03
Members received and considered the report and the addendum report of updates published ahead of the meeting and the supporting presentation delivered by the Principal Planning Officer. It was reported that this application proposed the construction of 55 dwellings (Class C3) with associated access, drainage, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The site for these proposed dwellings is located on the land north of Barton Way and east of North Road in Ormesby St Margaret, Great Yarmouth.
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the application including information on the site, its context, planning constraints and details of the site visit conducted by Members and Officers on 27th November 2024. It was explained that this site currently consists of Grade 3 agricultural land and following concerns raised during the public consultation process, certain trees around the site have been protected under TPO No. 22 2023 which was confirmed on 30th April 2024. As per the report, southern part of the application site is identified in the adopted Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 as an allocated site for housing under Policy OT2 and the northern area of the application site is being promoted as an exception site.
It was explained that of the 55 proposed dwellings there would be 28 open market properties, 3 shared ownership properties and 24 affordable rent properties - all of these properties would be mixed across the site through elements of grouping. It was added that there would be parking and/or garaging on each plot with 12 additional parking spaces provided on main or secondary roads throughout the site. The Principal Planning Officer reported that there would be bin storage on each plot and a proposed new public footpath through the site. The Principal Planning Officer outlined the proposed off site highways work and the design plans as outlined in the agenda report and the presentation delivered at the meeting. It was noted that the design tenure would not differentiate between market housing and affordable housing in order to ensure a consistent character across the development. It was added that this development has been assessed against the adopted Design Code as per Appendix 4 of the agenda report.
The Principal Planning Officer summarised the key issues and concerns as included in the agenda report. It was reported that the proposal is considered to comply with policies CS1, CS2, CS4, CS9, CS11, CS12, CS13, CS14, CS15 and CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy (2015), policies UCS4, GSP1, GSP5, GSP6, GSP8, OT2, A1, A2, H1, H3, H4, E1, E4, E6, E7, I1 and I3 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2 (2021) and Policy CS16 of the adopted Norfolk Waste and Minerals Local Plan (2015), and is recommended for approval subject to (i) completion of a suitable legal agreement to secure planning obligations, and (ii) imposition of planning conditions. It was stated that officer note the local concerns, however there were no technical objections from statutory responders and therefore it is believed that the benefits of this new development outweigh the potential harms.
The Principal Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that application 06/23/0504/F is resolved to be approved and that the application be delegated to officers to grant planning permission in line with the recommendations in the published agenda report, with amendments to proposed conditions 18, 23 and 27 as described in the addendum report subject to:
- Clarification of the NHS / Ambulance service’s infrastructure requirements for improvements or expansions to the Potter Heigham Ambulance Station.
- Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Section 19 and Appendix 5 of the officer report to committee. The contribution towards the ambulance service infrastructure to only be included should further evidence from the NHS be provided to justify the amount requested within 2 weeks of the resolution;
- Imposition of appropriate Conditions including those listed at Section 23 of the officer report (to be modified and updated as necessary), to include the amendments to conditions 18, 23 and 27 presented in the pre-meeting Addendum Report;
and,
- 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 Chair hereby invited Members to ask technical questions to officers in relation to this report.
Councillor Annison requested clarification on why a number of new properties on Orchard Close are not included on the plans when these properties are the adjacent to the boundary of the site, as this issue was raised by local residents in the representations. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the drawings in the proposed plans are taken from survey maps and occasionally there are changes between when plans are first submitted and when they are considered at Committee that may not be reflected. The Development Manager explained that 5 - 8 Orchard Court were not shown on the drawings as the survey map used by the applicants predates these new houses.
Councillor Martin asked why the plans were not updated to include these new properties as this issue had been raised on multiple occasions by a local resident, however there are no points within the report to suggest that this has been discussed or addressed. The Development Manager explained that there is no obligation on an applicant to update drawings within planning applications so long as the planning authority can make sense of the relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties. It was added that the separation of distances between the hedge boundary of the site and the neighbouring properties, including the new properties on Orchard Court, has been deemed as adequate according to the Design Code.
Councillor Pilkington asked whether the properties that are included on the drawings are any closer to the proposed development site than the properties that are present on the drawings. The Development Manager explained that 5 Orchard Court is approximately 5m further from the boundary of the proposed development site than 4 Orchard Court which is shown on the drawings within the application. Councillor Pilkington requested clarity on the distance between the Orchard Court properties and the boundary of the proposed development site. The Development Manager explained that the distance between 4 Orchard Court and the boundary of the proposed development site is 50m. It was added that the distance between the nearest plot to the boundary and the properties on Orchard Court is approximately 52m.
