Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Freeman.

Councillor Lawn attended as a substitute for Councillor Freeman.

Councillor Mogford declared a personal interest in items number 3,4,5& 7 as he is Ward Councillor for Martham & Rollesby.

Councillor Annison declared a personal interest in item number 5 as he is the Chair of East Norfolk Scouts.

However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, they are allowed to speak and vote on these items.

The Committee received and considered the committee report and addendum report from the Principal Planning Officer.

The Principal Planner reported that the application site is located to the west of Martham which is identified as a Primary Village in the Great Yarmouth Core Strategy (adopted December 2015). The site comprises an open arable field located to the south of Repps Road, totalling approx. 8.66ha in size. The topography of a small part of the site falls quite sharply away from Repps Road forming a low point towards the north and central areas, whereas most of the site area is relatively level.

The Principal Planner reported that the proposed development is located within close proximity of the range of services and amenities Martham offers, such as a secondary school (approx. 1.6 miles), primary school and nursery (1 mile), co-op supermarket (0.3 miles), pubs (0.6 miles), fast food takeaways (0.7 miles), and a doctor’s surgery (1 mile). 2.9 The site is located approx. 0.3 miles from the nearest bus stop, which provides regular services to Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth.

The Principal Planner reported that most of the site (approx. 5.33ha) is identified as being within the Development Limits for Martham within the adopted Development Plan where development proposals are acceptable, in principle. The site is not subject to a site-specific allocation in the adopted Development Plan, but in 2021 the adopted Local Plan Part 2 drew the development limits boundary around the land that, at that time, already had the benefit of planning permission for 144 dwellings – see ref 06/16/0435/O.

The Principal Planner reported that Members may also be aware that in the draft emerging local plan (Great Yarmouth First Draft Local Plan (currently at Regulation 18 Consultation stage) the current application site area is identified on the policies map as a possible housing site allocation for approximately 180 dwellings – Policy MAR1 – Land south of Repps Road, Martham. However, Members are advised that very little if any ‘weight’ can be attributed to such an early draft proposal in the planning application’s determination.

The Principal Planner reported that the proposal seeks full planning permission for the construction of 176 residential dwellings with associated highway, drainage, and landscape works. The site will take vehicular access from Repps Road with a new 3-arm roundabout junction to be constructed west of the existing built-up edge of the village and outside of the current 30mph village gateway.

The Principal Planner reported that the application as originally submitted proposed 47 affordable and 129 open market dwellings but the dwelling mix has since been revised. The revised proposal has changed the tenure of four of the dwellings from open market to affordable, so the application in its amended form will deliver 125 open market and 51 affordable dwellings and essential highway infrastructure in the form of a new roundabout junction which is required even if the land just within the development limits is to be developed – this is referred to in the Planning History and Assessment sections of this report.

The Principal Planner reported that the proposal has since been further amended to: 1. address highway safety concerns expressed by Norfolk County Council as Highways Authority in relation to the type and layout of roundabout; 2. revise part of the layout and orientation of some plots adjoining existing Rising Way housing development in terms of amenity; and 3. including a pedestrian and cycle link up to the eastern site boundary. These amendments were subject to 21-day re- consultation and new site notices on 16 August 2024, to expire 6 September 2024. These revisions are referred to in the following sections below: 5. Consultation Responses; 6. Publicity & Representations received; and 10. Assessment.

The Principal Planner reported that in planning policy terms, there are two parts to this application site: the area within development limits and the area outside.

The Principal Planner reported that part of the site within the Development Limits will deliver 125 dwellings, comprising 100 open market and (policy compliant 20%) 25 affordable homes for rent, which meets the highest level of housing need.

The Principal  Planner reported that part of the site area that is outside of but adjacent to the development limits will deliver a “Rural Exception Site” form of development containing 51 dwellings, comprising 26 affordable dwellings (51%): 22 affordable rent and 4 shared ownership tenure, to meet local housing need as identified in the submitted Housing Needs Assessment and those with a local connection on the Councils Allocations waiting list; as well as 25 open market dwellings. This part of the development is hereinafter termed “the Rural Exception Site”.

The Principal Planner reported that the location of the ‘local needs housing’ is not proposed to be contained to the ‘Rural Exception Site’ part of the development and is instead mixed across the two parts of the site. When assessed like this as a ‘blended scheme’, the proposal for 176 dwellings would be considered to provide 29% affordable housing (125 open market and 51 affordable homes), of which 26 would provide for ‘local needs’ affordable housing under the local lettings policy.

