Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Freeman who was substituted by Cllr Candon.

Cllr Hammond declared a personal non-pecuniary interest in the agenda item 7. and informed the Committee that he would not participate in debate or vote on the item.

Cllr G Carpenter declared a personal non-pecuniary interest on agenda item 7. informing the Committee that he has known the applicant over sixteen year as a neighbour. He was able to debate and vote on the item.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2023 were agreed.

The Head of Planning Mr M Turner gave the Committee procedural guidance on the implications of deferring the consideration of the application to allow for a site visit.

Cllr Flaxman-Taylor proposed that the consideration of the application would be referred until a site visit can be organised. This was seconded by Cllr P Hammond.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That the consideration of the application will be deferred until after the site visit. 

There were no technical questions by the Committee to the Principal Planning Officer.

The Chair invited applicant Mr Hollowell to speak.

Mr Hollowell confirmed that the coffee concession is very popular and that the demand for hot drinks has increased over time. The early morning sales  (7 a.m. - 9 a.m.) are often a lot better than several hours of trading during the afternoon. He advised the Committee that there have been a lot of customer requests to extend the service hours as well as to provide hot drinks concession around the year including the winter months.

Cllr Flaxman-Tayor asked Mr Hollwell how would he know that the sales before 8 a.m. would be good if they have not been able to trade before those hours.

Mr Hollowell confirmed that there was a period when the trader did start trading before permitted hours; but once made aware of this, this was stopped.

The Chair invited ward Cllr Wells to speak.

Cllr Wells noted that the whole premise of the application appears to be that when agreed trade conditions have been unenforceable, then let's just change the conditions. He accepted that there is a need to support traders, but this needs to be balanced out with the needs of the residents in close proximity.  He advised the Committee that the current conditions have worked well with only a few isolated problems reported. He confirmed that he has no objection to extending trading during the proposed eleven months period, but that the 8 a.m. start of the trading  coincides with the opening of the car park (also at 8 a.m.) hence it is in his view logical not to allow trading to start any earlier.  Although one may think that that thirty minutes is a small difference, for the local residents who get inconvenienced by the dog barking and other associated noise relating to the early morning trade, the difference is noticeable.

Cllr Myers noted that there has been a mention of a breach of the current trading conditions a few times, and asked for clarity as to how it is even possible if the car park is locked and opens at 8 a.m.

Cllr Wells confirmed this is as several car parks need to be opened at 8 a.m. so the car park operator has to plan the maintenance round ensuring that all car parks are opened by 8 a.m. This usually means that they start the round in Gorleston and hence the car park is opened ahead of the scheduled time.

Cllr Wainwright noted that the inconvenience of a dog barking and the concession trading hours are not necessarily the same. He did not believe that most people would purposely go there for a coffee at 7.30 a.m., but rather that runners and dog walkers have their established routines and schedules in place regardless if the hot drinks concession is open or not. He further noted that 7.30 a.m. is not exceptionally 'early' in any event.

Cllr Wells disagreed and confirmed that for the local residents within a proximity of the concession, the thirty minutes does make a notable difference. 

Cllr Wainwright moved to propose that the application together with the conditions as laid out in the agenda report be approved. This was seconded by Cllr Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:- 

That the application 06/22/0762/VCU be approved, subject to the following conditions:-

The reason for the condition is:-

The reason for the condition is:-

In order to ensure satisfactory off-street parking facilities are retained, and to minimise the impact up on the conservation area (No.17 Gorleston Seafront), and to minimise the impact on local residential amenity in accordance with Policies R7, A1 and E5 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

The reason for the condition is :-

To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the use of the site because the main town centre retailing uses proposed should ordinarily be directed to defined local centres unless evidence justifies their location elsewhere, but in this instance the limited retail offer is considered appropriate to enhance a tourism offer and provide a visitor attraction in line with Local Plan Part 2 policy L2, whilst being necessary to avoid a detrimental impact on local centres sites, and in the interests of minimising the impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies R7 and A1 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

In order to minimise the loss of available parking spaces, to avoid a detrimental impact on the local traffic network, and to ensure satisfactory offstreet parking facilities remain in place for visitor parking in accordance with Policies R7 and A1 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

To protect the visual impacts of the setting of the historic environment within Conservation Area No. 17 Gorleston Seafront in accordance with Policy E5 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

The reason for the condition is :-

The reason for the condition is :-

The reason for the condition is :-

To allow suitable separation between the users of the mobile concessions and the moving traffic and to ensure there is minimal disruption to the availability of parking spaces within the site in accordance with Policies R7 and A1 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

The reason for the condition is :-

The reason for the condition is :-

In the interests of the residential amenities of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in accordance with Policies R7 and A1 of the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021).

