Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bird.

Councillor Annison declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as he was the Ward Councillor for Bradwell South & Hopton & the County Councillor for Lothingland.

However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, was allowed to both speak and vote on the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 December 2024 were confirmed with one amendment:-

(i) On page 11, the minute be amended at follows "that the Chair had reminded the speaker that the Council had offered to meet with the MP but at that point in time the offer had not been responded to".

The Committee received and considered the agenda report and the addendum report.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site forms part of Abbeyfield House, a former care home located on the western side of Lawn Avenue with parking and servicing taken from the rear, via Bure Close. The home is a two-storey building from the 1970s. There are balconies to the front of the care home, facing Lawn Avenue. To the west is Bure Close, a cul-de sac with mostly two-storey dwellings. Abbeyfield House was last used as a residential care home for people with dementia, but is currently vacant after closing in March 2023. The applicant states that the care home closed because the service was not operationally effective.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes to change the use of Abbeyfield House from a care facility (Use Class C2) to a facility to provide accommodation to house individuals deemed as being homeless (a sui generis use) providing 9no. single-occupancy residential bedrooms. The application does not seek any physical internal or external alterations with the application solely seeking to change the use of the premises. The application site is located within Flood Zone 3a.

The Planning Officer reported that although the existing plans show there to be 10 rooms of accommodation, the application proposes that only 9 rooms would be provided to individuals who are defined as homeless. Abbeyfield Road will become their main residence in the short-term whilst longer-term more suitable accommodation is sought. Each bedroom includes a WC and wash basin, and 8 of the 9 rooms will have a small kitchenette. All washing facilities are level access and all thresholds are level to avoid trips or falls. Whilst this will not be necessary for all intended occupiers, it will allow for those with mobility needs.

The Planning Officer reported an amended floor plan to provide a kitchen area for the staff.

The Planning Officer reported that  Abbeyfield House will become a homeless person’s main and principal residence whilst occupiers are supported to become ‘tenancy ready’ for mainstream housing and be able to successfully access sustainable permanent housing.

The Planning Officer reported that the existing 10th room in the complex will not be used for homeless persons and will instead be reserved for use by staff / management on overnight duties. The adjoining office space will be used by members of Great Yarmouth Borough Council staff and external agencies who are providing management and support. Staff will be present 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Were the application to be considered favourably, a condition is recommended to ensure that only 9 bedrooms are used for residential accommodation / temporary occupancy.

The Planning Officer reported that the Planning Officer reported that 21 letters of objection had been received on the following material planning grounds:-

• Strain on local services:-
• The area will become plagued with antisocial behaviour and petty crime, and it will increase as the building will become a hub for drug dealers, users and alcoholics.
• Impact on the peace of the area.
• The introduction of additional residents may lead to increased noise, traffic, and potential anti-social behaviour, negatively impacting the peaceful character of our neighbourhood.
• The presence of balconies could compromise the security of both the proposed development and neighbouring properties.
• The inclusion of individuals fleeing domestic abuse in the list of potential occupants raises concerns about the safety and well-being of both residents and the wider community.
• The use should be in either the town centre or a quieter area away from residential areas.
• Roads are unsuitable for access by emergency services.

The following non-material planning considerations were raised:-

• Impact on property value.
• Impact on mental health of existing residents.
• Lack of communication from the Council regarding the application.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is within the development limits defined by Policy GSP1 where development will be supported in principle subject to compliance with other relevant policies in the development plan and so is supported in principle unless there are other material considerations to suggest that the application should not be considered favourably.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes a permanent use of a vacant building for individuals deemed as being homeless. This would accord with Policy CS3 (c) which seeks the reuse of vacant buildings. Policy CS3 (e) supports the provision of housing for vulnerable people and specialist housing provision, including nursing homes, residential and extra care facilities in appropriate locations and where there is an identified need. The use of the building to house homeless people would be consistent with this.

The Planning Officer reported that Policy H11 expands on this and supports the provision of accommodation for elderly and vulnerable people where sites are located in sustainable locations and whereby appropriate elements of support, shared facilities and/or nursing care/wardens can be provided.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is in a predominantly residential area, and the proposed use is also residential. The use is not, therefore, considered contrary to the development plan. The principle of development is therefore considered acceptable, but the application must still ensure that it is in accordance with the other policies of the development plan, including the possible impacts on amenity. It is noted that amenity concerns have been raised, and that the application has proposed to include round-the-clock staffing attendance at the site, each day of the week, 365 days a year.

