Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Annison, Martin & Williamson.

Councillor Freeman declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in items 6,7,8 & 9 as he sits on the Board of the Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust. As Councillor Freeman is conflicted he will not take part or vote in the determination of these items.

The minutes of the meeting held on 26 February 2025 were confirmed as a true record.

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

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposed the erection of 77 dwellings, access, parking and associated external works (amended description of development). The application, initially submitted for 75 dwellings, was presented for determination at Planning Committee on the 31 July 2024, by which point it had been reduced to 74 proposed dwellings. At the meeting, following public speaking, officer presentation and debate, the application was deferred to negotiate amendments to the application and to bring the application back to the committee for determination.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is located within the development limits and within the area allocated under Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy for a mixed use development as an extension to Beacon Park, which seeks to provide a series of locally distinctive, high quality, walkable neighbourhoods that are well connected to the existing urban areas of Bradwell and Gorleston and the wider rural countryside through enhanced bus connections, footpaths, bridleways and cycle ways.

The Planning Officer reported that the site was subject to an Outline planning consent for up to 130 dwellings which was approved under Ref. 06/13/0703/O. The first two phases of this development were built out under Ref. 06/17/0790/D (Phase 1) and Ref. 06/18/0501/D (Phase 2) and the subject site, which was set down as the third and final phase of this development, has seen the planning permission lapse. Accordingly, a fresh, full planning application was required which is what is before Members for their consideration.

The Planning Officer reported that both of the earlier phases delivered 48 dwellings, which effectively are the new houses built at Mawkin Green, Ollands Road and Pightle Close. Phase 3 (this application site) was therefore expected to accommodate the balance of up to 82 dwellings. It is important to note that the outline application sought an ‘up to’ figure for the total number of dwellings, therefore offering flexibility for a reduced number if the design and layout warranted. This current application for 77 dwellings is a new application and should be assessed against current policy, but the foregoing permissions are a relevant material consideration, and it is noted that the development of 77 dwellings would be a number that would likely be considered within the tolerance levels expected to be provided through the outline permission.

The Planning Officer reported that the permeability through the site from Meadowlands, Mawkin Green and Ollands Road seeks to ensure that the open space, including the equipped area of play, is accessible not just to the new residents that would be accommodated but the wider residential area. The same applies to the access to Jews Lane which provides walking access to Ormiston Venture Academy and Ormiston Herman Academy as well as Emerald Park due easy.

The Planning Officer reported that although permission has lapsed, the site has for a number of years been considered suitable for residential development through the grant of outline planning permission and therefore makes a valuable contribution to the housing requirement in the local plan. The site itself, although undeveloped, does not make a valuable contribution to local open space. It is fenced off through metal Heras fencing from the surrounding residential development, although it appears is used for informal recreation such as dog walking, is overgrown, has building material stored on it as well as soil from previous developments.

The Planning Officer reported that the concerns of the local residents and the Parish Council are acknowledged; however, the outline consent is a material planning consideration that officers feel holds sufficient weight in this instance, and the impact of the additional dwellings on the wider community has been tested and considered acceptable.

The Planning Officer reported that noting the resolution of the previous Committee meeting, officers consider the revised details offer an improvement to the initial scheme and overcome the concerns raised and results in a well-designed, resident-friendly scheme which integrates into the wider area, which is within the defined settlement boundary. It is considered that the proposal complies with policies in the local plan that seek to direct new housing to such sustainable locations and in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2024) the presumption of sustainable development should apply in this instance and planning permission should be granted.

The Planning Officer reported that Policy H3 of the LPP2 requires residential developments to meet the indicative minimum housing densities to support an efficient use of land. The density expected in Bradwell is 35 dwellings to the hectare. The net density of the site (when discounting the provision of open space) is approximately 30 dwellings to the hectare. The policy does make allowances for lower densities in limited circumstances. However, this proposal does not meet those exceptions set out in the policy.

The Planning Officer reported that the previous committee report recommended a reason for refusal based on the conflict with Policy H3. The revised and current scheme has secured an uplift in dwellings, which in turn seeks an increase in density from 30.6dph to 31.4dph. It is considered that this is broadly consistent with the surrounding developments, with Phases 1 and 2 representing 31.7dph and the Persimmon scheme immediately due south being 33.7dph. The uplift brings the development closer to that originally planned for in the now-lapsed outline consent referred to above.

The Planning Officer reported that whilst this density is still slightly lower than the required minimum density the development has a well-thought-out layout which responds to the constraints of the site and its unusual shape, and is of general good design. The density is also consistent with the wider character of the surrounding area which is a material consideration when assessing a scheme’s density. Having undertaken an appropriate balance of the refreshed application and the issues and benefits presented in this amended proposal, it is now considered acceptable on balance for the scheme to propose a slightly lower density than policy seeks, due to the number of benefits that would accrue from the nature of the development proposed and given the material considerations relevant to this application.

