20 AUGUST 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Committee Room, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
K E Johnson (Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
B Cabbell Manners
N D Dixon
Mrs A R Green
P W High
G R Jones
Mr P Williams
D Young
Officers
Mr S Blatch – Corporate Director
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr D Higgins – Senior Highway Engineer (Major Developments) - NCC
(14)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
An apology for absence was received from Councillor T Ivory.
(15)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 July 2012 were approved as a correct record
and signed by the Chairman.
(16)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Working Party.
(17)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors B Cabbell Manners and Mrs A R Green declared an interest in minute
(19) as they owned barns.
(18)
STALHAM DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
The Working Party considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports which provided a
summary of the representations made in relation to the Stalham Development Brief
following the recent consultation and recommended that the brief is not approved at
this stage.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) outlined the proposed development
concept. The main issues which had arisen from the public consultation were traffic
management, employment provision and the capacity of infrastructure and services
to cope with the development.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that since preparation of the report
a draft Transport Assessment had been received on behalf of Hopkins Homes. The
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
20 August 2012
report concluded that the road network was capable of accommodating traffic and
pedestrian movements from the new development subject to minor improvements.
The Highway Authority had not yet fully considered the assessment.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) emphasised that the intention was that the
employment land would be used for Class B1 type uses, ie. those which are
compatible with a residential area. He also referred to the Town Council’s preferred
location of the employment land. Drainage had also been raised as an issue but
there were no fundamental objections and any detailed issues could be addressed at
planning application stage.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended that the Working Party
recommend to Cabinet that the Stalham Development Brief be approved subject to
the Highway Authority supporting the conclusions in the Traffic Assessment;
a minimum of 0.5 ha being designated for community use;
An increase in the amount of boundary ‘buffer’ landscaping between the
employment land and existing/proposed residential land; and
Clarity on the issue of phased implementation of the public park and access
to serve the employment/community use land.
Public Speakers:
Mr John Hare spoke on behalf of Stalham Town Council and also on his own behalf
as a resident of Stalham.
Mrs Baker spoke as a resident of Stalham.
The Chairman thanked the speakers for their views. He stated that the main issues
related to drainage and traffic issues.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that Anglian Water was responsible
for foul drainage and had indicated that the network had sufficient capacity. Full
details as to how foul drainage would be addressed would be required at planning
application stage.
The Senior Highway Engineer referred to comments made by Mr Hare and Mrs
Baker regarding traffic. He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework which
stated that traffic could only be a reason for refusal where the residual impact of
development was considered to be severe. He stated that he had read the Traffic
Assessment briefly and considered that there were no significant problems in terms
of the capacity of the network to cater for the additional traffic. Whilst he did not
disagree with the speakers regarding problems with the local network during the
peak summer period with day trippers travelling to/from the coast, he did not consider
that the scenarios referred to were sufficient to refuse development.
In terms of the main A149/Market Road junction, the Senior Highway Engineer stated
that a roundabout would be desirable. He had discussed this with Tesco previously
but the proposed development did not come forward. He recognised that the existing
junction had problems but he considered that it was adequate to accommodate the
level of additional traffic which would be generated by the proposed development.
Councillor Cabbell Manners stated that roundabouts caused problems for livestock
transport and did not support a roundabout at the A149/Yarmouth Road junction.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
20 August 2012
In response to concerns raised by Mr Hare and to a question by Councillor Mrs
Green, the Team Leader (Major Developments) explained that legislation was
expected to come into force next year which would require developers to apply for
SUDS. The large area of open space was expected to act as a sump for surface
water drainage. He did not consider that a large lagoon would be created but this
would depend on porosity. Whilst the site was not in a high flood risk zone, a Flood
Risk Assessment would be required. The Code for Sustainable Homes included grey
water recycling and there was a possibility that it could be incorporated in a future
planning application as a method of compliance with the Code.
Councillor N D Dixon raised the following issues:
Drainage was an infrastructure issue which should be included in the brief;
SUDS should be a requirement;
Traffic volume and how it reaches the A149 and double roundabouts, to which
he was concerned there was no satisfactory solution;
Access to the employment area from the east via a road network which is very
narrow in places and passes Stalham Middle School. It is not desirable to
encourage more traffic through Sutton.
How does Development Committee resist future applications for employmentgenerating uses which are not B1 and low traffic generating when there is
pressure to create jobs?
Landscaping will only soften the look of the site – residents of Stalham and
Sutton will bear the burden of traffic from the site.
Traffic was under-estimated at site allocation stage.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) responded as follows:
The Brief was to inform future planning applications and a balance was needed in
respect of the level of detail it could contain regarding issues such as drainage.
He read from the Brief regarding flood risk.
Councillor Dixon considered that the new sewer which would be required to serve
the site should be engineered in at this stage to demonstrate to local people that
their concerns had been recognised.
It had been made clear from the outset that traffic using the employment area
should be low key. The Development Committee would need to take the lead in
its decision-making on any future applications. Uses should not cause nuisance
to nearby residents.
