9
29 June 2012
approximately 1,592 m2 of convenience goods (87%) and 238 m2 of comparison
goods (13%). The applicants had submitted retail reports to support their proposal
and the Council had sought independent retail advice from Mark Wood Associates in
order to assess the retail submissions.
In respect of the sequential test issues, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special
Cases) reminded the Committee that policy guidance advocated a town centre first
approach for retail proposals. Applicants for retail developments had to consider
firstly the availability, suitability and viability of possible sites in the town centre for
retail development before considering edge of the town centre sites. If no edge of
centre site was available, suitable or viable then out of centre sites could be
considered. National guidance indicated that preference should be given to
accessible sites that were well connected to the town centre when considering such
out of centre sites. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised the
Committee that a principal aim of the sequential test was to deliver footfall into the
town centre from linked trips and thus potentially boost trade within a town centre and
contribute to its vitality and viability.
The applicants had sought at pre-application stage to agree with the Council a
number of possible sites to assess as to their availability, suitability and viability for
retail development. In no order of preference, the following sites were agreed:
Site A – Vicarage Street Car Park;
Site B – Former HL Foods site, Norwich Road;
Site C – St Nicholas Precinct; and
Site D – Community Centre/Library/Fire Station, New Road.
Whilst the applicants had stated in the submissions that none of the four agreed sites
were either available, suitable or viable for retail development of the type proposed,
the Council’s appointed Retail Consultant was not convinced that there was sufficient
evidence provided to discount all of the sites for the reasons set out in his report
(attached at Appendix 4-11 to 4-49 to the Officer’s report to this meeting). The
applicants had therefore been asked to provide further evidence to support their case
in respect of Site A (Vicarage Street Car Park); Site B (Former HL Foods site,
Norwich Road) and Site D (Community Centre/Library/Fire Station, New Road). The
applicant’s further submission was attached at Appendix 4-1 to 4-10 to the report.
On the basis of the further information received from the applicant, the Council’s
appointed retail consultant had indicated that he was prepared to accept that the
Vicarage Car Park together with adjoining land and New Road Car Park and
community centre/library were not likely to be available in the foreseeable future,
which was sufficient to discount them, notwithstanding the fact that the retail
consultant did not consider that the applicants had clearly demonstrated that they
would be unsuited to the development of a food store of around 2,000 m2 net.
In relation to the former HL foods site, the Council’s appointed retail consultant
considered that whilst he agreed with the applicant that the Site Allocation DPD was
a significant consideration he was nonetheless of the opinion that the Site Allocation
DPD did not obviate the need for the site to be properly assessed in terms of
suitability and availability. Officers concurred with this view.
In connection with separate discussions concerning the HL foods site (NW01 Policy
allocation site), the Council had recently been made aware by the agent acting for
the landowner that they had been approached by a national retail operator regarding
the feasibility of a 5,400 m2 (60,000sqft) “non-comparison food store” and a petrol
Development Committee
10
29 June 2012
filling station. The agent had suggested that the food store would help make delivery
of the NW01 policy allocation site viable and would enable the early delivery of
required infrastructure. In essence, the agent considered the former HL Foods site
was ‘sequentially superior’ to the former Focus DIY site.
The Council’s appointed retail consultant considered that, whilst the letter from the
agent for the HL Foods site indicated that the site was available, insufficient
information was available to assess whether it would deliver a food store within a
reasonable period of time whilst still enabling delivery of the other land uses identified
as being necessary under Policy NW01.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that uncertainty remained
as to the potential impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre bearing in
mind that the suggested store on the HL Foods site would be almost double the size
of the current application. There was also uncertainty as to the impact on the
highway network of a 60,000 sqft store, for which a detailed Transport Assessment
would be required.