Councillor Martin referenced the local connections cascade as included in section 4.30.2 of the agenda report and asked whether this would relate to the village first before being applied to the rest of the borough. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that this would be the case and that this would be secured through the S106 agreement.
Councillor Murray-Smith referenced the advice provided by the Designing Out Crime Officer and asked whether the suggestion to remove the narrow strip of land from the rear of unites 41 - 43 had been considered. The Development Manager explained that there is a thin strip between the rear of these plots and the rear of 54 North Road which is a maintenance strip that is not brought into planning curtilage. It was added that it is possible, if required, that this are could be blocked off with a gate, however there are concerns that this would increase anti-social behaviour and potential crime in this area. It was noted that there would be reasonable surveillance as units 41- 43 would be affordable housing and therefore regular visits would be carried out by the housing management company. Councillor Murray-Smith asked how gating off the area would cause an increase in the potential for crime. The Development Manager explained that design experience has shown that barricading an area may attract anti-social behaviour such as fly tipping and lack of maintenance compared to if the area was left as an open route.
There were no further technical questions for officers, therefore the Chair invited Mr M Rooke (Applicant's Agent) and Mr J Cage (Applicant's Highways Consultant) to address the Committee on behalf of the applicant - they were advised that they would have a combined time of 5 minutes to speak.
Mr M Rooke thanked the officers for their report and stated that the applicant had addressed initial concerns from statutory responders to eliminate any statutory objections. It was explained that this application is based on a longstanding allocation through the adopted Local Plan and confirmed that the allocated area had been increased to include the exception site in order to address housing demand. Mr M Rooke emphasised the importance of providing affordable housing the East of England and stated that this development would consist of 49% affordable housing, thus providing a number of properties of different sizes and tenues in order to meet the local housing need. It was added that the applicant would reinvest any profit made into upgrading footpaths and roads on the site, with the provision of a new footpath on the site to Hickling Way. It was stated that this reinvestment would also included upgraded bus stops on North Road, on site public open space and contributions to off site public open space. It was noted that the agenda report suggests that the scheme performs well against the adopted Design Code and positively responds to the setting, including protecting existing trees that are subject to the previously referenced TPO. Mr M Rooke added that the applicant believes the site is a well signed sustainable development which should be approved to allow for the building properties to assist in meeting the local housing need. Mr J Cage explained that he has been working with Norfolk County Council as the local Highways Authority to address their initial comments and develop a comprehensive package of works that would maximise connections, consider the internal layout and connect to the existing areas of the village. It was explained that the overall package agreed with Norfolk County Council includes improvements to footpaths, pedestrian crossings and bus stops. Mr J Cage stated that options for the routing of construction vehicles are being considered to address local concern. It was concluded that, following the work between Mr J Cage and Norfolk County Council, there were no statutory objections concerning highways matters
The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for Mr M Rooke and Mr J Cage - there were no questions at this time.
The Chair hereby invited Mr Myhill (on behalf of all public objectors) to address the Committee - Mr Myhill was advised that he would have 5 minutes to speak.
Mr Myhill explained that he has lived near the proposed development site for a number of years and was addressing the Committee on behalf of 400 concerned local residents. It was stated that prime agricultural land would be destroyed and that this land is currently a safe place for wildlife to roam as well as the woods being a location for local and visitors to enjoy time outdoors. It was suggested that this development would harm the environment in which wildlife live as well as providing the potential for an increase in deceased animals on the road side due to the increase in road traffic. Mr Myhill stated that local residents have concerns regarding the highways as Station Road is not considered to be wide enough for an increase in road traffic and other connection points such as North Road often have cars parked along the road in order to access local businesses, therefore additional cars would cause congestion and potential for accidents in this area. It was added that there is already a problem with children running between cars on Barton Way when exiting the local school, however this problem would get worse with more children attending the school and more road traffic on the roads. It was stated that when this issue was raised with a case officer, the suggestion was that local children learn the green crossing code. Mr Myhill added that the traffic survey included in the agenda report is invalid as it was conducted at the wrong time of day as it only shows 1 car parked on Barton Way, however residents can confirm that there are typically a minimum of 5 to 6 parks parked on this road for the majority of the day. It was also suggested that the wildlife survey that was conducted is incorrect as it showed only 1 vole present in the area which is not accurate. Mr Myhill explained that residents are concerned that the local schools will not cope with a significant increase in pupils and that there are concerns that the Anglian Water system will not be able to cope as sewage is already having to be pumped into the sea at Caister due to significant issues with the local pumping stations. It was stated that the responsible thing to do would be to address flooding concerns and sewage issues before introducing a development of this size. Mr Myhill concluded by explained that residents have reported that this proposed development has had a negative impact on their mental health and wellbeing due concerns on how this development would impact the local community.
