Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Blyth and T Wainwright.

It was noted that the Chairman and Councillor Jermany declared Non Pecuniary interests in item 4 and in accordance with the Constitution were allowed to both speak and vote on the matter.

Councillor Jeal declared a Non Pecuniary interest in item 7 and in accordance with the Constitution was allowed to both speak and vote on the matter.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2016 were confirmed.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Planning Group Manager. 

The outline planning permission sought the re-development of the site for up to 200 dwellings and community/commercial facilities, together with associated public open space and landscaping. Members were advised that the means of access to the application site was also to be considered as part of the application.

It was reported that a previous application was submitted in 2011 although had been withdrawn prior to being considered by the Development Control Committee

Members were advised that the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application stated that approximately 8.04 hectares would comprise residential development, including affordable housing. The housing mix would comprise predominantly detached family housing with some semi-detached and terrace units.

The Planning Group Manager reported that 48 letters of objection had been received from neighbouring owners, the main concerns were summarised to Members. Members were advised that 1 letter of support had been received.

It was reported that the Parish Council objected to the application for the following reasons :- 

1. The site is a PRIME Holiday area, which will also require change of use, but are concerned if approved will this set a precedent for other Prime holiday areas in Hemsby or the Borough to have this protection removed and re-developed.

2. The infra-structure is not adequate to cope with the increase of population or increase in traffic on the highways. Drainage is poor on the site and regularly flooded the area with increased demand.

3. Lack of educational facilities to cope with extra child places.

4. One medical centre in the village which is already struggling with high number of patients.

5. As a holiday resort the site employed many from the local area, where will new residents find work in an area which is mainly tourism.

It was reported that Norfolk County Council would not sought contributions for Nursery, Primary or High School.

There had been no operational objections received from the Norfolk Fire Service, although the requirement for 4 fire hydrants on no less than 90mm main and 1 no less than 150mm be noted. 

It was reported that the Highways had no objections further to an agreed mitigation package which would include a zebra crossing as well as two new bus stops with shelters an length of improvement/widening of the east side footway and subject to an s106 being completed.

Norfolk County Council flood Authority had no objection subject to a detailed design of a surface water drainage scheme. 

It was noted that Essex and Suffolk water had no objection subject to the compliance of requirements and that Anglian Water confirmed the foul drainage and sewerage system had adequate capacity for the flows.

Environmental Health had no objections to the outlined planning application.

The Planning Group Manager reported that the site is designated as a prime holiday site in the Borough Wide Local Plan 2001, policy TR4 stated the following :-

‘Proposals to change the use of tourist facilities, attractions or accommodation to purposes which are not tourist related will not be permitted where the site or premises are within primary holiday accommodation and primary attraction areas as shown on the proposals map.’

Members were advised that policy TR4 remained a saved policy.

The Planning Group Manager reported that the application had been recommended for approval subject to the conditions required.

A Member asked how many public meeting had been held in relation to the application, and was advised that several meetings had been held.

Mr De Pol - agent presented a report on behalf of Northern Trust Company Limited.

The Chairman made reference to a previous meeting that he and the Planning Group Manager had attended with Northern Leisure Trust and advised that a suggestion had been made that a small scale Tourism and Leisure be maintained with in the application site, the Chairman asked why this had not been considered. Mr De Pol advised that the suggestion had been considered through various different active marketing options.

A Member expressed concern that no monetary value had been available when the site was marketed, Mr De Pol advised that this was a more flexible approach to marketing the application site.

Concern was raised in regard to the advertising of the application site.

Mrs Simone Calnon - Objector presented a report of her main objections to the Committee.

The Group Planning Manager clarified to Members the outline applications retail unit sizes.

A Member asked Mrs Calnon if her objections were just based on retail concerns or both retail and housing, Mrs Calnon advised that she felt the whole site should be maintained for tourism.

The Chairman asked in relation to the application and whether a condition could be made to remove the retail units from the application, the Planning Group Manger advised that should the Committee be minded to approve the application subject to the condition above that this would be a decision for the applicant. Mr De Pols advised that he could not make this decision.

Mr Tony Reeves - Objector presented a report of his main objections to the Committee.

The Chairman advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the application the application could be sent to appeal therefore the loss to the Borough could be of great cost.

It was clarified to the Committee that the application sought for up to 200 dwellings and that any increases to the number of dwellings would be subject to further planning applications.

A Member asked in relation to the land owners of the application site, and was advised that Northern Trust had owned the land for numerous years.

Marie Ellis - Objector  presented a report of her main objections to the Committee.

Keith Kyriacou - Objector presented a reported on behalf of Hemsby Parish Council.

A Member raised awareness in relation to the Government guidelines for housing supply.

Councillor Weymouth - Borough Councillor for Hemsby summarised main objections to the Committee.

Councillor Jermany - Borough Councillor summarised main objections to the Committee.

The Chairman asked in relation to the Localism act, he was advised that this was in the process of being addressed by the Parish Council although a timescale for completion was unknown.

The Members of the Committee entered into a general debate regarding the points raised by the applicant and objectors the main concern being :-

• Viability for tourist site
• History of site
• Cost to the Council

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Planning Group Manager. 

