OFFICERS' REPORTS TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) - 19 FEBRUARY 2009
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Chief Officer responsible, the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION BY COMBINED COMMITTEE
1.
WALCOTT– 20081662 – Removal of condition 3 of planning application
reference 20021117 to permit residential occupancy; White Farm Barn, North
Walsham Road for Mr Kinsey
To consider whether to grant planning permission for removal of a holiday restriction
and allow unrestricted residential occupancy of this holiday accommodation.
Background
This application was considered by the Development Control Committee (East) on 22
January 2009, when it was resolved to refer it to the Combined Committee with a
recommendation for approval. The reasons for this recommendation were, firstly, that
the applicant is considered to be a ‘key worker’ as he serves with the local RNLI and
it is therefore important for him to live in this location, and secondly, that there are
precedents for the conversion of listed barns to unrestricted dwellings. The
Committee considered that these reasons outweighed the policy issues in this case.
The Committee also requested an urgent review of the saved Local Plan Policy 29.
Officers recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that the use of the
building as a permanent dwelling does not accord with Core Strategy Policy EC 2
and is contrary to the saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29.
The report to the meeting 22 January 2009 and the applicant’s supporting information
are attached as Appendix 1.
Updates
Representations: Three further letters of support received. In addition one letter
received suggesting deferral until the barn conversion policy has been reviewed.
Members will note that the appended Committee report includes reference to a letter
of support pertaining to Happisburgh Parish Council. A letter has subsequently been
received from the Vice-Chair of the Parish Council confirming that the planning
application is not within Happisburgh Parish and as such has not been considered or
commented on by the Parish Council.
Key Policy Issue
The key issue is whether adopted Development Plan policy should be set aside on
the basis of the considerations set out in this case and allow unrestricted residential
occupancy of this building in the Countryside policy area.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
19 February 2009
Appraisal
Planning permission was granted in 2002 under reference 20021117 for the
conversion of this listed barn (Grade ll) to residential use. Condition 3 of that
permission states.
‘The development hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation
purposes only and shall not be used as the sole or main residence of the occupiers.’
The reason for the condition is as follows:
‘For the avoidance of doubt and because the dwelling is located in an area
designated as Countryside in the North Norfolk Local Plan where the Local Planning
Authority would not normally permit permanent residential accommodation.’
This condition and reason have been imposed on planning permissions for the
conversion of approximately 600 rural buildings to holiday use in the countryside
during the adopted period of the Local Plan.
Following receipt of the application it transpires that since conversion of the building
in July 2007 (in accordance with the plans approved in 2002) the applicant and his
family have been occupying the barn as their sole residence. The barn lies
approximately 800m (road measurement) outside the development boundary of
Happisburgh, which is designated as a Coastal Service Village in the North Norfolk
Core Strategy. Policy EC 2 allows for re-use of buildings within the Countryside for
economic purposes only (including holiday uses), whilst saved Policy 29 allows for
residential use of such buildings where they lie adjacent to the boundary of a town or
village.
Local Plan Policy 29 was ‘saved’ following the Inspector’s report on the examination
of the Core Strategy which required that the proposed Policy HO 9 (‘Re-use of rural
buildings as dwellings’) be withdrawn and a revised policy be prepared.
In accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Planning & Compensation Act 2004 and
Government advice decisions on planning applications should be made in
accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless there are material
considerations which suggest otherwise.
Exceptionally, personal circumstances
may be material to the consideration of an application but will seldom outweigh more
general planning considerations.
The building is Grade II listed. In the past there have been instances where planning
permission has been granted to allow the conversion of listed barns in the
countryside to residential use. In these cases greater weight has been attributed to
safeguarding the future of the buildings and the applicants have been required to
demonstrate that conversion to a dwelling represents the optimum viable use for the
building. These circumstances do not apply in this case as the building has already
been converted in accordance with planning permission granted for holiday
accommodation. The future of this listed building is not at risk.
The Committee also needs to take into account the precedent that a decision to
approve this application could have in relation the numerous other buildings in the
countryside which are subject to similar holiday occupancy conditions. Council
records suggest that there are already approximately 600 rural buildings which are
subject to some form of holiday occupancy condition. The potential loss of holiday
accommodation could have a significant detrimental impact on tourism and local
employment in the District and the suburbanising impact of unrestricted residential
development in the Countryside also needs to be addressed.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
19 February 2009
Finally, the Committee will also need to take into account the Human Rights of the
applicants in reaching this decision and in considering whether to take any action to
remedy the current breach of planning control. Whilst a case could be made for
taking enforcement action if planning permission is refused, it is acknowledged that
this could potentially render the applicant and his family homeless. Moreover, the
Inspector and the Committee have acknowledged the need for a prompt review of
Policy 29. Care needs to be taken that any decision on this application does not
prejudice or prejudge the outcome of any review of policy.
Recommendation
Under these circumstances, it is recommended that permission for the removal of the
occupancy condition be refused, that support for the early review of Policy 29 be
confirmed and that the consideration of any enforcement action be deferred for a
period of 18 months. This would allow the applicant’s family to remain in the
accommodation and give them the opportunity of making representations in respect
of the policy review, or alternatively taking action to ensure that the condition is
complied with.
Depending on the outcome of the policy review, the question of any enforcement
action would need to be reconsidered in 18 months’ time.
Recommendation of the Development Control Committee (East):Approval.
