Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mogford.

The Chair declared that he was a Ward Councillor for Nelson Ward.

Councillors Bird & Lawn declared that they were Ward Councillors for Caister South & Councillor Boyd declared that he was a Ward member for Caister North.

However, in accordance with the Council's constitution, they were allowed to both speak and vote.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 October 2024 were confirmed.

The Chair reported that there were no matters arising on the above minutes which were not covered elsewhere on the agenda.

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

The Planning Officer reported that 69 Lowestoft Road is an Occasions and Venue Hire unit located on the eastern side of Lowestoft Road in Gorleston. The unit comprises a line of predominantly retail units including a cycle shop, convenience store and an electrical store. The unit is a mid-terrace unit. Further to the north is the Gorleston Mini-Market, a Chinese Takeaway and other stores. The unit is located within an ornate two storey building with more modern shop frontages. At the rear of the terrace of units there is a passageway of approximately 4m width running along the rear of the parade between Keppel Road and Leicester Road, where some trade waste bins are already stored.

The Planning Officer reported that the application seeks the change of use of the existing venue hire (Class F2) to a hot food takeaway (Sui Generis Use). The application has indicated that the takeaway would operate as a pizza and chicken shop, but the type of food proposed is immaterial as there are no planning controls possible to determine or restrict the type of food to be sold; in planning law it is sufficient that the use should comprise ‘hot food takeaway’. Internally, the proposal would involve the creation of a kitchen/prep area, a washing area and a customer serving area. To the rear is an existing courtyard which will be retained and which contains the outbuilding with staff w/c. In the submitted proposed floor plans, the refuse storage is proposed as two 1100 litre paladin bins (1x refuse and 1 x recycling waste), and the trade bins would be stored in the passageway behind the rear courtyard as other ones are.

The Planning Officer reported that the extraction system with external vent flue is also proposed. This would run almost the length of the interior of the building before exiting at the rear of the property at ground floor level, before comprising a vertical chimney flue on the outside of the rear wall of the first floor, to a point 1 metre above the flat roof at the rear of the building. This would be obscured from Lowestoft Road by the parapet wall although would have some visibility from the north and south approaches and would be visible from Keppel Road. Sound attenuators and filters are proposed to mitigate sound and noise disturbance.

The Planning Officer reported that the takeaway would be open to customers between 15:00-23:00 each day of the week, with stock deliveries being limited to 08:00 to 20:00 hours on weekdays. In terms of bin collection, 1 x 1100 litre refuse bin and 1 x 1100 litre Recycling bin to the rear of the unit are proposed, with the applicant clarifying that no waste or recycling bins are collected / emptied between 20:00 to 08:00 hours. The hot food takeaway will have a customer waiting area at the front, with the intention to limit loitering. No express litter control or management has been included in the application.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant has indicated the position and type of commercial refuse storage needed for the business as well as the timings of bin collections. Whilst the amount of storage is adequate (1x 1100 litre bin for refuse, 1 x 1100 litre bin for recycling), the proposed storage of the paladins outside the curtilage and rea courtyard is unacceptable when they include food waste and frequent use (unlike other bins left in the access which contain predominantly dry material from retail activity) and these should be contained within the curtilage and only brought out for collection. There may be a need to widen the rear courtyard wall and install new gates but these can be agreed under delegated authority if the application is resolved to be approved.

The Planning Officer reported that the loss of the community facility can be accepted and there are sufficient other similar function rooms in Gorleston to accommodate any additional demand from the loss of this facility.  The application site is located within a Local Centre where a hot food takeaway use should be considered acceptable as a means to provide access to facilities for local residents and to improve the vitality and viability of the local centre and complement other uses, subject to there not being so many that the local centre suffers from cumulative impacts. The proposal would not lead to any cumulative or individual harms to the character or function of this area.

The Planning Officer reported that the amended opening hours are seen as a positive step and as a result ensures the proposal would not lead to unacceptable levels of noise or disturbances to neighbouring properties. Issues regarding odour have been suitably mitigated through the strategy outlined in the submitted report. The site is within a highly sustainable location, and it is considered that it would not lead to an unacceptable impact on highway safety or parking pressure.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy Policies CS1, CS2, CS7, CS9, CS11, CS15 and CS16 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP1, A1, R5, R7 and C1 and is not considered that there are any material considerations which would require refusal of the application.

