Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Grey and Reynolds.

Councillor Drewitt declared a personal interest in respect of item 7 in his capacity of Ward Councillor for Lothingland.

The Chairman declared a personal interest in respect of item 5 in his capacity of Ward Councillor for Ormesby.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 23 May 2018 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the Planning Officer's report which presented a variation of condition 2 of planning permission consent 06/14/0604/F - sub-division of garden to form plot for detached dwelling, relocation of proposed access, where new dwelling and No.14 would no longer share an access.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site was positioned adjacent to the corner of Beach Road, Scratby close to one of the main entrances into the village. 

The Planning Officer reported that the consultation process provided one objection from the Parish Council, which raised concerns with the position of the access near the bend in Beach Road and junction with the entrance to the village services, the Parish Council had also stated that the area was particularly busy with farm traffic and village services all accessing Beach Road in a constrained location, concern had also been raised in that existing driveways already caused hazard and that a further addition of a new access could increase the hazards.

The Planning Officer reported that no neighbour objections had been received, Highways had also been consulted and had raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.

It was reported that it had been recognised that the application site is positioned adjacent to a corner, and that the Parish Council had objected to the application it had been considered in the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority the proposed access is considered an acceptable proposal, therefore the application had been recommended for approval.

Mr Wendt, Parish Council Representative, summarised the main objections from the Parish Council and stated that in his opinion the application could cause a danger to Members of the Public in light of the amount of tourists visiting the village.

A Member asked whether the Parish Council had raised objections to the previous applications that had been approved at the site, this was confirmed by Mr Wendt.

A Member asked whether there had been any serious accidents due to the similar accesses of neighbouring properties, Mr Wendt advised there had been a number of near misses in the village but was not aware of any serious accidents that had occurred. 

RESOLVED :

That Application 06/18/0226/F be approved subject to all conditions ensuring a suitable development including those recommended by Highways.

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which sought approval for a demolition of existing building and construction of 2 blocks of flats (5 flats to each block).

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application site was positioned to the rear of 34 Marine Parade, Great Yarmouth and immediately adjacent to Apsley Road. The site was part of the former Yesterday's World museum which had been recently subdivided and its use changed. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the site was within a primary holiday area as defined by the Borough Wide Local Plan (2001) and the frontage faces onto Marine Parade. Members were also advised that the uses of properties around 34 Marine Parade were mixed residential and commercial uses. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposed development was not considered to significantly and adversely affect the neighbouring properties and no neighbour objections had been received. Members were advised that due to the close proximity to the flats to the rear of 34 Marine Parade there was a potential for some loss of privacy facing eastwards.

Members were advised that Highways had not objected to the development subject to conditions being imposed, and Norfolk Constabulary had made a series of recommendations to help the security of the development as it is located in an area of high crime.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application site was within Housing sub market 3 area in accordance with the adopted Core Strategy, meaning affordable housing was not required as part of the application, she reported that the application proposed 10 units constituted a major dwelling application, therefore accordingly open space contributions should be sought by way of an obligation agreement.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the BPA, Lead Local Flood Authority and Essex and Suffolk Water had not objected and that Environmental Health had not objected to the application subject to conditions relating to contaminated land and noise.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that space had been allocated to the rear of the parking areas for cycle storage and bin use, she advised that a condition should be considered to ensure that bin storage and cycle stores are put in place prior to first occupation.

A Member asked whether the comments and concerns raised by the Norfolk Constabulary had been addressed. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application  site was accessible from the road for residents to be able to drive in to and that the site was accessible for emergency access, she advised that it had the high levels of crime had been recognised therefore advised that a suggestion of CCTV could be put forward to the applicant but this condition did not form part of the application submitted.

A Member asked whether it had been advised how the car parking would be allocated, and it was advised that this had not been advised although residents could apply for a perking permit to park in the area close to the application site.

Some concern was raised in relation to the possibility if the application causing a detrimental effect to the area in that the area was within close proximity to a  prime holiday area. 

Councillor T Wright, Ward Councillor raised his concerns in relation to the application, and stated that in his opinion the application could prove detrimental to the  prime holiday area, but acknowledged the need for developments but advised that he felt this application site was in the wrong area for development.

A Member reiterated the concerns raised with respect to security measures and stated that in his opinion the application should require CCTV, lighting for the accessing of the escape route. The Planning Manager advised that security measures could be conditioned and out forward to the applicant prior to building commencement.

RESOLVED :

That approval be given to application 06-18-0039-F, subject to all conditions which include security measures at the Officer's discretion to ensure a suitable development including those recommended by the Highways Authority and Environmental Health, conditions regarding the materials and to ensure the erection  of the bin store, contributions towards open space/play equipment should also be sought.

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented for approval a new residential dwelling and garage.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the main matter to be considered was the principle on the site being outside of the Village Development Limit.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that no objections had been received in respect of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that in light of the current lack of five year housing supply it was considered on balance, that the NPPF presumption in favour of development outweighed the fact that the site in question was outside the Village Development Limit in this instance and it was therefore advised that the application was recommended for approval.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/18/0114/F be approved as the proposal was in accordance with policies CS1, CS2 and CS16 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy.

The Committee received, considered and noted the Planning Decisions made by Officers and Committee between the 1 May and 31 May 2018.

RESOLVED :

The Committee note the appeals decisions.

The Chairman reported that there was no other business as being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration at the meeting.