Apologies were received from Councillors Annison, Capewell and Williamson.

Councillor Boyd declared an interest in Item 6 and Item 7 as Ward Councillor for Caister North.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17th July 2024 were confirmed.

Members received and considered the report from Mr R Parkinson (Development Manager).

The Development Manager reported that this application was initially for the proposed erection of 75 dwellings, access, parking and associated works – however, as per the Addendum Report revised plans submitted by the applicant included various modifications that include a reduction to 74 dwellings. It was added that the plans show 8 affordable housing dwellings to the north centre of the site. It was explained that this site was originally promoted under Phase 3 of an outline permission in which phase 1 and 2 have been completed and lie to the west and north-west of the site.  It was added this initial larger outline planning permission 06/13/0703/O had lapsed through passage of time without submission of Reserved Matters within necessary timescales, therefore this new application for full planning permission was submitted. The Development Manager advised that the outline planning permission 06/13/0703/O is a material planning consideration and that the current application must be appraised on its own merits.

The Development Manager reported that the original applicant for this site went into administration and consequently the new applicant submitted an updated application form on behalf of the landowner. Following the submission of this updated application, Officers reconsulted, meaning that three rounds of consultation have been completed on this scheme. It was added that revised plans were submitted in June 2024 to identify adjacent areas of land in the ownership, site layout plan, soft landscaping plan, detailed house type plans and consequential amendments. It was explained that the change in layout has altered the positioning of proposed dwellings within the site.

The Development Manager reported that GYBC Officers have concerns regarding the density of the site as the expected density in Bradwell is 35 dwellings to the hectare, however this site is does not comply with the expected density due to the large area of public open space. It was suggested that some of this excess public open space be utilised and officers have found that a quantum of development of 82 dwellings would be acceptable in principle. It was noted that if the scheme was policy compliant, the expectation of public open space for a development of 74 dwellings would be 1 hectare less than what is proposed by the application, therefore officers believe that the application does not propose sufficient use of useable space which could be utilised for more dwellings to improve housing density, delivery and proportion of affordable housing. The applicant has stated that the developments in the surrounding area have a similar density, however officers have advised that this is material and should not be given weight in Members’ decision making. It was added that the government have issued suggested changes to the national planning regime, and though it is not yet law there is a clear message that the government will be significantly increasing housing targets for all authorities with the potential for an additional 200 homes required per year on top of existing targets. The Development Manager explained that this message from the government would support the notion that some of the excess public open space be utilised to build more homes and increase the density of the site. It was added that the applicant provided a letter with an appendix including legal advice from their solicitor and officers responded to these points in the Addendum Report. It was noted that under-development and excess public open space is partially informed by flood risk, however there are no details on how this space would be otherwise used and no information on how the delivery of the proposed allotments would be realised. The Development Manager reported that the site is constrained by surface water flood risk and that this risk can be designed into a scheme as shown in other developments across the borough.

 It was added that the public open space is significantly larger than requirement by policy and the proposal of the allotments would give little weight to the idea that the flood plan cannot be developed on. The Development Manager explained that there are no firm details or assessment on accessible and adaptable homes as well as no information provided on water efficiency.

The Development Manager reported that objections to this application had been received from the Local Highway Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Norfolk County Council Public Rights of Way, the GYBC Strategic Planning Officer, Bradwell Parish Council and several members of the public. These objections are clearly outlined in the Agenda Report and Addendum Report. It was reported that among the objections are concerns regarding flood risk, public right of way and Tree Protection Orders. It was added that the LLFA have yet to respond to the recent changes and therefore they have a standing objection, though it cannot be guaranteed that this will not be altered or withdrawn until comments have been received. It was noted that the highways layout needs to be amended to a suitable standard with pedestrian movement marginalised as the plans currently suggest an unsafe pedestrian and cycle environment. The Development Manager explained that there are several design objections as outlined in the Agenda Report which include inadequate links to the school to the south west, lack of built in surveillance over the public open space area, poor design of street scene, dominance of parking, poor articulation of street junctions and minimal landscaping/role of public open space area. It was noted that these design concerns are so significant that officers have recommended refusal, referencing the National Policy Framework 139 which states that a ‘development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design…’ .