The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0235/F should be resolved to be approved and authority should be delegated to officers to grant planning permission subject to:-

(i) First securing amended plans and elevations to:
(a) widen the access into the rear courtyard for the bin store, and
(b) amend the colour and/or material of the extractor system flue; and

(ii) The proposed conditions listed in the agenda report, to be added to and modified as necessary.

The Chair reported that there had been a number of objections to this application and the main area of concern had been the opening hours which the applicant had reduced from 01:00 to 11:00.

Councillor Annison proposed 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 06/24/0235/F, the Committee delegate authority to Officers to approve the application and grant full planning permission subject to:-

(i) First securing amended plans and elevations to:-

a) widen the access into the rear courtyard for the bin store, and 
b) amend the colour and/or material of the extractor system flue; and

(ii) The proposed conditions listed, to be added to and modified as necessary.

The Committee received and considered the report from the Development Manager.

The Development Manager advised the Committee that the description in the agenda report was incorrect and the application was for the proposed erection of 4.2m-tall fencing to existing football pitch and fencing around MUGA facility and an application for retrospective permission for the installation of a 2.2m-tall height restriction barrier to car park entrance.

The Development Manager reported that the King George V Pavilion and Playing field is an existing community centre which has an emphasis in sports as it is located alongside a variety of playing fields and play areas. In front of the buildings is a car parking area which currently can accommodate 34 cars. The site is open to the public and is used for a variety of community uses. King George V Playing Field comprises a children's playground and floodlit multi-use games area and various playing pitches.

The Development Manager reported that there are numerous dwellings that surround the site, the majority of them two storeys in height. The applicant (Caister Playing Field Management Committee) has been successful in applying for funding for a new 4.2m-tall fence from the Football Foundation. The new fence is to the rear of the goal area to the northern end of the eastern football pitch. The reason for the fence is to prevent balls continuously going into neighbouring gardens. The area between this fence and the northern boundary will form the new Caister Sensory Garden. The garden is a community project and is designed by East Norfolk Sixth Form. The sensory garden’s installation will commence following the installation of the fencing. Whilst making the application the applicant was advised by the Borough Council Property Services Department to also include replacement fencing around the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA). The Borough Council wishes to lease the Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) for a term of between 15 to 21 years from the applicant (Caister Playing Field Management Committee).

The Development Manager reported that, in addition, the applicant has also applied retrospectively for the installation of a new 2.2m tall height-restriction barrier to the entrance of the car park.

1. The erection of a fence to the eastern football pitch. The fence would be a wire mesh design in a green colour. The fence would be 45m in length by 4.2m in height.

    

2. The erection of replacement fencing around the existing Multi Use Games Area (MUGA) The fencing design would be wire mesh in a green colour. The fencing would be 4.2m in height.

    

3. The installation of a height restriction barrier to car park entrance. (Retrospective).

The Development Manager reported that the benefits of the proposal are that it would provide addition fencing that would improve the facilities within the playing field to the benefit of the whole community. Nonetheless, there will be visual impacts of neighbouring properties who look out onto the playing field. The visual impact of the fencing is lessened with the open wire mesh design which reduces it prominence within the landscape, given the fencing’s 4.2m height, and helps avoid an unacceptable impact on either residential outlook or amenity. On balance, the scheme is considered acceptable and is recommended to be approved.

The Development Manager reported that having considered the details provided, the application is considered to comply with policies CS1, CS09, CS16, GSP1, A1 and I1. The Development Manager reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0592/F should be approved, subject to the proposed conditions listed in the agenda report.

Parish Councillor Chairman Mr Wood addressed the meeting and reiterated the salient areas of the application to the Committee which was widely supported by many community groups in the village. The 4.2m fence would be situated 60 feet away from the nearest boundary which would not cause offence to local neighbouring residents.

The Development Manager asked the Parish Councillor to confirm where the fence would be sited and he indicated the red line on the drawing which had been submitted as part of the application and which was being shown to the Committee as part of the presentation as this was not 60 feet away from the boundary and he asked for confirmation that this was correct. The red line indicated that the fence would be 45m in length and approximately 5m from the boundary. The Parish Councillor confirmed that the Development Manager was correct.

The Chair confirmed that the Committee must consider the application before them this evening.