The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for Mr Myhill - there were no questions at this time.
The Chair hereby invited Councillor Nathan (Chair of Ormesby Parish Council) to address the Committee - Councillor Nathan was advised that he would have 5 minutes to speak.
Councillor Nathan stated that he would be speaking on behalf of the residents and explained that the rural exception site report released by the government in early 2024 states the requirement for a clear and stable planning policy including a clear importance on partnership to deliver projects with smoother results. It was added that this would require ensuring that local residents and members of the public are on side for developments that would compliment existing areas and minimising negative impacts on the local community. Councillor Nathan stated that the local residents have clearly communicated to the planning authority that this scheme would have a significant negative impact on the local community, though it appears that these concerns have been dismissed. It was added that rural exception sites should meet the local economic need thus add to the village, however residents are concerned that low cost housing in an area with poor transport links and low levels of employment would not improve the local area. It was acknowledged that there is a housing need within the borough, though it was highlighted that there are a number of brownfield sites within Great Yarmouth which could be developed to address this need whilst minimising the impact on the environment and wildlife. Councillor Nathan explained that residents have raised concerns with the traffic and wildlife surveys as they were both conducted over a short period of time and therefore cannot accurately reflect the realistic numbers of wildlife or road traffic. It was added that the increased road traffic on Barton Way would cause hazards for cyclists, children and parents with prams as this road is too narrow to be an access point for a development of 55 houses. Councillor Nathan also stated that rural exception schemes should ensure that people are not isolated, however this scheme limits business aspiration in an area with strained links to education, doctors and employment. Councillor Nathan concluded that there is a clear message across the country that community support is vital, however the residents are consistent in their message that this scheme is being proposed in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for Councillor Nathan - there were no questions at this time.
The Chair hereby invited Mr J Wedon (Constituency Office Manager for Rupert Lowe MP) to address the Committee as the MP's representative - Mr J Wedon was advised that he would have 5 minutes to speak.
Mr J Wedon explained that he would be representing Rupert Lowe MP, who had wished to attend the meeting himself, however was dealing with a significant issue in Westminster on the same day. It was stated that there is clear opposition locally to the increase of additional housing required by the current government due to the negative impact that new developments can have on rural areas. It was noted that due to there being over 11 acres of prime farming land in the borough and an acute risk of costal erosion in villages such as Hemsby, large scale building and developments of this size are not currently appropriate for the local area. It was added that it is clear from the representations received from local residents that there are concerns regarding drainage, highways and the destruction of wildlife.
Mr J Wedon explained that the MP understands that the Local Plan has been drafted to adhere to the housing targets set by the current government, however there are Councils across the UK who have started to challenge these targets on the basis of insufficient local infrastructure. It was added that the local community has shown a clear opposition to these new developments and that residents would be in favour of limited house building conducted in a safe way in order to address local housing need. Mr J Wedon concluded by stated that the Members have full contact details for the MP and that they are welcome to get in contact in order to discuss ways to challenge the new housing targets.
The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for Mr J Wedon.
Members asked how the MP intends to override current policies and the Local Plan. Mr J Wedon explained that the MP is happy to work with Councillors in order to challenge the targets that the draft Local Plan has been based on. The Chair stated that there has been an offer made to the MP to discuss the draft Local Plan, however the Council is still awaiting a reply.
Councillor Williamson asked how the housing need in the northern and southern villages would be addressed if current housing targets are challenged. Mr J Wedon stated that the MP accepts that there is a housing need, however believes that housing should be delivered in a sensible and limited way.