The Development Manager reported that the Officers recommendation is that the application be REFUSED for the reasons provided at paragraph 12.1 of the published Committee Report agenda, as amended by the following recommendations:

1) Re: Reason for Refusal 1: Inefficient use of land and lack of housing density

i) Insertion of the following underlined text:

“1. The proposed development fails… contrary to policies CS1, CS2, GSP1, CS4/UCS4, Policies CS18, CS09, H3 and A2 and criterion BF3 of the Borough-wide Open Space SPD (2024)”; and,

ii) Delegate authority to Officers to liaise with the Lead Local Flood Authority to confirm the extent of surface water flood risk considerations in securing an appropriate alternative design strategy, and amend Reason 1 accordingly;

and,

iii) Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 1 in light of the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD.

2) Re: Reason for Refusal 2: Over-provision of public open space

i) Insertion of the following underlined text:

“2. The proposed development results… As such the proposal does not comply with Policies CS9 part a) and H4, Policies CS18, H3 and A2, and criteria BF2, BF3, and PS2 of the Borough-wide Open Space SPD (2014), and chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

and,

ii) Delegate authority to Officers to liaise with the Lead Local Flood Authority to confirm the extent of surface water flood risk considerations in proposing the current level of open space, and amend or remove Reason 2 accordingly.

3) Re: Reason for Refusal 3: Inadequate standards of design and layout

i) Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 3 in response to the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD, and the applicant’s submitted ‘Part O Overheating Calculation Summary” document.

and,

ii) Delegate authority to Officers to liaise with the Lead Local Flood Authority to confirm the extent of surface water flood risk considerations in proposing the current site layout, and amend Reason 3 accordingly.

4) Re: Reason for Refusal 4: Amenity and living conditions of future residents

Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 4 in response to the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD, and the applicant’s submitted ‘Part O Overheating Calculation Summary” document.

5) Re: Reason for Refusal 5: Inadequate movement and permeability

Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 5 in response to the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD, and the updated comments received from the Local Highway Authority.

6) Re: Reason for Refusal 6: Landscaping, nature and public spaces provision

Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 6 in response to the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD, and the applicant’s submitted ‘Part O Overheating Calculation Summary” document.

7) Re: Reason for Refusal 7: Insufficient Information to demonstrate appropriate highways designs

i) Insertion of the following underlined text:

“Insufficient information has been provided… and the adjoining proposed school. The Highway Authority has reviewed the amended plans and has sustained objections in relation to these aspects of the development. As such the application is contrary to…”

and,

ii) Delegate authority to Officers to amend Reason 7 in response to the comments received and the outcomes of the recent appraisal against the Design Code SPD, and the updated comments received from the Local Highway Authority.

 8) Re: Reason for Refusal 8: Impact on designated habitats – lack of GIRAMS payment

Recommended Reason for Refusal 8 should be disregarded, removed from the Recommendation and should not feature in any resolution to refuse the application.

 9) Re: Reason for Refusal 9: Insufficient information – accessible homes

No change to the published agenda Committee Report.

 10) Re: Reason for Refusal 10: Insufficient information – water efficiency

No change to the published agenda Committee Report.

The Chair hereby invited Members to ask technical questions.

Councillor Galer stated that the report references overheating orientation and asked that an officer explain what this is. The Development Manager explained that there are a number of plots with large full length French doors on the rear elevation that are not shaded, however the design code suggests natural shading be utilised to avoid the requirement for air conditioning as there is a need for environmentally sensitive means of shading to avoid carbon heavy uses of cooling in residential properties. Councillor Galer suggested that balconies be utilised to create natural shading as per the design code.

Councillor Pilkington asked whether the revised plans submitted in June 2024 included a change in the quality of design for the houses as well as changes to the layout. The Development manager confirmed that some design aspects were changed such are the staircases and the orientation of some properties to front better on key junctions. It was added that the advised from Strategic Planning is that the design of the houses does not go far enough as to comply with the Council’s Design Code.

Councillor Murray-Smith requested clarification on whether the recommendation is for outright refusal or to delegate to officer to tweak the refusal reasons. The Development Manager clarified that it would be inappropriate to suggest refusal on the grounds of flood risk without allowing the LLFA to provide response to the recent changes. It was added that the recommendation is to delegate refusal to officers based on 9-10 reasons pending review of information such as the overheating document and any comments received from the LLFA. Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether this should have come to the Development Management Committee at a later date to allow for the outstanding actions to be completed. The Development Manager stated that the information in the overheating document and the comments from the LLFA are unlikely to change the application so drastically as to remove all 9-10 refusal reasons.