The Ward Councillors reported that they did not wish to speak as Ward Councillors on this application.

Councillor Boyd reported that he had grown up in Caister and had regularly played on this playing field and that he welcomed the application which he fully supported.

Councillor Freeman reported that he supported the application and welcomed the addition of a sensory garden on the site and that he would support the application now it had been confirmed where the fencing would be sited.

Councillors Galer, Lawn and Williamson reported that they fully supported the application.

Councillor Williamson moved that the application be approved with the conditions outlined in the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Boyd.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/24/0592/F be approved with the conditions as outlined in the agenda report.

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

The Development Manager reported that this was a connected application as Great Yarmouth Borough Council is the landowner.

The Development Manager reported that the application site is positioned on Marine Parade which forms the main tourism destination for the town of Great Yarmouth. The site is located within and at the southern end of the South Beach Garden, and is a mixture of hard standing, pavements and grassed areas of public amenity land.

The Development Manager reported that this application seeks permission for the retention of a 50m high observation wheel and supporting structures, decking, ramp access and a ticket office, for continuous year-round use for a temporary period. Initially the applicant proposed continued use for another 3 years from 1st February 2025 until 1st February 2028. In discussion with Officers, the applicant has agreed to reduce the period of use to be limited to two further years in this application, being from 1st February 2025 until 1st February 2027. The heritage impacts and ecology / biodiversity net gain sections in this report provide further explanation as to why this was necessary.

The Development Manager reported that the wheel can already be seen on site and is constructed of steel spokes and four external supporting legs spanning from the centre axel. The wheel includes 36 no. gondola 'pods', which hang freely from individual spokes which circulate around the outside of the wheel. The whole structure is white in colour.

The Development Manager reported that the wheel is sited above a rectangular platform base. This platform covers an area of approximately 17.5m x 24.5m and includes a ‘loading platform’ for passengers, which can be accessed via a staggered ramp. The platform is of varying height to allow more customers to access the gondolas at once via steps and ramps, so the outer edges of the base platform structure rise up to 3m height and are solid in form.

The Development Manager reported that the ticket office is single storey with curved canopy roof, rising to 4m tall, positioned on the north side of the wheel. The platform, entrances and ticket office are covered by a curved canopy roof 5m high. The features of the wheel detailed above are already in place as permission was granted under pp. 06/21/0984/F on 23rd March 2022, and this application is now seeking to extend the duration of the temporary permission by another 3 years.

The Development Manager advised that, as considered under previous applications, the location is still considered acceptable in principle as it is a commercial holiday tourist attraction / use in accordance with the designated area for such attractions (the Great Yarmouth Seafront Area) defined by the Core Strategy and Local Plan Part 2, so the use in this location is deemed policy compliant. Policy CS8 of the adopted Core Strategy states the potential of the holiday industry should be maximised, and new attractions of a good quality should be supported if they are of good design and with good access and connections to its surroundings.

The Development Manager reported tht Policy GY6 specifically encourages year-round, sustainable tourism and new investment in major new tourism, leisure and entertainment facilities. However, Policy GY6 also recognise importance of conserving and enhancing the seafront's heritage assets, so securing a high-quality design of facility is essential as part of this, as is the need to maintain and improve the public realm and the area's open spaces such as South Beach Gardens. Although the principle of development is considered acceptable, the ongoing use of the site for the observation wheel should be subject to appropriate mitigations including design enhancements.

The Development Manager reported that it is considered that the minor level of harm to the heritage of the area can be outweighed by the economic benefits provided by retention the development, but only if this is allowed on a temporary basis. This is because the wheel has highlighted the importance of social recreation and has become a distinctive element of the tourism character seen along the seafront. As a temporary facility allowed until February 2027, the heritage, design impacts and loss of useable open space are considered acceptable because of the continuation of an attraction that enhances the tourism industry, consequently boosting the seasonal economy. The level of harm that is caused will be appropriately mitigated through conditions requiring the structure to be removed and the site restored to its original condition, and the condition requiring graphics to be installed around the base of the structure.