The Principal Planner reported that the development relates to an edge of settlement site extending into the rural landscape, which is reflected in the layout and design, scale and massing of the development, with a mixture of single and two-storeys, comprising of semis, terraced and detached properties and provides a range of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom house types comprised of –
16no. 1 bed flats
15no. 1 bed houses
4 no. 2 bed flats
10 no. 2 bed bungalows
36 no. 2 bed houses
71 no. 3 bed houses
24 no. 4 bed houses

The Principal Planner reported that all properties have been designed to meet the requirements of Building Regulations standard Approved Part M4(2) for accessible and adaptable housing, in accordance with local plan policy A2(f) requirements.

The Principal Planner reported that the 25 affordable housing units within the Development Limit are provided at plot numbers 9 to 12, 28, 29, 48, 49, 54 to 56, 76, 77, 81, 82, 92, 97, 98, 108 to 111, and 119 to 121 and provides for:
4 no. 1bed 2person flats
7 no. 1bed 2person houses
6 no. 2bed 4person houses
6 no. 3bed 5person houses
2 no. 4bed 7person houses

The Principal Planner reported that the 26 affordable housing units on ‘the Rural Exception Site’ (on land outside but adjoining the Development Limits) are provided at plot numbers 112, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137 to 151, 155, 156, 164, 167, 168 and 174 and provides for:
4 no. 1bed 2person houses

1 no. 2bed 3person flat
9 no. 2bed 4person houses
11 no. 3bed 5person houses
1 no. 4bed 7person house

The Principal Planner reported that the tenure use of each property as either a ‘general needs’ or a ‘local needs’ affordable dwelling would be confirmed either through an Affordable Housing Scheme to be agreed as a requirement of the Section 106 Agreement, or during the preparation of the Agreement, but there will be a minimum of 26 affordable dwellings as ‘local needs’ as the number which have been provided by development of the ‘Rural Exception Site’.

The Principal Planner reported that the roundabout access is a fixed constraint as are two of the drainage infiltration basins, given ground levels on the northern edge. Existing vegetation is, where possible, being retained, particularly on the northern boundary with Rising Way and some of the central hedgerow.

The Principal Planner reported that a footway connection will be made with the recently completed Flagship Homes development, between 24 and 26 Rising Way where there is an existing footway link provided to the site boundary, as well as an emergency vehicle access connection being provided to an existing turning head on Wilkinson Drive to the north, which shall be controlled via locked dropped bollard to prevent vehicular through-traffic but still permitting pedestrian and cycle access.

The Principal Planner reported that in addition, provision has been allowed for a new section of pedestrian/cycleway to be made up to the eastern boundary of the application site: Members may be aware that the adjoining land on the east side of this site has also been identified on the policies map for the emerging Great Yarmouth First Draft Local Plan Reg 18 Consultation as a possible housing allocation (Policy MAR2 – on Land south of Bosgate Rise, Martham) – with the draft proposal suggesting development would include ‘approximately 90 dwellings with provision of safe and appropriate access including a pedestrian and cycle link to provide a through route to MAR1’ (which is the application site). However, although this cycle and pedestrian link may be a useful feature should that site ever be development, Members are advised that no weight can be attributed to such an early draft proposal in the planning application’s determination.

The Principal Planner reported that the proposed residential layout in this application is structured around the strategic positioning of a new roundabout and access road off Repps Road, which extends into the site as a spine route, deliberate in its intent to reveal only limited views at any one point. The access road has several tight turns along its length, naturally controlling traffic speeds. Branching off this access are secondary links to the east of the site and a series of perpendicular lanes/yards off which small housing clusters are situated. Emphasis is placed on the quality of the buildings, urban design, and associated landscaping to ensure the development is of an appropriate high quality and distinctive character.

The Principal Planner reported that housing is relatively close to the spine road and arranged informally along the spine road and central public space, to develop a village character offering visual interest to the street scene and roofscape, with more formal arrangements where building groups are clustered around yards. Key pockets of public open space are proposed including the retention of the low hollow area to the north, which will become a drainage attenuation basin, and three new focal surface water detention basins throughout the site to help create attractive communal public open spaces across the site as green space features in the landscape that support local wildlife and will be accessible when dry. These are also linked by a network of paths enabling walking around the site and accessing informal amenity green space.