The Chair hereby invited Mr M Duffield (Agent) to address the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr M Duffield was advised that he would have 5 minutes to speak.

Mr M Duffield explained that this application provides 8 affordable homes, over £1mil in s106 education contributions and a larger than usual public open space which can be utilised for public uses such as allotments which are required. It was added that officers have admitted to not reading the overheating report and that the Addendum Report does not cover all of the issues raised or responded to by the applicant. Mr M Duffield that though the number of dwellings is about 8 short of the aspirational figures based on national advise, the density of the site is similar if not slightly greater than the developments in the immediate surrounding area. It was added that though the designer is not known locally in Great Yarmouth, they6 are known and respected elsewhere. Mr M Duffield commented that the application is of a reasonable density whilst providing a large space for amenities which would be more desirable to buyers than the proposal from officers of more density and a smaller space for amenities. Mr M Duffield concluded that Great Yarmouth needs more high-quality housing and that is what this application aims to achieve.

The Chair hereby invited Members to ask questions to Mr M Duffield.

Councillor Murray-Smith stated that the designs of the front and side elevations are in black and white and asked whether images could have been provided in colour to give an idea of what the properties will look like. Mr M Duffield stated that the images used in the plans are usual for planning applications of this scale and the application details which parts of the façade are rendered.

The Development Manager stated that there was a focus on officers not reading the overheating document, however this is a smaller point in a bigger issue that would likely not change the recommendation. It was added that the need for allotments is factually incorrect as the only needs in a public open space are for play space and informal amenity green space. It was noted that there is sufficient provision for allotments in other areas of this ward. The Development Manager asked if the applicant is suggesting allotments, how does this tie into the flood risk concerns. Mr M Duffield stated that this space does not need to be used for allotments and can be used for private open space. Mr M Duffield stated that he read the 2022 Allotments Report differently in regard to what is required in this ward. It was added that the applicant has not had time to review all reports as the Addendum Report only came through at 9:30pm the night before the meeting. Mr M Duffield commented that the notion of too much public open space is nonsense and there is only a minimum requirement in the policy, not a maximum requirement.

The Chair hereby invited Councillor Annison, Ward Councillor for Bradwell South and Hopton, to address the Committee.

Councillor Annison stated that there is a need for allotments in Bradwell as discussed in the Local Plan Working Party. It was added that there are discrepancies in the reports regarding the number of consultations that took place as there were only two consultations, not three. Councillor Annison stated that the way this application has been handled by Planning Officers is disappointing. It was added that residents have been advised that this site will be developed as per the Local Plan and the applicant has done their due diligence in keeping everyone happy including making changes to address some of the concerns raised in the objection. Councillor Annison explained that this site does flood badly in the area that is proposed for public open space and suggested that this is a unique application as the flood risk may not be as easy to design out as it has been on other sites throughout the Borough, as building on this area of public open space would require houses to be at least 1m above the ground to mitigate flood risk.  It was added that, looking at previously submitted plans for the site, this application has come along way and if not approved there could be a new development proposal with significantly more houses which would affect the infrastructure and road traffic in Bradwell. It was noted that residents have voiced concerns regarding increased traffic and overcrowding of public services, therefore this proposed site is the best option to reduce the risk of a proposal of significantly more dwellings which could have a profound negative impact on the area. Councillor Annison commented that it is unacceptable for Addendum Reports to be sent at 9:30pm the night before the meeting as this does not give the chance for the applicant, public or Members to have adequate time to read through the information and respond accordingly. Councillor Annison concluded by encouraging the approval of this application.

The Chair hereby invited Members to ask questions to Councillor Annison – there were no questions at this time.

The Chair hereby opened the debate.

Councillor Freeman stated that from the Officers report it seems that there are 5 reasons for refusal from outside bodies and 9-10 reason for refusal in total. Councillor Freeman asked whether this decision could be deferred to allow all comments to be received, documents to be read and negotiations to be had with the applicant before the decision is made. It was added that a timeline be given to officers to ensure this matter is dealt with in a timely manner. Councillor Freeman commented that this site will be built on as per the Local Plan and suggested that a whole new application would be costly and unnecessarily time consuming.  