The application sought a residential development, access, public open space, associated works and B1 employment land.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was a outline application with access only being applied for and that all other matters, scale, landscaping, layout and appearance would form part of the reserved matters application if Members were minded to approve the application.

It was reported that the original application had been 125 dwellings and that this had been reduced to 108 and now included B1 employment land.

Members were advised that the application site is located on grade one agricultural land outside of the village development limits and that a section of the site, partially included in the application as B1 employment land is identified in the Borough Wide Local Plan as employment land.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that there had been 14 objections from neighbours had been received, although Members were advised that following consultations and amended plan 3 responses had been received to state that the original objections still stood.

It was reported that the Parish Council had objected to the application and that the objection remained following amended application.

Members were advised that there had been no objections from Environmental Health, Anglian Water, Norfolk County Council - Education and the Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service.

The Highways authority although initially objected to the application following amendment of the application had no objections.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the site had been assessed as part of the Strategic Housing Land Supply Assessment and had been summarised as adjacent to the village development limits and was considered to have good access to a range of facilities.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application is recommended for approval.

A Member asked for clarification in relation to B1 employment land.

A question was raised in relation to the sewerage and drainage within the application site, the Senior Planning Officer advised that no objections had been received from Anglian Water and that they had stated that there would be available capacity at the application site.

A Member asked whether the site was within the boundary, and was advised that the site was outside but adjacent to the boundary.

Mr Presley - Agent presented a report on behalf of Norfolk Land Limited to the Committee.

A Member asked in reference to the affordable housing scheme and was answered by Mr Hooper.

Mr Hooper - Objector presented a report of the main objections on behalf of the Parish Council to the Committee.

A Member asked what Mr Hooper what he felt best suited the land, Mr Hooper stated that he would like considerably more employment land to be maintained than had been proposed within the application. 

The Members of the Committee entered into a general debate regarding the points raised by the applicant and objector.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/14/0817/O be approved subject to the conditions as recommended by consulted parties and those to ensure a satisfactory form of development and obligations as set out by Norfolk County Council and mitigation measures in line with the aims of the Natura 2000 sites Monitoring and Management Strategy and S106 agreement being signed.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Planning Group Manager.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application sought for three detached dwellings with garages, Members were advised that the access and layout formed part of the application with appearance, landscaping and scale to form part of a reserved matters application.

It was reported that the site was within the Village Development limits as prescribed within the adopted Borough Wide Local Plan and is within a sustainable location.

The Parish Council had recommended that a bat survey be conducted and that the natural habitat be protected.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that 11 objections had been received from neighbours.

There had been no objections received from Norfolk County Council Highway Authority and no response received from Environmental Health.

Members were advised that the dwellings would be limited to be single storey with no living accommodation within the roof.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the main concern that had been raised was additional traffic and private road access, Members were advised that the applicants agent had submitted a report stating that applicant had right of way over the land.

The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application was recommended for approval.

A Member asked in relation to the size of the road and whether an emergency vehicle could gain access, and was advised that vehicular turning had not been addressed within the application as it was an outline application.

Mr Huke - Objector presented a report of his main objections to the Committee.

Mr Hill - Objector presented a report of his main objections to the Committee.

A Member asked in relation to the bat survey that had been conducted and whether sheds and garages had been surveyed and was advised that they had not been.

A question was raised in relation to the private road width, it was advised that the road width was approximately 4 Metres.

Following general debate a motion was moved and seconded that application 06/15/0780/O be approved in line with the recommendation of Senior Planning Officer.

Following a vote, the motion was lost.

A second motion was moved and seconded that application 06/15/0780/O be refused on the grounds that it was contrary to HOU17.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/15/0780/O be refused on the grounds that it is contrary to HOU17.

The Committee received and considered the comprehensive report from the Planning Group Manager.

The application sought for a change of use from public parking to private GYBS parking.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application site comprised a car park within ownership of GYB Services which is used by employees of GYB Services and the public for parking vehicles.

It was reported that 6 letters of objection had been received with the main objections to the application relating to the loss of parking for local residents, the impacts upon highway and pedestrian safety, loss of trees / bushes and part demolition of an existing wall.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application was recommended for approval as the proposal accords with policy CS9 ad CS16 of the Core Strategy.

Mr S Mutton, representative from GYB Services presented a report on behalf of GYB Services to the Committee.

A Member asked in relation to the trees within the application site, it was advised that the self seeded sycamore trees would be replaced.

A question was raised in relation to the survey that GYB Services had carried out on the car park and whether this had been carried out at an appropriate time of year, Mr Mutton advised that the survey had been carried out in the late summer.

Mr Bennet - Objector presented a report of his main objections to the Committee.

The Members of the Committee entered into a general debate regarding the points raised by the applicant and objectors

A motion was moved and seconded that application 06/15/0579/F be refused on the grounds of policy CS16 and effect on residents parking.

Following a vote the motion was carried.

RESOLVED :

That application 06/15/0579/F be refused on the grounds of policy CS16 and the effect on residents parking.

The Committee noted the planning applications cleared under delegated powers and by the Development Control Committee fro the period 1 February 2016 to 29 February 2016.

The Chairman reported that there was no other business as being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration.