4
The Committee received and considered the Planning Manager's report which re-presented an application for demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site for up to 190 dwellings, retail development and holiday accommodation, together with associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure.
The Planning Manager reported that the application was being re-presented with a revised proposal to Members following a resolution to refuse the application by the Development Control Committee in March 2016.
The Planning Manager provided Members with an overview of the original proposal in line with the current revised proposal. He advised that the outline planning permission was still being sought for a residential led, mixed-use redevelopment of the application site as a whole. He reported that the description had been changed and the scheme no longer proposed community facilities but now included an element of holiday accommodation. He reiterated the plans proposed for the demolition of existing buildings and re-development of the site for up to 190 dwellings, retail development and holiday accommodation, together with associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure. As with the original 2015 submission,
permission was being sought for the principle of the development and the main access
points, with matters relating to layout, scale appearance and landscaping reserved for future approval.
Members were advised that the revised proposals included an area of approximately two hectares to the north of the site, adjacent to Beach Road, for holiday accommodation, in the form of 50 static caravans. It was reported that the existing site was well established with extensive planting and hedging, and the layout shown on the masterplan sought to retain areas of established planting within open space provision on the site.
The Planning Manager detailed the consultation responses received from the Parish Council who had objected to the application, together with the public responses whereby following re-consultation of the revised plan 109 objections had been received in total. Members were advised of the number of statutory consultation responses that had been received from external sources which included Norfolk County Council,Highways, Historic Environment Service,Norfolk Constabulary (Architectural Liaison Officer), Infrastructure, Lead Local Flood Authority, Environment Agency, Anglian Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, Natural England which included internal Great Yarmouth Borough Council internal responses.
The Planning Manager reported that the application in question sought to establish the principle of a residential led mixed use development on a brownfield site. He advised that it was evident from the consultation responses from statutory bodies that subject to conditions and planning obligations that the site can accommodate the principle of the development proposed without adversely impacting upon the infrastructure of the area, local amenity or
natural ecological habitats.
The Planning Manager provided a detailed summary as to the principle of the development and pointed out that it should be noted that the NPPF encouraged effective use of land.
The Planning Manager reported that in summary the proposal would enable a site which has been derelict for nearly 10 years , with seemingly very little prospect of being viably re occupied or re-developed for largely tourism use, to be re-developed to provide much-needed housing, along with some space for tourism caravans. No significant harms have been identified, and where harms exist, it is concluded that they can be satisfactorily controlled through planning conditions or the S106 legal agreement.
The Planning Manager reported that the proposal is considered to comply with policy HOU9 of the Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Local Plan 2001 and policies CS1, CS3, CS4, CS6 CS7 and CS8 of the Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework material considerations thatare considered to - in this instance - outweigh conflict with Policy TR4 and TR11 of the Great Yarmouth Borough Wide Local Plan 2001.
Members were advised that application was recommended for approval subject to conditions required to provide a satisfactory form of development as outlined and referred to above and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement for the provision of affordable housing, library books, green infrastructure provision, Natura 2000 mitigation including financial as outline in the report, play space and maintenance provision and highway requirements.
A Member asked with regard to the local schools and whether these were to be included as assets to the area and he was advised that schools did not fall in the category of an asset.
A Member asked with regard to the proposals for static caravans and whether conditions could be added to the application to ensure these were put into situe, the Planning Manager advised that a condition could be added to the application and it was suggested that this be a phased in approach condition.
The applicants agent provided a brief summary whereby Members were reminded that the Council's draft local plan identified a clear need for housing, the agent reminded Members that the site had been vacant for a number of years and therefore was in need of development, he advised that the development would generate jobs and would therefore benefit the economy, the agent advised that the applicant had worked hard to locate a tourism related business for the site but had been unable to attract any commercial or tourism industries. The agent stated that in his opinion the application to be considered provided a positive proposal for the site and encouraged Members to consider approval for the proposed application.
Mr Archibold, Objector addressed the Committee and provided his views as to why he felt that the application should be recommended for refusal, he advised that he had approached Northern Trust with a commercial idea for the site but had not received any communication from Northern Trust. The Monitoring Officer reminded Members that they were to consider the application included within the agenda of the meeting.
Mrs Foster, Objector addressed the Committee and summarised a number of concerns of the local residents, she advised that residents were fighting to retain a tourism industry for the site, reference was made to the policies that had been detailed with the proposals and advised that objections had been made taking these policies in to account. Mrs Foster commented on the proposed government standard for housing supply which would see the figure for housing supply supply drop significantly and therefore state that she felt the application was premature.
A Member sought clarification as to the proposed reduction in the housing supply and he was advised that whilst new standard methodology was being introduced the Council had adopted the core strategy to fulfill the local plan requirements and advised that the figure detailed within the current local plan was the most recent and up to date figure.
Charlotte Hill, Parish Council Representative addressed the Committee and reported the concerns of the Parish Council and urged the Committee to refuse the application.
A Member asked in light of comments with regard to the need for the retaining of tourism at the site, whether tourism within Hemsby had deteriorated since the closure of the site, it was advised that Hemsby had not seen a decline in visitors since the closure of the site.
Councillor Bensly, Ward Councillor reported the concerns of his constituents to the Committee and stated his own concerns with regard to the applicant and asked Members to consider refusing the application in order to safeguard the tourism industry within Hemsby.
A Member raised some concern with regard to comments that had been made by Councillor Bensly.
Councillor Galer, Ward Councillor reported the concerns of his constituents to the Committee and stated his own concerns with regard to the applicant and asked Members to consider refusing the application.
Members hereby entered into a general debate with regard to the application.
Councillor Hammond reported that he could find no reason to refuse the application and recommended approval.
Following a vote it was :-
RESOLVED :
That Application 06/15/0441/O be approved subject to conditions required to provide a satisfactory form of development as outlined and referred to above and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement for the provision of affordable housing, library books, green infrastructure provision, Natura 2000 mitigation including financial as outline in the report, play space and maintenance provision and highway requirements.