Mr S Hubbard (Head of Planning) explained that deferral is an option, however officers would caution against this as there would need to be significant changes in order to overcome the major issues that are in conflict with the development plan, which would require a new planning application. It was added that there is a clear conflict in the lack of density and ineffective use of land, therefore they would need to be strong material considerations as to why the Members would go against policy. The Head of Planning reinforced that deferral could allow some changes to be made, however the two principals of lack of density and ineffective use of land could not be addressed without a new application. It was added that there have been a number of different iterations of this scheme and that a decision needs to be made at some point as it is impractical to have endless amendments to a scheme.

The Chair urged Members to keep in mind the issues that had been raised by the officers within the reports and stated that the Development Management Committee are the custodians of the Council adopted Local Plan and planning policies, therefore careful consideration should be given to whether it is appropriate to go against these policies.

Councillor Martin agreed with Councillor Freeman’s suggestion to defer this decision to allow for more communication between the Council and applicant. It was noted that there are comments outstanding from objectors, additional issues to be addressed within the Addendum Report and conflicting statements between officers and the applicant – therefore a deferral would give time for these matters to be addressed. Councillor Martin highlighted that in the applicant’s pro-forma that was sent directly to Members, there was a suggestion to change some larger units into several smaller units which should be considered.

Councillor Murray-Smith stated that the officers may be incorrect on their assessment of the balance of what could be delivered in increasing the number of dwellings on an area that is a clear flood risk as per the LLFA and the comments made by Councillor Annison. It was noted that too much weight is given to Policy H3 and concerns regarding density. It was added that outright refusal is not the right approach and Councillor Murray-Smith proposed a change in recommendation to defer the application to allow officers more time for communication with the applicant. It was noted that the officers have stated that their recommendation would likely not change through deferral, though this appears to be pre-judgement, therefore it is suggested that the decision be deferred and brought to the Development Management Committee at a later date once consultations are complete.

Councillor Freeman seconded Councillor Murray-Smith’s proposal to amend the recommendation to defer the decision and allow for the officers to communicate with the applicant and consult with outside bodies who have not yet provided comment to recent changes.

The Chair urged against the deferral as it goes against Council policy and the officers were clear that two of the principal issues would not be able to be altered by amendments under this application, therefore it is possible that the recommendation at a future meeting would still be to refuse the application.

The Head of Planning asked Members to clarify what the motion is exactly and whether they are seeking more detail or asking for further negotiation between the officers and applicants. Councillor Murray-Smith clarified that the consultations should be completed to allow for comments from all authorities to be taken into account. It was noted that a deferral would allow the applicant to bring forward new design drawings. The Head of Planning requested clarification on whether the motion is seeking further amendments of design. Councillor Murray-Smith stated that the issues raised regarding the design are valid and that these should be negotiated with the applicant in order to find a suitable solution. Councillor Martin added that it would be beneficial for officers to communicate with the applicant regarding the suggestion in the pro-forma to convert 5 larger detached units into 13 smaller units as this could address density concerns.

The Development Manager stated that increasing the number of properties would require a new planning application would have cost implications and take a considerable amount of time. It was added that the consequence of low density is that it would put more pressure to approve more developments in other area of the Borough. It was added that there as no overriding constraints as to why a higher density is not being achieved. The Development Manager explained that minor changes to design can be sought through negotiations should the decision be to defer, however these changes would not have a significant impact and would still leave two overriding reasons for refusal based on design.

Councillor Murray-Smith’s proposal, seconded by Councillor Freeman, would change the recommendation to:

That the decision on the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting and instructed Officers to NEGOTIATE AMENDMENTS to the application and refer the application back to the Development Management Committee in due course.  The deferral is contingent on:

1. Awaiting the outstanding comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority, and securing further amendments or defining an additional recommended Reason for Refusal accordingly;
2. Re-considering the application afresh, to include the unresolved matter of solar heating exposure and orientation, including a review of the applicant’s Part O ‘overheating assessment’ of the proposed dwellings; and,
3. Negotiating further amendments to the design to improve the quality of the development, with particular focus on:
1. Resolving the outstanding Highways Authority concerns;
2. The articulation, form and detailing of the dwellings;
3. The proposed materials; and,
4. The layout of the public open space to the southwest corner and the dwellings adjacent that area.