The Principal Planning officer reported that the proposal complies with the aims of Policies CS1, CS6, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS13 and CS16 of the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy, and Policies GY6, A1, E1 and E5 of the Local Plan Part 2. It was therefore recommended that the application 06/23/0096/F be approved, subject to conditions set out on the agenda report and as amended on the addendum report.

Cllr Carpenter asked to confirm what was in place on the location previously. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed it was a "Slingshot" attraction.

Cllr Williamson asked to clarify if the height of the previous "Slingshot" attraction was much different to the new proposed "Star Flyer" attraction. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the height is roughly the same as before (within 2 metre difference).

Cllr T Wright confirmed that it is good to see something different on the site as the "Slingshot" had been there for several years and had become outdated.

Cllr Wainwright proposed that the application together with the conditions as laid out in the agenda pack and as amended in the addendum report be approved. This was seconded by Cllr Flaxman-Taylor.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:- 

That the application 06/23/0096/F be approved, subject to the following conditions:-

2. Before the attraction or any related installations hereby permitted are first brought on to the site, a photographic record of the site and its condition of landscaping prior to the installation shall be undertaken. The results of the photographic survey shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to the first use of the ride hereby permitted.

To provide a suitable record to assist in site reparation, to ensure that the detrimental impact on heritage assets is temporary and repairable, and in the interest of the amenities of the locality.

The time limited restriction is imposed in order to retain control over the use of the site, to ensure that the detrimental impact on heritage assets is temporary and repairable, and in the interest of the amenities of the locality and that the site is left in a satisfactory condition.

5. There shall be no use of the development hereby permitted until all staff and operatives have first been made aware of the requirements to comply with the measures set out in the submitted High Tide Action Plan (reference (LTR_236001_C2_230202), and have first received training to implement the Flood Evacuation Plan. The High Tide Action Plan and Evacuation Plan shall thereafter be maintained and retained in accordance with those submitted details for the duration of the development.

The reason for the condition is :-

In the interests of the safety of the public and site operatives in the event of extreme weather and/or flooding.

In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to ensure any lighting does not compromise navigational safety for vessels at sea and to maintain residential and neighbouring amenity.

In the interests of highway safety and pedestrian movement and visual amenity.

The reason for the condition is :-

Cllr P Hammond exited the Committee and did not participate in the debate or a vote on this item.

The Committee received and considered the report set out on the agenda pack, prepared and presented by the Principal Planning Officer Mr N Harriss. The application was brought before the Committee as per Constitution (25+ dwellings) and as it is a connected application submitted by a relative of a Councillor, as applicant, for determination by the Borough Council as Local Planning Authority. The application was for redevelopment of site (Land adjacent Raynscourt Lodge, 16 Euston Road, Great Yarmouth) to create 28 self-contained flats.

The Principal Planning officer referred the Committee to consider planning balance and considerations  outlined in the agenda report. He further confirmed that one additional public representation was received as outlined in the addendum report pages 8 - 9, this did not however raise new issues that had not already been addressed in the agenda report. Therefore, having considered the details provided, the application is considered to comply with policies CS2, CS9, CS10, CS11, CS13, CS16 and Policies GSP1, GSP4, GSP5, A1, A2, E1, E5, E6, E7, H3, and I3 of Local Plan Part 2.  It is considered that there are no other material considerations to suggest the application should not be recommended for approval. It was therefore recommended that application 06/21/0657/F should be delegated to the Head of Planning to Approve.

Cllr Myers asked about the car parking across the area and the possible impact on seasonal as well as residential car parking as the development did not provide any parking for the proposed 28 dwellings. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there are some possible parking solutions surrounding the development site, including residential parking permits, but no detailed planning consideration has been given to it as it is not something that the applicant can control.

Cllr T Wright noted that some unrestricted parking areas might be impacted as the development does not provide any additional parking. He further enquired about the arrangements for bin collections and if this has been planned as communal or individual. He specifically wanted clarity on considerations given to environmental impact and a potential environmental hazard if these arrangements are not properly considered for the development of this size. The Principal Planning Officer showed the enclosed bin area next to the lift shaft. 

The Head of Planning, Mr M Turner added that Environmental Health has been consulted about the plans and that they had not raised any issues or concerns. Ultimately, the detailed  arrangements for bin collections is outside the development management remit and not something for the planning to consider in minute detail. However, he further referred to section 11.8 on the agenda report and the consultation that has taken place with the Council's Waste and Recycling Service.

