Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Boyd.

Councillors Freeman & Williamson declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in item number 5 as they were GYPT Board Members and they would leave the room whilst the matter was determined.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2023 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Principal Strategic Planner.

The Committee received and considered the addendum report dated 12 July 2023.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported the salient areas of the application to the Committee. The Principal Strategic Planner informed the Committee that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted concerning land owned by the Borough Council, for determination by the Borough Council as Local Planning Authority. The application was referred to the Monitoring Officer for their observations on 04/07/23, and the Monitoring Officer has checked the file and is satisfied that it has been processed normally and that no other members of staff or Councillors have taken part in the Council’s processing of the application other than staff employed within the LPA as part of the determination of this application. 

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the proposal is for the construction of a 66-bed, three-storey building for use as a residential care home for older people, car parking, new access to the site and associated development and landscaping. The Care Home accommodation is considered to fall within Use Class C2 (residential institutions), as it would provide housing for older people with varying levels of on-site care provision, which includes specialist dementia care, as defined by Paragraphs 010 and 014 of the Housing for Older and Disabled People National Planning Practice Guidance (2019). In addition, the applicant advised that the care home is for the elderly (aged 65+) and will be staffed 24/7, operating a shift pattern style of working, but will have no resident staff. Residents within the home will have a range of mobility but will often be experiencing a reduced level of mobility as expected in later years. The application submission states that the facility will be fully compliant with the National Care Standards Act 2000; providing single-room accommodation, with en-suite facilities and a suitable ratio of communal/recreational space per resident together with level/amenable access throughout. The proposed care home would be of brick and render construction with a grey tile roof. In total the development will provide 3,235m² internal floor area over three floors.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the proposal will provide a 66-bed C2 use class residential care home, for which there is a demand for such a facility within the Borough. The proposal is contrary to Policy GN4 but, as outlined in the assessment above, it is considered that there are other material planning considerations that outweigh this conflict with adopted policy as outlined in paragraph 10.16 of the agenda report.
Overall, it is considered that, on balance, the application is acceptable for conditional approval within the terms set out in the recommendation outlined below.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that at page 33 of the agenda, that as the application was a departure from adopted local plan policy it is worth mentioning that the application was advertised as both a major development and a departure from policy, by site notice and advertisement in the press, for the period 30/09/22 – 28/10/22. This accords with the requirements for such applications, as set out in Regulation 15 of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) 2015.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that in response to the Historic Environment Service comments as presented in the Committee Report, the applicant has actually undertaken a pre-development investigation at the site comprising archaeological trial trenching. The on-site excavated trenches contained remains that required investigation, but none provided conclusive evidence of origin. No archaeological finds were recovered from these remains or from topsoil/subsoil deposits resulting from excavation. The precise processes that have formed these remains are unknown, and could be due to steam-powered agricultural practices and/or use of the site as a compound during construction of the surrounding area. To corroborate, the archaeologist compared other local investigations and found few archaeological remains to have been recorded during previous interventions in the immediate vicinity. As a result, it was considered there was no archaeological interest at the site.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the  applicant submitted their proposed methodology and post-survey results [Archaeology Report Number CB739R v.1.1] to the Historic Environment Service, who have in turn confirmed the trial trenching was adequate and no further archaeological work is required. As an update to the Committee Report, it is confirmed that no archaeological conditions are required. Proposed conditions 8, 10 and 11 are removed from the recommendation.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the East of England Ambulance Trust (EEAT) has identified a number of features required of a care home. The Committee Report was written on the understanding that the non-financial items listed under para 19.1 (page 45) had been agreed with the applicant to be included in the planning obligations. The applicant has since clarified they agreed that the features (or similar versions thereof) would be provided in the development, but would be done so to address other legislation and provided through other regulations. As a result, the following amendments are required:-  At least one emergency lifting device per floor (inflatable).

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the applicant has confirmed the lifts in the proposal are already large enough to accommodate a stretcher and up to five paramedics/people. Should emergency evacuation ever be needed, fire stretchers are located within the stair wells. The EEAT saw these as an important basic safety feature for a care home, but this is a matter for Building Regulations and care home Licencing rather than something to be secured through Planning. The applicant has stated that, ordinarily, an external defibrillator would not typically be provided within the care home, pointing out that they’re often provided on external walls of buildings for the use of the community, not internally in care homes for their sole use.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the EEAT saw these as an important basic safety feature for community use, taking the community to include the residents within the facility. Whilst many care homes would provide community features or be within a wider care campus, this proposal is rather more isolated. It would not be unusual for the surrounding community to assume a care home would include a defibrillator for emergency use, and it is considered necessary for the development to include an external defibrillator and provide immediate emergency help for residents and visitors alike. However, it was more appropriate for a defibrillator to be required by planning condition rather than unilateral undertaking. 