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:-

That the decision on the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting and instructed Officers to NEGOTIATE AMENDMENTS to the application and refer the application back to the Development Management Committee in due course.  The deferral is contingent on:

1. Awaiting the outstanding comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority, and securing further amendments or defining an additional recommended Reason for Refusal accordingly;
2. Re-considering the application afresh, to include the unresolved matter of solar heating exposure and orientation, including a review of the applicant’s Part O ‘overheating assessment’ of the proposed dwellings; and,
3. Negotiating further amendments to the design to improve the quality of the development, with particular focus on:
1. Resolving the outstanding Highways Authority concerns;
2. The articulation, form and detailing of the dwellings;
3. The proposed materials; and,
4. The layout of the public open space to the southwest corner and the dwellings adjacent that area.

 

 

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

The Development Manager explained that this application was for the demolition of an exiting dwelling, agricultural building and extensions to a brick-built agricultural barn. It was reported that the applicant has proposed the conversion of the brick-built barn to 2 dwellings and the erection of 44 dwellings and associated infrastructure including accesses from Somerton Road and White Street. It was added that of these 46 total dwellings, 37 shall be market housing dwellings and 9 shall be affordable housing dwellings. The Development Manager reported that this site is comprises of 2.23 hectares of land, which is partly Grade 1 agricultural land, with neighbouring conservation areas to the west and south of the site. It was noted that this would require the change of use of agricultural land to create open space. The Development Manager reported that though the site is currently vacant agricultural land and neighbours claim the farm has not been used for 10 years, the current planning use would still be agricultural and capable of being resumed.

The Development Manager reported that planning permission was granted for this site on 23^rd April 2019 (ref 06/17/0358/F) with a variation of the terms of the conditions of this permission issued on 21^st April 2022 (ref 06/21/0917/F). It was explained that for either the original permission of the variation of condition permission to be extant they had to be implemented lawfully by 23^rd April 2022, two days after the approval of the permission 06/21/0917/F. The Development Manager noted that both the Design and Access Statement and Appeal Statement from the applicant state that the 06/21/0917/F section 73 application was implemented and assert that it is extant, however it is noted that there has been no evidence provided in any document to demonstrate that either of the previous planning permission have been commenced, lawfully or otherwise. It was noted that in the years since the original planning permission the Local Plan has been updated.

The Development Manager explained that there are a number of concerns regarding the designs within the proposal including the lack of street identity, the lack of relationship between the proposed materials and the materials found in the converted barn and predominance of frontage parking which is detrimental to the street scene. It was explained that there have been a number of public comments that have raised the following concerns:

• Inaccurate boundary lines shown on submitted plans
• Closure of byway/BOAT
• Ownership and access to the field drainage ditch
• Size of the proposed turning head at the end of the closed byway
• Presence of knotweed
• Decommissioning and demolition of the potato store
• Chemical exposure to the dust from demolition and construction
• Presence of bats and protected birds in the ex-farming buildings
• Capture, relocation and welfare of the reptiles from within and adjoining the site

It was noted that if the application were considered suitable for approval some of these matters could be addressed by planning conditions, however the recommendation for refusal includes reasons such as the reliance on outdated protected species and bat and bird surveys, the unjustified byway closure and the drainage concerns.

The Development Manager referred to the changes to the recommendation as outlined in the Addendum Report. It was noted that the Reason for Refusal 13 should be removed subject to conditions including a requirement for a pedestrian crossing over Somerton Road and a new length of footpath in front of 30-32 White Street to connect with the existing footway in order to provide a safer connection between the site and the local high school. It was added that the Reason for Refusal 12 should be removed as the applicant has agreed to prove a ‘policy compliant’ number and mix of tenures as per the completed Section 106 Agreement. The Development Manager also asked that Members disregard the description of the site as a ‘brownfield site’ or ‘brownfield land’ as it is described in the original Officers report as in a planning policy sense it would be inaccurate to describe the site as such – it was noted that this is explained in the Addendum Report.

