Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Capewell and Martin.

There were no declarations of interest declared at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 23rd April 2025 were confirmed as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

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

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposed is seeking permission for 80 dwellings on vacant former playing fields, formally the home of Gorleston Football Club. The site is located within the settlement boundary and a sustainable location close to services and facilities to meet the functional requirements of additional people.

The Planning Officer reported that  a number of alterations to the application have taken place since initial submission, mainly to the layout and design, and also to provide an additional dwelling, with the applicants working positively and proactively with the Council to address concerns.  Notwithstanding this, the application has been submitted with a viability appraisal which seeks to demonstrate that the scheme is not viable if all the requested S106 contribution requirements and a policy-compliant level of on-site affordable housing is requested. The viability appraisal has been subject to third party assessment by the Council’s external consultants as detailed in the report.

The Planning Officer reported that the site extends to approximately 2.3 hectares and is located to the southwest of the built-up area of Gorleston. Land immediately to the north and east of the site is currently used as the Magdalen Recreation Ground with residential and commercial development beyond. To the south lie allotments, beyond which is the James Paget University Hospital. Westwards the land comprises major new residential development that is currently being built as part of the South Bradwell urban extension (Wheatcroft Farm – phase six currently under construction), with the rest of the Beacon Business Park area located beyond to the south.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is within a sustainable location being well related to existing services and facilities in Gorleston-on-Sea, which is supported by the site’s allocation as a location for residential development in the current Local Plan Part 2 (Policy GN2). It is within walking distance of primary and secondary educational facilities, the James Paget University Hospital, as well as other facilities and amenities accessible by regular public transport. New community and retail facilities are also part-provided and planned nearby as part of the South Bradwell urban extension and proposed Beacon Park District Centre.

The Planning Officer reported that the Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GN2 allocates the (2.3 hectares) site for ”approximately 100 dwellings” and sets out various criteria to be addressed by development coming forward on the site. Of particular note is the recognition that, even though the site is within Affordable Housing Sub-market Area 1 which normally requires an affordable housing contribution of 20%, the policy allocation requires only 10% affordable housing provision due to concerns at the time of the allocation that there would be additional costs associated with site clearance and contributions towards provision of replacement off-site sporting facilities.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal for 80 dwellings is less than proposed in the policy. The policy states ‘approximately 100 dwellings’ is expected, which does give some flexibility with regard to exact numbers of dwellings to be provided. However, 80 dwellings is somewhat less than 100 and outside of what could normally be considered approximate. That said, the requirement for 100 homes on this site was ambitious and was based on optimistic proposals for the site at the time of the allocation which are considered unlikely to now be deliverable. At 100 dwellings the density would have been over 40 dwellings per hectare which is also higher than typically achieved on suburban sites in the area and it is noted that development in the Gorleston and Bradwell areas is anticipated to come forward at densities of a minimum 35 dwellings per hectare, and therefore the application is in conformity with Policy H3 of the Local Plan Part 2. Unless the application proposed a dramatic increase in the number of flats or smaller terraced properties it is unlikely that the density could be increased further or without a detriment to design quality.

The Planning Officer reported that the concerns of the local residents and the adjoining Parish Council have been acknowledged; however, the site is allocated for residential development and has a previous grant of outline planning permission for ‘up to 97 dwellings’, which is a material planning consideration that officers feel holds sufficient weight in this instance. The impact of the proposed dwellings on the wider community has been evaluated and considered acceptable through the allocation and previous approval and the proposed development would make a valuable contribution towards the Council’s housing requirements. It is also important to note that whilst the Parish Council and objectors raise concerns over the level of development, the proposal is of a lower level of housing than envisaged in the policy (100 dwellings) and granted though the outline planning consent (97 dwellings). Finally, Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the (NPPF) (NPPF) are key elements of planning law in the UK. Section 38(6) stresses that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the adopted development plan, unless material considerations suggest otherwise.

The Planning Officer reported that it is accepted that there is local concern over the impact of additional traffic, however the allocation in the Local Plan anticipates that the site would be developed and could potentially have allowed more dwellings than that which are proposed and were once approved, and the strategic impacts of additional traffic were tested through the preparation of the Local Plan.

The Planning Officer reported that concern has been raised by third parties in respect of the relationship of the site access to the local schools. Members are advised that the schools are located to the northeast of the application site with the proposed vehicular access to the west. The separation from the two uses is considered unlikely to cause any conflict.

The Planning Officer reported that the updated December 2024 version of the (NPPF) (NPPF) continues to state that (paragraph 116) “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.” With this in mind, it was noted that officers advise that highways safety should not be considered a matter of significant concern to the committee.

The Planning Officer reported that a telecommunications mast is located on the southwestern edge of the site inside a cordon sanitaire where development will not be permitted.  The area surrounding this mast is shown on the proposed plan to be a wildflower meadow, which would be maintained by the management company. It was considered important that this area performed a valuable function, although given its size and position was unlikely to provide a useable area of open space. It was noted that whilst the application is not required to provide formal Biodiversity Net Gain on site or through off-site contributions for the reason that the application was submitted before the relevant legislation came in force in February 2024, the policy CS11 does expect ecology and habitat enhancement where possible, and the plans make provision for additional planting on site which would be secured through condition.

The Planning Officer reported that a number of changes have been made by the applicant to the scheme post-submission to improve the layout and quality. These include changes to the southwestern portion of the site to improve natural surveillance to the wildflower area, through inclusion of windows in gable ends and lowering of private fences to blots 43-47, and improved fenestration and boundary treatments to the northwestern portion of the site to improve the visual quality when heading north from the access. These changes are positive and enhance the quality and appearance of the scheme.

The Planning Officer reported that there are no trees on, or near the boundary of the site, which would be affected by the proposed development. The trees on the western boundary are to be retained and further landscaping is proposed within and along the boundaries of the site, including a new hedge on the eastern boundary to provide a noise and amenity buffer between the residential properties and the football pitches, which are located very close to the boundaries.

The Planning Officer reported that having considered the advice of GYBC external consultants it is felt that 7 affordable units could be provided together with contributions towards the mitigation of recreational pressures from this development. This is however disputed by the applicant, who argues that no affordable housing is viable but have nevertheless offered four affordable dwellings which would be 1-bedroom flats, in addition to financial or in-kind support to enhance  local library services.