The Planning Officer reported that Officers note this position is contrary to the position adopted in July 2024, however there are new material considerations to hand since that point, including a newly amended proposal and layout which resolved some of the concerns over design and open space provision. It is now considered that a further increase in density would likely compromise some elements of the proposed layout such as creating a more cramped form of development, an increased predominance of parking, and a less balanced mix of housing sizes than is currently proposed.

The Planning Officer reported that the previous committee report(s) raised concern about the effective use of land due to the overprovision of open space. Policy CS18(k) of the Core Strategy requires provision of multifunctional green infrastructure including provision of well-linked public open space throughout the wider allocation. Policy H4 of the LPP2 requires new residential development to make provision for publicly accessible recreational open space where there is an identified deficit in local provision (defined by ward).

The Planning Officer reported that the location of the open space in this application is concentrated towards the eastern area, corresponding to an area of the site where there is highest risk of surface water flooding (1 in 100 year) and a recognised flow path along the eastern boundary. The Great Yarmouth Surface Water Management Plan seeks to keep such flow-paths free from development. Furthermore, it is shown through the drainage assessment and flood risk assessment that the amount of open space required here is fully justified and useable. The open space is well-located with natural surveillance and the small section on the southwestern area has been removed to facilitate an improved layout. The amount of open space from the previous scheme is therefore reduced. The benefits of the scheme, when taken as a whole, outweigh the harm caused by the slight over provision of open space leading to a reduced number of dwellings being provided at a lower than policy-informed preferred density, in this instance.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed development does not provide any on-site outdoor sport provision or provision of allotments. The 31st July 2024 Committee meeting heard from the applicant that they would consider providing allotments to address the identified deficit in the Bradwell South and Hopton Ward (which is the area-based assessment for this site). No proposal has come forward in the current form, so it is necessary to assess the current provision in the Ward, and the impacts on that from this development. As such, the Open Space SPD expects a financial contribution to be provided towards off-site provision of both outdoor sports and allotments. As such a financial contribution will be required for off-site provision of these types of open space, to be required by Section 106 Agreement, to secure £591.41 per dwelling for outdoor sports facilities (£45,538.57) and £45.13 per dwelling for allotments provision (£3,475.01).

The Planning Officer reported that the application makes provision for ten dwellings to be affordable, which is an uplift of two additional affordable units over the policy requirement. This weighs in favour of the application. The affordable housing mix seeks 90% to the affordable rent and 10% to be shared ownership. The proposed plan complies with this with nine of the units being affordable rent tenure and the balance of one unit being shared ownership. As such, the affordable housing provision is considered to comply with Policy CS4 / UCS4 and the additional two dwellings above the policy requirement is an additional benefit which weighs in favour of the application, for consideration in the exercise of ‘weighing’ the conflict with policies (eg density) against the benefits of the proposal.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed dwellings provide active frontages and surveillance to public areas including the open space to the east of the site as well as the internal roads and footpaths. The design is not considered cramped, and each property has sufficient private amenity space to meet their functional requirements. Parking is well-related to the dwellings to which they relate, and each property has an electric charging point.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed footpath is separated from the access road through the site but provides safe footpath links on both sides of the road with the exception of a small portion on the north-eastern side of the site which is shown as open space. A number of pram crossings are shown across the site and a further footpath link due east to Jews Lane.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant has provided an external materials schedule which shows the palate of proposed materials for both the dwellings but also the roads and driveways. The proposed materials are considered acceptable and respond positively to the wider residential area, which are all modern and traditional in their appearance. A condition is also proposed to ensure approval of details of materials before development commences.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed layout is therefore considered acceptable and the changes to the layout represent a well-designed scheme that responds positively to the surrounding residential development and secures good level of design and permeability.

The Planning Officer reported that with regard to overlooking from elevations of plots in close proximity to existing houses, they do not have windows in the facing elevations and there are only non-habitable windows at first floor level. Plot 4 has an upper floor obscure glazed window which will not result in amenity issues. As such no issues regarding overlooking or loss of privacy are expected to arise. The properties are a sufficient distance apart for no adverse issues to arise in terms of loss of outlook, much less causing any overbearing impact on these existing properties as a consequence of this development.

The Planning Officer reported that vehicular access to the site is proposed through both Ollands Road to the west and Meadowlands to the north through the continuation of the existing 5.5m wide carriageways. The impact of additional vehicular activity in the wider area was considered at the grant of the initial outline planning application with the assessment being that the surrounding road network can absorb the additional traffic. This has been re-confirmed through this application with the Highways Authority not seeking to object to the application, and it is noted that the outline permission expected more dwellings at the site than are proposed in this application. It is accepted that there is local concern over the impact of additional traffic, and it is appreciated that some of the existing housing, particularly those that were phases one and two, will see an increase in activity, but this does not make the development unacceptable.

The Planning Officer reported that within the site, there is the required level of parking to meet the demands of the development, in addition to providing 19 visitor spaces across the site. Each property would also have an EV charging point. There is good permeability through the site and to the surrounding residential area and Jews Lane to encourage modal shift. There is therefore no objection to the application to the application on the grounds of highways matters and the highways authority do not seek to object to the application.