The Development Manager reported that this application is subject to an appeal made against the Council for non-determination of the application. It was noted that the application was presented to the Committee because the Planning Inspectorate must be informed of the intended outcome of the decision maker, where that decision maker is still able to determine the application. The Development Manager reported that the applicant and Officers were negotiating amended designs and a designs strategy as recently as March 2024, however the applicant submitted their appeal in April 2024 which prevented Officer from undertaking any further work. This would mean that the revised plans could not be accepted, therefore the plans as originally submitted would remain the plans under consideration by the Committee and Planning Inspectorate. It was added that the Committee was asked to consider the application on the bases of the documentation submitted, irrespective of the appeal and that the Officers will submit the Officers Report, any Addendum Update Reports and the minutes of the Committee to the Planning Inspector which together will comprise the LPA’s Appeal Statement.

The Development Manager explained that the Officers’ recommendation is as follows:

1. That application 06/23/0218/F should be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Committee Report paragraph 11.1 and the associated background information within the Committee Report and this Addendum Report, with the exception that:

    

   • Reason for Refusal 12 “Inappropriate mix of proposed affordable housing tenures and sizes” should be deleted; and,
   • Reason for Refusal 13 “Inability to demonstrate the development avoids unacceptable highways safety concerns and lack of suitable proposals for improving accessibility to facilities for pedestrians” should be deleted.

      

2. Agree that this Addendum Report and the published Committee Report should both be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as a combined statement of the intended decision of the LPA, were it able to determine the application currently subject to an appeal against non-determination.

    

   The Chair asked Members if they had any technical questions for the Development Manager.

    

    

   Councillor Murray-Smith asked regarding the affordable housing and whether there is a reason why these dwellings would be clustered together. The Development Manager explained that there are benefits in clustering affordable housing as it can be easier to manage, however there are concerns that the design for these affordable housing dwellings is poorly executed with a lack of landscaping and a dominance of parking. It was noted that the number of affordable housing dwellings is acceptable for a development of this size according to Policy CS4: Delivering affordable housing.

    

    

   The Chair hereby opened the debate to Members.

    

    

   Councillor Boyd stated that the 3D aerial view photographs of the site were helpful in allowing Members to see how a development such as this would be laid out and suggested that this be recommended for other future developments. Councillor Boyd also stated that the proposed design of the houses did seem to be similar to other housing developments in the immediate area.

    

    

   The Chair proposed that the Committee approve the Officer’s recommendation as written in the Addendum Report. This was seconded by Councillor Freeman.

    

    

   RESOLVED:-

3. That application 06/23/0218/F should be REFUSED for the reasons set out at Committee Report paragraph 11.1 and the associated background information within the Committee Report and this Addendum Report, with the exception that:

    

   • Reason for Refusal 12 “Inappropriate mix of proposed affordable housing tenures and sizes” should be deleted; and,
   • Reason for Refusal 13 “Inability to demonstrate the development avoids unacceptable highways safety concerns and lack of suitable proposals for improving accessibility to facilities for pedestrians” should be deleted.

      

4. Agree that this Addendum Report and the published Committee Report should both be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate as a combined statement of the intended decision of the LPA, were it able to determine the application currently subject to an appeal against non-determination.

The Committee received and considered the report from Ms L Smith (Planning Officer).

The Planning Officer reported that this was an application for the demolition of an existing garage, the subdivision of a rear garden and construction of a two-story 3 bedroom dwelling with associated access from Braddock Road that would include the creation of a new dropped kerb and parking area to serve the existing dwelling. It was noted that this application was brought to the Committee as it is a connected application due to the agent being a relative of a Council employee. The Planning Officer explained that there had been some updated plans received since the original report was written and that there are some changes relating to boundary treatment, first floor windows and the parking of the host dwelling as outlined in the Addendum Report.

The Planning Officer reported that there are a range of different dwelling types in this street scene and that the proposed gable roof is similar to that of the adjacent property to the west. It was noted that the subdivision of the rear garden on the site does still leave a fair amount of garden space for both units and that the long gardens of the properties to the north of the site will remain. It was added that there would be an EV charging point on the west side of the dwelling and that the street scene shows that the proposed dwelling would be consistent in height with the existing dwellings in the immediate surrounding area.