The Planning Officer reported that the Management Plan states that “The new facility will form part of the community and as the landlord of the facility the Council recognises its obligations to the wider community to ensure that the residents integrate into the local area and do not cause anti- social behaviour. If there are incidents these will be taken seriously, and appropriate steps, including residents being evicted from the scheme, will be taken to resolve any nuisance caused.”

The Planning Officer reported that although not included expressly in the submitted description of proposed development, if the decision maker considers it necessary it would be possible to include a condition on a permission stipulating that management / support workers should be present on site at all times to provide oversight, for residential support, and management of community impacts.

The Planning Officer reported that the application also presents a solution to a specific need identified by, and uniquely, required to be addressed by, the Council as local housing authority. The legal duty on the Council to provide the accommodation and help address the need provides suitable justification to limit the benefits of the permission to just that of the Borough Council (or successor body) rather than be taken up by other operators / housing providers. Making the permission personal and specific to use only by the Council would also ensure that it operates in accordance with the submitted operations-based management plan provided as part of the application, which could otherwise be unrealistic to require to be used by other operators.

The Planning Officer reported that the Council, the applicant, has provided some information to help describe the operations and the intention to house those in great housing need. Housing needs eligibility assessments will not be undertaken at Abbeyfield House, but for context it is useful to understand the criteria for eligibility to be houses at this proposed facility:-

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that if  Abbeyfield House is considered suitable for the individual, they will be given an occupancy agreement (this being a licence) which includes measures and standards of expected behaviour such as keeping to a guests restrictions and observing a curfew. This will be conditional on the individual agreeing to sign up to and engage with a support package, which is designed to address their housing and support needs, and to abide by the house rules. Those individuals considered as being too high risk for the proposed supported accommodation at Abbeyfield House will not be housed at the scheme.

The Planning Officer reported that the adopted policy A1 expands on CS09 F to ensure that no significantly harmful amenity issues occur, including overlooking and loss of privacy; nuisance, disturbance and loss of tranquillity from waste and clutter, and noise.  A number of objections have been received from local residents expressing concern about the location of the use within a residential area and the potential impact of antisocial behaviour and crime.

The Planning Officer reported that in regard to any antisocial behaviour and crime, it is noted that the building will be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week every day of the year, and in addition the Council operates an out of hours service whereby calls are taken and issues would be triaged to on call Managers throughout the night, 365 days a year. The building will be monitored by closed-circuit television (CCTV) with front and rear entrances only accessible with a key. All individual bedrooms will remain locked and keys will be held only by the room occupier and staff.

The Planning Officer reported that the Norfolk Constabulary Designing Out Crime Team have not objected to the scheme but have advised that appropriate boundary treatments can prevent easy, unwelcome movement across the plot and discourage any potential unsociable behaviour. In addition, suitable lighting of the site should be introduced. No boundary treatment or landscaping strategies have been proposed, so it is recommended that any approval should be subject to conditions requiring security measures to be agreed prior to first use, including conditions relating to boundary treatments and lighting.

The Planning Officer reported that the development will have no increased highways impact comparted to the former uses predominantly due to reduced staffing levels although there may be more frequent support staff visits. It is unlikely that residents will have access to a car, which means the parking available is unlikely to be exceeded by demand, and visitors and management / support agencies can park within the curtilage off Bure Close.

However, the Planning Officer reported that as this is a facility for those in greatest need who may not be able to afford regular public transport use, it is unfortunate that the plans have not included details of proposed cycle storage. This is necessary to provide options for sustainable travel, and to provide secure facilities in the interests of local residential amenity. There is scope within the site to include secure cycle storage, which shall be required by conditions, with details to be agreed and facilities to be provided prior to commencement of the use, including:-

• provision of at a secure and covered cycle store for each bedroom,
• a covered and secure cycle storage area for staff and support services, and
• appropriate visitor cycle storage facilities.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal would help to provide accommodation to meet a specific housing need in the town and Borough. In this regard, the proposal would also be supported under Policy CS3(e; supporting the provision of housing for vulnerable people) and if it can avoid the reliance on short term accommodation in B&Bs and guest houses it may also improve the availability of tourism accommodation.