Having taken all issues into account, the Council’s appointed retail consultant was
unable to make a clear finding in favour of the applicants that the HL Foods site
would not be suitable and available for the development of a food store of the size
proposed at Cromer Road, nor to determine that compliance with the sequential
approach to site selection had been fully demonstrated at the present time. He
considered that it would be preferable if further information could be provided by the
agent acting for the HL Foods site to substantiate the deliverability of the site for a
food store and the economic need for such a use to underpin the viability of
developing the 24.5ha site. The agent’s letter raised a number of issues including
the ability to demonstrate, given the complexity of the site, that a food store could be
brought forward as part of a first phase and still ensure that other land uses allocated
under Policy NW01 would be delivered.
With regard to the impact of the proposed retail store at the former Focus DIY
building, relying on his experience and judgement, the Council’s appointed retail
consultant considered that whilst the impact on the vitality and viability of North
Walsham Town Centre would be likely to be greater than that predicted by the
applicants, he concluded overall that it would not be significantly adverse.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) drew the Committee’s attention
to the caution on page 44 of the Officer’s report regarding the lack of information to
quantify the actual likely reduction in linked trips associated with a reduction in
trading from the Sainsbury’s and Lidl stores in the town centre following the opening
of a retail store on Cromer Road.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that Members of the
Committee, including the substitute Member, had been forwarded as a
supplementary appendix, a letter from Indigo Planning Limited dated 20 June 2012
submitted on behalf of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Limited. The Council’s appointed
retail consultant had also been made aware of this letter and was content that the
issues raised within it had either been addressed within his retail report attached at
Appendix 4.11-4.49 to the Officer’s report or in his latest comments dated 26 June
2012 in respect of the sequential test, received 27 June 2012.
Since publication of the Officer’s report, the applicant had continued discussions with
the Highway Authority in order to address the concerns which led to it issuing a
holding objection. Regarding concerns about a shortfall of parking spaces, the Team
Development Committee
11
29 June 2012
Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) understood that the applicants had
submitted further evidence to the Highway Authority to demonstrate no significant
adverse impacts and which drew from their known parking operations at other
Waitrose stores elsewhere in the county at Swaffham and Wymondham. In addition,
the applicant has continued discussions regarding off-site highway works.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Highway
Authority had advised him that the proposed off site measures included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Two new bus stops including shelters, footways and a crossing of the A149
Cromer Road with a central refuge;
A new pedestrian crossing point across the site access road;
Improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities at Suffield Close and Bradfield
Road;
A new pedestrian crossing on the A149 Cromer Road near to the junction of
Greens Road;
Upgrade of the footway between the site access and Greens Road to
a 3.0m shared footway/cycleway facility;
Upgrade of the lighting at the entrance to the railway underpass; and
Extension of the Street Lighting to the furthest northwest extent of the site.
In addition, the applicant had agreed to provide two electric car charging points and
10 cycle stands for shoppers and 6 covered cycle stands for staff. The quantity of
cycle parking would be reviewed annually as part of the Travel Plan and
where necessary would be increased to meet demand.
The proposed off-site highway works sought to address accessibility concerns and
wider sustainability concerns raised by the Highway Authority. As a result of these
proposals the Highway Authority had withdrawn its objection to the proposal subject
to the imposition of conditions and subject to the applicant entering into necessary
agreements to secure the off-site works.
The proposal now complied with Policies CT 5 and CT 6 of the adopted Core
Strategy.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the following
further correspondence had been received:
•
A letter from Russell-Cooke Solicitors on behalf of Petros (North Walsham)
Ltd which had been emailed to all members on 28 June 2012. The letter
raised a number of policy matters including concerns relating to the
sequential test and interpretation of policy. It also raised matters concerning
the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a Screening Opinion had
been carried out by the Council on 20 March 2012 which concluded that the
proposal was not EIA development. The letter also raised the possibility of
legal challenge in the event that the Committee reach the wrong judgment.
•
A letter from Indigo Planning dated 28 June 2012 on behalf of Sainsbury’s
Supermarkets Limited raising concerns about the proposal and suggested,
amongst other things, that the Committee should refuse the application in the
absence of sufficient information to make a decision. It threatened legal
challenge if the application were supported.