The Principal Planner reported that the tree lined boundaries to the site perimeter will be retained where possible and supported with additional planting, preserving the character of existing site boundaries and creating a pleasant backdrop for many of the properties within the development. Indeed, the western and southern edges of the site are open arable fields with no boundary features currently, so new landscaping will create new planted boundaries and habitat. Informal walking routes are proposed through the site and around its perimeter to create new circular walking routes. In terms of amenity areas, the site will provide approximately 2.6 hectares of open space and amenity land (approx.30% of site area).

The Principal Planner reported that a range of house types are proposed which provide a subtle contemporary interpretation and traditional proportions familiar in rural housing in Norfolk. This offers a character which is distinct from the predominant post-war forms in the surrounding area, forming a gentler visual transition from the settlement edge into the adjacent open countryside.

The Principal Planner reported that a mixed palette of materials has been deployed, offering variety and texture to the street scene. Detailing has been kept simple and authentic, and ornamental features are deliberately restrained to ensure that the buildings complement their setting appropriately. They avoid pastiche detailing offering distinct house types in a contemporary vernacular style, distinguished by modern fenestration and composition of traditional materials. Facades will be principally brick or render with occasional flint adornments and pantile roofs and will also include cladding boards and white brick (echoing stucco) on feature buildings in the street scene. The general forms of the individual houses include traditional steep pitched roofs and small-scale fenestration. Projections such as porches are designed to be subordinate to the main façade to minimise mass and to reflect traditional rural building forms.

The Principal Planner reported that the Committee is asked to give delegated authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Paragraph 10.105 of the Committee Report and Appendix 2 attached to the Committee Report; and 

ii. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified at Conditions 18 and 26 as proposed in the Addendum Report (the change is that references to Conditions 22 and 24 shall be Conditions 23 and 25 respectively); 

And,

iii. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

Councillor Galer reported that he welcomed the application and he was minded to approve but he was concerned in regard of the lack of local employment opportunities. The Principal  Planner informed the Committee that the development would result in construction employment.

Mr Savage, Broadland Housing Association, addressed the Committee and reported the background and that a clear need to deliver as many affordable homes in a mixed tenure scheme had been demonstrated for this development.

Mr Hill, agent, reported that salient areas of the application to the Committee and asked that the Committee approve this high quality development.

Councillor Bird reported that Broadland Housing Association had a high standard in regard to maintenance of their homes and asked if this would be the case in this development. Mr Savage assured the Committee that a full in-house maintenance team would be built in to the management resource.

Councillor Annison reported that this was an excellent scheme which would deliver much needed affordable homes in the northern parishes and he was happy to move the motion for approval. Councillor Williamson reported that he fully supported the application and was extremely pleased to see the number of high class affordable homes which the scheme would deliver and he was pleased to second the motion for approval.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/23/0567/F, the Committee give delegated authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-


i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Paragraph 10.105 of the Committee Report and Appendix 2 attached to the Committee Report; and 

ii. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified at Conditions 18 and 26 as proposed in the Addendum Report (the change is that references to Conditions 22 and 24 shall be Conditions 23 and 25 respectively); 

And,

iii. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Principal Planning Officer.

The Principal Planner reported that planning application 06/23/0507/F is a major application for land off Staithe Road, Martham. The applicant is Crimson Development Homes Limited. The proposal is for the construction of 65 affordable dwellings (Class C3) with associated access, off-site highways works, drainage, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure.

The Principal Planner reported the following updates to the Committee and Addendum reports:-


Following the Addendum Report the applicant has confirmed that:-

18 of the properties were proposed for Affordable Rent with local connections.


However, they will agree to all 47 affordable rented properties having local connections as per the recommendation of the Housing Enabling and Strategy Manager.


However, in terms of the 18 Shared Ownership Properties: – 

These would be restricted to 12x 2 bed & 6x 3 bed (Not, the plots as specified under paragraph 3 of the update report); and

The applicant states that Homes England does not allow local connections on Shared Ownership Units. However, this has been disputed by the Housing Enabling and Strategy Manager.

This requires an amendment to part (i) of report Paragraph 12.1):-

i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure: 

The planning obligations listed in Table 1 and Appendix 2; and

Including delegated authority to agree the satisfactory provision of local connections housing in consultation with the Housing Enabling and Strategy Manager.