 
The Planning Officer reported that it is recognised that the proposal would take away, the ability to use this part of the building as a C2 care home. Whilst there is a demand for such uses, the building is currently vacant and there is no potential operator for such a use in the pipeline. It is considered that the loss of one form of housing for those in need is addressed by the same number of bedrooms being provided in the new form of housing for those in need.

The Planning Officer reported that neighbours have raised concerns about the character of the use and the levels of noise or disturbances. It is recognised that such a use would be materially different in character to a care home, but the submitted Management Plan outlines how the use would be carried out as much as is possible to mitigate harms and avoid noise and disturbances to neighbours.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposals will result in no additional increase in flood risk on or off the site, and no increase in vulnerability to the users of the development. Any permission will need to be supported by a suitable GIRAMS contribution being paid to mitigate any increase in pressures on designated ecological sites within the Borough. This payment should either be paid prior to permission being issued, or prior to use (subject to first securing a legal agreement).

The Planning Officer reported that although the solution to reducing homelessness and the numbers of households in temporary accommodation lies in the provision of additional settled housing stock, be this in the private or social rented sectors, as an interim measure utilising Abbeyfield House not only allows the move away from B & B’s but makes good use of a vacant building.

The Planning Officer reported that having considered the details provided, the application is considered to comply with policies CS3, CS9, CS11 and CS16 from the adopted Core Strategy, and policies GSP1, GSP5, GSP8, A1, and H11 from the adopted Local Plan Part 2 and it is considered that there are no other material considerations and that the application should be recommended for approval.

Therefore, the Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0639/CU should be approved by the Committee and authority delegated to officers to grant planning subject to:-

(i) First securing appropriate payment of the £442.34 GIRAMS contribution prior to permission being issued, or securing a suitable legal agreement to guarantee payment prior to first use; and,

(ii) Subject to the proposed conditions listed at Section 18 of the Committee Report, with the following amendments:
i. Condition 2 is amended to substitute reference to Drawing No. 8141C1061904/ 01 (Location Plan and Layout Plan), with reference to Drawing No. 8141C1061904/ 01 Revision B;
ii. Condition 4 is amended to delete the word ‘ensure’ and replace with the word ‘enure’, such that the condition states: “The permission hereby granted shall enure for the benefit of Great Yarmouth Borough Council…”
iii. Condition 5 is amended by deleting part (a) and replacing it with the following: “(a) No homeless person’s accommodation shall be provided within the ‘Staff Room’ areas indicated on approved plan 8141C1061904/01 Revision B, at any time, and the room shall be reserved for use by management and support worker(s) only.”

Councillor Williamson asked if laundry facilities would be provided on-site for the residents. The Planning Officer reported that a laundry area was provided just off of the kitchen area.

Councillor Freeman asked if there was sufficient showering/bathing provisions for the residents. The planning officer reported tht there would be a shower room and a bathroom on the first floor.

Councillor Galer asked for clarification that staff would have access to kitchen facilities. The Planning Officer showed the Committee a presentation slide and pointed to where the kitchen facilities would be housed.

The Head of Strategic Housing addressed the Committee and spoke on behalf of the Council, as the applicant, and set out the reasons why the Council had submitted the application. People can become ‘at risk of homelessness’ or become homeless for a range of reasons. Examples include households who are privately renting being issued with a ‘no fault’ eviction notice by their landlord, or an owner-occupier being re-possessed due to mortgage arrears, or someone being asked to leave by family or friends, or people fleeing domestic abuse. Although the Council seeks to try to prevent households becoming homeless, given the limited availability of affordable accommodation in both the private and social rented sectors, unfortunately, homelessness cannot always be avoided.

The Head of Service reported that under the Housing Act 1996, if at any point during enquires surrounding a homeless application there is reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance, and in priority need, then the Council is required to provide temporary accommodation and to continue until such time as any duty is ended either by an offer of settled accommodation or due to another specified reason.

The Head of Service reported that for single people who are deemed by a local authority to be owed the main homeless duty, or who will be determined to be owed the main duty at the end of the relief duty, it is recognised good practice for the local authority to follow a pathway approach. This requires these individuals to be placed in supported accommodation for a period of time (this usually being for six months to a year, but no longer than two years) prior to moving into settled (permanent) accommodation.