Development Committee
12
29 June 2012
•
A letter of objection from a resident of Cromer raising concerns regarding
highway impacts on the surrounding area resulting from additional traffic.
•
A letter of support from Griffon Tourism Forum (part of the Griffon Area
Partnership) covering North Walsham and 25 surrounding parishes stating
that it considered that the proposed Waitrose store would increase visitor
numbers to the town and engender a more positive perception of what North
Walsham had to offer, which would ultimately benefit businesses in the area.
•
A letter of support dated 29 June 2012 from a resident of North Walsham.
In conclusion, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised the
Committee that Members needed to bear in mind the requirement to determine this
application in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations
indicated otherwise.
He stated that, in the light of the further response from the Highway Authority, there
were no outstanding highway objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions and subject to a necessary agreement to secure the proposed
off-site highway works.
In respect of retail impact, the Council’s appointed retail consultant considered that,
in his judgement, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant adverse
impact.
In respect of the sequential test, whilst the Council’s appointed retail consultant
agreed that Sites A, C and D were either not available, suitable or viable, there
remained a degree of uncertainty as to whether the sequentially equivalent (although
arguably better connected to the town centre) site at the former HL Foods site would
be acceptable in planning terms or deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. He
considered that further information would be necessary to either rule out or rule in the
HL Foods site in sequential terms.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there remained an
element of doubt as to whether the HL Foods site could be safely discounted as a
sequentially preferable site based on the evidence currently available. He advised
the Committee that, under the circumstances, the proposal did not currently conform
with the Development Plan in respect of the sequential test requirements under Core
Strategy Policy EC 5.
Notwithstanding the stated benefits of the proposal in terms of the need to support
economic recovery; the benefit of re-using an existing building; the prospect of early
delivery of 150 jobs (90 FTEs) through a shorter implementation period and the
prosperity this could bring to the town and surrounding area, in addition to indirect
benefits such as increased consumer choice, at this stage Officers considered that
further information should be obtained in respect of the HL Foods site in terms of the
sequential test and to support the stated material considerations in favour of the
proposal, including the likely net gain in jobs taking account of any job losses in the
town centre, and further evidence to support, amongst other things, the identified
benefits concerning local recruitment and local sourcing.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended deferral of this
application to await further information to clarify the position in respect of the HL
Foods site and the sequential test issues and to obtain further evidence to support
the identified material considerations in favour of the proposal.
Development Committee
13
29 June 2012
The Head of Planning and Building Control read to the Committee a further
representation which had been received overnight from the applicants’ agents.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, supported the application. She stated that it
would result in 90 FTE jobs with prospects, which was a priority of the Council. She
referred to the Retail Consultant’s report which indicated that the proposal would
extend the range and quality of the retail offer in the area, retain trade in the town
and have no adverse impact on the town centre. The proposal made use of an
empty retail unit for which no other use had been identified in a key gateway location
for the town and for this reason she considered that this site, and no other, was
suitable and available. She referred to the support for this application from the public
and the business community. She considered that the site was not removed from the
town centre, which was less than a mile away, and stated that a new housing
development was to be built nearby. She considered that there was every reason to
believe that the town would be economically stronger and more viable as a result of
the proposal.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, considered that there were sufficient
material planning considerations to override the sequential test in this case. She
considered that the proposed jobs were a gift to the town. She urged the Committee
to support this application.
At the request of the Chairman, Ms Karat explained the reasons why she considered
that the HL Foods site was not suitable for development. Ms Karat stated that the
site had been rejected on the basis of the Development Plan as it was identified for a
mixed residential and commercial development with provision for a small-scale
neighbourhood retail store only. There was no evidence that the site was deliverable
or suitable for a large food store. She referred to a proposal which had come
forward the previous evening for a 60,000 sq.ft. food store with petrol station, and
stated that she knew of no model for such a large store which did not contain an
element of comparison sales. She considered that the HL Foods site was not
sequentially preferable to the former Focus site.