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that an ambulance bay has been provided in the proposal and is shown on the submitted site plan. Condition 2 will require the development to be undertaken in accordance with the site plan, so will require inclusion of the ambulance bay. The applicant notes they have also proposed 6 EV charging points, in line with current building regulations requirements. However, it is more appropriate for an ambulance bay to be provided and required to be retained by planning condition rather than as part of a Unilateral Undertaking.

The Principal Strategic Planner informed the Committee that a local Councillor has requested clarification over the proposed tree protection measures. The Council’s Tree Officer has identified the value which the tree belt along the southern boundary provides, and is expected to provide, for a significant time yet. As part of the construction, activities must be excluded from the tree belt wherever possible. The application includes an Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) which looked at tree health, value and longevity, and found that whilst the woodland belt is substantial, no trees would be considered the greatest status, within Categories A (high arboricultrural value) or B (moderate arboricultural value). Many were of low value (Category C) or requiring removal regardless of whether the development proceeds due to being dead / diseased (Category U). The AIA proposes removal of 4 stand-alone trees (lime, silver birch and alders) and 8 groups, within Category C, and 2 Category U plum trees, all to accommodate the footprint of the building and the car parking. These are all behind (to the north of) the area of denser tree cover alongside Sidegate Lane. It was always anticipated that there would be some loss of tree cover as a result of allocating the site for development, although planning applications should always seek to minimise and then compensate any losses as expected by Condition 4.

The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the applicant has stated the care home would be equipped with full hoists as opposed to inflatable lifting devices. The hoists within the care home provide a more than suitable method of lifting residents should they require assistance. The EEAT saw these as an emergency and mobile feature, although the proposal would provide appropriate alternatives. Nevertheless, this is a matter for Building Regulations and care home Licencing rather than something to be secured through Planning. For the reasons identified in the assessment above, it is considered on balance that the application should be approved, notwithstanding the conflict with adopted policy including being contrary to Policy GN4, in accordance with the recommendation below. 

The Principal Strategic Planner informed the Committee that the Council were still awaiting the consultation response from Natural England in regard to GIRAMS.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked for clarification as to the foul water drainage from the site. The Development Manager replied that the foul water would go into the Anglian Water system and that surface water would be retained on site.

Councillor Martin asked for clarification as to whether there would be a defibrillator on site. The Development Manager confirmed that a defibrillator would be secured on site by condition.

Ms Howes, applicant, reported the salient areas of the application to the Committee and the benefits it would bring to the table and she respectfully asked the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Wells, Ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Hammond reported that she supported this application. Councillor Williamson also reported that he supported the application but was concerned about the number of car parking spaces available on site which would not meet the demands of the staff and visitors in light that the area was served by a poor bus route and cycle paths. The Development Manager reported that we were following the guidance of the NPPF and that 25 spaces was not the maximum that could be secured, but the site layout didn’t lend itself to squeezing any more in, and the planning policy parking standards did not set a minimum number of spaces required, only a maximum, which this complied with.

Councillor Williamson moved the proposal and the updated recommendations for approval as per the addendum report. This was seconded by Councillor Annison.

Councillors Freeman & Williamson left the Council Chamber for the determination of this item.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Development Manager.The Development Manager reported that this is a connected application submitted by the GYPT:-

1. Application 06/22/0718/F (application for full planning permission): 

Demolition of external rear toilet block and erection of rear extension with pitched roof.  Alterations to façade and changes to doors and windows with internal alterations; Change of use of store to mixed use combined with artist studios in basement with use of the rest of the building as a community space / gallery.

2. Application 06/22/0717/LB (application for listed building consent):

Demolition of external rear toilet block and erection of single storey rear extension with pitched roof. Extension of external roof – North west elevation; Alterations to façade and changes to doors and windows with internal alterations.

The Development Manager reported that the building currently comprises three storeys, incorporating the sites sloping character from being taller in the east, and stepping down to be lower in the west.  The building was originally a meeting hall and public space but last used for:

• Lower ground floor / basement: storage.
• Upper ground floor / raised street level: open assembly hall and staging;
• First floor over King Street: exhibition / public assembly / meeting space.