The Head of Service reported that Great Yarmouth does not contain sufficient supported accommodation to enable this pathway approach to be followed. This results in these individuals either remaining in bed and breakfast or other forms of unsuitable and expensive accommodation or instead being re-housed in general needs social housing or private rented accommodation which often can be difficult for these individuals to sustain.

The Head of Service reported that the proposed supported housing scheme at Abbeyfield House will enable the Council to provide quality accommodation, communal spaces for training, and experienced on-site support and management staff to facilitate the development of single homeless persons and other vulnerable persons to enable them to move on into settled accommodation.

The Head of Service reported that residents of the proposed scheme will be given the best opportunity to address barriers to sustaining a successful independent life and develop skills that promote independent and healthy living within the community. Some residents will have suffered significant trauma in their past and our approach will be mindful of this and how we engage with them. Our approach will look to work with everyone holistically, taking a person-centred approach to each resident.

The Head of Service reported that the proposed scheme meets an evidenced gap in service provision and reflects good practice at a national level. It has on-site management and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and also provides intensive support. This form of accommodation is not currently provided by Great Yarmouth Borough Council. Therefore, persons who need this kind of intensive support and a place to call ‘home’ are not being helped in a way that will enable them to progress and sustain a tenancy.

Councillor Pilkington asked what time the evening curfew for residents would be. The Head of Service reported that it would be midnight but that she would be willing to work with residents to review this if it was deemed to be unacceptable.

Mr Kybird, an objector, addressed the Committee and photographs were shown to the Committee at his request  and which had been agreed by the Chair. Mr Kybird reported that some details in the application were incorrect. Abbeyfield had never been a dementia care home and there had been no 24 hour staff on duty there as the staff had all finished at 6pm. The car park at the rear was very tight and only had enough room for 3-4 cars which would be insufficient to serve the proposed use. Mildred Stone House had also been situated on Lawn Avenue which had 24 rooms and would be much more suitable for the proposed type of use.

Mr Kybird reported that parking for residents was at a premium especially during the evenings and weekends and this application would only add to the parking misery for many residents which was unacceptable. The height of the hedge to the neighbouring property shielded the neighbours from staff movements going up and down the stairs. The immediate neighbours had three small children and they had grave concerns at the type of tenant that would be housed at Abbeyfield House. Residents were concerned that the vetting process would not be robust enough and what emergency procedures would be put in place to protect neighbouring properties.  The neighbours were also concerned in regard to overlooking from the balcony into their properties. This was a very quiet area and the proposal was totally out of character with the residential area and Mr Kybird urged the committee to put the safety of the residents first and refuse the application. 

Councillor Pilkington asked for clarification in regard to the number of car parking spaces proposed in the application. Mr Kybird reported that 4 cars used to park in the car park but the application stated that the car park could accommodate up to 8 vehicles.

The Chair informed the Committee that Mildred Stone House had been granted planning permission but this had not been implemented. The Council's Housing Team had been trying to find a solution with the landowner for a temporary use of the building, but to date, to no avail.

The Development Manager reported that a comparison could not be made with the previous use and parking demand of a C2 care home Class which was a non-specific offer for the use not the operator.

The Development Manager reported that any overlooking from the balcony could not be conditioned i.e. only one person to use the balcony at a time. and that smoking could not be banned on the balcony as this was classed as an outdoor area. The application did not offer any screening or apply for any screening and amended plans would have to be submitted to the Council if the balcony was to be screened at 1.7m tall to protect the amenity of neighbours.

Councillor Freeman reported that a similar application had been made in Scratby and residents had raised similar concerns but the site was now part of the community and had caused no issues in the village. Provided that the parking, vetting of residents and the curfew were managed correctly, Councillor freeman reported that he would support the application for approval.

Councillor Pilkington asked if the placements would be ring-fenced for local residents only. The Development Manager reported that this was not a planning issue and that the Council had a statutory duty to address housing need in the borough.

Councillor Pilkington did not believe the provision of only 8 parking spaces would affect the operation of the site greatly as many visitors would come and go so there would be regular movements of vehicles and that this type of accommodation was much needed in the borough and that he would support the application.

Councillor Martin reported that this scheme would support the most vulnerable residents of the borough and she was certain that the Housing Team would work with the residents in regard to privacy concerns, car parking and number of vehicular movements on site and the curfew time. As 24 hour support would be available Councillor Martin would support the application.