The Planning Officer reported that Officers consider that the scheme amounts to sustainable development which should be supported. It is considered that the benefits as identified weigh in favour of the development in this instance and the development will deliver a well thought out and considered scheme, delivering high quality residential development in a sustainable location.  Therefore, in accordance with S38(6) of the Act and paragraph 11 of the NPPF, 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.  An amended recommendation of approval was presented comprising requirements (i) – (iv) of the Agenda Report, as amended by requirements (i) – (iii) of the Addendum Report, subject to conditions at section 12 of the Agenda report, amended by part (iv) of the Addendum Report, and the additional conditions (v) – (ix) in the Addendum Report.

Councillor Galer reported that it did not feel that this is a brownfield site as the football facilities have now been demolished and there would be limited need for any major remediation works.

The Planning Officer reported that as all buildings and structures at Emerald Park associated with the former use had been demolished that part of the site is deemed to be previously developed land but the predominant part is greenfield and, more significantly, an allocated housing site in the adopted local plan.

Councillor Boyd reported if Woodfarm Lane in Gorleston would be widened to improve vehicular access to the site and what was the parking provision within the development.

Councillor Bird queried the width of the proposed estates roads within the development because of concerns that older schemes in the area have experienced problems with on-street parking and cars passing safely or parking on street.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposed vehicular access to the site has addressed through the Policy GN2 requirement but it does not include widening of Woodfarm Lane to 6.0m width because it is not considered necessary.  The estate road is a 5.5m width as required for that scale of development, and includes appropriate turning space, passing places and visitor parking. The parking provision is as required through local plan policy and all the proposed dwellings have on-plot parking to meet parking requirements. In addition, the County Council as Highways Authority has not objected to the application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, as recommended by officers.

Mr. Ed Gilder the Applicant’s agent addressed the committee and thanked the officers for working with him to develop the application which was before the committee this evening. Mr. Gilder reported the salient areas of the application and respectfully requested that the committee approve the application, also confirming that the road inside the scheme was designed to the necessary 5.5m width which would also allow public adoption if necessary.

Councillor Boyd reported that whilst the scheme looked to provide good quality housing the applicant claims the proposed project is unviable if required to provide the requested amount of on-site affordable housing and financial contributions.  Therefore, to maximise the numbers of affordable housing in this scheme there needs to be negotiation between the Officers and the applicant to address this.

Councillor Pilkington reported that he was concerned that Officers had yet to conclude their discussions with the applicant and external consultants regarding the actual number of affordable housing viability appraisal and was therefore reluctant to delegate authority regarding this scheme until the committee knows the actual number of affordable homes.  Councillor Pilkington was also concerned that only 4 dwellings were proposed as affordable housing, but did note that officers had recommended use of the clawback mechanism to feature in the section 106 agreement which might address some of his concern, though confirmed that it should be a priority to seek more affordable homes as part of the viability appraisal negotiations.

Councillor Freeman 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 Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

As per the published agenda report Paragraph 12.1, with the following amendments:

1. To undertake consultation with the Norfolk County Council Ecologist and include mitigation measures or conditions, as necessary.
2. To ensure surface water drainage management and maintenance details are included within the planning obligations to be secured by Section 106 Agreement.
3. To ensure the management, maintenance and financing responsibilities of the on-site public open space and landscaping features are included within the planning obligations to be secured by Section 106 Agreement.
4. To amend the recommended Conditions in the Agenda Report as below:

1. At Condition 2 (Plans) – update the list of approved documents to include:
   

1. Site Location Plan ref PP-12773782v1 dated 09 February 2024.
2. The updated Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy version 03 dated 14th May 2025.
3. The Ecology Impact Assessment dated 26th October 2024.
4.  The Construction Management Plan ref: EME-DOC-09 Revision B as referred at Condition 3.
5. Plan R-20-0010-006 Rev A as referred to at Condition 12.
6. The Water Efficiency Statement document dated 5th February 2024.
7. The EV Charging Statement document ref: EME-DOC-06 Revision A.
8. The Management of Public and Shared Areas document ref EME-DOC-10 Revision A.
9. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment document dated 26 January 2024.
10. Refuse and Waste Strategy document, ref: EME-DOC-08 Revision A.

1. At Condition 3 (CEMP), include reference to CMP document ref: EME-DOC-09 Revision B.

    

2. Delete Condition 5 (Biodiversity CEMP) and replace with the following condition, to be further amended as necessary following consultation with the Ecology Officer:

“No development shall take place whatsoever (including any demolition, ground works or site clearance) until a Biodiversity Method Statement has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The content of the method statement shall include:

• Purpose and objectives for the proposed works,
• Detailed designs and/or working methods necessary to achieve the stated objectives.
• Extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans,
• Timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned to the proposed phasing of construction,
• Persons responsible for implementation of the works,
• Initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant).
• Disposal of any wastes arising from works.

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

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposed is seeking permission to undertake the demolition of retail kiosk units; Extension to the existing amusement arcade to form new Family Entertainment Centre (sui generis) and lower-level car parking with associated alterations to street entrance; Demolition of beach huts and extension of pier decking to provide rear access to the new extension; Removal and replacement of electricity substation; and other associated works and landscaping.

The Planning Officer reported that this application had been reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted for development on land owned by the Borough Council.

The Planning Officer reported the published agenda had omitted to mention at sections 3 and 7 that the site is within 30m of the defined Coastal Change Area and as such in this respect is affected by Policies CS13 and GSP4 (New development in Coastal Change Management Areas). As recognised by the Coastal Advisor (paragraph 5.11), this means the development would require a Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment before the principle of development could be considered entirely acceptable. Accordingly, an updated Type A Coastal Erosion Vulnerability Assessment has been submitted whereby the applicant accepts the risk from coastal change, and this is now considered acceptable.

The Planning Officer reported the plans have been heavily revised following Officer’s concerns about the initial proposed designs. The revised plans show that the front (west) elevation of the existing pier building is proposed to be extended to provide access to the extension. This extension would be finished in an ivory-coloured render and standing seam roof to match the existing building. A new turret is also proposed with eaves detailing matching that on the existing building. The new building will also have an internal connection to the existing amusements arcade. The building would consist of an underground parking area to provide car parking for 12 cars. The ground floor would consist of 2270sqm of floor space for a Family Entertainment Centre and associated utility areas. A mezzanine to the southwest corner of the building is also proposed for storage.