Recommendations of the Head of Planning and Building Control:1) Refusal of application 20081662 on grounds that the property subject to the
application is located in an area of countryside, where permanent residential use
would be contrary to the Council’s Core Strategy policies in relation to the
location of new housing development and re-use of buildings in the Countryside,
as referred to specifically in Policies SS 1, SS 2, EC 2 and saved Local Plan
Policy 29.
2) Support for the early review of Saved Local Plan Policy 29 be confirmed.
3) Deferral of any enforcement action for a period of 18 months.
Source: (Tracy Armitage, Extn 6158 – File Reference: 20081662)
Development Control Committee (East)
3
19 February 2009
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.
STALHAM - 20081644 - Erection of extensions to store, replacement filling
station and construction of roundabout and revised access and parking
arrangements; Tesco Stores Limited Old Market Road for Tesco Stores Limited
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :09 Mar 2009
Case Officer :Mr J Williams
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Archaeological Site
Employment Area
Primary Shopping Area
Town Centre
SSSI Consultation Area
Contaminated Land
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
19981285 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Demolition of existing buildings and
redevelopment for Class A1 foodstore (together with associated car parking, petrol
filling station, road accesses), residential development, car parking for Maids Head
Hotel and use of land for market
Approved, 20 Dec 1999
19981407 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Redevelopment of site for Class A1 retail
store, petrol filling station, residential development, new link road, associated car
parking and use of land for market
Approved, 12 Oct 1999
20001060 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Re-development of land for Class A1
foodstore (with associated car parking, petrol filling station, road, accesses);
residential development, parking for Maids Head Hotel, use of local authority car park
for market
Approved, 09 Mar 2001
20011185 - (Outline Planning Permission) - Re-development of land for Class A1
foodstore (with associated car parking, petrol filling station, road, access); residential
development, parking for Maids Head Hotel, use of local authority car park for market
Approved, 28 Nov 2001
20011186 - (Full Planning Permission) - Use of land as footpath and associated
works (pedestrian link to proposed foodstore)
Approved, 05 Oct 2001
20020288 - (Planning Permission; Reserved Matters) - Erection of Class A1
foodstore together with petrol filling station, car parking, road and accesses
Approved, 29 Jul 2002
20071297 - (Full Planning Permission) - Variation of condition 5 of planning
permission reference 20011185 to allow delivery hours between 8.00am and 8.00pm
on Sundays, Bank and Public holidays
Temporarily Approved, 11 Oct 2007
Development Control Committee (East)
4
19 February 2009
THE APPLICATION
The proposals involve comprehensive extension and redevelopment of the existing
Tesco supermarket. The principal elements of the proposed development are as
follows:
1. To extend the existing site onto land currently occupied by vacant abattoir
premises, involving increase in site area from 1.3ha to 3ha (including new road
infrastructure).
2. To extend the existing store to provide an additional 2,499sq.m floorspace,
resulting in a total gross floorspace of 5,133sq.m. Retail (net) floorspace would be
increased from 1,400sq.m to 3,070sq.m. This extended retail floorspace would
provide a further 470sq.m for convenience goods and 1,200sq.m for comparison
goods. The extension would include an element of first floor accommodation to
provide staff facilities (324sq.m).
3. To close that part of Old Market Road which currently divides the existing store
site from the abattoir, together with its junction with the A149. In its place to construct
a new roundabout some 150m further south-east on the A149 to serve the entrance
to the store and a new section of road linking into the remaining section of Old
Market Road. This new road would be the main entrance into Stalham off the A149.
4. To relocate the petrol filling station to a position immediately south of the extended
store close to the proposed roundabout entrance.
5. To extend the car park (236 spaces), to provide a total of 358 parking spaces.
6. To close off the junction of Upper Staithe Road at its junction on the southern side
of Old Market Road and provide a large turning head at its termination.
In terms of detail the proposal includes the following main elements, certain of which
have been subject to amended plans recently submitted:
1. The design of the extension to the front of the store to replicate the existing
(primarily glazed) appearance incorporating a new entrance lobby.
2. Alterations to part of the front of the store building (at the corner closest to High
Street) incorporating a glazed canopy feature. Adjacent to this corner a small
additional area of land is to be acquired to provide a wider open link towards the High
Street incorporating public seating.
3. Roof section at the rear of the building to be raised above the height of the main
store to incorporate staff accommodation and storage.
4. External materials to comprise a mix of glazing, brickwork, timber cladding and
'rannila' cladding with roofing materials to match the existing.
5. An extension to the existing service yard with access onto the new section of
public road linking Stalham with the A149.
6. Enhanced pedestrian crossing links between Stalham Staithe, the store and town
centre beyond.
7. Landscaping to the frontage of the A149, access points adjacent to the roundabout
and either side of the new road link. Tree planting within the enlarged car park.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
19 February 2009
8. The erection of an acoustic fence (2m high approximately) along the eastern
boundary of the new section of public road, between the road and adjacent housing
on Upper Staithe Road.
9. The indication of a wind turbine within the car park, although no precise details are
included.
The application is accompanied by the following supporting documentation which is
available on the Council's web site (Members can also contact the case officer to
view the documents):
Design and Access Statement.
Statement of Community Engagement.
Planning and Retail Assessment.
Transport Assessment.
Landscape Supporting Statement.
Energy Strategy.
Ecological Assessment.
Environmental Site Investigation.
Environmental Noise Report.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Members agreed to visit the site at the last meeting. This is a major development
which raises significant retail planning policy issues.