Councillor Boyd asked for an assurance that triggers would be put in place to deal with any emergencies on a 24/7 basis. The Planning Officer assured the committee that this formed part of the Management Plan.

Councillor Williamson reported that this type of housing was desperately needed in the borough and he could see no material planning reasons to refuse the application and therefore, he would be voting in favour.

Councillor Galer reminded the Committee that there was a large public car park near to the application site at Fullers Hill.

The Chair summed up that there was a real need for this type of accommodation in the borough and people should not "stereotype the Homeless". This would be a warden controlled 24/7 operation by the Council. He hoped that the management would maintain an open dialogue with local residents to put their minds at ease. He was confident that there would be enough car parking and that the Council would have a robust management plan in place for the smooth operation of the building. The Chair was a Ward Councillor for the Nelson Ward which housed many HMO's and he wished that they all had such a robust management plan in situ. The Chair reported that the issues with the balcony could be discussed with the neighbouring residents and progressed further, but reiterated, that a further planning application might be necessary to address this.

Councillor Mogford reported that he knew the premises well, it was a good property in a prime position on a bus route and would ideally suit the transitional needs of its residents. He was confident that it would be a success and that it would soon integrate and become part of the local community. Councillor Mogford moved approval of the application with the conditions as outlined in the agenda report on pages 27 to 33, those outlined in the addendum report and those reported at the meeting. The motion for approval was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0639/CU be approved by the Committee and authority delegated to officers to grant planning subject to:-

(i) First securing appropriate payment of the £442.34 GIRAMS contribution prior to permission being issued, or securing a suitable legal agreement to guarantee payment prior to first use; and,

(ii) Subject to the proposed conditions listed at Section 18 of the Committee Report,

with the following amendments:-

1. Condition 2 is amended to substitute reference to Drawing No. 8141C1061904/ 01 (Location Plan and Layout Plan), with reference to Drawing No. 8141C1061904/ 01 Revision B;
2. Condition 4 is amended to delete the word ‘ensure’ and replace with the word ‘enure’, such that the condition states: “The permission hereby granted shall enure for the benefit of Great Yarmouth Borough Council…”
3. Condition 5 is amended by deleting part (a) and replacing it with the following: “(a) No homeless person’s accommodation shall be provided within the ‘Staff Room’ areas indicated on approved plan 8141C1061904/01 Revision B, at any time, and the room shall be reserved for use by management and support worker(s) only.”

The Committee received and considered the report and the agenda report.

The Planning Officer reported that this application was for the approval of Reserved Matters details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a residential development comprising 93 dwellings and associated works (Phase 6 of the Wheatcroft Farm development) pursuant to the outline planning permission part of pp 06/13/0652/O (700 dwellings, commercial uses, local centre, community uses, primary school and open space) (EIA Development as an application for subsequent consent).

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed scheme for residential Phase 6 has been designed in accordance with the parameters set by the Outline Planning Permission and in accordance with the masterplan which was approved under Condition 34 of the Outline consent, and responds to the analysis of the site and surrounding area, as set out in the Design and Access Statement, as well as having regard to updated local planning policies.

The Planning Officer reported that this Phase 6 application site is situated to the south of Beaufort Way and forms the southern-most residential part of the Bluebell Meadow development currently under construction by Persimmon Homes. Phases 1- 4 are now fully occupied, and Phase 5 is under construction (see paragraph 3.6 below). It is the intention of Persimmon Homes (applicant) to seamlessly continue development of this site following Phase 5.

The Planning Officer reported that a number of amendments to the plans for Phase 6 have been received during the consultation process, predominantly to deal with technical matters arising from consultation responses, most critically the Highways Authority and Local Lead Flood Authority. As a result, all technical objections have been removed.

The Planning Officer reported that in accordance with Local Plan Policies CS4 and UCS4, and the outline permission Section 106 Agreement, Phase 6 at Bluebell Meadows will provide 10% of the development as affordable housing by providing nine affordable units. The tenure of all affordable units has been previously agreed between the applicants and the Enabling and Empty Homes Officer. The nine affordable homes on Phase 6 are to be 100% affordable rented, as this is comparable to the previous phases of the development and meets the local housing requirements of the area.

The Planning Officer reported that access is proposed via an existing roundabout at Beaufort Way to the west of the site, opposite Colby Drive. The proposal includes creating a new road from the southern spur of the existing roundabout, which will directly serve 10 dwellings, but the remainder will be served from an east-west spine road branching off the southern roundabout spur. 