The Planning Officer reported that a major part of the expansion will include a substantial, curved roof building. This would be set behind the extended frontage to the pier and the remaining retail kiosks. The building would be finished in ivory cladding with a standing seam roof. On the east elevation, articulation/ treatment to soften the large expanse of the east elevation has now been added in the form of a narrow strip of a wavy green roof above a lightweight canopy. The application also incorporated the extension of the pier decking to provide a rear access to the building. Steps down to a seating and landscaped area it was noted are also proposed to the beach side of the building that are proposed to be situated behind a fence.

Councillor Williamson reported that a surface water drainage plan will need to be proposed.  The Planning Officer reported that a condition was proposed for a surface water strategy that will include the discharge of any outfall.

The Planning Officer reported the even though the issue of coastal erosion was not expressly mentioned in the officer report nor brought into the assessment of the planning balance the necessary steps have now been taken to acknowledge the site’s potential vulnerability to coastal change forces. This it was noted further weighs in favour of the development, and ensures compliance with policy GSP4, although the Recommendation remains as published in the agenda report.

Councillor Williamson reported that there were still objections from Historic England and sought clarification.

The Planning Officer reported that there were still concerns but they were less significant than initially raised because of the modifications made to the design, and it was the officers’ opinion after careful consideration that the overall planning balance weighs in favour of the development being positive more so than negative, largely because the level of harm to the conservation area and heritage asset settings had been reduced to an acceptably lower level of less than substantial harm such that the benefits could outweigh that harm overall.

Councillor Wright that there are concerns about vehicular access to the site around ensuring safe and efficient entry and exit points, as well as the management of any potential obstructions and traffic flow.

The Planning Officer reported that the Local Highway Authority (NCC) had been consulted on the application and have raised no objection to the development, subject to (i) no part of the structure overhanging the highway and (ii) applicant clarifying how the development would integrate with the existing highways infrastructure.

Councillor Williamson and Councillor Wright reported that the proposal includes a number of public benefits, including regeneration and expanding an existing successful business within the visitor attractions sector. Promoting the Wellington Pier area as a tourism hub. These public benefits are considered to outweigh the low level of ‘less than substantial’ harm.

The Planning Officer reported that whilst Historic England has expressed concerns that the new-look building would be "large and utilitarian" and fail to preserve the local conservation area. The tourism industry is a significant and growing part of the Great Yarmouth’s economic activity. as such attractions like Wellington Pier boost local the local economy, create jobs, and attract both regional and national visitors.

Councillor Boyd reported that the regeneration is beneficial and the proposal was now a good design which should be supported.

Councillor Newcome reported that the proposal was a good design which should be supported and is an improvement over the existing kiosks which are proposed to be removed.

Councillor Pilkington reported that Great Yarmouth is actively competing with other seaside towns, including destinations like Blackpool and Scarborough, to attract visitors and investment. This competition is predominantly applicable as Great Yarmouth aims to regenerate its tourism industry and address historical challenges related to deprivation and decline in the more traditional holiday destinations.

Councillor Pilkington proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/24/0213/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed within the report (to be added to, modified and amended as necessary).

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application had been referred again to Committee to request an adjustment to its current resolution for determination, due to a requested change to the trigger point for the delivery of the on-site affordable housing as included within the draft Section 106 Agreement.

The Planning Officer reported that as presented to Committee on 11th December 2024, the current draft Agreement necessitates delivery of the affordable housing to take place no later than upon 25% of the open market dwellings being occupied. The affordable housing requirements in the current resolution/draft Agreement being to provide 27 affordable housing dwellings, of which: 24 shall be affordable rent and 3 shall be shared ownership tenures. With 4 of the 24 for ‘general needs’ housing and the other 20 shall be for ‘local needs’ housing whilst all 3 Shared Ownership dwellings will be used for ‘general needs’ housing.

The Planning Officer reported that none of the proposed affordable housing mix of dwellings, sizes or tenures are proposed to be amended as a result of this request to amend the timescales for affordable provision. A layout plan was noted showing the intended location of the affordable housing, which is as required by Committee, as provided for reference at Appendix 1 of the agenda.

The Planning Officer reported that the 11^th December 2024 Committee Report is provided at Appendix 2 to the agenda report, with the pre-meeting Addendum Report of 11^th December provided at Appendix 3 of the agenda reportand the Minutes of the 11^th December 2024 meeting and the Committee’s Resolution provided at Appendix 4 of the agenda report.

The Planning Officer reported that some further comments had been received since the agenda was published but these were not relevant to the matter at hand and had been addressed in the original report and committee meeting.  Whilst Anglian Water had responded also, in March 2025, they have since clarified that they did so in error and they have no concern at the moment regarding the site layout, as described in the Addendum Report.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant Flagship Homes has requested the change for the following reasons:

1. all of the 27 affordable dwellings proposed are located at the furthest points away from utility connections on Barton Way (see Appendix 1 layout plan) to build and complete all 27 dwellings will require that Flagship Housing Developments to build 0.6 km approx. of roads and install all utility connections, including drainage to the furthest parts of the site, at a very early stage of the development.  It is suggested that this is not practical nor appropriate from a construction perspective, and will also result in too many significant upfront costs, which cannot be recouped without more flexibility to put more open market units up for sale earlier into the construction, to balance the cost flows of the scheme. It is normal for a development to construct out on a plot-by-plot basis from the point of site access/utility connections and that is not possible with the current s.106 requirement.
2. A specific factor with this development is that the number of affordable dwellings to be built as part of this development is 27, and the number of market dwellings is 28. Therefore, as the split is so minimal, the s.106 as drafted requires that 25% (seven plots) of the market homes can be occupied before the developer must build and complete all 27 of the affordable dwellings. The financial returns from the sale of just seven market dwellings will not be sufficient to allow all 27 affordable dwellings to be constructed and completed.
3. As the s106 is drafted this will require that all the remaining 21 market dwellings will be placed for sale within a shorter space of time, which will have a diminishing impact on the sales values of these plots. This is not how the costs and returns of the development have been projected. Flagship Housing Developments’ only motivation is to sell the market homes at market prices to allow it to reinvest all the profits to provide future affordable housing schemes. Any reduction in the market price that can be achieved will have an adverse effect on the ability to achieve this motivation.
4. From the perspective of future residents of the site and surrounding residents, completing all the affordable units so early will lead to construction crews and traffic needing to access all areas of the site to finish the remaining, scattered open market units. This will lead to continuous construction traffic throughout the site until the end of the build programme and will be much more difficult to keep the site clean from dust etc, particularly in conjunction with the requirement to deliver all of the open space prior to 50% plot occupations, greatly restricting feasible locations for the site compounds as the scheme progresses.