TOWN COUNCIL
Object on grounds that the proposal is against Core Strategy, i.e. loss of employment
land. The Town Council has submitted a detailed list of issues which it considers
would need to be resolved either through the submission of amended plans or
through imposition of conditions in the event of planning permission being granted
(Appendix 2).
REPRESENTATIONS
Sixteen letters of objection received from local residents raising the following
concerns:
1. Demise of the High Street.
2. Design - no local distinction.
3. Inappropriate scale for the area.
4. Unattractive gateway to "Broads Market Town".
5. Negative impact on Conservation Area.
6. Tesco dominance will reduce customer retail options.
7. Increased traffic congestion.
8. Lack of waiting area for delivery vehicles entering service yard.
9. Increased Tesco vehicle movements - deliveries and on-line.
10. Increased traffic noise at Lower Staithe Road junction.
11. Landscaping to include mature planting.
12. Insufficient screening and planting at A149/Lower Staithe Road junction.
13. Wind turbine visually intrusive and would affect adjacent residential properties.
Four letters of objection received from outside the District raising similar concerns to
the above.
Lengthy letter of objection received from CPRE Norfolk. Considers that the proposed
extension conflicts with PPS6 and Core Strategy Policies SS 1, SS 5, SS 13 and EC
5. In summary:
Development Control Committee (East)
6
19 February 2009
1. The size of the extension and the resulting enlarged store is massively over large
for Stalham, the most restricted of all the District Secondary Settlements in EC 5.
2. It would make Stalham a one-shop town, and destroy all vitality in the town centre,
now and in the future.
3. The size of the store is such that it would also impact on the vitality and viability of
North Walsham, a principal settlement such as Hoveton and adjacent Wroxham in
Broadland District.
4. The store would also impact adversely on small village shops within what Tesco
define (wrongly) as the Stalham catchment area.
One letter of support commenting that whilst there was an initial down turn on the
High Street; Stalham is now on the 'up' with many people taking advantage of the 3
hour free parking without using Tesco.
The local MP has written enclosing copies of correspondence he has received
regarding the proposal and has asked that these are reported to the Committee. Two
letters objecting to the proposal are duplicates already received by the Council. One
further letter objects on grounds of impact on local shops, the other supports the
case for extending the store.
Stalham with Happing Partnership: Happing Business Group - Object. Comment that
the proposed new store would dominate Stalham even more, causing further loss of
High Street viability for business and associated jobs. The lack of any waiting area or
turning area for Tesco lorries is likely to mean that they wait on the roadside effectively blocking the road towards the town centre frequently. A further highly
detrimental effect on the High Street traders. People will not want to pass frequent
congestion - they take the easy route into Tesco.
The position of the proposed roundabout and crossing are questionable. The wider
road and main way into Stalham from the A149 should be towards the High Street
with Tesco being an off shoot from that-not the other way round.
Pedestrian access from Tesco to the High Street as shown on the proposals is far
from satisfactory. The signage from the entrance/exit of the new store and the overall
desirability of the walkway towards the High Street needs considerable improvement.
It is our understanding that the land on which the store will extend is 'employment
land' and therefore contrary to planning policy.
CONSULTATIONS
A number of Parish and Town Councils in the south-eastern part of the District (as far
as North Walsham) have been consulted on the application. Those who have
responded at the time of preparing this report are listed below.
Ashmanhaugh Parish Council - Support.
Dilham Parish Council - Support.
Hickling Parish Council - No objection, but would oppose an in-store coffee shop
and/or pharmacy given existing shops on the High Street.
Horning Parish Council - Opinions are mixed. The benefits of having a bigger
improved store are heavily outweighed by the serious effect this would have on
smaller independent traders in the town. Overall this is considered to be over
development in a largely rural area.
Hoveton Parish Council - Object, increased traffic movement on A1151 and wear and
tear to River Bure Bridge.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
19 February 2009
Lessingham Parish Council - Support and comment new road and roundabout is an
improvement. The views of protest in Stalham should be considered.
Ludham Parish Council - Object, concerns regarding loss of local trade in Stalham
and Ludham.
North Walsham Town Council - Comments that the District Council needs to look
very closely at the impact of this development in relation to what is being sold in other
shops in the town.
Potter Heigham Parish Council - Support, but opposes the sale of new lines and
goods which adversely affect other trades in the High Street.
Sea Palling Parish Council - No objection.
Sloley Parish Council - Support.
Smallburgh Parish Council - Support.
Tunstead Parish Council - Object; detrimental to area and local businesses;
increased traffic.
Worstead Parish Council - Object, effect on the area would be detrimental. However,
highway improvement in the form of a roundabout is welcomed.
Borough of Great Yarmouth - The proposal represents a significant extension of the
existing store, which is likely to increase Tesco's market share and to draw back to
Stalham trade "lost" to the established large retail supermarkets in Great Yarmouth
(Asda, Tesco, Sainsbury). It may also draw back some trade from the existing Tesco
store in Caister.
The issue of concern is one of future shopping choice. The Borough is aware of
Tesco's intention to expand its existing floorspace base in the Borough. Whilst plans
have not been submitted it is likely that, if proposals come forward and are approved,
Tesco could have an unrivalled position in controlling a large market share of
food/non-food shopping in the Caister - Stalham corridor and the wider catchment
areas. By virtue of Tesco's claims of improving its product range it is highly probable
that the expansion of stores within the corridor could have a major impact on local
shopping/foodstores in Repps with Bastwick, Potter Heigham, Martham and
Rollesby.