The Planning Officer reported that the Public Open Space has been reconfigured, accommodating the Public Right of Way known as Clay Lane, or Bridleway ‘Bradwell BR10/BR16’ which runs through the POS and is located to the east of the site. This also facilitates direct pedestrian links to both existing footpath/cycleway connections within the wider site and the employment areas to the east, through an internal looped pathway. Three additional pedestrian access points to Beaufort Way are located along the northern extent of the site.

The Planning Officer reported that the principle of the development was established through the grant of planning permission under reference 06/13/0652/O, which Members resolved to approve at the Development Control Committee (20 May 2014) The decision was issued on 11 August 2014. The proposed scheme for Phase 6 (of the original consent) has been designed in accordance with the parameters set by the Outline Planning Permission and in accordance with the masterplan which was approved under Condition 34 and has been submitted within the timescale specified through Condition 43.

The Planning Officer reported that, as agreed with the Enabling and Empty Homes Officer, nine of the 93 dwellings will be delivered as affordable rented properties. The site includes the provision of five two-bed properties, two three-bed properties and two four-bed properties. This demonstrates compliance with policies CS4, UCS4 and H1 and the associated Section 106 Agreement, to deliver the appropriate quantity of affordable housing and tenure.

 
The Planning Officer reported that the site is located within the Development Limits and is also within a larger area allocated as an urban extension for the provision of approximately 1,000 homes and associated infrastructure. This accords with policies GSP1 and CS18. The reserved matters application has been submitted in a timely fashion, in line with Condition 34 of the outline consent, for the correct quantum of development and density and is considered acceptable and as such is in accordance with the general aims of Local Plan Policies CS1, CS2, CS4/UCS4, and CS18.

The Planning Officer reported that the application has been submitted for 93 dwellings which combined with Phases 2-5 takes the total development within the original outline permission site to 700 dwellings as originally permitted in the outline part of the original permission, in addition to the 150 dwellings of the full planning permission (Phase 1). 

The Planning Officer reported that approximately 0.73ha of land within the southern portion of the Phase 6 site has been excluded from the reserved matters site area to enable a separate new planning application to be submitted, which would effectively uplift the provision of housing from that which was originally approved. The land is also within the applicant’s control but could not be delivered as part of the parent application’s consent as it would have exceeded the number of dwellings permitted overall. No such application has yet been received, and any concerns over the matter should not be a material consideration in the determination of this application; however, it should be noted that any proposal for additional housing in excess of those presented in this application would have to address its own impacts as a cumulative development within the submission of a relevant application, taking into account all phases and recent developments, whilst ensuring that it can create an acceptable relationship with this development which will surround it.

The Planning Officer reported that the revised layout provides a more consistent, defined development line to front the south side of Beaufort Way. Three connections into the residential area have been identified between the northern boundary of the site to access the proposed shared foot and cycleway fronting Beaufort Way. The main access road runs through the centre of the site with an access loop south and northwards, a T junction access spur in the west corner and a loop road in the east corner. A large area of open space has been identified in the east portion of the site, beyond the attenuation area and Clay Lane which is designated as a Public Right of Way.

The Planning Officer reported that revised plans were also submitted to respond to concerns about the house types and materials proposed, and the need to simplify these across the development. Furthermore, the additional planting of trees along the street scene, and their positioning forward of the principal elevations provides some unifying consistency to the street scene. The design and appearance of the affordable units are to be tenure blind. The two larger units (Plots 783 and 784) are proposed in the northern boundary of the site fronting Beaufort Way. These are detached dwellings, and each have two on-plot parking spaces and a further garage space. The balance of seven units are positioned centrally within the site (Plots 813-819) forming two sets of terraced properties with on-plot parking to the front and side.

The Planning Officer reported that Policy H3 (Housing Density) requires an indicative minimum density of 35 dwellings per hectare. The proposal site has a developable area of 3.49ha (deducting open space and the potential additional housing site which lies outside the application site) which results in a density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare with 93 dwellings provided on site. While this is short of the Policy H3 expectation, the application is subject to the parent outline consent which has capped the quantity of housing that can be delivered as part of this scheme. It is also noted that the parent permission did not set density levels. Even though the density would be considered too low to achieve current policy standards, and would not be found acceptable were this a full application, it is considered that the proposed scheme strikes an acceptable balance between securing efficient use of land and providing a good layout and design, whilst being consistent with the character and density of other developments in the vicinity, notably previous Phases 1 – 5. The additional uplift land amounts to a further 0.96 hectares which could yield an uplift in density and dwellings.