The Development Manager reported that since the previous permission was granted, the national Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements have come into force, although there is some uncertainty as to whether BNG would apply to this proposal, which affects an area larger than the ‘de minimus’ site area exemption. Guidance was sought from Council Council’s Natural Environment Team, as detailed at paragraph 5.7 in the agenda report. National guidance states that if the area can be restored to its baseline habitat within two years of the initial impact, the on-site habitat will not need to be recorded as lost, but any net gain provided would still need to be maintained. LPA officers consider that if the land can be restored to its baseline habitat within two years of the initial impact, the development will not be required to demonstrate a 10% net gain in biodiversity.

The Development Manager reported that the applicant has not proposed any biodiversity enhancements within their proposal. Even though the site was only semi-formal public garden before the observation wheel was installed, even the loss of such non-priority habitats results in a degree of biodiversity loss which should be addressed. As the Government allows 2 years as a maximum period of time that temporary losses can be allowed, it is considered that the temporary permission should be limited to 2 years, with a condition imposed to ensure that within 28 days of the expiration of the temporary permission, the development shall be completely removed, and the site shall be restored to its previous condition as documented in the pre-development site survey photographs approved under application 06/22/0285/CD (re: Condition 2 of 06/21/0984/F: Photographic record of the site and landscaping prior to installation). It is therefore recommended that the time limit of any temporary permission to be approved should be limited to a period of 2 years rather than 3, in order to remain within the BNG requirements and to justify the developments lack of biodiversity enhancement provision.

The Development Manager reported that although the application initially proposed a three-year continuation of the temporary use, this would not be considered acceptable for reasons of possible heritage impacts on the future setting of the restored Winter Gardens, and because the site has not proposed any measures to address the Biodiversity Net Gain requirements for uses that extend beyond two years.

The Development Manager reported that there are benefits in retaining the use of the site for an observation wheel for a temporary period of a maximum of 2 years, as the facility will serve the tourism industry and will help to boost the attraction of Great Yarmouth for a further 2 years. Whilst it is acknowledged that immediate job creation may be modest, there will be longer-term benefits created in terms of promoting linked trips and encouragement to visit the town as a holiday destination. As a tourist destination it will complement the regeneration taking place within the town, and in some respects will provide an alternative focus for visitors whilst regeneration works are ongoing, such as those of the Winter Gardens to the south of the site.

The Development Manager reported that it must be stressed however, that any permission to be granted should remain temporary, as this will allow the economic benefit and heritage impact of the development to be monitored. Having considered the details provided, the use of the site for a period of an additional two years is considered to comply with policies CS1, CS6, CS8, CS9, CS10, CS13 and CS16 from the adopted Core Strategy, and policies GY6, A1, E1 and E5 from the adopted Local Plan Part 2.

The Development Manager reported that it was recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report subject to removing the proposed Condition 4 as published in the Committee report.

The Chair reported that it would be costly for the operator to remove the gondolas each year and he moved that Condition 4 be taken out which stated that the gondolas should be removed from site within 21 days of ceasing operation for the season. Councillor Annison reported that he endorsed this amendment as this was a fantastic tourist attraction for the town and the removal of the gondolas over the winter period did not detract from the landmark attraction.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that he fully supported the application but that he would prefer that the gondolas remained in situ 365 days of the year.

Councillor Pilkington reported that this was a staple family attraction along the Golden Mile and he could not imagine the seafront street scene without it and he fully supported the application.

The Development Manager asked Members if they agreed with the officers suggestion that the removal of Condition 4 would result in no net increase in the heritage harm to the area and that the benefit would outweigh any potential harm. The Committee reported that they agreed that there would be no net increase in heritage harm to the area by removing Condition 4 if the application was approved.

Councillor Lawn moved the application for approval with the removal of condition 4 as set out in the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/24/0474/F be approved and full planning permission be granted subject to conditions 1-3 and 5-12 as listed in the report.

(i) Those Members who were unable to attend the recent DM training held on 21 October 2024 would be offered a briefing with officers in the near future to ensure that they were eligible to sit on the DM Committee.

(ii) There would be an additional DM Committee held on Wednesday, 27 November 2024 at 18:30 to consider the Barton Way, Ormesby St Margaret application. This would be preceded by a site visit at 11:30 am and a minibus would leave the Town Hall at 11:00 to take Members to the site where Highways officers from NCC would be present.

It was noted that the Monitoring Officer had stated that Members who were unable to attend the site visit would not be precluded from voting on this application at the DM Committee meeting.