The Borough Council is anxious to establish the impact of the Stalham store
extension, taking into account retail growth in terms of expenditure and floorspace. It
would also wish to receive assurances that, at the minimum, the Tesco proposals will
maintain the existing level of shopping choice in the Caister - Stalham corridor.
Given these comments, I trust your Council will take into account the above concerns
when determining this application.
Broadland District Council - No comments.
Broads Authority - Objects. The Broads is one of Europe's most popular inland
waterways providing a unique recreational waterway system offering a wide range of
boating activities and facilities for outdoor recreation which attracts over two million
annual visitors per annum.
The site of the proposed application lies just north of the A149, a short distance
outside the Broads Authority Executive Area.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
19 February 2009
The proposal will result in an almost doubling of the size of the existing retail store
(Use Class A1) by the addition of 2,499sq.m of floor space. The Planning and Retail
Assessment accompanying the application identified that approximately 15% of those
visiting the store are from outside Stalham Town's 'Core Area' and are likely to
consist of tourists or visitors to the area. This Retail Assessment addresses the
impact on Stalham High Street and town centre itself, but does not address any
potential impact on the Broads Authority Executive Area as a neighbouring Local
Planning Authority. The extension of this store with the additional car parking spaces
is likely to attract additional visitors thereby undermining many of the retail stores
located within the Broads Authority Executive Area who are reliant on this tourist
trade. This impact is likely to be exacerbated by the large geographical catchment
area of the store given the rural nature of this part of North Norfolk.
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager - Provides comments in respect of
the submitted amended plans (see full comments in Appendix 2) and concludes that
the overall scale and form of the enlarged store and associated elements does not
sufficiently respect the existing townscape and the position remains that this
application is recommended for refusal.
Sustainability Co-ordinator - Confirms that the proposal comply with Core Strategy
Policy EN 6 requirements in terms of incorporating measures to minimise energy
consumption and resource consumption, adapting to future climate change and
providing renewable energy.
County Council (Highways) - The Highway Authority has reviewed all the supporting
information including the latest revised drawings and is satisfied with the principle of
the extended store served off the new highway layout.
That said the Travel Plan is not considered adequate and the Highway Authority
considers that further work and modification is needed to that document before
permission should be granted. Additionally the Highway Authority considers that a
Bond of Surety should be secured via a S106 agreement to ensure the satisfactory
implementation and future operation of the Travel Plan. Should Tesco's default on
the Travel Plan commitments and targets Norfolk County Council would use funds
from the Bond to operate the Travel Plan for Tesco.
There is also a concern about the proposed landscaping. In line with recent
Government advice on road safety issues caused by landscaping the Highway
Authority has adopted a policy of not allowing any trees (anything with a trunk greater
than 90mm) within 4.5m of the carriageway edge of a road subject to a speed limit of
50mph or above. Therefore there will be the need to revise the landscaping proposed
with this development even when the landscaping is within the Tesco site.
Additionally the visibility splay is needed from the zebra crossing to the roundabout
so that there is intervisibility between a vehicle driver on the roundabout turning into
the new road into Stalham and a person on the east side of the zebra crossing.
There are one or two other small issues that need to be addressed but I would hope
to get these resolved before committee.
Consequently at this time I recommend a Highway objection for the following
reasons:
The form of the proposed off-site highway improvements does not incorporate
appropriate landscaping to accord with the local setting of the highway or highway
safety. Contrary to Development Plan Policies T2 and 146 and 147
The application is not supported by an adequate Travel Plan to demonstrate that the
proposed development represents a sustainable form of development. Contrary to
PPG13 and Development Plan Policy T2.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
19 February 2009
Environment Agency - Objects on grounds that the submitted Flood Risk assessment
does not comply with the requirements of PPS 25, in particular it fails to address in
sufficient detail matters relating to infiltration testing and existing site drainage.
Environmental Health - Request imposition of conditions relating to contaminated
land, lighting, noise, combined heat and power unit, delivery vehicles and delivery
hours.
Considers the submitted flood risk assessment is inadequate in that it does not
address localised flooding issues and objects on these grounds.
Natural England - No objection.
Planning Policy Manager - Comments on the proposal with regard to the objectives
of Core Strategy in relation to settlement hierarchy and retail policy. Observes that
the development would result in one of the largest supermarkets in the District being
located in one of the smallest towns. As a departure from adopted policy such a
proposal needs to be robustly justified.
Considers that the use of employment designated land in this instance could only be
considered favourably if the proposal was judged to be acceptable in all other
respects. (See full comments in Appendix 2).
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology - States that the proposed development site lies in
an area of known prehistoric activity, with cropmarks of Bronze Age ring ditches and
artefacts of this date having been recorded in its immediate vicinity. An evaluation on
the site of the present store also revealed archaeological remains of Bronze Age and
later date. Consequently there is potential that further prehistoric and later
archaeological remains may be present at the proposed development site.
If planning permission is granted, we therefore ask that this be subject to a condition
for a programme of archaeological work in accordance with Planning Policy
Guidance 16, Archaeology and Planning (1990) para, 30.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (specifies the settlement hierarchy and
distribution of development in the District).
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 6: Access and Infrastructure (strategic approach to access and
infrastructure issues).
Policy SS 13: Stalham (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).
Development Control Committee (East)
10
19 February 2009
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 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment (prevents insensitive
development and specifies requirements relating to designated assets and other
valuable buildings).
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 5: The transport impact of 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).
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development.
PPS6: Planning for Town Centres.
PPS25: Development and Flood Risk
PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.