The Planning Officer reported that the principle of development is acceptable as the application site is located within the development limits and the scale of development has been established by policy allocation and an extant outline permission. Approval will ensure that the developer can seamlessly continue delivery of housing on the wider development site thereby delivering much-needed market and affordable housing on a site which has been considered acceptable for development and would contribute to meeting the identified housing needs of the Council. This application for reserved matters seeks to submit details with regard to access, layout, scale, landscaping and appearance / design. Details also include electric vehicle charging points, a surface water drainage scheme, car and cycle parking, storage and details of refuse storage and collection points.

The Planning Officer reported that overall, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, and efforts have been made since its submission to improve accessibility and permeability to support a good design and layout of appropriate character and scale that does not cause unacceptable detrimental impact to neighbours. As a result of the amended plans and discussions, there are no technical objections to the application (noting there are no proposed changes to the PROW) and the scheme is therefore policy compliant.

The Planning Officer reported that the design and layout ensures a tenure blind development with properties benefitting from appropriate levels of internal and external space and on-plot parking provision. There would be no resulting impact on residential amenity either internally or to external properties. The details are considered to be acceptable in planning terms. At a wider level the reserved matters help to deliver the positive aspects of the outline planning permission including housing and affordable housing, public open space, enhanced biodiversity and security, overcoming the loss of the agricultural land. This is supported in policies CS3, CS4, CS18, H1, H4, A1, A2, and E4.

The Planning Officer reported that the scheme would deliver a number of benefits, which include, but are not limited to the following:-

• Short term construction employment (and the continuation of employment from the existing wider site).
• Spend in the local economy.
• Off-site highway works (as listed in the report).
• High quality open space for the benefit of future residents and the wider community, and with potential to reduce impacts on designated habitat sites.
• Provision of nine units of affordable housing.
• Provision of market housing to meet identified housing needs on a permitted site.
• GIRAMS contributions.

The Planning Officer reported that having considered the details provided, the proposal is considered to be acceptable, and Policy compliant. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any limited impacts and find in favour of the recommendation of approval. It is recommended that the application should be approved subject to confirming how the necessary GIRAMS mitigation contribution should be secured (either by pre-decision payment or by receipt of legal agreement to secure payment prior to commencement).

The Planning Officer reported that officers recommend that application 06/22/0827/D should be approved and delegated to officers to grant approval of reserved matters, subject to:-

(i) The conditions listed at the published agenda Committee Report Paragraph 11.1(ii), with appropriate additions, modifications and amendments to be made by Officers, in line with the general terms described in the published Update Report, and during the Committee meeting presentation, and as added through the verbal updates during the meeting.

Councillor Freeman asked for clarification in regard to the traffic density data for the application site which had been published in 2014 and was now 10 years out-of-date. The Planning Officer reported that outline permission for 73 dwellings had been submitted in 2014 and there had been no deviation in the number of units tested at outline planning stage.

Councillor Annison asked for clarification in regard to the 0.73ha area of land within the southern portion of the Phase 6 site which has been excluded from the reserved matters site but is within the applicant’s control. The Planning Officer reported that the applicant would need to submit a separate planning application for this parcel of land.

Councillor Williamson asked if the properties would have electric car charging points and fibre optic broadband supply. Councillor Williamson was assured that EVC would be installed and Fibre Optic was installed as per building regulations.

Debi Sherman, on behalf of the Applicant, addressed the Committee and reiterated the salient areas of the application. Ms Sherman informed the Committee that Solar Panels would be installed on the properties as well as EVC and Fibre Optic. The parcel of land not included in the application would have a detailed planning application submitted later this year to ensure it would achieve an acceptable density of homes per hectare.

Councillor Annison asked how this area of land would be manged going forwards. Ms Sherman  reported that the land would be secured by the Construction Team to ensure it was properly secured and could not be accessed by members of the travelling community. The Development Manager reported that this could be conditioned to be screened securely and in an acceptable manner.