The Principal Planner reported that for the avoidance of doubt, the scheme is 100% affordable housing. The proposed tenure split is 47 affordable rent and 18 shared ownership which works out broadly as 70%/30%.The site is located in the north-east of Martham, north of Staithe Road, east of Damgate Lane, west of Damgate Back Lane.

The Principal Planner asked that the Committee to note existing neighbouring residential properties to the north, south,  and west of site. A scout hut immediately south of the development, adjacent the proposed access.


The Principal Planner reported that the site has been the subject of amended plans in regard to the following:-

(i) Drainage – infiltration basin design
(ii) Open space – position of play space from central area to northern area (drainage) & secure connection to the PRoW along Damgate Back Lane
(iii) Layout – for example, plots 63-65 to better front the open space
(iv) House type alterations – for example, corner plots e.g. the bay window at plot 39 
(v) Landscaping – increased planting.

The Principal Planner highlighted the following principles of  the development:–

(i) Site is outside but adjacent the Development Limits

(ii) There is an extant permission on the site for 47 dwellings 

(iii) The scheme has been submitted as an ‘Exception Site’, it is, however, accepted that the site is not “small” but is proportionate to the size of settlement and level of services provision
Policies CS4/UCS4 set out criteria for exception sites, in this regard the proposal is broadly compliant as it:-

(i) Provides 100% affordable housing
(ii) Is adjacent the Development Limits.

There is an identified need for affordable housing, which is noted on paragraph 9.6 (or page 78) onwards of the Committee report, the update report and verbal update provided at the start of this presentation:-

(i) The 18 shared ownership properties effectively uplift the extant permission for 47; and

(ii) The applicant now accepts that the 47 affordable rent properties can be available for local lettings.

While the tenure split of the scheme does not meet the ‘starting point’ which is a split of 90% AR / 10% SO under Policy H1, the scheme effectively uses the increased SO provision to cross-subsidise the scheme without the use of market dwellings, thereby ensuring that the scheme remains 100% affordable.

The scheme works out at a density of approximately 29 dwellings per hectare which is considered acceptable given that the site is on the edge of Martham village and the character of the area, accepting that Policy H3 sets out a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare.

The Principal Planner reported that vehicular access will be from Staithe Road. This required the purchase of land adjacent the scout hut and it is worth noting that there is a separate planning application (ref. 06/24/0621/CU) which seeks to provide compensatory land north of the scout hut, which is outside of this application boundary.

The Principal Planner reported that the Local Highway Authority raised initial concerns which have been largely addressed through the layout changes. However, a concern remained at the use of the ‘shared surface’ part of the loop road in the west of the site (between plots 40-53), suggesting that there should be a footway to serve those residents. Officers at the Council disagreed having worked with the applicants to address aspects of design, believing that a separate footway would:-

(i) introduce an urban feel, and

(ii) is relevant only to a small section of the site serving a limited number of properties
had been considered acceptable in various other schemes across the Borough.

The Principal Planner reported that the Committee is asked to give delegated authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Table 1 of the Committee Report and Appendix 2 attached to the Committee Report; and,

ii. Liaison with the applicant and Housing Enabling and Strategy Manager to ensure satisfactory provision of local connections housing on the basis of the requested provision set out at Paragraph 3 of the Committee Addendum Update Report; and,
iii. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary).

And,

iv. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

Councillor Galer drew the Committee's attention to paragraph 5.2.8 on page 73 of the agenda report which incorrectly stated that Councillors Bensly and Galer were the ward councillors when it should have read Councillors Grant and Mogford.

Councillor Murray-Smith referred to paragraph 9.75 on page 89 of the agenda report, the correspondence received from Norfolk Police in regard to the lighting strategy and asked if officers had included their request as a condition on the grant of permission. The Principal Planner reported that he would double check all of the conditions to ensure that the requested lighting strategy had been captured.

Councillor Murray-Smith requested clarification in regard to the proposed boundary fencing. The Development Manager referred to plot 19 and reported that defensive hedging or fencing to prevent access from the open land which had a public right of way would be conditioned. A Landscaping Scheme had been submitted with the application which included new hedging planting at a height of 1 to 1.2m in height at the recommendation of the Police. The Development Manager reported that the reference to the Metropolitan Police on page 88 of the agenda report was an error.

Mr Robinson, applicant's agent, addressed the Committee and reported the salient areas of the application. Crimson Development Homes was part of Saffron Housing Trust. The application provided a significant uplift of eleven in the number of affordable homes which would result from the development. In terms of design, the applicant had worked closely with planning officers and the strategic housing team. Additional landscaping had been included and he urged the Committee to approve the application.