The Chair asked whether the MP understands the need for consultation on the draft Local Plan in order to develop a strategy for development throughout the borough. Mr J Wedon stated that the MP fully understands the position of the Council and is offering an opportunity to work in collaboration to challenge housing targets. The Chair stated that the Local Plan is important and that public consultation allows for representations to be given based on the need of the borough as a whole, as opposed to the need of individual areas.
Members continued to ask for elaboration on the MPs plans to address the housing need and the Monitoring Officer requested that this be curtailed as the comments were becoming increasingly political and were not necessarily relevant to the matter being discussed at this meeting.
The Chair hereby invited Councillor Freeman to address the Committee in his capacity as Ward Councillor - Councillor Freeman was advised that he would have 5 minutes to speak.
Councillor Freeman explained that he has lived in Ormesby for many years and it is clear that the local residents feel that the exception site is not acceptable as this is beyond the development boundary of the village. It was added that this application intends to link a new estate with an existing estate, which will result in an increase in traffic and a strain on local public services. Councillor Freeman stated that rural exception sites are not a new concept, however it is clear that these schemes should be included in areas where there is enough infrastructure to support a significant increase in population. It was added that there has been no clear demonstration of how housing need has been identified and that this should be clearly identified in the concerned parish or adjoining parishes. It was stated that people need access to employment and public services, however there are already 1800 properties in the parish and the current infrastructure would not be able to adequately support the needs of the residents in 55 new homes. Councillor Freeman also stated that there is no evidenced need for affordable housing specifically in the parish. It was added that the biggest concern is traffic generation and there are no compromises that can be made to address this concern other than refusing the application. Councillor Freeman concluded by stating that the current infrastructure cannot cope and there is no current housing need assessment for the parish, therefore this development is not appropriate for the parish and should be refused.
The Chair asked Members if they had any questions for Councillor Freeman - there were no questions at this time.
The Chair hereby opened the debate to allow Members to discuss the application, report and representations provided at the meeting.
Councillor Pilkington stated that there is significant concern that traffic will have a negative impact on the local community, however the amount of affordable housing presents the opportunity for local people who have been raised in the village to remain living there as they will be more likely to be able to afford one of these properties at a young age, thus removing the need for young adults to leave the village that they were raised in. It was added that there is a housing need in the northern villages and Ormesby need more housing. It was reiterated that an increase in traffic is a problem to which there is no current solution, however this concern may not outweigh the need for affordable housing in the local area.
Councillor Martin echoed Councillor Pilkington's comments regarding affordable rent and state that this scheme has been designed in a positive layout with a balance of 49% affordable housing which is significantly higher than other new developments within the borough. It was added that it would be a shame for young people who grew up in the village to be forced to leave because they cannot afford full market price or high private rent costs - this scheme would provide a positive alternative through affordable housing.
Councillor Williamson stated that planning is an emotive issue and it is clear that there are concerns in the local community, however there is no material planning reason to refuse this application. It was added that the large number of affordable homes would make this an acceptable site as it has been difficult for young people to find accommodation in the northern villages throughout the past decade due to increasing private rent prices. Councillor Williamson reiterated that he understand the views of the objectors, however he could not identify a material reason to warrant refusing the application.
Councillor Capewell agreed with Councillor Williamson and stated that it is unusual but very positive to have such a large percentage of affordable housing in a proposed scheme. It was added that though the concerns regarding traffic are noted, the proposed number of properties should not make traffic impossible to deal with.
Councillor Murray-Smith stated that it is clear that there is a strength of feeling regarding this scheme, however there is no material planning reason to justify voting against the development. It was added that this scheme is modest in size with an acceptable split in types of tenure. Councillor Murray-Smith stated that he would like to see more applications of this scale in the northern villages as this has been designed in a more pleasing way than other applications that the Committee has seen.
The Chair moved that the application be approved with the conditions outlined in the agenda report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.
Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-
That application 06/23/0504/F is APPROVED and that the application be delegated to officers to grant planning permission subject to:
- Clarification of the NHS / Ambulance service’s infrastructure requirements for improvements or expansions to the Potter Heigham Ambulance Station.
- Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Section 19 and Appendix 5 of the officer report to committee. The contribution towards the ambulance service infrastructure to only be included should further evidence from the NHS be provided to justify the amount requested within 2 weeks of the resolution;
- Imposition of appropriate Conditions including those listed at Section 23 of the officer report (to be modified and updated as necessary), to include the amendments to conditions 18, 23 and 27 presented in the pre-meeting Addendum Report;
and,
- 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.