Councillor Annison reported that he welcomed the footpath and crossing included in phase 5 as there were a number of children who would walk from the development to schools at Oriel Avenue. Ms Sherman assured Members that these works would be completed prior to the first occupation of the new dwellings. The Development Manager reported that the Pegasus Crossing was not marked as being signalised on the submitted plans and a condition could be requested to secure this. 

Councillor Annison asked what measures would be put in place for duct suppression. Ms Sherman assured the committee that a Dust Control Measure Scheme would be put in place.

Councillor Annison asked if the manholes on site would be adjusted as this affected the lives of local residents. Ms Sherman reported that the Construction Team would prioritise the manhole cover issues.

Councillor Annison asked for an assurance that no other small parcels of land would be fenced off as they were not owned by any one party and which caused maintenance issues would result from this phase of development. Ms Sherman reported that this had occurred on previous phases due to historic land ownership issues but this was not envisioned to be a problem in this phase as Persimmon had clear ownership of the site.

Councillor Annison asked who would be responsible for the regular emptying of the new waste and dog bins on the application site. The Development Manager reported that a planning condition could be added to the Public Open Space Management Plan that bins and dog bins be provided and emptied on a scheduled basis.

Councillor Williamson asked what the heating system would be. Ms Sherman reported that it was ASHP.

Councillor Williamson asked that the new bus stop be an inset lay-by as busses which stopped on the A143 caused traffic to back up quickly which was a serious issue for drivers. The Development Manager reported that it was now seen as good practice to have buses pick up directly from the roadside as other drivers would not let buses out into the traffic stream from an inset lay-by.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether bus stop design formed part of best practice as detailed in the National Policy & Highway Design, and if this was the case, he questioned the mentality of the officer concerned.

Councillor Annison, who was the County Councillor for the Lothingland Ward, questioned the increase in traffic movements which would result from this development, as the A143 already had over 10,000 car movements a day. Councillor Annison highlighted that County Highways Officers had not yet told the Borough Council what their mitigation plans were for Beccles Road to ensure the safety of local residents and their families.

The Chair reported that County Highways Officers would, once again, be invited to attend a future DM Committee meeting to explain their mitigation plans for Beccles Road in light of past and future housing developments in Bradwell and Belton.

Councillor Williamson moved the motion that the application be approved with the conditions outlined in the agenda report and addendum report and those outlined by the Development Manager and agreed at the meeting. This motion was seconded by Councillor Mogford.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application number 06/22/0827/D he Planning Officer be approved and delegated to Officers to grant approval of reserved matters subject to:-

1. The conditions listed at the published agenda Committee Report Paragraph 11.1(ii), with appropriate additions, modifications and amendments to be made by Officers, in line with the general terms described in the published Update Report, and during the Committee meeting presentation, and as added through the verbal updates during the meeting, including:-

1. Condition 2 is amended to include references to the revised plans received prior to the meeting and introducing the modifications as described in the Addendum Update Report;
2. Condition 5 is amended in respect of requirements for noise mitigation measures at the affected dwellings only;
3. Condition 6 is amended to require an updated and phase-specific scheme to be agreed for fire hydrant provision;
4. Condition 9 is amended to require timely provision of dwelling-specific parking and visitor parking spaces prior to dwelling occupation;
5. Condition 10 is amended to require timely parking and turning area provision across the site;
6. Additional conditions 15-20 are required to:

1. (15) agree on-site estate road construction designs prior to commencement;
2. (16) secure construction of roads to binder course level prior to occupation;
3. (17) complete the highways works prior to final occupation;
4. (18) secure appropriate stopping-up of highway land in the event that a part of the site around Plot 758 is determined to be highway land, prior to commencement of development at Plot 758;
5. (19) secure approval of final details for the construction of off-site highways works, prior to any works commencing above slab level;
6. (20) ensure the construction and completion of the proposed off-site highways works including public right of way works, prior to any dwelling being occupied;
7. (21) secure details and updated plans to show the applicant’s proposal to provide a signalised Pegasus crossing;
8. (22) secure details for appearance, position and timely delivery of security fencing around the land within the interior of the Phase 6 site, in the applicant’s control;
9. (23) secure details of the public open space area’s management, maintenance and provision of litter and dog waste bins and collection arrangements.

2. Officers reporting to and securing final approval of the conditions from the Chair of the Committee prior to issuing the decision.

The Chair introduced Tommy Mullins, Graduate Planning Officer, to the Committee.