The Planning Officer reported that other requirements have been considered and can be conditioned including a detailed Landscaping Scheme to be secured by condition, such as full details of Biodiversity Enhancements and External Lighting. Development would also need to be implemented in strict accordance with the precautionary measures set out in the PEA and Reptile Report.

The Planning Officer reported that in terms of the scheme presented, all the proposed dwellings are to be located outside the 1:100 year risk of surface water flooding, with this area being designated as open space, and the SWMP requires surface water flow paths are kept free from development. As such the site has accounted for the surface water flood risk in its design strategy. Although the application site as a whole includes the flood risk area, it is an allocated and otherwise-sustainable location for residential development, and the layout has made appropriate identification and accommodation of the surface water flood risk. The proposal therefore complies with policy E1 in respect of flood risk considerations.

The Planning officer reported that the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has noted that the trees to the south of the proposed site are subject to a TPO (Number No.18 2021) but that there is no Arboricultural objection to the findings of the AIA / Tree Report dated 17/10/2022 and recommendations within it, as long as the AIA / Tree Report is adhered to during the development process, including any Tree Protection methods, which can be required by conditions, and as such there is no Arboricultural objection to the proposal. Officers consider a suitably worded condition can cover this aspect of the proposed development and as such the proposal is in accordance with Policies E4 and CS11.

The Planning Officer reported that a number of local residents, and the Parish Council, have argued that there is insufficient infrastructure to meet additional needs arising from the development. It is the role of S106 requests, and subsequent agreements, for infrastructure to be required by securing funding to meet identified needs to meet the demands arising from additional people. The proposed development is making the required justified contributions as requested by statutory providers and in accordance with policies (CS14 and GSP8).

The Planning officer reported that concern has been raised that that the boundaries of one property (No.10 Mawkin Green) is not depicted correctly in the proposed new site plan. Officers have liaised with the applicant and the plans received show that there is no conflict in land ownership and the development can proceed without any impact on the ownership of the neighbouring property.

The Planning officer reported that Officers consider that residential development of the site is acceptable in principle insofar as it is an allocated site subject to policy CS18, in a sustainable and accessible location. Officers consider the proposal would provide a significant contribution to the borough’s housing delivery and would provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes which would broadly accord with the surrounding local area, on a site which has historically been determined to be suitable for residential development through the grant of outline planning permission as well as the in- principle policy allocation. Although that outline permission has lapsed, officers consider it to be a material consideration that weighs in favour of the development.

The Planning Officer reported that from an environmental perspective the site is in a sustainable location with fair access to public transport and linkages through various modes of transport away from the site to local and larger development centres as well as providing a significant amount of public open space.

The Planning Officer reported that Officers recognise there are a number of benefits which would arise from the development to those who would live on the development but also for the wider community. These are outlined in section 9.11 of this report and weigh in favour of the development.

The Planning Officer reported that it is accepted that there remains a minor conflict with regards to the density of the development, in that it is below the policy threshold of 35 dwellings per hectare. This is the only policy conflict arising from the proposed development. The report before Committee provides justification as to why a slightly reduced density is acceptable in this instance, namely due to the need to contain development to the area outside the surface water flood zone, provide an uplift in open space to meet a local deficiency and satisfy the need to secure a well- designed scheme with appropriate mix and levels of amenity.

The Planning Officer reported that to compensate for proposing a lower housing density than that which is expected by adopted local plan policy, and to address the corresponding reduced provision of affordable housing compared to that which is expected in housing supply forecasts, the amended form of this application now proposes to provide more (‘an uplift’) affordable housing than that which is required by current adopted policy on a pro-rata basis. The increased level of provision is now at a comparable level to that which would be required had the density been provided to a policy-compliant level.

The Planning Officer reported that Officers note and acknowledge the local objections that have been received, including from the Parish Council. The concerns raised have been responded to in this report but the issues which have been raised are not of significant harm as to warrant refusal of planning permission in this instance.

The Planning Officer reported that it is accepted there will be a change of relationship to the surrounding area, however that is not a reason to withhold the grant of permission and there are no technical objections raised to the application which is considered to be generally policy-compliant.

The Planning Officer reported that as such, officers consider that the scheme responds positively to the previous concerns and amounts to sustainable development which should be supported. It is considered that the benefits as identified weigh in favour of the development and outweigh the relatively minor conflict to the Council’s policy on density.

The Planning Officer reported that officers recommend that the application should be granted planning permission subject to securing the necessary mitigations that will be needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The proposal is now considered to be acceptable, and it is recommended that it should be approved subject to the following conditions, providing that it can address the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations process, and ensure the suitable completion of a S106 Agreement.