The Planning Officer reported that Officers have considered the points raised and agree that a revised trigger point of 50% (14 plots) open market housing provision prior to affordable housing delivery would provide improved prospects of affordable housing delivery, whilst also allowing more flexibility in the construction phasing, allowing completed phases to be separated from construction traffic, keeping compounds and works localised to current areas of work.  In addition, the Council’s Housing Enabling Manager has confirmed that she is happy with the revision to the trigger point.

The Planning Officer reported that there are no other changes requested or proposed to the legal agreement as drafted, and it was noted for the avoidance of doubt all the other trigger points remain as required in the 11th December 2024 Committee resolution.

Mr Matthew Rooke, the applicant’s agent, addressed the committee and thanked the officers for working with him to develop the application which was before the committee this evening. Mr. Rooke reported the salient areas of the application and explained that the existing required trigger points for affordable housing were proving too challenging from a project viability perspective and did not consider that the deferred provision materially compromised the development but would ensure more timely provision.  Mr Rooke concluded by respectfully requesting that the committee approve the application.

Councillors Pilkington and Williamson reported that it cannot not be ignored that developers need to consider the viability of any housing schemes alongside affordable housing obligations which whilst beneficial for addressing housing shortages and social needs, in a community have to be considered against the financial viability of such a scheme.

Councillor Pilkington proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/23/0504/F should be APPROVED, and that the application be delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

1. Completion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement to secure the planning obligations and developer contributions listed at Section 19 of this report and Appendix 5 attached to this report, and with the addition of NHS Ambulance Service financial contributions amounting to £17,000, subject to inclusion of an amended trigger point for affordable housing delivery which will require all the affordable housing to be provided ready for occupation no later than the first occupation of 50% of the market housing within the development;

    

2. Appropriate Conditions including those listed in the 11th December 2024 Committee resolution (to be modified and updated as necessary); and,

    

3. 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 this application had been reported to the Monitoring Officer as this was an application submitted for development on land owned by the Borough Council.  It was noted that no updates have been raised since the publication of the committee agenda.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is a single storey animal welfare clinic and associated outbuildings located on the north side of Tar Works Road, between the east bank of the River Bure and the A149 Caister Road. The site is bordered on 3 sides by The Lawns Day Centre, to the north, east and west. At the northwestern end of Tar Works Road lies a public car park and a substation. Opposite the site to the south lies allotments and an NHS medical practice.  In addition, (i) the plot is rectangular in shape and currently contains 4 separate single-story buildings; (ii) the main building is the brick built flat roof clinic; the others are all timber sheds; and (iii) there is no associated formal car parking within the site, however it is evident that Tar Works Road itself is used for parking and there are no parking restrictions on the road.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal relates to the replacement of above-mentioned RSPCA animal welfare clinic. Whilst "community facilities” are not defined within the Local Plan, it is acknowledged that these can be wide-ranging. As the proposal is for an improved charity facility where the operation assists some members of the community who need support to fund pet care, this is considered to have relevance as a community facility. Policies CS15 and C1 of the Local Plan encourage the improvement of community facilities, additionally the NPPF promotes the protection of valued facilities and services.

The Planning Officer reported that the site (1) is within development limits as defined by Local Plan Part 2 Policy GSP1; (2) lies within Environment Agency fluvial and tidal Flood Zone 3a (area of High Probability of flooding) and is adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding (Tar Works Road itself). The risk from surface water flooding is 1 in 1,000 years for most of Tar Works Road, but in some areas this is higher, to include both 1 in 100 and 1 in 30 years; (3) does not fall within a conservation area and there are no listed buildings within the vicinity of the property; and (4) there are 5 notable trees along the boundaries of the site bordering with the Lawns Daycare Centre, in addition to a grouping of trees/shrubs. 2 Ash and 1 Elm lie along the east boundary, a group of trees lie along the north boundary, and 1 sycamore and 1 lime tree is located along the west boundary. They are not expressly protected, either by virtue of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) or being within a Conservation Area 4.  However, the proposal includes some minor Horticultural work will see the preservation of all trees.

The Planning Officer reported that Anglian Water has objections (a) to any connection to the foul and surface water on site from the proposed development, due to capacity constraints and pollution risk, and to overcome this it was agreed that liaison is required to identify a sustainable point of connection to the public foul network. That can be agreed through pre- commencement condition; and (b) as there are no details of how surface water will be discharged, and the applicant has insufficiently demonstrated compliance with the surface water strategy.

The Planning Officer reported that Environment Agency has advised that they have no objection, provided that GYBC considers their own flood risk responsibilities.

The Planning Officer reported that the site lies within tidal Flood Zone 3a. The proposal is for a replacement two storey RSPCA clinic facility, which is classified as a ‘less vulnerable’ development, as defined in Annex 3: Flood Vulnerability classification of the Planning Practice Guidance. The application is therefore required to pass the Flood Risk Assessor (FRA) Sequential Test which has been submitted as part of this application.

The Planning Officer reported that site lies within the flood extent for a 0.5% (1 in 200) annual probability event, and although whilst the nature of the flood risk in this area is higher it can be predicted quite far in advance, as the risk will occur at high tides which will mean that the applicant will get notified saying that a flood is expected within the next 48hrs.

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal does not have a safe means of access in the event of flooding as all the new buildings are wholly outside the floodplain. However, the proposal does include a first floor, which is estimated to be able to provide a refuge above the 0.1% (1 in 1000) annual probability flood level including climate change of 3.32m Above the Ordnance Datum (AOD). 