Councillor Williamson reported that this was another good development for the northern parishes which he welcomed and fully supported and he moved that the application be approved. Councillor Annison reported that this was an unique application which was much needed in the borough and he seconded the motion to approve.

The Chair reported that he agreed with the sentiments expressed by Councillors Annison & Williamson and that he noted Councillor Galer's concerns in regard to employment opportunities in the northern parishes, in particular, Martham.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/23/0507/F the Committee give delegated authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Table 1 of the Committee Report and Appendix 2 attached to the Committee Report; and,

ii. Liaison with the applicant and Housing Enabling and Strategy Manager to ensure satisfactory provision of local connections housing on the basis of the requested provision set out at Paragraph 3 of the Committee Addendum Update Report; and,

iii. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary).

And,

iv. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Principal Planning Officer.

The Principal Planner reported that the application site is located immediately north of the existing scout hut located at Staithe Road. To the west is a separate open agricultural field with residential properties running along Damgate Lane. To the north is an open field, which is subject to undetermined planning application ref. 06/23/0507/F for 65 dwellings currently before Committee. The Development Management Committee is requested to determine both applications at the same time. The site is rectangular shaped, comprising approximately 0.05ha of land.

The Principal Planner reported that the proposal is to change the existing agricultural use of the land to community uses (under class F2b)) associated with the adjacent scout hut. The proposed access to the adjacent open field to the north, subject of application ref. 06/23/0507/F for 65 dwellings, will require land east of the scout hut which is currently in use by the scout hut. The provision of land to the north of the scout hall in this application is therefore proposed to compensate for the loss of the existing land to facilitate the wider development’s site access, and to provide for additional public benefits associated with the application 06/23/0507/F.

The Principal Planner reported that the site is outside of development limits (GSP1) though will provide compensatory provision of land to an existing adjacent community facility, the scout hall, as supported by policies CS15 and C1. The application is linked to application ref. 06/23/0507/F (the development of 65 affordable dwellings), as the existing scout land is proposed to facilitate that site’s access. The land therefore has associated public benefits sufficient to outweigh the conflict with policies CS6 and CS12 concerning the preservation of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The Principal Planner reported that the site will be screened through additional planting and will not result in additional amenity impacts and may even reduce disturbance to neighbours given that the existing scout land is closer to neighbouring properties than this proposed site. While clarification is sought confirm the potential loss of some existing hedge/tree boundary and to clarify the use of fencing, officers are confident that the proposal will also enhance biodiversity and ecology.

The Principal Planner reported that in making sure that the development is provided in a timely fashion and to ensure there is no loss of facilities, its delivery must be secured by planning obligation. It is recommended that any permission to be granted for this application should be subject to a requirement to be included within the Section 106 legal agreement associated with any permission to be granted to the adjoining site’s planning application ref. 06/23/0507/F, which will ensure that delivery is not delayed in relation to the loss of the existing site when development on that land commences.

The Principal Planner reported that the development under consideration will provide a scheme which can be considered sustainable development when balancing the social and economic benefits against the environmental concerns of the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, and which offers positive benefits sufficient to overcome the conflict with adopted policies. The Principal Planner reported that no objections to the proposal had been received.

The Principal Planner reported that the Committee is asked to delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the committee report.

Councillor Galer referred to paragraph 5.6 on page 111 of the agenda report which had wrongly identified the ward councillors as Bensly & Galer and not Grant & Mogford.

Councillor Boyd reported that he was pleased that the scout group had been recompensed for the loss of their land and that he moved that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Pilkington.

Following an unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/24/0621/CU the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:- 

i. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Appendix 2 attached to the Committee Report; and,

ii. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the Committee Report (to be modified as necessary).

And,

iii. If the Section 106 Agreement is not progressing sufficiently within three months of the date of this decision, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to (at their discretion) either refer the application back to the Development Management Committee at the earliest opportunity for re-consideration of the application, or to refuse the application directly on the grounds of failing to secure the necessary planning obligations that would be required as part of any resolution to grant permission.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that the site consists of the former Public House “The Great Eastern Public House”, which forms a corner plot building at Nelson Road Central and Albion Road. The building is currently vacant but the ground floor public house was supported by a first floor 3-bedroom managers’ flat. Access to a small rear courtyard is available via a passage adjacent 153 Nelson Road Central.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is in a predominantly residential area, however there are a number of commercial units within the area, including “The Albion”, a public house opposite the site which is still in operation. The proposal is to convert the existing public house and 3-bedroom flat at first floor into 4no. 1-bedroom residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated external alterations.