The Planning officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/23/0056/F is resolved to be APPROVED and that the application be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to the recommendations as set out in the agenda report:-

i). First securing completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations described in this report, comprising:
• Affordable housing (10no dwellings) comprising:
Tenure: 9no. as affordable rent and 1no. shared ownership tenures, as described at Section 9.4 above).
ii) Housing mix: 6 x 1 bed apartments, 2 x 2 bed dwellings, 1 x 3 bed dwelling and 1 x 4 bed dwelling.
• Sustainable surface water drainage system management proposals.
• On-site publicly-accessible open space provision of the types and quantities described at Section 9.4 above.
• The financial contributions listed at Paragraph 9.12.10 above.
iii). Officers undertaking an Appropriate Assessment as required by Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017, and referral to Natural England for their approval to confirm there would be no likely significant impacts on designated sites;

iv). Appropriate Conditions including those listed below (to be modified and updated as necessary);

and,

v). 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.

Mr Last, applicant's agent, addressed the committee and thanked the officers for working with the developer to secure the application which was before the committee this evening. Mr Last reported the salient areas of the application and respectfully requested that the committee approve the application.

Mrs Beard, objector, addressed the committee and reported her concerns in regard to the loss of habitat, including woodland, for local wildlife, birds especially Skylarks , owls, insects and bats which would result from this development. She asked that the density be reduced from 77 to 74 houses to try and preserve more green space.

Councillor Annison, Ward Councillor, addressed the committee and informed them that the development would affect him and his family as he resided in Primrose Way and his daughter in Ollands Road. Councillor Annison reported that his concerns had come true, as the density of houses had increased to 77 on the site from 74 requested on the previous planning application. if the application was not approved this evening, with the new Government and new planning legislation, this number could increase yet again. Councillor Annison reiterated his concerns with traffic movements along Beccles Road which were currently 11,000 cars a day, and how the increase of traffic from this development would be mitigated and that his question had not been answered by County Highways. Councillor Annison had been to the site and measured the width of the access road which was stated to be 5.5m in the agenda report. However, Ollands Road was only 4.7m wide. Councillor Annison had worked with the developer and officers to secure changes to plots 1,2 & 3  to appease the concerns of residents with plot 3 being changed to a bungalow. Councillor Annison reported that he supported the application and was pleased that a footpath had been provided to connect the site to the new school but he was disappointed that no much needed allotment provision had been secured which was included in the Local Plan. Councillor Annison asked for an additional condition for bollards to be installed at the entrance to Jews Lane & the new school to prevent delivery drivers illegally accessing the estate through them.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that he had moved to defer the application last year but as all the concerns which he had raised had been addressed, and taking into account the density issue which he could accept, that he was happy to move that the application be approved with the additional condition of the installation of bollards as requested by Councillor Annison.

The Planning Officer reported that the access to the school would be gated and managed by school staff at drop-off and pick-up times. The Planning Officer was concerned that the installation of bollards might prohibit disabled buggies from gaining access to Jews Lane and that it might be prudent for officers to work with the applicant & County highways to find an alternative to bollards. Councillor Murray-Smith asked if staggered railings might be a better alternative.

Councillor Freeman reported that he supported the application as all of the committee's concerns had been overcome and the development was a well designed scheme. Councillor Freeman was confident that the wildlife would not be lost and would move to another area close by.

The Development Manager reported that he noted the concerns of Mrs Beard in regard to Skylarks nesting in the area and controls could be added to ensure that nesting birds were not affected under Policy C5. This policy would also cover the bat population. Policy C15 would cover the attenuation pond to include areas of biodiversity. The committee could also request an additional condition requiring a specific biodiversity plan.

Councillor Murray-Smith proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda and addendum report and those requested at the meeting. This motion was seconded by Councillor Lawn.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/23/0056/F  be APPROVED under authority delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:-

i). First, securing completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations described in the published report, comprising:-

• Affordable housing (10no dwellings) comprising: 
  Tenure: 9no. as affordable rent and 1no. shared ownership tenures as described at Section     9.4 in the report.
ii). Housing mix: 6 x 1 bed apartments, 2 x 2 bed dwellings, 1 x 3 bed dwelling and 1 x 4 bed dwelling.
• Sustainable surface water drainage system management proposals.
• On-site publicly-accessible open space provision of the types and quantities described at Section 9.4 of the published report.
• The financial contributions listed at Paragraph 9.12.10 in the published report.

iii). Second, liaising with Highways Authority officers to investigate feasibility of including appropriately-designed bollards at the junction of the proposed footpath to the east, and at the two new openings to Jew’s Lane, and use of an appropriate condition as necessary.

iv). Third, undertaking an Appropriate Assessment as required by Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017, and referral to Natural England for their approval to confirm there would be no likely significant impacts on designated sites.

v). Fourth, agreeing an appropriate pre-commencement walkover ecology survey with the applicant, to include appropriate bird and bat protection and/or relocation measures.

vi). Appropriate Conditions including those listed at Section 12 of the published report (to be modified and updated as necessary), which shall include: 
a. The additional condition requiring a pre-commencement walkover ecology survey and appropriate bird and bat protection and/or relocation measures, as described at (iv) above.
b. An additional condition requiring agreement and use of a biodiversity enhancement plan, to include bat roosting and habitat improvements.
c. Any additional condition(s) deemed necessary to secure provision of appropriately-designed bollards at the junction of the proposed footpath to the east, and at the two new openings to Jew’s Lane, and appropriate amendments to the Proposed Site Layout Plan and other plans, and update to Condition 2 as necessary.

and,

vii). 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 the addendum report from the Planning Officer. 