The Planning Officer reported that there were concerns about the bathroom window and top floor window to the east that would look into the existing garden, therefore it was proposed that the bedroom window be obscured on the bottom panes to avoid overlooking and that the bathroom window be obscured with the opening of the window also restricted to 25 degrees. 

The Planning Officer reported that the recommendation is that application 06/24/0142/F should be resolved to be APPROVED and that the application be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

(i) prior receipt of the necessary payments of the GIRAMS and Open Space contributions

and

(ii) the proposed conditions listed in the published Addendum Report.

Councillor Boyd stated that there used to be a bus stop directly outside of this site and asked whether this has been moved. Councillor Bird confirmed that this bus stop had been moved closer to the school. 

Councillor Freeman requested clarification on GIRAMS. The Planning Officer explained that the site is within 400m of a protected habitat and therefore new residents that move into such a dwelling are required to pay GIRAMS to mitigate against the use of protected habitats. The Development Manager added that GIRAMS stands for Green Infrastructure Recreational Avoidance Mitigations Strategy.

Proposer: Councillor Mogford

Seconder: Councillor Lawn

Following a unanimous vote its was RESOLVED:-

The Planning Officer reported that the recommendation is that application 06/24/0142/F should be resolved to be APPROVED and that the application be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

(i) prior receipt of the necessary payments of the GIRAMS and Open Space contributions

and

(ii) the proposed conditions listed in the published Addendum Report.

The Chair moved to extend the meeting for 30 minutes as per the Constitution to allow for adequate time to hear this item. Councillor Martin seconded this motion and following a vote the motion was carried.

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

The Development Manager reported that this is an application for deed of variation of Schedule 2 (affordable housing) of the Section 106 Agreement dated 17 July 2020 pursuant to planning permission 06/19/0099/O to substitute a shared ownership tenure dwelling on-site with a financial contribution in lieu for use off-site. It was added that this scheme consists of 17 dwellings which is in advanced construction and is nearing completion which is anticipated for Summer/Autumn 2024. It was explained that the original plan was for 3 affordable housing dwellings (2 affordable rent and 1 shared ownership) however the applicant has been open that the development is currently not financially viable. It was added that the applicant has provided several viability scenarios and have proposed that the shared ownership property be returned to market housing, thus reducing the number of affordable homes from 3 to 2. It was added that, should this proposal be approved in order to make the development viable, a financial contribution would be made to the Council to be used for social housing elsewhere in the Borough.

The Development Manager reported that the Officer's recommendation is as follows:

That powers be delegated to Officers to approve the application and authorise a variation to the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 17 July 2020 pursuant to planning permission 06/19/0099/O, in the manner described within the Agenda Report.

The Chair hereby invited Members to ask questions to the Development Manager - there were no questions at this time.

The Chair hereby invited Mr M Nevitt to address the Members on behalf of the applicant. Mr Nevitt was advised that he had 3 minutes to speak. 

Mr M Nevitt stated that in recent years there has been a large increase in costs due to material shortages and inflation, which became evident when the applicant completed a detailed cost plan. It was added that this cost plan raised concerns regarding viability and therefore the applicant has proposed a drawback of the shared ownership property, with a profit percentage to be given to the Council as a financial contribution to be invested into affordable housing elsewhere. Mr M Nevitt concluded by urging Members to endorse the recommendation. 

The Chair hereby invited Members to ask question to Mr M Nevitt - there were no questions at this time.

The Chair hereby opened the debate to Members. 

Councillor Martin asked how the financial contribution would work. The Development Manager explained that the contribution received would go into the affordable housing delivery pot to create new affordable housing in areas where there is the greatest need for social housing within the Borough. Councillor Martin raised concerns regarding the removal of affordable housing, as the Borough is experiencing a shortage of affordable housing. It was added that Councillor Martin appreciated the financial constraints, however reducing the number of affordable homes could have a negative impact.

The Chair stated that viability is important as developers need a scheme to be viable in order to build homes and there are still 2 out of 17 dwellings that are affordable homes within the scheme.

The Development Manager commented that discussions have been held with the Strategic Housing Enabling Manager who has confirmed that the contribution to the affordable housing delivery pot would be beneficial in supporting the creation of new affordable housing. 