MAIN ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Compliance with local and national retail planning policy.
2. Impact on Stalham town centre.
3. Use of employment designated land.
4. Character and appearance.
5. Highway issues.
6. Residential amenity considerations.
APPRAISAL
Background
Outline planning permission for the existing supermarket was granted in 2001. A
condition of the planning permission was that the retailing area of the building should
not exceed 1,400sq.m. This limit stemmed from a retail consultant's report
commissioned by the District Council in the early 1990's and which was referred to in
the then adopted North Norfolk Local Plan. Full details for the store were approved in
July 2002 and the store was opened in November of that year.
Tesco's intention to expand the store has been public knowledge since early in 2006.
In June 2006 the company undertook a public consultation exercise. Further public
consultation was undertaken in September 2008, by which time amendments had
been made to the proposed development, most significantly by the introduction of a
roundabout on the A149.
The submitted proposals represent a 94% increase in the store's gross floorspace
and a 119% increase in its net floorspace (retailing area). Put into local context this
would be the largest supermarket in the District with a net floorspace of around
3,050sq.m, slightly larger than Sainsburys in North Walsham (which amounts to
3,044sq.m (net)); Morrisons in Cromer is 2,718sq.m (net); Morrisons in Fakenham
(2,690sq.m (net)); and Tesco in Fakenham (1,530sq.m (net)).
Development Control Committee (East)
11
19 February 2009
Retail Planning Policy
The existing store building lies within the defined Town Centre and Primary Shopping
Area (PSA) for Stalham as designated in the adopted Core Strategy. The site of the
store extension is outside the PSA on land designated as an Employment Area.
Core Strategy Policy SS 13 states that retail, service, community facilities and other
appropriate town centre uses, of an appropriate scale only, will be encouraged within
the town centre to help revitalise it and strengthen its particular and wider role as a
service centre for the Broads and surrounding rural catchment area.
PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres) states that for retail developments of this type,
outside a primary shopping area, applicants should demonstrate the following:
a) the need for development (in both quantitative and qualitative terms);
b) that the development is of an appropriate scale;
c) that there are no more central sites for the development;
d) that there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres;
e) that locations are accessible.
The North Norfolk Core Strategy defines Stalham as a Secondary Settlement (Policy
SS 1). Secondary Settlements form part of the hierarchical strategy which underpins
the Core Strategy. At the top of that hierarchy are the principal settlements of
Fakenham, North Walsham, Cromer and Holt where the majority of new commercial
and residential development is planned to take place. Policy EC 5 is permissive
towards retail proposals with net sales areas of 500 - 749sq.m within the PSA of
Small Town Centres, or if 'it can be demonstrated that the size of the proposal
addresses a specific quantitative or qualitative need within the catchment area
served by the town'. (The catchment area for a secondary settlement is defined as
being within a 10 minute drive time.)
The proposed extension is not within the PSA and substantially exceeds the
floorspace threshold referred to in Policy EC 5. Accordingly, for the principle of this
proposal to be acceptable, a need has to be demonstrated in accordance with both
local and national planning policy.
The applicant has recognised this and the submitted Planning and Retail
Assessment concludes that there is a need (both quantitative and qualitative) and the
proposal meets the other requirements of PPS6.
The case in terms of need is based on a catchment area for Stalham which extends
approximately midway between the town and North Walsham, due south into Great
Yarmouth Borough (to include Martham), along the coastline from Walcott, and
approximately equidistant inland from Stalham (see Appendix 2). The applicant has
undertaken both household and store exit surveys as part of the assessment.
In terms of quantitative need it is argued that there is sufficient surplus expenditure
within the catchment area to support the additional floorspace proposed. The current
lack of adequate floorspace results in the existing store being too small to stock a full
range of goods, resulting in limited choice. The consequence is that residents will
continue to travel elsewhere for much of their shopping needs.
The assessment also concludes as a result of the surveys undertaken that there are
qualitative deficiencies associated within the existing store in terms of the inadequate
range and availability of food products along with the poor range of non-food
products.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
19 February 2009
The assessment concludes that the demonstrated need for additional floorspace in
the area, and the fact that Stalham is the only logical location, justifies the proposal
as being 'appropriate in scale' with the role and function of the town. It also argues
that there are no other appropriate or preferable sequentially available sites within
the town to locate this additional floorspace.
The assessment addresses the impact of the proposed development on the town
centre. It argues that a decline within Stalham town centre took place during the
1980's and 1990's prior to the arrival of the Tesco store. It acknowledges that the
development of the present store will have caused some change to the High Street,
but its development was designed to be positive and to bring people back to the
town. It argues that this has to a degree been successful, but the town centre is still
responding to the fact that its role has changed over the years from when it had the
attraction of a livestock and chattels market, to its present role as a small town
centre. It concludes that the existing and extended store will provide an improved
catalyst which has encouraged and will further encourage people back into Stalham.
Finally in terms of accessibility the assessment concludes that the extended store
represents the most accessible location within the identified catchment area. Minimal
public transport exists, but the site affords easy access by car off the A149 and is
located within acceptable walking distance from most of Stalham.
A copy of the executive summary and conclusions of the submitted Planning and
Retail Assessment is attached in Appendix 2. A full copy of this document has been
placed in the Members' room.
In response to the submitted assessment the Council has commissioned MWA
Planning and Development Consultancy to assess independently the content and
conclusions of the applicant's retail assessment together with an examination of the
scheme in the context of national and local retail planning policies.