The Planning Officer reported that the application site forms part of the Parklands Holiday site which has a mix of residential and holiday uses, within Hemsby. The application area consists of the eastern aspect of the site which has been historically used as amenity land serving the wider 16 detached bungalows that form the Parklands holiday park. The site is undeveloped and laid predominantly as lawn. Until relatively recently a narrow-gauge railway ran around the perimeter of the site.

The Planning Officer reported that this application is for outline planning permission only and proposes the erection of 13no. single storey dwellings located immediately to the east of the Parklands holiday park, The proposed scheme for outline planning permission is comprised of 13 bungalows. It is proposed that 3 of the units (plots 6, 7 and 8) would be affordable housing, of Affordable Rent tenure. As an Outline planning application with all matters reserved for future determination, the means of access, site layout, scale (height, mass), appearance and landscaping would all be considered at the Reserved Matters stage and an appropriate application(s) would need to be submitted for approval of those details. Although access details are reserved for future determination, the application for outline planning permission must still state the area or areas where access points to the development will be situated, and it is shown that the development is anticipated as a cul-de-sac with a single point of access and egress which is proposed to be taken via the Parklands private road between the dwellings / holiday chalets known as Blue Sapphire and Blue Julie. Access into the holiday park and from there the application site is via Parklands which leads from North Road.

The Planning Officer reported that, in principle,  the residential development of the site is considered acceptable. Whilst the proposed density is slightly under the defined limits within policy, the density is considered appropriate within the site, when considered on balance and taking into account the local character of the area. The applicant has not indicated a mix of dwelling sizes and types as expected by Neighbourhood Plan Policy 2, but this can be required to be provided by planning condition.

The Planning Officer reported that although the application site is not contained within the holiday accommodation areas as defined under Policy L1 of the Local Plan Part 2, the application is not in accordance with Policy 10 of the Hemsby Neighbourhood Plan as it would lead to the loss of an existing tourism facility namely the playing field that accompanies the adjoining 16 holiday homes. It is considered that the loss of the adjoining playing field would provide a loss of amenity space to the holiday owners, however each property would still have sufficient green amenity space within its curtilage and the playing field is considered to be a ‘bonus’ feature of the holiday park compared to that which would normally be expected of holiday parks.

The Planning officer reported that weight is given in the decision to the loss of the playing field for the tourist provision however the principle of residential development is acceptable, would be in keeping with the wider area, and help maintain the supply of homes within Hemsby and as such the application is recommended for approval. Further detailed consideration of factors such as highways, layout and impact of the design on trees, surface water flooding and landscaping should take place at reserved matters or via condition should this application be approved.

The Planning Officer reported that subject to securing the planning obligations for financial contributions and affordable housing, the development can be considered acceptable on balance because the identified minor conflicts with the local development plan can be reduced by imposition of conditions and then outweighed by the benefits of the affordable housing additional unit of affordable rent tenure accommodation.

The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0924/F  be APPROVED and that the application be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda and addendum report.

Councillor Freeman asked if the properties would be connected to the main sewer network and asked for confirmation that Caister  Sewerage Treatment Works had capacity and that surface water would not enter the sewerage system. The Planning Officer reported that Anglian Water had confirmed that Caister Sewerage Treatment Works had capacity for the development and that a condition would be imposed requesting a SUDS hierarchy which would be assessed by officers at Reserved Matters stage.

Mr Beckett, applicants agent, addressed the committee and explained that due to recent deaths in the family and the wishes for some family members to retire, a very difficult decision had been made by the family to submit this application and to maintain the existing bungalows and play area on the site in memory of their parents who had started the holiday business. Mr Beckett respectfully asked that the committee approve the application.

Ms Witheridge, a supporter, addressed the committee and informed them that the holiday park had been built by her late grandparents and as the holiday park was no longer viable, the family had made the very difficult decision to close the park and take the opportunity to retire and apply for permission to build much needed, affordable homes for local residents which would be in keeping with the village of Hemsby.

Councillor Mogford moved that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda and addendum report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Murray-Smith.

Following a unanimous vote; it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/23/0658/O be APPROVED under authority delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:-

 
i) First securing completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Section 20 of the published report, and to the terms proposed at Appendix 3, comprising: 
a) Affordable housing (3no. units of affordable rent tenure).
b) Public open space contributions totalling £16,476.59.
c) GIRAMS contributions totalling £3,954.21.
d) Sustainable drainage system management plans and proposals.
e) Planning obligations monitoring fee (£2000).

ii). Officers undertaking an Appropriate Assessment as required by Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017, and referral to Natural England for their approval to confirm there would be no likely significant impacts on designated sites;

iii). Appropriate Conditions including those listed at Section 22 of the published report (to be modified and updated 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 agenda and addendum report from the Planning Officer.

It was noted that Councillor Freeman would not take part or vote during the deliberation of items 6,7,8 & 9.

The Chair reported that items 6 & 7 would be taken together.