The building is within the No.4 King Street Conservation Area and opposite the Grade I listed St George’s Theatre to the east; a number of Grade II listed buildings are also nearby on King Street.

The Development Manager reported that a proposal would not therefore see the loss of retail or other commercial space. The use of the basement as art studios to complement the gallery above would however be analogous to a Town Centre use. Core Strategy Policy CS07 supports a wide array of uses in the town centre to improve the vitality and vibrancy of the town, including arts and cultural uses.

The Development Manager reported that the application seeks the removal of part of this rear, flat roof projection, which according to documents supporting the application suffers from water ingress. The remaining section, abutting Yarmouth Way, would see the parapet removed and a new roof installed which has the appearance of a mansard style when viewed from the road/north. The roof would be clad in Cor-Ten corrugated sheeting. The existing windows and door openings which are boarded up would be infilled with brickwork from the demolished part of the building. The demolished part of the building is proposed to be rebuilt, this would too be clad in Cor-Ten corrugated sheeting with this southern half of the extension to the building having a flat roof which should be screened from the Yarmouth Way by the northern half’s steep pitch. A sliding gate, also clad in Cor-Ten corrugated sheeting, would be installed providing access to the basement.

The Development Manager reported that having considered the details provided, the application is considered to comply with policies CS07, CS09 and CS10 from the adopted Core Strategy, and policies A1 and E5 from the adopted Local Plan Part 2.

The Development Manager reported that it was considered that there are no other material considerations to consider and therefore, both applications are recommended for approval.

Councillor Annison proposed that application 06/22/0718/F be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda report. This was seconded by Councillor Hammond.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

3. No works shall commence until such time that full details of all new proposed windows, doors, cladding and brick work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the Conservation Area in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5.

4. No works shall commence until such time that the position, type and method of installation of all new and relocated services and related fixtures (including rainwater goods, communications and information technology servicing), has been specified and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority wherever these installations are to be visible, or where ducts or other methods of concealment are proposed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5.

5. All original external and internal historic features, part of the special character of the heritage asset (including buttresses, brickwork, joinery of historic importance, etc) should be preserved and protected from any damage throughout the works. Any damaged fabric should be repaired in a like for like manner with relevant matching materials and techniques.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest and integrity of the building under Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

6. During the works, if hidden historic features or archaeology are revealed they should be retained in-situ. Works shall be halted in the relevant area of the building and the Local Planning Authority should be notified immediately.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that historic features are recorded and preserved as part of the special character of the Listed Building.

and any other conditions and informative notes considered appropriate by the Development Manager.

Councillor Annison proposed that the Listed Building consent application 06/22/0717/LB  be approved with the conditions set out in the agenda report. This was seconded by Councillor Hammond.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That listed building consent application 06/22/0717/LB be approved subject to the following Conditions:-

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The reason for the condition is:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans received by the Local Planning Authority on the 2nd September 2022:

- Site plan (unreferenced) 

and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following revised plans received by the Local Planning Authority on the 25th April 2023:

- Lower Ground Floor Plans:           254-SK-03-B
- Upper Ground Floor Plans:           254-SK-04-B
- Northern Elevation:                       254-SK-11-B
- Southern Elevation:                       254-SK-12-A
- Western Elevation:                        254-SK-15-B

The reason for the condition is:-

For the avoidance of doubt.

3. No works shall commence until such time that full details of all new proposed windows, doors, cladding and brick work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the character and appearance of the Listed Building and the Conservation Area in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5.

4. No works shall commence until such time that the position, type and method of installation of all new and relocated services and related fixtures (including rainwater goods, communications and information technology servicing), has been specified and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority wherever these installations are to be visible, or where ducts or other methods of concealment are proposed. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the special architectural and historic interest of the building in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Development Manager which was a connected application submitted by the Borough Council.

The Development manager reported that the site is the former ‘Brush Quay’ public convenience block on the west side of Quay Road at its junction with Pier Walk and opposite Riverside Road.  The block is sited on a small area of open amenity land to the north of the garden to the former Willian IV public house and east of Limmer Road and opposite the terraced houses at the north end of Pavilion Road.

The Development Manager reported that the building is rectangular and with a pitched and hipped plain-tiled roof, of cream-painted bricks above a black plinth and with red-stained timber framed leaded windows and steel-shuttered security door screens. The building presents no active frontage or architectural interest to the street and at best is described as a utilitarian building reflecting a former public service.  There is an open-sided store for paladin refuse bins behind the building, through it is unclear where the refuse stored there originates.  The toilet block building has a footprint of 75sqm.and a ridge of approximately 2.5m height.