The Planning Officer reported that the proposal consists of a two-storey replacement building with hipped roof. The scale, form and materials reflect that of surrounding buildings including the GP building on the opposite side of Tar Works Road. The proposed materials include dark grey concrete pantiles, red multi-stock facing brick with an element of cedar cladding on either side of the building and dark Unplasticized Polyvinyl Chloride (UPVC) windows and doors. Whilst the arrangement of windows in the building does appear slightly awkward as it is not central to the front elevation, this would not be considered to significantly impact the design and appearance.

The Planning Officer reported that the height and scale, particularly with the hipped roof, would be acceptable in this location and the trees provide screening to lessen any perception of adverse impact from the added height. Overall it was noted that the proposal is considered appropriate for its context and is of an acceptable scale and form. As such the proposal is considered to accord with Core Strategy policy CS09 and the adopted Great Yarmouth Design Code SPD.

The Planning Officer reported that the current clinic employs one vet for two days a week on Tuesdays and Thursdays and has a locum vet visiting on Wednesdays. The existing building consists of a single consultation room and adjacent ancillary buildings, whereas the proposed unit includes 1 consultation room, a surgery and prep-room, office, staff office and cage rooms. The applicant has confirmed that the facility will be offering the same appointment service as they currently do Tuesday to Thursday and therefore the increase in the number of visitors within a day will be limited. The only change proposed is to now also open on Mondays for operations, and this will involve drop offs around 8am and collection staggered later in the day with no animals being left overnight at the clinic. The application form confirms that the number of staff will not increase or decrease as a result of the proposal.

The Development Manager addressed the Committee on behalf of Ms.Jill Brenkley, the applicant, and he read out a statement which reported the salient areas of the application which respectfully requested that the committee approve the application.

Ms. Brenkley responded to a question from Councillor Galer regarding possible noise concerns, stating that no animals would be kept overnight at the clinic after having undergone any surgical procedures.

The Planning Officer and Development Manager confirmed there was sufficient distance to neighboruing uses that there would be no unacceptable impact as reported by eth Environmental Health Officer, and in all likelihood the building fabric of the new development would be much more able to contain noise than the existing buildings.

Councillors Green and Murray-Smith reported their concerns that the site had flood risk and queried whether the development would be safe if animals were left overnight. The Development Manager confirmed that the proposal would be no worse than the existing situation in flood risk terms, because of the similar floor area and ability to access the first floor, but the proposed conditions included requirements to introduce early flood warning systems, and the Head of Planning confirmed that the river flooding risk was tidal in this area which provided much more scope for earlier warnings, so the concerns had been addressed in officers’ opinion.

Councillor Mogford reported that the facility should provide accommodation for staff if there was to be overnight attendance.  Councillor Murray-Smith confirmed he did not think this would be an issue is overnight use was not intended by the applicant.

Councillor Wright reported that this facility will provide vital, subsidised animal care to those who may otherwise be unable to access it. It delivers a significant social benefit to the local area, and it is hoped that this new facility will allow the rspca to continue their mission for many years to come.

Councillor Freeman proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/24/0945/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the report (to be added to, modified and amended as necessary)

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

The Planning Officer reported that since the Agenda had been published, the applicant had submitted the necessary shadow template HRA document and additional GIRAMS financial contribution, resulting in an amended recommendation as set out in the Addendum Report.

The Planning Officer reported that the application site comprises 0.17ha in area and is currently in use as a builder’s yard. The application site is located to the northern side of Main Road to the east of Manship’s Farm. To the north and east of the site are open fields. To the south of the application site, on the opposite side of Main Road is a farmyard which also contains Coleman's Farm Shop. The site is on the eastern edge of Ormesby St Michael.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is within the Parish of Ormesby St Michael. It lies between but outside either of the defined Development Limits for both Ormesby St Michael and Ormesby St Margaret villages. The development limit drawn adjacent the built-up area of the village of Ormesby St Margaret, at Cromer Road, is 572m to the east, and the development limit drawn at Ormesby St Micheal is 1.2km to the west, both linked by Main Road.

The Planning Officer reported that Policy GSP1 sets out that development will not be permitted on land outside of development limits except where it comprises agricultural or forestry development; the provision of utilities and highway infrastructure; or specific policies in the Local Plan indicate otherwise.

The Planning Officer reported that the other specific policies in the Local Plan that may indicate a decision can be taken contrary to this approach are set out under paragraph 2.5 of the supporting text of Policy GSP1, however there is no indication that the proposal would accord with any other policy as listed under paragraph 2.5 that would justify a departure from the 'within development limits first' approach.

The Planning Officer reported that the Core Strategy Policy CS2 states that land outside of the development limits is classified as 'Countryside' whereby development would only be restricted to conversions and dwellings which serve a rural need. The proposal does not involve the reuse of existing buildings and nor is it being proposed to meet a rural need - e.g. as agricultural workers dwellings.

The Planning Officer reported that the Core Strategy Policy CS2(e) encourages the reuse of previously developed land and existing buildings. The site is currently in use as a builder’s yard and therefore does meet the definition of previously developed land. Officers have confirmed the application site does not feature on the Council's Brownfield Land Register. The site is not included on the brownfield register as it falls below the threshold of being at least 0.25 hectares or able to accommodate 5 dwellings.

The Planning Officer reported that the Core Strategy policy CS1(e) seeks to ensure that development is located in safe, accessible places that promote healthy lifestyles and provide easy access for everyone to jobs, shops and community facilities by walking, cycling and public transport. Core Strategy Policy CS2 builds upon this by ensuring that new residential development is distributed according to the Policy's Settlement hierarchy which seeks to balance the delivery of homes with resilient, self-contained communities and reducing the need to travel.

The Planning Officer reported that the settlement hierarchy identifies Ormesby St Michael as a 'Secondary Village' due to the limited range of services, facilities, access to public transport and employment opportunities. Therefore, only a very small amount of the Borough's future housing growth is directed to Secondary Villages, in recognition of the limited facilities available.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is located outside of the development limits and therefore the proposal does conflict with policy GSP1. The site is also not located within an especially accessible location although it is recognised that the site does have some pedestrian links to the Primary Village of Ormesby St Margaret.