The Planning Officer reported the following updates were reported to the committee:-

1. The applicant has agreed an extension of time on the application until the 25th April 2025.
2. Paragraph 5.8 of the Committee Report details the initial objection from Natural England. Natural England has reviewed the revised Habitats Regulations Assessment, and they have now removed their objection and are satisfied with the GIRAMS contribution secured that the proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the designated ecological sites within the Borough, completing the Appropriate Assessment process.
3. Paragraph 15.6 states that the required £304.17 GIRAMS contribution has not be received. This financial contribution has now been made towards the Norfolk Recreational Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy and the required mitigation has therefore been secured.
4. The applicant has agreed in writing to the wording of all the conditions, including the pre-commencement conditions.
5. A further objection has been received from an objector. This does not raise any new material issues and does not change the assessment within the committee report.
6. The application is not made by the Council but by Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust.
   
   
   

The Planning Officer reported that this application seeks to restore the Iron Duke public house and bring it back into use. To achieve this the application also includes the change of use of the ground floor from a singular public house use to a mixed use comprising a public house and restaurant. The ‘north bar’, circa 76sqm of floor space, is proposed to operate as a traditional public house, with seating for drinking and bar snacks available. The ‘south bar’, circa 108sqm of floor space is proposed to operate as a more traditional restaurant with tables reserved for sit down meals. These spaces (North and South bars) will be restored to their original Art Deco aesthetic, removing the existing raised seating platforms and replacing the external doors to reflect the original historic design.

The Planning Officer reported that at first floor level, two 1- bedroom and 2-bedroom independent and self-contained holiday let units at first floor are proposed. These would have their own kitchens, living areas and bedrooms and would be accessed via a new metal staircase to the rear of the building. Four dedicated parking spaces for the holiday lets would be located to the rear of the building.

The Planning Officer reported that to facilitate the works, a number of internal and external interventions are proposed. These works include:-

• Construction of new access ramp to provide access to the pub from the carpark.
• Extension to the rear of the building to provide access to the basement.
• Creation of two new external terrace area for dining.
• Creation of balcony to the east elevation.
• New openings for windows and doors
• Replacement of existing Crittall windows with double glazed Crittall Windows.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was advertised via site notice and press advert with public consultation expiring on the 28th February 2025. As part of the consultation process a total of 18 objections and 2 letters of support were received.

The Planning Officer reported the following objections:-

• The public house should open operate as a wet bar with no food provision.
• The ground floor should operate as a Pub with Expanded Food Provision (sui generis use).
• Increased traffic.
• Noise pollution.
• Concerns it will be promoted as an “American dining experience”.
• The building should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset and a listed building.
• Future change of use to offices.
• It has not been demonstrated that a public house use alone would not be viable.
• Murals depicting the battle of Jutland and the teak bar do not appear to feature in the application.

The Planning Officer reported that the application seeks to change the use of the ground floor from a solely public house use to a mixed use comprising a public house and restaurant. Core Strategy Policy CS15 recognises the importance of community facilities, such as public houses, in shaping sustainable communities, promoting contact between groups and individuals and shaping community spirit and a sense of place. Policy C1 expands on this and sets out how these community facilities should be retained and only lost in limited circumstances.

The Planning Officer reported that whilst the use of the ground floor of the Iron Duke is currently within a sui generis public house use it has been empty for approaching 20 years and the building is in a state of despair. The property therefore is not currently providing a community benefit, but the planning use remains and therefore has the potential to provide a community use were the use re-established. The proposal is not in conflict with policies C1 and CS15 because the community use is being retained through the proposed mixed use development and continued provision of a public house and additional provision of restaurant.

The Planning Officer reported that a number of objections cite that the public house should not serve food at all or that the operator selected by the Great Yarmouth Preservation Trust, Zaks, should not operate the business. It is not a material planning consideration as to who the operator is, only the use that they intend to carry out. Whilst not material to the application, it should be noted that the operator is working in conjunction with Lacon’s Brewery to develop a beer specific to the pub which would be sold once reopened.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal would see the ‘North Bar’ operated as a traditional public house with tables for drinking and bar snacks. The ‘South Bar’ would be operated as a restaurant. The applicant has justified that without the food provision, operating the building as a public house that only sells drinks would not be a viable or sustainable business model. Whilst no financial data to evidence this has been provided, given number of pubs closing across the country and the capital required to renovate the building, this is not disputed by Officers.

The Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions as set out in the agenda report.

Councillor Williamson, Chair of the GYPT, addressed the Committee and thanked the officer for their detailed report and presentation. Cllr Williamson reported that it was imperative that the Iron Duke had a robust business case and end user to obtain funding for the project. The application contained a land swap with NCC to enable two way traffic to and from the nursery at the adjacent North Denes Primary School which was an asset to the local community.

The Chair asked if the funding body had gone through the proposal and the business case with a fine tooth comb. Cllr Williamson reported that regular meetings had been held with the funding body and that they were satisfied with all the documentation which had been presented.

Mr Kelf, objector, addressed the committee.