Councillor Dixon did not share this view. He considered that there were many
examples where low key sites had been changed by stealth and he requested
that the issue be recognised at this stage.
A balance between housing and commercial employment was being provided.
The Senior Highway Engineer addressed the highway issues as follows:
It is anticipated that there would be 110 vehicles at peak times from the
residential area and 50-75 to/from the employment site. These may possibly use
Yarmouth Road. Discussions had been held with the housing developer
regarding addressing pinch points which were not mentioned in the Traffic
Assessment and further discussions would be needed.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
20 August 2012
Councillor Dixon considered that an opportunity would be missed if Yarmouth
Road were not upgraded. He considered that traffic volumes were greater than
those quoted even when traffic was moving normally.
Nothing could be done to prevent traffic using Yarmouth Road and access not be
stopped up.
Councillor G R Jones raised the following issues:
There was a need to be more proactive at an early stage with regard to traffic
impact.
An improved buffer was required between the commercial/Norfolk Constabulary
area and possible shielding of the commercial area from the road.
Play provision was needed for children and young people on site if the adjacent
school playing field were not available for public use.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the proposed neighbourhood
park would include facilities for children. The park would also be available for
existing residents of the town.
In response to a question from Councillor Jones, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) stated that there would have to be a formal Diversion Order to
change the alignment of the Public Right of Way which was adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the site.
The Corporate Director explained that issues regarding alternative sites could not be
revisited. The largest trip generator with new residential development was the
journey to school and the allocated site was considered to be the best site in terms of
access to local schools. The chosen site was designed to bring the town together,
was close to the heart of the town, would include public open space which could be
used for recreational purposes and there was a dual use sports centre at the High
School. There was an opportunity for residents of the development to access key
town centre services without using a car. The Working Party had to decide the
extent to which the brief met the site allocation and supporting policy statements and
whether anything better could be achieved through the Development Brief. It was
necessary to consider the comments and ensure that concerns were mitigated when
planning applications were submitted.
In answer to a question from Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) stated that he anticipated the submission of a full application for
housing and an outline application for employment and community use before the
end of the year. Permission, if granted, would accord with the development brief,
including B1 use. Other forms of industrial use would be recommended for refusal.
He stated that a further site (E12) had been allocated for general
industrial/warehouse uses.
Councillor P Williams asked if Brumstead Road had been considered in terms of
traffic issues. He also requested a condition to restrict operating hours in respect of
the B1 use.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained that it was not possible to impose
hours of use conditions directly through the brief. Brumstead Road had been
mentioned in the Traffic Assessment but the document had not been fully assessed.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
20 August 2012
RESOLVED
That Cabinet be recommended to approve the Stalham Development Brief
subject to
the Highway Authority supporting the conclusions in the Traffic
Assessment;
a minimum of 0.5 ha being designated for community use;
an increase in the amount of boundary ‘buffer’ landscaping between the
employment land and existing/proposed residential land; and
clarity on the issue of phased implementation of the public park and
access to serve the employment/community use land.
(19)
RESPONSE TO NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK – CORE
STRATEGY POLICY HO9 and EC2
Councillor B Cabbell Manners and Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal
interest in this matter as they owned barns.
The Working Party considered item 1 of the Officer’s reports which discussed the
potential impacts of the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework in
relation to the Council’s adopted policy on the re-use of rural buildings.
The Working Party considered the report and the following issues were raised:
Concerns that rural businesses would be run down in an attempt to justify
conversion for residential development and the history of a business may need to
be researched to assess the reasons for it not being viable.
The presumption should be that any rural building should normally be retained in
employment use regardless of the number of employees.
There needs to be discussion regarding a tariff in respect of enhanced value,
where conditions restricting permanent residential use are to be lifted.
Information may need to be obtained in respect of uplift in values.
This is a difficult policy area for the Authority as tourist accommodation may
contribute more to the economy than a second home.
If a tariff were to be imposed, how would the Authority deal with a holiday cottage
which the owner wished to convert to permanent residential letting?
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor G R Jones
and
RESOLVED
That Cabinet be recommended to indicate its support for the following
revised policy approach to the re-use of rural buildings in response to
the NPPF, subject to considering the introduction of an affordable
housing tariff in respect of the enhanced value arising from conversion
to permanent residential use and further consideration of the potential
impacts arising from the loss of existing tourism and other business
uses:
i.
The economic re-use of rural buildings will be supported and full
weight will continue to be applied to Policy EC2.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
20 August 2012
ii.
In relation to the application of Policy H09 and residential conversion
that weight be attached to the NPPF with the affect that:
Proposals for the reuse of disused or redundant buildings will be
subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 but not criteria 1
which limits location.
Proposals for the change of use/variation of occupancy of
buildings in holiday use to allow residential use will be subject to
compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and where applicable Policy
EC8 but not criteria 1 in relation to location.
Proposals for the change of use of all other commercial buildings
will be subject to compliance with criteria 2, 3, 4 and 5 and a
presumption that those providing a significant number of jobs
(three or more) should normally be retained in employment uses.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
6
20 August 2012