The Planning Officer reported that the existing ground floor bar would be converted to 2no. 1-bedroom flats: Unit 1 would be accessed through the front door on the street corner, would wrap around the building’s corner, and would not have direct access to the rear courtyard. Unit 2 would be accessed via an existing secondary door to Albion Road, would front Albion Road and would have a direct link access to the rear courtyard.

The Planning Officer reported that the single first floor flat associated with the public house would be converted into 2no. 1- bedroom flats, both of which would be accessed via the rear courtyard and a shared staircase: Unit 3 would front Albion Road and have access to an existing external balcony terrace. Unit 4 would wrap around the building’s corner, and would not have private external amenity space other than use of the shared rear courtyard.

The Planning Officer reported that he plans indicate refuse bins and secure cycle parking to be sited within the external yard of the property, which accessed via Nelson Road Central. The plans submitted with the application indicate the external works comprise only removing the existing double doors and installing a new front door to Unit 1, as the proposed flats are to be accessed by existing doors and windows are retained in their current positions.

The Planning Officer referred to paragraph 10.5 of the report and informed the committee that the GIRAMS payment had already been received.

The Planning officer reported that a planning condition would be required to ascertain how the UPVC windows would fit in to the façade at the ground floor level. Receipt of suitable proposals and clarification from the applicant in respect of the intention to alter or replace the existing windows, to ensure that there are no unacceptable detrimental effects on heritage value and appearance would be conditioned.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval with the conditions as set out in the committee report.

The Chair asked if one large bin rather than 4 individual bins be conditioned for the flats to use. The Planning Officer reported that she had raised this issue with Environmental health who had advised that the entrance was too narrow for a large bin to pass through. The Chair asked if a proviso could be added that all bins must be taken back into the storage area after they were emptied. The Planning Officer reported that this was not a planning matter.

The Chair proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Williamson seconded the motion.

 Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/24/0092/F that the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

(i) Receipt of the appropriate financial contribution for public open space mitigation, or completion of a suitable planning obligations legal agreement to secure the payment; and,

(ii) Receipt of suitable proposals and clarification from the Applicant in respect of the intention to alter or replace the existing windows, to ensure that there are no unacceptable detrimental effects on heritage value and appearance; and,

(iii) The proposed conditions listed in the Committee Report, with additions or amendments to be determined as necessary; and,

(iv) A new condition requiring final details to be agreed (prior to commencement of works) of the appearance, materials and specification of any replacement windows or doors if they are proposed to be replaced or amended. 

The Committee received and considered the committee report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that the site consists of Caister Vet's Rollesby branch, which is a large veterinary practice, set back from Martham Road with parking provision to the front and side of the building. The site does share an access with unrelated activities on the commercial land to the north-west, and is otherwise sited between residential properties to the north-east and south.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed vets accommodation would be in the north-west corner of the building, and located at first floor only. Access to the flat would be via a ground floor entrance and set of stairs separate to the access used for the vets.

The Planning Officer reported that the site consists of an existing vehicle repairs garage, which was converted to a veterinary practice under a change of use planning approval reference 06/22/0272/F. The plans as approved under that previous permission indicated a future overnight accommodation flat as proposed in the current application, however it did not form part of the change of use application.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal would involve the conversion of the existing first floor space above the veterinary surgery to create a 3-bedroom residential apartment for the sole use of vets employed by the veterinary practice. The flat would be provided with 3no. double bedrooms and a kitchen/ living space and bathroom, and would be otherwise self-contained.

The Planning Officer reported that the application originally proposed to provide accommodation for multiple unrelated vets to stay whilst working at the practices, for the benefit of the onward viability of the Vets and their ability to expand. It was also stated that on site accommodation would be required for on-call staff in the near future to provide out-of-hours services for emergencies, where they would have necessary equipment and drugs to hand. However, there is very little reason to justify the presence of full residential facilities for on-site living accommodation for use only in emergencies or out of hours services when that would be expected of shift working arrangements. Therefore, as the site falls outside of the development limits where new residential development is generally not supported, and due to the lack of support through the other conditions of the Local Plan, it was agreed by the applicant that the site would be occupied only by a single vet and their dependants at any one time, or by no more than 3no. vets employed at the surgery, and that the accommodation would be provided on a short- term basis only, and would not at any time be the occupier’s principle accommodation. 