Cllr T Wright noted that something about the bin collection arrangements could and should be added to the conditions.

The Chair invited Mr J Clarke (objector) to speak.

Mr J Clarke confirmed that he lives next door to the proposed development. He advised the Committee that he was shocked that this development was even given any consideration. He felt strongly that the development is not in keeping with the style of housing and other buildings in the area and would therefore not enhance the area. He explained his concerns how it would be overpowering building that would enclose the area and impact the visibility. He raised concerns about these flats (that include Juliet balconies) overlooking the other residential buildings in the area. He also highlighted concerns about the viability of businesses currently operating in the location not least due to the loss of car parking facility. He further noted his concerns about the future impact to the environment and envisaged rubbish and cigarette buds being thrown out from the balconies and outdoor areas of this development. He further felt there was no consistency in planning and the requirements terms of use of a land. There was evidence needed to demolish a hotel, but appears none needed to get rid of the car park. Yet on another site, a bowling ring was lost for the benefit of a car park. Finally he highlighted the lack of s.106 contributions and affordable housing provision in this development. 

Cllr Hanton asked a clarifying question about the boundary of the development and how it may impact the road and the visibility. Mr J Clarke clarified what he meant and the Principal Planning Officer demonstrated the photos of the development boundary to the Committee.

The Chair thanked Mr J Clarke for his contributions.

Cllr Myers requested the Principal Planning Officer for further clarity of the development boundary. He further questioned how much more 'overlooking' to the surrounding properties would this development be in comparison to the three story building that was on the site previously (especially noting that the design plan includes Juliet balconies). He further wanted clarity on how much of a material consideration it would be. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that there would be more overlooking both back to back and side to back. However, not to the significance of harm to warrant a refusal of the application. 

Cllr Candon confirmed that based on what he has read on the agenda report and the subsequent presentations to the Committee, he considers there to be no reasons to object to officer recommendations. He did note the point made reference to lack of affordable housing, but concluded that this development would still provide homes for someone and would contribute to the viability of the seafront.

Cllr Hanton considered that there are sufficient car parking available in the area therefore any adverse impact of additional car parking requirements would be tolerable; even if residential car parking permits were to be allocated for future occupants on this development.

Cllr Williamson confirmed that despite the design changes, the development would still dominate the site and would have a negative impact on the area and 'overshadow' the grade II listed building, former Aquarium. It was confirmed that the proposal followed discussions that had taken place between the applicant, Historic England and the Council’s.

Cllr Wright further maintained that bin collection arrangements should be added on as a planning condition. He further considered the development of 28 flats on this site to be overdevelopment. He appreciated the concerns about viability, but was still concerned about the development of this size with no affordable housing provision.  He did not object to redevelopment on this site on principal, but felt this particular proposal was still overdeveloped. 

Cllr Flaxman-Taylor proposed that the officer recommendation, to delegate application 06/21/0657/F to the Head of Planning to approve subject to receipt of the balance of £2126.04 Habitat Mitigation Payment and subject to the conditions as set out on the agenda report, be approved. This was seconded by Cllr Candon.

Following the vote; the motion was lost.

The Chair asked those Members who voted against the motion to outline their reasons why.

Cllr Wright confirmed that it was overdevelopment on this site.

Cllr Myers agreed it was overdevelopment especially as it did not include any affordable (or social) housing provision. 

Cllr Williamson agreed it was overdevelopment and despite the design changes, still considered it would have an adverse impact on conserving the sea front area and especially the grade II listed building, the former Aquarium (now cinema and a nightclub).

The Head of Development addressed the concerns raised by the Members and confirmed that affordable housing provision is only a requirement if it is viable to do so. He reconfirmed that the viability assessment was carried out for this development, but especially considering the current inflationary costs, this development becomes unviable if affordable housing is included. He further added that density of development is a consideration but also noted that this was desirable development on the brownfield land that would provide much needed housing provision; both which are encouraged by the National and Local planning policies.  

Cllr Myers confirmed his considerations of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) recommendations in relation to density of development and referred to an example of converting spaces above existing shops. He agreed with the importance of housing development and especially a use of brownfield land and understood the considerations around viability and cost implications with inflation. However, he confirmed that there is a need for social and affordable housing and perhaps in the large development plans such as this, the cost charged on the private dwellings needs to increase or otherwise no social (or affordable) housing is ever built.

UNRESOLVED:- 

The Chair confirmed he has not been notified of any other business as being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.