The Development Manager reported that the applicant states the building has been closed to public use for approximately 20 years due to being surplus to requirements, and in recent months has been subject to an arson attach which has left the building beyond economic repair.  The building is not Listed but it does feature in the No. 17 Gorleston Conservation Area.  There are mature trees adjacent the site on land to the south, protected by virtue of being within the conservation area.

The Development Manager reported that the surrounding uses are the Riverside Road surface car park to the north, the open space landscaping and the terraced houses of Pavilion Road approximately 20m to the west facing the site, a concrete substation or pumping station enclosure building in the same open space on Pavilion Road, and the King William IV public house to the south, the building is 29m south, but the beer garden extends to within 5m of the toilet block.

The Development manager reported that the development proposes demolition of the toilet block. The application does not propose any replacement facilities, works or landscaping in its stead. The applicant states the reason for the demolition is because the building has served its purpose and is in very poor condition, with a fire-damaged roof and being very unsightly, beyond economic repair.  The applicant intends to clear the building to slab level and if there is a future use for the site it would be determined and subject to a separate application. Regardless of the deteriorated state of the building from recent arson, the demolition is considered to represent an opportunity to provide improvement to the character and appearance of the conservation area, and should other development not be forthcoming, it is considered to cause a neutral impact at worst compared to eth retention of the (repaired) existing building. The proposal is therefore not considered to generate harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such, the proposal complies with policies CS10 and E5.

The Development Manager reported that it is recommended that application 06/23/0433F should be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

Councillor Annison moved that the application be approved with conditions as set out in the agenda report. This was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/23/0433/F be approved subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development must be begun not later than three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The reason for the condition is :-

The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans received by the Local Planning Authority on the 26th May 2023.

The reason for the condition is:-

For the avoidance of doubt.

3. No works of demolition shall commence until such time that full details of a proposed site restoration, landscaping and public realm enhancement or ‘meanwhile’ use proposal has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, and the site shall be restored to beneficial use in accordance with those details within 28 days of the removal and clearance of the building and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The reason for the condition is:-

To ensure that regard is paid to protecting the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and protection of the public realm in accordance with the requirements of Core Policy CS10 and Local Plan Part 2 policy E5.

and any other conditions and informative notes considered appropriate by the Development Manager.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Principal Strategic Planner.

The Principal Strategic Planner gave a presentation to Committee.

The Principal Strategic Planner requested that the Committee consent to public consultation on the draft Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Design Code Supplementary Planning Document. 

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether the copyright agreement added to the Design Code would restrict the Council’s ability to use/reproduce the imagery within its own document. The Principal Planner did not have the information to hand to respond but reported that he would take this matter away and respond outside of the meeting.

Councillor Martin stressed the importance of holding in-person, public consultation events across the borough to ensure that as many local residents as possible were reached.

Councillor Freeman congratulated the Strategic Planning Team for the production of an exemplary Design Code, as in his view, good design was no more expensive than bad design and good design must be embedded in our planning policy moving forwards.

Councillor Bird highlighted the need for the Design Code to take climate change into consideration as to plan accordingly using balconies for example to off-set excess solar gain.

Councillor Galer highlighted the occupancy rules in regard to holiday homes and the concerns of 12 month residency in these properties. The Principal Strategic Planner reported that the Design Code was not the appropriate vehicle to address this matter.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That the Committee:-

(i)  Endorses the draft Great Yarmouth Borough-Wide Design Code SPD included as Appendix 1 to this report for public consultation; and

(ii) Delegates authority to the Strategic Planning Manager to make minor amendments to the consultation document prior to consultation.

The Development Manager gave an update in regard to staffing capacity in his team and the measures that had been taken to overcome these difficulties. The Chairman asked that Members support the Development Management Team during this difficult transition period.

The Development Manager gave a verbal update as to the applications which would be coming forward to the Committee in the coming months.

The Development Manager explained the rationale for the production of addendum reports which members would receive on the day of the Committee meeting.

The Development Manager asked the Committee if they considered that it would be helpful for the outcome of planning appeals be reported to the Committee at the end of some meetings when relevant, as these would offer helpful informal appraisal of decisions taken and offer some insights for the Committee to be aware of around an Inspector’s interpretation of policy and application circumstances