5
The Committee received and considered the report from the Planning Manager.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that this application had been presented to Committee on two occasions, the 13th September 2017 and 8th February 2018 and a site visit was undertaken on the 27th September 2017. During the site visit, the applicant requested that the decision on the application be deferred to enable other access options to be assessed and discussed with the Highway Authority. This request was confirmed in writing via e-mail.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had then submitted a revised application which increased the number of dwellings from 71 to 96, removed the car park and pick up/drop off point and car park which would have been gifted to the school and reconfigured the site to provide open space. A strip of land would be formed adjoining the existing recreation ground would act as a land swap to compensate for a revised access. The revised access sought to provide a permanent access from Church Lane.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the revised application was consulted on and a petition was received with 1592 signatures and an additional 133 objections compared to 27 objections received in response to the first two applications. Upon reversal of the application to the 71 dwellings with a temporary access off of Church Lane, a further four objections from three people were received. The consultation letters which were sent out stated that previous consultation responses would be considered as part of the application. The 133 objections mainly centred on the loss of public open space which would be utilised for the roadway and highway safety concerns.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application site had been surveyed for protected species including bats, reptiles, plants, barn owls and breeding birds and no protected species had been found. However, the provision of bat boxes and bird nesting boxes on site could be conditioned if the application was approved.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the mitigation payment was being discussed with the applicant and be addressed against the criteria set out within paragraph 56 of the revised NPPF (2018). As of April 1st 2017, the Council had a 4.13 year supply of housing land and this was a significant material consideration in the determination of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Sport England had requested mitigation for the temporary loss of part of the recreation ground and a financial contribution to be secured from the applicant to bring back into use the artificial cricket wicket when the temporary access road was no longer required. Should permission be granted, it was requested that this was granted with the delegated authority to negotiate the payment requested by Sport England.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that as the application site was bounded by Gorleston Recreation Ground which was maintained by the Council, a children's play area at East Anglian Way and open space at Meadow Park, it was not deemed necessary for there to be any open space provided on-site. The submitted plans show that open space was being offered by the applicant. However, private open space could be provided with payment in lieu of provision of £480 per dwelling paid. If the developer wished to provide public open space, the resolution should include that the Local Authority would take no ownership or liability for the open space and the s106 agreement would secure the provision of a management company to manage the open space in perpetuity.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the recent court case regarding European Protected Sites which was upheld and which could have some bearing on this application. Further advice was being sought from Natural England and legal advice from nplaw and it was requested that if the application was approved, that delegated authority be given to officers to secure the required Natura 2000 payment, or if this failed, the matter would be brought back to Committee.
The Senior Planning officer reported that an objection had been received from a resident of no. 56 Spencer Avenue regarding overlooking. The applicant had agreed to amend Plot 50 to be a bungalow thus mitigating any overlooking concerns due to the significant differences in land levels across the site.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions to ensure a satisfactory form of development.
Mr Gilder, applicant's agent, reiterated the salient areas of the application and asked that the Committee determine the application after 13 months of deliberation.
A Member asked Mr Gilder whether access from the application site onto Beccles Road had not been pursued due to cost implications. Mr Gilder reported that access onto Beccles Road had been declined by Norfolk County Highways.
Members were greatly concerned regarding highway safety and access to/from the site which was still the main sticking area in determining the application.
Mr Baker, objector, reported the objections from the local residents who were concerned regarding the proposed inadequate access, highway/parking issues and access by the Emergency Services when required and asked that the Committee refuse the application as it was unsafe and not viable.
Mr Willard, Norfolk County Highways, answered several questions regarding the highway access to the site and reported that the proposed access was considered adequate to serve the number of dwellings proposed. If the application was approved, Highways could consider the addition of yellow lines at the access to the school drop off/pick up point to discourage parking in this sensitive area. Enforcement would then be a matter for the Parking Enforcement Officers and not Highways.
Members were concerned that Highways had undertaken a desk top exercise and not undertaken a full traffic assessment on site. Mr Willard reported that he had visited the site on numerous occasions.
A Member reported that when the site had first been developed it was always envisaged that the access would be onto Beccles Road and asked what could the Council do to change Highways stance. Mr Willard reported that the Highways Development team had considered a priority junction or a signalled access from the proposed site onto Beccles Road in 2014 but these had not been viable.
Ward Councillor Fairhead thanked Mr Gilder for all of his hard work to try and secure a safe access to the site but reported that she still held grave concerns re highways safety and could not support the application.
Councillor Wainwright proposed that the application should be refused as the Committee still had serious concerns regarding the access. Councillor B Walker seconded the motion for refusal and following a vote, it was;
RESOLVED:
That application number 06/17/0247/F be refused as the application was contrary to policy HOU7, 3.4 (C) Suitable access arrangements can be made.