The Chair, in the interest of transparency, reported that he had met with Mr Kelf & Ms Jones approximately a decade ago when the Iron Duke was in the hands of the previous owner. Ms Jones had contacted him yesterday but he had not responded to her.

Mr Kelf asked that the committee refuse the application as the Iron Duke should remain as a pub and the restaurant and holiday accommodation element of the application was not required. Public Houses were disappearing from our local neighbourhoods at an alarming rate and the Council should do everything within its power to retain this important art deco structure as a local pub selling local ales to local residents and visitors alike. The only reason the Iron Duke had been boarded up by its previous owner, who also owned the adjacent holiday park, was because the Iron Duke posed a viable financial threat to it.

The committee debated items 6 & 7 together.

Councillor Boyd reported that he did not see this application resulting in a loss pub but saw it as a pub with a restaurant attached. Pubs were dying out because the public did not just want to drink, the majority wanted to enjoy a meal with a drink. The majority of publicans would tell you that they needed to sell food at their premises to survive these difficult economic times. he congratulated the GYPT for all their hard work and vision and reported that he would support the application for approval.

Councillor Pilkington reported that this was an exciting development for Great Yarmouth. The Iron Duke was a landmark at the northern end of the borough as was The Pleasure Beach  at the southern end. Customers demanded a wider offering, other than real ale, at a pub and the Council must move with the times and approve the application and he would vote to approve the application.

Councillor Mogford reported that this was a very exciting proposal which he had been waiting a long time to come to fruition and he fully supported it.

Councillor Murray-Smith reported that he had lived opposite a pub in Great Yarmouth which served food for 9 years and serving food had not taken anything away from the establishment. By serving food, this would make the business case sustainable and, therefore, Councillor Murray-Smith would support this application.

The Chair reported that he could remember playing darts many years ago in the Iron Duke when it was a pub but times had changed and these establishments needed to serve food to be profitable and survive. The refurbishment of the Iron Duke would be a fitting memorial for Mr Ecclestone who had been a former local Councillor & Mayor.

Councillor Boyd proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Mogford.

Following an unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0972/F be APPROVED and authority delegated to officers to grant planning permission subject to:-

a). First securing receipt of the required £304.17 GIRAMS contribution;

b). Subsequent completion of the Habitats Regulations Appropriate Assessment by officers and consultation referral to Natural England, and their subsequent approval of the assessment; and,

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

Proposer: Councillor Boyd

Seconder: Councillor Mogford

RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0973/LB be APPROVED and listed building consent is granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 14 of the published agenda report.

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

The Chair reported that items number 8 & 9 would be taken together.

It was noted that Councillor Freeman would not take part or vote in the determination of items 8 & 9.

The Planning Officer reported that the application seeks the demolition of the existing 2 metre high wall enclosing the service yard and to erect a replacement replica wall 1.5m further to the south. This is to facilitate the access road to North Denes Primary School to be widened around the north side of the site, to help facilitate future expansion of the school.

The Planning Officer reported that the application also includes the provision of a 1.8m wide path on the southern boundary of the site, adjacent the Iron Duke car park, to provide level pedestrian access to North Denes Primary School.

The Planning Officer highlighted the following Site Constraints:-

• Within the development limits defined by GSP1.
• The Iron Duke is Grade II Listed
• Within the Red 400m Indicative Habitat Impact Zone
• Immediately adjacent the Great Yarmouth North Denes SPA/SSSI

The Planning Officer reported that the demolition of the existing brick wall and the loss of original bricks is considered to result in a moderate level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the listed building, further reduced and mitigated through the proposed use of matching bricks and a replication of the current walls finish. However, the widening of the access to North Denes Primary School and the ‘unlocking’ of the ability to expand the school is considered to be a fairly significant public benefit which outweighs the harm caused. Subject to the rebuild being secured by condition in a timely fashion, the proposal is therefore not considered to represent an unacceptable intervention to the listed building and is satisfactory in heritage terms.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal does not generate any concerns in terms of adverse impacts on amenity or highway safety.

The Planning officer reported that the proposal is considered to comply with Core Strategy Policies CS9, CS10 and CS16 and Local Plan Part 2 policies GSP1, A1 and E5, is consistent with the requirements of the NPPF, and fulfils the duties under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It is not considered that there are any material considerations which would suggest the application should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the adopted local development plan.

The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/24/0975/F be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the agenda report, to be added to and modified as necessary.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked for clarification as to why the installation a wall is being requested on the site. The Planning Officer reported that the wall was requested by NCC as it would be necessary, in terms of access and safety, if the footprint of the adjacent school was required to be expanded in the future.

Councillor Pilkington reported that it seemed a reasonable application and proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Capewell.

Following a vote; it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0975/F be APPROVED and planning permission be granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 15 of the published agenda report.  

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

Proposer: Councillor Lawn

Seconder: Councillor Boyd

RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0976/LB be APPROVED and listed building consent is granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 14 of the published agenda report.

The Chair here moved to extend the meeting by thirty minutes in accordance with Article 26.11, as per the Council's Constitution, to allow adequate time for the committee to consider the remaining items. The Committee voted unanimously to extend the meeting.