The Planning Officer reported that it is now intended that vets would use the accommodation as a temporary measure or when staff are appointed on short-term temporary contracts or as apprentice / student practitioners. Supporting information indicates that the practice experiences a competitive job market and a brisk turnover in locums and student practitioners, and that the accommodation would be needed to attract new vets and provide accommodation which is a particular challenge in rural areas. Although proposed as a 3-bedroom unit, the proposals would be equally useful for a family as for up to three adults working at the surgery and living as a household within Use Class C3 (note, a ‘small HMO’ in Class C4 is formed of 4-6 adults).

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended to be approved under delegated authority to Officers with the conditions set out in the committee report.

Councillor Lawn reported that he supported the application and moved that the application be approved. The motion was seconded by Councillor Annison.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That, in regard to application number 06/23/0711/F, the Committee give delegated authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

(i) Receipt of the appropriate financial contributions for GIRAMS mitigation and public open space mitigation, or completion of a suitable planning obligations legal agreement to secure the payment; and,

(ii) The proposed conditions listed in the Committee Report, with additions or amendments to be determined as necessary.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site consists of the former Tramways Public House, which is sited south of the junction between Gorleston High Street, Church Road, Baker Street and Lowestoft Road. The site is immediately south of Gorleston Library, west of the Central Healthcare Centre, and north of residential properties. The existing building has a car park extending around the perimeter of the building, and an existing pedestrian cut-through exists between Sussex Road and Lowestoft Road.

The Planning Officer reported that the application originally proposed to change the use of the existing public house to a mixed use of public house, restaurant and hot-food takeaway. However, the submitted details demonstrated a proposal more akin to a restaurant. Officers requested that eth applicant consider whether part of the ground floor could be separated from the rest of the existing unit, to ensure compliance with the previously proposed description of development, however the applicant confirmed that they would prefer to have restaurant covers across the entirety of the building. Whilst they would wish to invite customers to have a drink and snack only, it was Officers’ opinion that this would mean the public house use would be lost.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval with the conditions as set out in the committee report.

Councillor Boyd reported that he welcomed the application which would protect the former public house as a community asset and moved that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That in regard to application number 06/24/0044/CU that the  Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant planning permission subject to there being no additional matters raised by consultees or members of the public during the ongoing current public consultation period which continues until 26th September 2024, and delegate authority to the Head of Planning to thereafter exercise their discretion to grant planning permission subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

The Committee received and considered the report and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

The Planning Officer reported that the site consists of the former Public House “The Winners”, located at the south of Great Yarmouth, within the employment area predominantly served by port and harbour uses. The building forms a corner plot between South Beach Parade and Monument Road. It is understood that the public house has had long periods of vacancy in the last 10 years. The building comprises a large property with existing residential flats at first floor level, with the southern part consisting of single storey only. The site includes a car parking area to the south, accessed from South Beach Parade, which currently accommodates 3no. shipping containers. A wide footway runs along the east boundary of the site, and an additional parking strip runs along the northern boundary.

The Planning Officer reported that the the site is within the setting of the Grade I listed Nelson’s Monument, which is located to the west. The beach is sited approximately 80m to the east. There are a variety of surrounding uses, including a furniture outlet to the west and offices to the south. There are a number of elements included within this proposal. Firstly, the retrospective change of use of part of the existing car park at the south of the site for the siting of the 3no. storage containers already installed, for use as the applicant’s personal domestic storage and for general commercial storage associated with the proposed holiday let on site. The proposal also includes a retrospective change of use of the northern part of the ground floor to a guest house comprising a 3-room holiday let, accessed from both the north and east of the building. The southern half of the ground floor of the building, and remainder of the southern car park, are proposed to be used as future warehouse/storage commercial space.

The Planning officer reported that the application was recommended for approval with the conditions set out in the committee report.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked if the comments made by Norfolk Police could be conditioned if approval was granted for the installation of security cameras/alarms on the storage containers. The Planning Officer reported that this was not a planning matter.

Councillor Annison proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous report, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/23/0180/F be approved subject to the proposed conditions listed in the published Committee Report.

(i) The Head of Planning reported that Development Management training for all Members to be given by the Planning Advisory Service would be held in person in the Council Chamber on Monday, 21 October 2024 at 18:30.