The Corporate Director explained that the HL Foods site had only been raised with
the Authority as potentially viable for a 5,400m2 store and petrol station as recently as
15 May of this year. There had been no discussion as to whether a store of this
scale would have a detrimental impact on the town or could be accommodated at this
location given the need for a detailed Transport Assessment.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward regarding the information required
to show that the HL Foods site would be available, suitable and viable, the Retail
Consultant explained that it was generally accepted that the site was available, but
he had advised that there was an element of uncertainty as to whether the site would
be suitable for delivery of either a store of the size being promoted by the applicants
or the larger store referred to. There were questions as to whether it could deliver a
food store within 1-3 years and still enable the mix of uses to be delivered as set out
in the Development Plan document. It was not clear whether a food store was
needed to make the HL Foods site viable. He explained that the issue had to be
considered in terms of the NPPF. The Committee had to make a judgement as to
connectivity with the town centre to allow linked trips. If the Committee considered
that one site would be likely to generate more linked trips, then that site could be
considered to be sequentially preferable. If the HL Foods site was considered to be
sequentially preferable then the Committee had to consider whether there were other
material considerations which outweighed it. There was a lack of clarity over these
issues as a large amount of information had been submitted at the last minute. He
had based his guidance on the NPPF.
Development Committee
14
29 June 2012
Councillor Seward stated that, as a North Walsham Member, he considered that the
HL Foods site was not suitable or available within a reasonable timescale. He did
not consider that the site was more accessible than Cromer Road in terms of linkage
to the town centre, bearing in mind that pedestrians would need to pass under the
railway bridge where pavements were narrow, cross over the bypass and a
roundabout and travel along a road with no footway.
Small traders had
overwhelmingly supported the Cromer Road proposal. He considered that the
current proposal was a modest application for change of use which was deliverable
and could bring economic regeneration, economic prosperity, help local businesses
and the community by the end of the year. There was no other proposal on the table
which would do so. He considered that this was the overriding consideration and that
it was supported by the NPPF. The proposal would bring much-needed local
employment, improve consumer choice, re-use a modern, purpose-built retail facility,
with no adverse impact on the town centre. He proposed approval of this application
subject to conditions relating to highways, scale of comparison products and a
requirement to publicise facilities and attractions of the town within the store.
Councillor M J M Baker asked what would happen if a proposal for a larger store on
the HL Foods site came forward following approval of this application. He referred to
other retail facilities already in North Walsham and asked how the population would
be able to support further retail development.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that in the event of a future
application it would be necessary to consider impact and other material issues at that
time.
The Retail Consultant added that if permission were granted for the current proposal
it would be viewed as a commitment whether or not the store were open. This would
need to be taken into account by the applicants for the HL Foods site. In his opinion,
he did not consider that a 60,000 ft2 store would be acceptable as there was unlikely
to be sufficient expenditure to support it. He considered that the existing stores
generated linked trips.
The Corporate Director stated that the Council was concerned about the strength and
breadth of the retail offer in North Walsham and whether it met the catchment’s
needs. There were some very good businesses trading from the town but there was
concern about the ability of the town to attract customers and retain trade. There
were no stores of modern design to attract retailers, as well as issues related to
infrastructure. He referred to the aspirations of the Leadership of Place project and
the steps taken to achieve them.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that the people of North Walsham wanted
Waitrose, not only for the shop itself, but for economic recovery. The proposal would
bring more jobs and the applicants had undertaken to use local tradespeople for the
refurbishment of the building and local suppliers for the store. She considered that it
would not affect existing supermarkets in the town but would attract more people who
did not at present shop in North Walsham. She seconded the proposal.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Committee should be
aware that there was a potential risk of job losses arising from the proposal and this
needed to be weighed against the benefits when considering this proposal. The
Committee also needed to be clear as to the sequential test and consider whether
the HL Foods and Cromer Road sites were equal or one was sequentially better
than the other.
Development Committee
15
29 June 2012
Councillor E Seward reiterated his comments regarding the pedestrian linkages and
considered that the HL Foods site was sequentially no better than the Cromer Road
site. Whilst the Cromer Road site was slightly further from the town centre, there was
only the bypass to cross over and the applicants had offered footpath improvements.