As with the applicant's retail assessment, a full copy of the MWA report has been
placed in the Members' room. For this committee report only the introduction and
overall conclusions and recommendations of the MWA report are included
(Appendix 2).
Members will see that in terms of the policy criteria referred to in PPS6 MWA
conclude as follows:
1. On the basis of the submitted information the applicant has not demonstrated a
quantitative and qualitative need for the development.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the scale of the development is
compatible with the role and function of Stalham.
3. Based on the size of the proposed extension there do not appear to be any more
suitable sequentially preferable sites in the town. (However given that the scale of
need is not considered as great as predicted, there could be scope for
disaggregating the proposed extension to assess whether smaller sites are
available.)
4. The applicant has not demonstrated the impact on Stalham town centre will be
acceptable.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
19 February 2009
Members are asked to refer to Appendix 2 to see the reasoning for MWA to reach
these conclusions. In summary however doubt is cast on the size and robustness of
the catchment area defined (Appendix 2) and the assumptions adopted in the retail
assessment to justify need are not agreed with. In terms of the size of the proposed
extended store in relation to Stalham town centre, Members' attention is drawn in
particular to paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7 of the MWA overall conclusions (Appendix 2).
Use of Employment Designated Land
As previously mentioned the site of the proposed extension (former abattoir site) is
designated as an Employment Area on the inset map for Stalham as part of the Core
Strategy. Policy SS 5 states that within these designations only employment
generating development proposals will be permitted. These are defined as uses
falling within Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (use
Classes) Order, together with petrol filling stations, motor related businesses and
builders yards. The policy is permissive in some circumstances to retail warehouses
and hotels, but a retail use such as the one proposed is not included within the
policy.
The application form states that as a result of the development there would be a
doubling of full time equivalent jobs from 90 to 180. This differs from the submitted
Planning and Retail Assessment which states that there would be approximately 60
new jobs for local people.
Members will note the comments of the Planning Policy Manager (Appendix 2) who
considers that if the proposed development is judged to be acceptable in all other
respects, it could be concluded that the creation of jobs associated with the store
extension, is sufficiently material to justify a departure from Policy SS 5 in this case.
Character and Appearance
The existing site immediately abuts the Conservation Area (due north) with its
pedestrian link to the High Street within the Conservation Area. The main part of the
extended store would project southwards onto the abattoir site. The abattoir site
(which is bordered by Old Market Road, Upper Staithe Road and the A149) currently
has an unsightly appearance. Extensions to the rear of the existing store
(warehousing and first floor staff facilities) would be closest to the Conservation Area.
The cumulative elements of the proposal would significantly alter this part of Stalham
and in particular its interface with the main entrance into the town. There is an issue
in terms of the comparative size of the extended building in relation to the character
of Stalham's existing townscape. In addition the following elements of the proposal
are those which are considered most relevant in assessing the physical implications
of the proposal:
- the enlarged store frontage would continue to face an enlarged car park;
- the pedestrian link to the High Street would be marginally 'opened up' and
enhanced by new hard landscaping;
- new road infrastructure would provide access from a roundabout on the A149 into
the superstore site and into Stalham itself;
- an enlarged service yard would access onto the new road into Stalham - in this
respect the rear of the store will have a greater public road frontage than its frontage;
- for the most part the design and scale of the extension would replicate the existing
building with the notable exception of the storage/staff accommodation which would
be higher than the main store roof and which would be open to prominent public
views (20m at its closest point to the Conservation Area boundary);
Development Control Committee (East)
14
19 February 2009
- the principal areas of landscaping would be along the car park and store access
boundary with the A149, around the exit points of the roundabout and either side of
the new length of public road. However, it would appear that from the comments of
the Highway Authority some of the roadside planting proposed would be
unacceptable for visibility reasons.
Members are referred to the full comments of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Appendix 2) in respect of the amended plans. The comments
confirm the view that overall the scale and form of the enlarged store and associated
elements, do not sufficiently respect the existing townscape and the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manger recommends refusal on that basis.
Other issues
As referred to above, the proposal involves significant alterations to the local road
infrastructure with the realignment of Old Market Road served by a roundabout on
the A149. The Highway Authority has confirmed acceptance of the new highway
layout but has raised a holding objection on grounds of some of the landscaping
interfering with highway safety and the inadequacy of the submitted Travel Plan.
The amount of car parking spaces proposed accords with the Council's car parking
standards (one space per 14sq.m floorspace) for a development of this type.
In terms of the impact on nearby residential amenity, the most significant change
would be on properties on Upper Staithe Road between Old Market Road and the
A149. As a result of the development this length of Upper Staithe Road would
become a cul-de-sac. The road is currently used as an access into the abattoir site.
Instead the new public road into Stalham would run parallel immediately along the
western side of Upper Staithe Road separated by a landscaped belt (for the most
part 5-6m wide) and a 2m high 'acoustic' fence. The Environmental Health Officer
has raised no objection to this arrangement on noise grounds.
In order to contribute to energy efficiency the application makes reference to the
provision of a wind turbine with the store car park. A position of the turbine is
indicated but no other details are included. The applicants have accepted that the
wind turbine would need to be subject of a separate planning application. Provision of
a wind turbine would not be necessary in order to meet the requirements of Core
Strategy Policy EN 6 since a proposed combined heat and power unit within the
service yard would in itself exceed the requirement.
The application is supported by a flood risk assessment (FRA) as required by
PPS25. Members will note that both the Environment Agency and the Environmental
Health Officer have raised objections on grounds that the FRA is considered
inadequate in terms of addressing certain aspects of flood risk.