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted by the Borough Council for determination by the Borough Council as Local Planning Authority.

The Planning Officer reported that the application is for the removal and replacement of existing fire escape stairs to the rear of the building, including installation of a high-level privacy screen to escape route balcony.

The Planning Officer reported that the replacement of the existing external staircase with a new set will improve the appearance of the rear of the building, with the introduction of the screen at first floor reducing the ability to overlook neighbouring properties to the north, to improve privacy. The staircase will only be used as an emergency exit with the applicant stating that the use of the staircase will be restricted through their ‘Licence to occupy’. Subject to the use of conditions to secure the installation of the screen in a timely manner, and to ensure the details of materials are appropriate, the application will comply with Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS09 and Local Plan Part 2 Policies GSP1 and A1.

The Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/25/0201/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to appropriate conditions including those listed in the agenda report (to be modified and updated as necessary).

Councillor Capewell asked what the purpose of the 1.8m screen was as he did not think it would be high enough to prevent overlooking to the neighbouring properties. The Development Manager reported that 1.8m was the standard height.

The Planning Officer reported that the screen would protect the privacy amenity of 81 Lawn Avenue and the exit would be used for emergency use only and signage would be installed to this effect with the door only opening outwards via a thumb lock on the inside.

Councillor Freeman reported that the objective of the privacy screen was to protect the neighbouring children whilst playing in the garden and he did not think that the screen height proposed was high enough. Cllr Freeman also thought that the screening should run along the total length of the stairway.

Councillor Mogford was concerned that the stairway would be used for smoking and or vaping by the residents.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked if the exit door could be fitted with a box which you had to break to gain access to operate the emergency opening of the fire door. Cllr Murray-Smith asked if the door would be alarmed and could the emergency use of the door only be conditioned. The Development Manager reported that this would be covered in the Management Plan.

The Development Manager reported that this was a voluntary application by the Council to screen the staircase as it was being changed to adhere to building regulations.

The Planning Officer reported that this suggestion would come under the remit of building control and not planning.

Councillor Pilkington reported that the residents would utilise the balconies to smoke or vape and that the proposed screen would afford the neighbouring residents some piece of mind and that he proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Capewell.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/25/0201/F be APPROVED and planning permission be granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 14 of the published agenda report.  

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application was reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted by the Borough Council. 

The Planning Officer reported that the application is for the installation of a 1200 x 300mm ventilation grille to second floor boiler room to meet current gas safety regulations.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed alteration to the listed building is to install a 1200mm x 300mm metal ventilation grille to the southern wall exterior of the second floor boiler room to meet current gas safety regulations.

The Planning Officer reported that the second floor boiler room is situated at the rear of the building on the north side of Sewell Row, and the ventilation grille is proposed to face south towards the same building. The second floor boiler room is situated to the rear of the modern wing of the building. It faces Westwards. The room is not visible from Howard Street. The proposed grille is located on the South Facing wall of the boiler room. Due to the construction of the building, this means it is facing the opposite roof side of the building. This area is not visible to the public from any road or carpark. The view of the vent is however visible from Sewells Row, when looking directly upwards. As the vent is proposed to be flush with the building, it will not be easy to see from any other angle other than looking directly upwards towards it below. The view from all other public alleyways and roads is obscured by the shape and positioning of the building.

The Planning officer reported that the grille would cover / replace the two existing terracotta air bricks set within the brickwork walls. The grille would / would not project out from the elevation / would be recessed / would be flush with the brick face. The grille is actually a louvre, proposed to be a new louvred vent to increase free air ventilation into the room to ensure the new boilers operate safely.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant has explained (in their design and access statement) that the louvre is needed to provide an adequate volume of fresh air into the building to allow a new energy-efficient boiler system to be installed, which relies on an appropriate level of fresh air circulation. It is said that without the new ventilation louvre, replacement boilers will not be permitted to be installed as they would not operate safely due to there being insufficient ventilation.

The Planning Officer reported that application 06/24/0843/LB is recommended to be APPROVED and listed building consent granted under authority delegated to Officers subject to:-

i). First securing appropriate details to demonstrate the form and design of the grille, and its position on the building;
i). Amending Condition 2 of the published report, to include the details of the form and design of the grille, and its position on the building;
iii). Inclusion of an additional condition to require any visible replacement brickwork and mortar to match the existing; and,
iv). The Conditions listed at Section 15 of the Committee Report.

Councillor Capewell proposed that the application be approved. This motion was seconded by Councillor Freeman.

Following an unanimous vote; it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0843/LB be APPROVED and listed building consent granted under authority delegated to Officers subject to:-

i). First securing appropriate details to demonstrate the form and design of the grille, and its position on the building;
ii). Amending Condition 2 of the published report, to include the details of the form and design of the grille, and its position on the building;
iii). Inclusion of an additional condition to require any visible replacement brickwork and mortar to match the existing; and,
iv). The Conditions listed at Section 15 of the Committee Report.

The Chair reported that there was no other business being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration at the meeting.