He considered that there was no sustainable argument in respect of job losses as
there was no evidence as to where jobs would be lost and the Chamber of Trade
considered that the proposal would boost town centre trade. There was also no
evidence that other supermarket jobs would be lost, but there was evidence that
other supermarkets would improve their offer as a consequence of additional
competition.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to paragraph 24 of the
NPPF and stated that notwithstanding Councillor Seward’s comments, the HL Foods
site had to be considered. The Council had already determined through the Core
Strategy that the site was reasonably connected with the town centre and within
reasonable walking distance.
Councillor Seward stated that knowledge and experience of the town was important
and that he considered that the HL Foods site was not sequentially preferable in
terms of linkage for a large retail store. He stated that there was a need to balance
the issues against the benefits that would accrue from the current proposal in terms
of economic benefits, availability and timescale.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the disposable income of the locality would
not change and there would be no overall increase in the number of jobs as they
would be taken from the town centre and neighbouring towns where people would
spend less money.
Councillor B Smith considered that this application complied with the NPPF.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that in view of the threatened
challenges to the decision it was necessary for the Committee to clearly articulate its
reasoning. He considered that the Committee had considered the issues in detail. It
was important for the Committee to consider that the sequential test was satisfied in
respect of the Cromer Road site and to conclude that no evidence had been heard to
suggest the likelihood of job losses as a result of this development. He stated that
the highway improvements to be undertaken by the developers would need to be
subject to agreements being put in place as part of the approval process.
Councillor Mrs Uprichard referred to the identification of the HL Foods site for
housing and small business development. She considered that the opportunity to
provide business start-up units should not be lost as they were needed in the town.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised the Committee in
respect of conditions, in the event of the Committee wishing to approve the
application.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, to include a limit on the net sales area, a maximum of 13%
comparison goods to be sold, conditions required by the Highway
Authority, a requirement for a local sourcing scheme and promotion of
town centre businesses and services within the store and subject to the
necessary agreements for off-site highway improvements.
Development Committee
16
29 June 2012
The Committee has given careful consideration to the material planning
issues in this case, including the sequential test and the National
Planning Policy Framework.
The Committee has concluded that
approval is justified for the following reasons:
(31)
1.
Whilst the former HL Foods site is closer to the town centre, it is
not considered to be sequentially preferable to the application
site.
2.
The application site is suitable, available and deliverable within a
short timescale.
3.
The HL Foods site has been identified in the Development Plan
as a site for mixed development of housing and employmentrelated business development and there is uncertainty as to
whether the site would be suitable for a large retail store or that it
would be deliverable within a reasonable timescale.
4.
The proposal is for the reuse of an existing empty modern retail
unit in a key gateway location for which no other use has
currently been identified.
5.
The proposal is considered to deliver economic benefits in terms
of the creation of permanent jobs, economic regeneration,
retention of trade in the town centre, enhancement of the
viability of the town centre and improved consumer choice.
Furthermore, the proposal is supported by the local business
community.
6.
It is not considered that the proposal would result in significant
job losses elsewhere or have significant adverse impacts on the
town centre.
7.
The proposal is supported by the National Planning Policy
Framework.
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0309 - External alterations including erection of two
single-storey extensions to provide additional storage and provision of
additional car parking; Former Focus D I Y, Cromer Road for Waitrose Ltd and
the London and Capital Group
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mrs Karat (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Highway
Authority had raised no objection to this application.
Councillors Ms V Gay and Mrs A Moore, the local Members, supported this
application.
Development Committee
17
29 June 2012
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(32)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ report.
(33)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ report.
(34)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ report.
(35)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ report.
The Officers updated the Committee in respect of the appeals at Weybourne
(PF/09/1270) and Sustead (ENF/11/0235).
(36)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ report.
(37)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ report.
The meeting closed at 1.20 pm.
Development Committee
18
29 June 2012