The Planning Officer reported that the previous refusals of permission for dwellings here have considered that the previous developed land status does not outweigh the conflict with the Local Plan as detailed above, especially as the plan remained up-to-date and there was a healthy 5-year-land supply in place. There is a necessity to demonstrate consistency in decision making and approach to policy interpretation across the three applications for the site. Therefore, it is necessary to consider what has changed since the last refusal.

The Planning Officer reported that the Local Plans are still considered up-to-date and there is still a five-year supply in place. The Emerging Local Plan refers to brownfield land with respect to urban regeneration but is silent on brownfield sites in less sustainable locations. Emerging Policy OSS3 and RUR1 sets out a similar approach to development outside of development limits. The site is also located outside of the development limits in the emerging local plan. It remains to be seen if an Inspector will require greater attention to use of brownfield land in rural areas outside of development limits/in the Countryside, but to assume so would be speculation only at this early examination stage. As such, the proposal would therefore also be contrary to emerging policy. However, it should be noted that only very limited weight can be given to Policy OSS3 at present as described above.

The Planning Officer reported that since the last refusal the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been updated. The latest version of the framework, dated December 2024, significantly strengthens the presumption in favour of development of previously developed sites.

The Planning Officer reported that the village of Ormesby St Margaret is characterised by two main clusters of development, ribboning along the A149 interspersed with gaps. This site sits within (but on the very edge) the eastern cluster which is anchored around the church. This cluster includes a number of homes and farm buildings. It would be difficult to argue that the site is not within a settlement. It should be noted that being within a settlement does not, in terms of the (NPPF), mean being within locally defined Development Limits. There are settlements within the Borough which do not have Development Limits and are therefore also considered ‘Countryside’ as noted above.

The Planning Officer reported that no substantial harm has been identified from the proposal, therefore the (NPPF) is indicating that such a proposal should be approved.  In addition, it was noted that officers consider that in this instance it is considered that the provisions of the (NPPF) outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes a connection to the main sewer running along Main Road to the front of the site. Anglian Water consider that Caister Pump Lane WRC has capacity to deal with the flows from the proposed growth. Although Anglian Water have objected to the connection to the foul sewer due to concerns regarding the risk of flooding and pollution. This is as the vacuum sewage system in this location may require upgrading. Anglian Water have stated that if the LPA is minded to approve the application despite their objection, they recommend that a foul drainage strategy is secured as a pre-commencement condition.

The Planning Officer reported that due to the location of the application site within the Nutrient Neutrality Catchment Area, an alternative method of dealing with foul drainage would not be acceptable. Anglian Water have a statutory duty to provide connection to the main sewer where one is available and therefore, considering the overall acceptability of the remainder of the scheme, a pre-commencement condition is considered practical, reasonable and necessary, and the refusal of the application on this basis alone would not be considered justifiable when Anglian Water have indicated that an improvement or replacement of the existing system is at least possible.

The Planning Officer reported that subject to a pre-commencement condition to secure the details of the foul connection to the sewer, the proposal would comply with policy I3. The proposal would also comply with Emerging Policy CLC3 in this regard.

The Planning Officer reported that whilst the Local Highway Authority have raised no objection to the application, they have requested conditions to secure the details of the vehicular access, ensuring the existing access is closed, removing permitted development rights for obstructions over the access point, ensuring the private drive measures a minimum of 4.8 metres long, and ensuring that the access / parking areas are provided prior to the first occupation of the dwellings.   Accordingly subject to the conditions requested by the Local Highway Authority, the proposal would comply with Core Strategy Policy CS16.

The Planning Officer reported that the County Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposal in respect of impacts on designated ecological sites.  In addition, the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) concludes that there is no protected habitat on site and that the proposed development would not impact protected species. Whilst in terms of providing enhancements, the PEA states that this will be achieved through the planting of the hedgerow to the front boundary and the provision of house sparrow boxes on each dwelling. A condition should be imposed to secure the details of the bird boxes to ensure that the proposal complies with CS11.  This is also in accordance with Emerging Policy NAT1 (Biodiversity, Geodiversity and Important Natural Features)  that will bring forward similar expectations in terms of impacts on ecology as the adopted development plan. The proposal would therefore comply with the emerging policy.

Councillor Boyd reported that he felt that the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with the existing buildings and surrounding environment and rural character in terms of appearance, scale, and design and would not clash with or negatively impact any neighboring properties, and the biodiversity enhancement of any amount will be beneficial. 

The Planning Officer reported that the recommendation has been amended to remove the requirement for the applicant to pay the outstanding GIRAMS contribution and to remove the requirement to provide an updated HRA.  Accordingly parts (ii) and (iii) had therefore been removed from the agenda recommendation.

Councillor Boyd proposed that the application be approved with the conditions as set out in the agenda and addendum report. This motion was seconded by Councillor Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/24/0762/F should be APPROVED and authority delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

1. Receipt of Public Open Space Contribution of £4,067.40; and,
2. Subject to the proposed conditions listed in Section 24 of the Agenda report, to be added to and modified, as necessary.

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application had been reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted for development on land owned by the Borough Council. It was noted that no discrepancies have been raised by the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that the existing building is the South Yarmouth Housing Office that sits in the heart of the Middlegate Housing Estate and has been occupied by the Great Yarmouth Borough Council Tenancy Teams for a number of years. The Office has been vacant since February 2025. The surrounding area is a predominantly residential area, situated close to the town centre and near the seafront. The estate comprises mainly low-rise, medium-density housing, including three-storey apartment blocks and some maisonettes. The area has several shared outdoor spaces.

The Planning Officer reported that the application proposes a permanent change of use to provide a three-bedroom accessible dwelling.  The external appearance will be amended to reconfigure the window and door openings in white UPVC/White Glass Reinforced Plastic (GRP) Composite. The external finish will be cream textured stipple finish (although clarification is sought as to whether this is rendered or painted brickwork). The application also includes external landscaping works to provide a driveway, path areas, a storage shed for a mobility scooter and cycles and bin storage.

The Planning Officer reported the updates in regard to the following:

• Paragraph 11.4 describes how the “precise materials to be used will be confirmed in an Update Report prior to the Committee meeting”, but the applicant has not confirmed these details as yet. In the absence of precise details it is necessary to confirm the use of appropriate materials prior to a decision being made, to ensure materials are appropriate, especially given the concern expressed by the Conservation Officer and the need to minimise ‘harm’ to them; and
• Paragraph 11.5 notes that the 1.1m high galvanised steel railings with hair pin style design, and kick plate bottom rail will be retained, but makes no mention of whether there will be any boundary treatments to the northern boundary of the site between the new dwelling and the existing pedestrian through-route to the west. The submitted Site Layout Plan/Block Plan also does not show the installation of new boundary treatments to this part of the site.