Conclusions
The proposed development represents a departure from Development Plan policy in
that it would substantially exceed the amount of retail floorspace permitted under
Core Strategy Policy EC 5 and would be located on Employment designated land.
The proposal would result in the largest supermarket in the District which would run
counter to the Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk (Policy SS 1) which defines Stalham
as a Secondary Settlement in terms of settlement hierarchy.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
19 February 2009
Contrary to the case put forward by the applicant, the Council's retail consultant
(MWA) advises that permission should be withheld on grounds that the proposal
does not satisfy the tests of PPS6 in terms of retail need, scale and potential impact
on the town centre. Officers would not dispute the soundness of the views expressed
in the MWA report.
It is considered that the scale of the proposal is unacceptable, not only in retail policy
terms, but also in terms of its physical impact on the character of the town and its
relationship with the adjoining Conservation Area. In addition unresolved matters
relating to highway and drainage matters contribute to the unacceptability of the
submitted proposals.
Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.
RECOMMENDATION:Refuse on grounds that the scale of the proposed development is
unacceptable on retail policy grounds and that the scale, layout and design of
the proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the town and
adjacent Conservation Area. In this regard the proposal is contrary to the
advice contained in PPS6 and the objectives of Core Strategy Policies SS 1,
SS5, SS13, EC 5, EN 4 and EN 8.
Furthermore the submitted proposals fail to address properly issues relating to
highway safety, the travel plan and flood risk, contrary to the objectives of
Core Strategy Policies CT 5 and EN 10 and the advice contained in PPS25.
3.
STALHAM - 20081666 - Extension and conversion of two flats to provide three
flats; 116 High Street for Mr Woolsey
MINOR DEVELOPMENT - Target Date :11 Feb 2009
Case Officer :Mr Thompson/Mr Took
(Full Planning Permission)
CONSTRAINTS
Conservation Area
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
20071404 - (Full Planning Permission) - Conversion and extension of two flats to
form four flats
Approved, 17 Oct 2007
20081284 - (Full Planning Permission) - Change of use from A1 (retail) to two
residential flats
Approved, 24 Oct 2008
THE APPLICATION
To convert two first floor flats to three flats by adding dormer windows and first floor
doorways on the east side and by replacing a sloping roof with a flat roofed area for
external access to the three flats and for roof gardens.
REASON FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
At the request of Councillor Barran having regard to the following planning issue:
Desirability of supporting investment in the town.
Development Control Committee (East)
16
19 February 2009
TOWN COUNCIL
Awaiting comments.
CONSULTATIONS
Environmental Health - No objections.
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, and
Article 1 of The First Protocol: The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
It is considered that refusal of this application as recommended may have an impact
on the individual Human Rights of the applicant. However, having considered the
likely impact and the general interest of the public, refusal of the application is
considered to be justified, proportionate and in accordance with planning law.
CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998 - SECTION 17
The application raises no significant crime and disorder issues.
POLICIES
North Norfolk Core Strategy (Adopted September 2008):
Policy SS 5: Economy (strategic approach to economic issues).
Policy SS 13: Stalham (identifies strategic development requirements).
Policy HO 7: Making the most efficient use of land (Housing density) (Proposals
should optimise housing density in a manner which protects or enhances the
character of the area).
Policy EN 4: Design (specifies criteria that proposals should have regard to, including
the North Norfolk Design Guide and sustainable construction).
MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Impact on amenities of adjoining dwelling.
APPRAISAL
The site is within the town centre as defined on the Core Strategy Proposals Map,
where Policy SS 5 would allow residential uses in principle where they do not result
in the loss of shops. The application relates to the first floor above an existing shop,
so the residential use already exists and there would be no loss of shop. The first
floor currently contains two flats and the proposal is to increase this to three smaller
flats. In principle this increased density would comply with Policy HO 7 which seeks
to make efficient use of land.
However, the creation of the three flats requires alterations to the building which
would have a significant impact beyond the site boundaries. On its eastern side the
site adjoins a three-storey house with a small enclosed rear garden. The proposal
involves removing a lightweight sloping roof and replacing it with a flat roof, extending
up to the boundary with the neighbour. This flat roof would be used, via an existing
external stair, to gain access to all three flats, and would include a walkway at first
floor level along the boundary with the neighbour. In an attempt to mitigate the
potential overlooking problem the application includes a proposed timber screen
fence 1.8m above the level of the walkway. From the neighbour's side this would
produce a structure with a total height of 4.3m above existing ground level.
It is considered that the screen structure would in itself be dominating and
unneighbourly, and that, notwithstanding the attempts to provide screening, the
provision of open access to three flats, and the creation of new doors and windows at
Development Control Committee (East)
17
19 February 2009
first floor level would reduce the privacy and amenities of occupiers of the adjoining
dwelling to an unacceptable degree. The proposal is therefore considered to conflict
with Policy EN 4 which requires that proposals should not have a significantly
detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers.
The site is also within the Conservation Area and it is considered that the flat roof,
dormer windows and 1.8m screen fence at first floor level, although they would only
have a localised impact, would be out of character with and damaging to the
appearance of the Conservation Area.