Councillor Boyd requested clarification on whether the scheme was financially viable with 3 affordable homes when the planning permission was originally approved. The Development Manager stated that this scheme was viable, however in recent years costs have increased significantly due to the national economic climate though the value of houses has not increased at the same rate. It was added that it is now not possible for the developer to be provided with the originally expected return, which Officers have taken into account when making this recommendation. It was notice that guidance suggests that developers are entitled to roughly 15% profit and reasonable amendments should be made to ensure that schemes are viable. 

Councillor Pilkington commented that he agrees with Councillor Martin as removing affordable housing could become a common occurrence, however it was stated that Members do need to be pragmatic and recognise that costs have gone up in the construction industry. Councillor Pilkington raised concerns regarding a potential precedent being set as this could encourage more developers to withdraw more affordable housing in the future for viability reasons. The Head of Planning stated that Officers have taken into account the risk of a precedent being set, however this is a unique application as the development is halfway under constriction and the scheme has hit some significant hurdles in viability. It was added that the developer is proceeding with a higher level or risk and if the amendment is not made the development could be halted entirely which would prevent the other affordable housing units from being completed this year. It was noted that there is benefit in being able to extract the financial contribution to invest in something that could be more valuable to the Borough than a shared ownership bungalow. 

Councillor Galer asked whether the costs have been simulated or whether the Council are relying on the word of the developer that the scheme is not currently viable. The Development Manager explained that the values used in the detailed cost plan are consistent with the values that the Property and Housing Team would expect. It was added that these values compare to those of other bungalows in Caister and that there are 3 to 4 industry standard modelling systems that would show this development being unviable at this time. The Development Manager added that if Members are not convinced this could be brought to an Independent Party, however Officers believe it is best not to delay this development as the values are what would be expected. 

Councillor Martin commented that it seems as if affordable housing is consistently pushed into the last phase of development and suggested that going forward Officers suggest that affordable housing be included at each stage of a development. The Development Manager agreed with this and stated that recent developments have been told that they are expected to phase in the provision of social housing. It was added that this is supported by Policy GSB8. The Development Manager added that as the Local Planning Authority, Officers have the power to prioritise affordable housing, education or public open space, therefore it will not necessarily always be social housing that is scaled down. It was noted that there are not many schemes that claim not to be viable.

The Chair stated that the creation of affordable housing should be supported by policy, however when valid viability issues arise there should be a formula to follow as it is important to ensure that developments do not need to stop due to viability issues as this could lead to the loss of both market and affordable housing. It was added that the government have been clear that Local Authorities will be required to deliver more houses, therefore it is important to support developments to ensure that houses are delivered. The Chair stated that he hopes the government will consult with Local Authorities regarding the increases to housing targets before this is signed into legislation. 

Councillor Pilkington asked whether the Council are likely to see more of these types of applications as it is feasible to suggest that many developers will have been affected by rising costs and inflation. The Development Manager stated that there are two processes that can be followed when viability is a concern. The first process allows developers to negotiate and agreement with the Council, whereas the second allows for applications such as this one to be made and determined by Members. It was reported that two other developers have approached the Council to negotiate on the basis of viability, however there was no evidence presented and Officers have been clear that they are not minded to approve the scaling back of developments and removal of affordable housing without compelling evidence as per the adopted Local Plan. The Development Manager added that the Council may start to see more issues with viability due to inflation, however there are ways to deal with these matters which do not always involve the reduction of affordable housing. 

Councillor Mogford moved to support the Officers recommendation as written in the Agenda Report. This was seconded by Councillor Lawn.

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:-

That powers be delegated to Officers to approve the application and authorise a variation to the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 17 July 2020 pursuant to planning permission 06/19/0099/O, in the manner described within the Agenda Report.

The Head of Planning stated that there would be two meetings in September and proposed that the extraordinary meeting be scheduled on Monday 16th September, just after the Local Plan Working Party scheduled for the same day.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked why the Chair was able to move for the suspension on Standing Orders to extend the meeting when in the previous meeting it was discussed that the suspension of Standing Orders required half of all elected Members to be present and therefore was a power reserved for Full Council only. The Monitoring Officer explained that the wording should not have been to suspend the Standing Orders, however it was clear that the understanding was that the meeting only be extended by 30 minutes, therefore the terminology was incorrect but the effect was the same. The Chair stated that he is looking to request changes to the Constitution to make this more clear for Members.