The Planning Officer reported that the applicant has since described their intention is to extend the use of 1.1m high galvanised steel railings with hair pin style design on the east boundary, to meet the proposed bike and mobility storage and then provide a Northern boundary between the existing footpath and the development site in the same style of fencing. The application will still provide a gate to the north, and a second gate into the proposed car parking, providing a total of two inward opening gates on the site.

The Planning Officer reported that officers have concerns about the suitability of such fairly low height and open-barred railings being used to enclose the site’s only private amenity space and providing privacy to the windows only 2m from the path. Officers have therefore recommended that other screening options should be explored.

The Planning Officer reported the following main points of consideration of the principle of development as described in the Agenda report:

1. The application seeks to provide an additional wheelchair accessible three bed dwelling. Policy H11 notes that the provision of accommodation especially suitable for elderly and other vulnerable people will be encouraged and notes that bungalows within development limits will be permitted. Policy CS4 - Delivering affordable housing notes that the need to provide additional affordable housing is one of the greatest challenges facing the borough, the application is located in affordable housing sub market area 2 which requires 10% affordable housing of 15 dwellings or more. As the application is for one additional dwelling only there is no policy requirement for the proposed dwelling to be provided as affordable housing.
2. Whilst there is no policy-based reason to require this dwelling to be provided as affordable housing but the application has been proposed as a 3-bedroom wheelchair accessible dwelling for social/affordable rent tenure form of affordable housing. As the applicant is Great Yarmouth Borough Council who acts as the provider of affordable housing it is reasonable to expect that the site would be used as affordable housing however limited weight is given to the provision of affordable housing at the site and it is not recommended that the permission be subject to a Section 106 Agreement or another mechanism to secure 100% affordable housing as it is not required by adopted planning policy nor necessary to make the development acceptable.
3. The Application is proposed as an affordable housing, in response to the Borough’s identified housing needs, it is notable that only four fully wheelchair-accessible three-bedroom homes currently exist within a total housing stock of 5,800 properties. At the same time, 14 households are registered and assessed as requiring accommodation of this specific type. Whilst the housing needs are linked to affordable housing, in any tenure the proposed additional dwelling would make a meaningful contribution to addressing this shortfall by increasing the supply of accessible, family-sized housing. Given the clear demand, significant weight should be afforded to the provision of this unit in the planning balance, in line with Policy H11
4. The proposal involves the loss of a Class E unit which was historically used as the South Yarmouth Housing Office. It is noted in the planning statement that the office was vacated in February 2025. Policy CS6 states the importance of strengthening the local economy, and encouraging the development of employment sites, however it is acknowledged that whilst the proposal would involve the loss of office space, the site is not within a safeguarded employment area and the alternative uses proposed are also appropriate, in principle, in this location, so the loss of office space is not resisted in this instance. The proposed provision of a valued wheelchair-accessible dwelling housing is given significantly more weight than the loss of office space and would be an appropriate new use for the area given the residential setting of the site.

Councillor Wright reported that this scheme will be unique for the area, and obviously something that is needed. However, he expressed concern regarding the amount of foot traffic given that the property is near the main entrance to the Middle Gate Estates and the regular foot traffic in this residential area could have negative impact, including air and noise pollution, and potential safety concerns for the residents of this property.

The Planning Officer reported that such concerns are addressed in the updated recommendations as set out in the Addendum Report e.g. use of appropriate boundary treatments and enclosures of amenity space along the northern boundary, with regard to securing appropriate amenity for future residents and visual amenity of the wider area.

The Planning Officer reported the following revisions to recommendation as set out at Section 20 of the report:

1. An additional requirement (v) is recommended to be agreed under authority delegated to Officers, to establish the proposed materials and their suitability in respect of the impact on the character of the area and the setting of heritage assets.
2. An additional requirement (vi) is recommended to be agreed under authority delegated to Officers, to ensure the Site Layout / Block Plan is updated to show the position of any proposed boundary treatments and to agree a suitable form of screening in the interests of privacy and design concerns.
3. Condition 2 should be amended to include updated plans and documents following the receipt of the amended plans necessary to satisfy paragraphs 3.1.1 & 3.1.2 above.

Mrs Claire Wilkins (Equinox Homes) the applicant addressed the committee and reported the salient areas of the application and respectfully requested that the committee approve the application.

Councillor Lawn 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 Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/25/0315/F should be APPROVED and authority should be delegated to Officers to grant full planning permission subject to:

1. Completion of a suitable Habitats Regulations Assessment for the development.
2. Provision of the necessary GIRAMS habitats protection financial contribution of £304.17.
3. Provision of the necessary Public Open Space enhancements financial contribution of £1355.80; and,
4. Agreeing a suitable palette of external materials with regard to ensuring their suitability in respect of the impact on the character of the area and the setting of heritage assets.
5. Agreeing a suitable amendment to the site layout / block plan to show the proposed use of appropriate boundary treatments and enclosures of amenity space along the northern boundary, with regard to securing appropriate amenity for future residents and visual amenity of the wider area.
6. the proposed Conditions listed at Section 20 of the Agenda report, with modifications or updates as necessary, including at Condition 2 following receipt of amended plans and details.

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

The Planning Officer reported that this is an application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking to regularise the development in respect of the installed surface water drainage scheme which has been provided at variance to the approved plans in the existing permission. The application also requests to remove the existing requirement to install a 4m-high acoustic barrier fence on the northern boundary.

The Planning Officer reported that Condition 3 of planning permission 06/20/0618/F requires compliance with the approved surface water drainage strategy. However, the details on the plans listed in the condition referred to an outdated version of the drainage strategy so were out-of-step with the approved site layout plans for the wider development; although the development and drainage strategies had both been revised prior to determination of permission 06/20/0618/F, the drainage scheme plans have been found to be inconsistent with the layout being built.