RECOMMENDATION:- REFUSE, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:1) The District Council adopted the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September
2008 for all planning purposes. The following policy statements are considered
relevant to the proposed development:
Policy EN 4: Design
Policy EN 8: Protecting and enhancing the historic environment
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed alterations to create an
additional first floor flat would be severely damaging to the privacy and amenities of
occupiers of the adjoining house as a result of significantly increased overlooking into
the rear windows and the small private rear garden of that house, and by the
dominating and overshadowing impact of the proposed timber screen. The proposal
would therefore conflict with Policy EN 4 which requires that proposals should not
have a significantly detrimental effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers.
In addition the flat roof, dormer windows and 1.8m screen fence at first floor level,
would be out of character with and damaging to the appearance of the Conservation
Area, and the proposal would therefore conflict with Policy EN 8 which seeks to
protect and enhance the historic environment.
4.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
CATFIELD - 20081655 - Erection of single-storey front extension; Greenacres
New Road for Mr Phillippo
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081597 - Installation of solar panels; The Grove 95 Overstrand
Road for Mr J Graveling
(Alteration to Listed Building)
CROMER - 20081620 - Formation of vehicular access and erection of gate; Old
Bracondale, 10 Overstrand Road for Mr Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081596 - Conversion to three one-bed flats and one two-bed flat;
5 Mount Street for Cromer Properties
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081608 - Use of land for siting of three gas storage tanks; Cromer
Crab Factory 33 Holt Road for The Seafood Company
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
18
19 February 2009
CROMER - 20081637 - Change of use from gymnasium (Class D2) to storage
(class b8); Unit One, 22c Holt Road for Mr P Sutherland
(Full Planning Permission)
CROMER - 20081670 - Formation of entrances and extension of walkway to
facilitate conversion to two retail units; Unit C North Norfolk Retail Park Holt
Road for Cowing Properties Limited
(Full Planning Permission)
HICKLING - 20080485 - Demolition of hall and erection of two semi-detached
two-storey dwellings; Community Centre The Street for Hickling Parish Council
(Full Planning Permission)
HORSEY - 20081369 - Erection of estate warden's office/workshop/store; site
rear of The Street for The National Trust
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20081689 - Erection of single-storey side extension; 8 Summer
Drive for Mr and Mrs D Saberton
(Full Planning Permission)
HOVETON - 20081694 - Erection of two-storey front extension; 24 Two Saints
Close for Miss Bartlett
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081652 - Erection of replacement side extension and
conservatory and first floor balcony; Hunters Moon Field Lane for Mr J
Plummer
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081656 - Erection of two-storey side extension; 5
Wilkinson Way for Mr and Mrs Dillon
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081683 - Erection of double garage with office/study
above; Cangate Lodge Yarmouth Road for Mr D East
(Full Planning Permission)
OVERSTRAND - 20071698 - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of annexe
as a separate dwelling; Rose Cottage 14a Cromer Road for Mr and Mrs Gee
(Certificate of Lawfulness)
RUNTON - 20081249 - Erection of eight field shelters; Hillside Animal and Shire
Horse Sanctuary Sandy Lane West Runton for Hillside Animal Sanctuary
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20081516 - Erection of six flats and one cottage; land to The rear of
110 High Street for Mr Barnes
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20081581 - Conversion of redundant building to two flats; 94 High
Street for Mr J Dace
(Full Planning Permission)
Development Control Committee (East)
19
19 February 2009
STALHAM - 20081610 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; adjacent Sunrise St
Johns Road for Mr and Mrs Layt
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20081642 - Installation of security gates; Pedestrian Entrance,
Archway Shopping Centre Upper Staithe Road for Mr R Woolsey
(Full Planning Permission)
STALHAM - 20081643 - Demolition of building; Unit 16 Archway Shopping
Centre Upper Staithe Road for Mr R Woolsey
(Demolition in a Conservation Area)
WICKMERE - 20081606 - Alterations to attic and installation of second floor
window; 1 Dairy Cottages Wolterton Park Wall Road Wolterton for Mr and Mrs
Buxton
(Alteration to Listed Building)
WITTON - 20081691 - Erection of detached annexe; The Orchard Happisburgh
Road Ridlington for Mr R Fitches
(Full Planning Permission)
5.
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
FELBRIGG - 20081159 - Retention of log cabin for use as annexe (holiday use);
Willow Down 211 Holt Road Cromer for Mr D Nightingale
(Full Planning Permission)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20081617 - Erection of car port; 40 Arnold Pitcher Close
for Mr Taylor
(Full Planning Permission)
THORPE MARKET - 20081533 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 20040224 to permit holiday unit to be occupied as residential
accommodation in connection with running of public house; Suffield Arms
Cottage, Suffield Arms Station Road for Mr W Harris
(Full Planning Permission)
APPEALS SECTION
6.
NEW APPEALS
MUNDESLEY - 20080808 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
7.
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
AYLMERTON - 20080300 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; site adjoining Breck
Lodge Holt Road for Westcrome Properties Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
Development Control Committee (East)
20
19 February 2009
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080134 - Erection of one hundred and forty-nine
dwellings, (forty of which are sheltered), sixty-bed care home, ten employment
units and convenience store; Hopkins Homes site Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes Limited
INFORMAL HEARING
RUNTON - 20080193 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; land at
Widgeons Home Close West Runton for Dr and Mrs P Saunders
INFORMAL HEARING 04 Mar 2009
8.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
SEA PALLING - 20080258 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; land rear of
Old Cottage Church Road for Mr E Smith
WORSTEAD - 20080458 - Conversion and extension of stables to provide two
units of holiday accommodation; Church View Westwick Road for Mr D P
Gilligan
WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
9.
APPEAL DECISIONS
No Items
Development Control Committee (East)
21
19 February 2009