The Planning Officer reported that the site’s drainage strategy included the following approach:

• Area One is in the northeast corner and includes Plots 18-22 and the associated car parking and private access road only. The strategy for this area is to use permeable paving as a means of infiltration drainage into the ground. The paving will be owned and maintained by the Affordable Homes operator; and
• Area Two involves the remaining properties, drives and the adopted highway. This surface water run-off will be directed to a vegetated single infiltration basin.

The Planning Officer reported that as the approved drainage strategy does not accord with the final approved layout plan, this application seeks to amend Condition 3 to supersede the redundant drainage scheme plans and replace them with the relevant updated plans, which will align with the approved site layout plans, including use of a drainage basin of the same capacity in a similar location.

The Planning Officer reported that Condition 32 of the extant permission also refers to the outdated drainage scheme because it prohibits the drainage system from using infiltration as a means of surface water disposal into the ground; this is problematic because it conflicts with the approved drainage strategy and development site layout which relies on the use of infiltration across the site in the form of the permeable paving and the infiltration basin. The proposed amendment in this application seeks to remove Condition 32 based on it being found to be unnecessary.

The Planning Officer reported that it should be noted that the revised version of the surface water drainage strategy submitted as part of this application was also approved by the Council as part of an application to agree the details of the surface water drainage strategy within the highway construction plans (approved by condition discharge application 06/23/0333/CD). Furthermore, an application was approved to discharge Section 106 obligations relating to management and maintenance of the sustainable drainage scheme pursuant to planning permission 06/20/0618/F (GYBC ref: 06/23/0554/OBL).

The Planning Officer reported that Condition 28 currently requires a 4m high acoustic fence to be installed on the northern boundary of the site to the commercial yard to the north. This application seeks to remove this requirement but to retain the other noise mitigation measures required in the permission.

The Planning Officer reported that additional information had been received following a request from Environmental Services that a validation report is required to demonstrate that the noise mitigation measures have been successful and that the 4m high acoustic fence is not required or additional noise mitigation measures needed, as detailed in paragraph 13.6 of the agenda report. The applicant has now provided a Noise Survey and Assessment (dB Consultation Limited. Dated 28th May 2025). The report assessed the ambient noise levels in the closest bedroom to the GY Services Depot and the most exposed garden and concludes that the levels meet the WHO criteria set out in BS8233.

The Planning Officer reported that the requirement to submit a Noise Validation report to demonstrate that the noise levels are satisfactory and Section 17 part (i) could therefore be removed from the agenda recommendation.  In addition, it was noted that at Section 17 (ii) and (iii) the reports recommendation requests delegated authority to determine the application subject to no new comments being raised prior to 7th June. As the LPA would wish to consider all concerns raised prior to determination, and because the 7th is a Saturday it was felt appropriate to extend that period and allow comments to be provided up to Monday 9th June.

The Planning Officer reported the amended recommended that application 06/23/0709/VCF should be resolved to be APPROVED and authority delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

1. No material planning considerations being raised prior to 09 June 2025 which have not already been identified and considered in the Agenda report, Officer presentation and Committee decision.
2. Where any new material planning considerations are raised between 04 June 2025 and 09 June 2025, to refer the application back to the Development Management Committee for their determination of the application at a future date; and,
3. Subject to the proposed conditions listed in Section 17 of the committee report, to be added to and modified, as necessary.

Councillor Freeman 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 Williamson.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/23/0709/VCF be APPROVED and authority delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

1. No material planning considerations being raised prior to 09 June 2025 which have not already been identified and considered in the agenda report, Officer presentation and Committee decision.
2. Where any new material planning considerations are raised between 04 June 2025 and 09 June 2025, to refer the application back to the Development Management Committee for their determination of the application at a future date; and,
3. Subject to the proposed conditions listed in Section 17 of the committee report, to be added to and modified as necessary.

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

The Planning Officer reported that this application had been reported to the Monitoring Officer as an application submitted for development on land owned by the Borough Council. It was noted that no discrepancies had been raised by the Monitoring Officer prior to the meeting.

The Planning Officer reported that Britannia Pier is located on Great Yarmouth Sea Front and comprises one of the two piers which book end the Golden Mile. The pier was originally constructed in the mid to late 19th century and later rebuilt after storms and general demolition works, with further rebuild during the early Edwardian period. This included various pavilions and structures which again were demolished after fires. The main auditorium is understood to have been built during the inter-war period and later commissioned for the war effort, but from the 1950s was used as a theatre which continues to this day.

The Planning Officer reported that permission had been granted in May 2024 for the “Demolition of single storey amusements building; Erection of replacement building for use as indoor amusements and leisure; Alterations and extensions to public house and restaurant building and new roof covering along the pier length; Change of use of the restaurant to an amusement arcade; Single-storey extension to the family amusement centre to provide new food kiosk; Installation of ramped access ways; Alterations to front facade of building.” Works to facilitate this renovation to the pier are underway although not complete.

The Planning Officer reported that the site is located within the Sea Front Conservation Area and the site is located in close proximity to a number of buildings of historic value, including listed buildings along Marine Parade; approximately 240m to the southwest of the application site sits the Grade II Listed Britannia Terrace.  Whilst the application site is also located within the main tourist area of Great Yarmouth Sea Front with a number of attractions and facilities typically associated with a seaside town within its immediate proximity.

The Planning Officer reported that the application seeks advertisement consent for the installation of external signage on the revised west (front) and north elevations of Britannia Pier.  The signage will comprise a rooftop sign displaying the name of the pier. This sign consists of individual Stainless-Steel letters with acrylic panels to allow for illumination. External illumination is proposed with each individual illuminated letter from the front; maximum luminance levels are proposed to be 4000cd/m2.  The application also:

• includes signage for the Pier Tavern (one on the front elevation and one on the north side elevation), Amusements and Food & Theatre on the rendered band. These signs will be the same colour and have the same illumination method as the rooftop sign. Each letter will be securely fixed directly to the rendered wall.
• seeks advertisement consent for the display of adverts on an 8m x 2.5m digital display LED media screen. These digital displays would be inherently illuminated and would provide adverts with an illumination level of 5000cd/m2. The application form does not specify the duration of each advertisement, nor the hours of operation.

Councillor Williamson 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 Freeman.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/25/0145/A should be resolved to GRANT ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT subject to the conditions listed at Section 17 of the agenda report.

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