Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Martin, Mogford, Murray-Smith & Williamson.

Councillor Freeman declared a personal interest in item number 4, as the applicants were known personally to him. However, there had been no discussions with them in regard to the application prior to the committee meeting.

Councillor Newcombe declared a personal interest in item number 5, as she is Ward Councillor for Southtown & Cobholm ward.

However, in accordance with the Council's Constitution, they were allowed to both speak and vote on the matters.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 July 2025 were confirmed as a true record.

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planning Officer's report and the addendum report. This was an application to request a change to the terms of a Section 106 Agreement and seeks to vary the existing Affordable Housing obligation, which requires the provision of 2 affordable housing dwellings on-site within the development, with a proposal to replace on-site provision with payment of an off-site Affordable Housing Commuted Sum. 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Referring to the offer that had been made by a Registered Provider, Councillor Boyd queried what the value of the offer was and asked if any mediation had taken place to reach a mutual decision. The Principal Planning Officer advised that approaches had been made to the Registered provider, but no increase in the offer was forthcoming.

Mr Luke Marsden, Dovedale Homes addressed the Committee and advised that following the application in October 2022, Registered Providers had been offered the two affordable dwellings and, in addition, had been offered the option to purchase the adjoining two open market properties, to make the scheme more attractive to them. However, none of the Registered Providers could make the scheme work for them. This had subsequently had a massive impact on the scheme’s timescale and viability and the only way that the scheme could proceed was by paying a commuted sum for affordable housing in lieu of on-site provision. Mr Marsden was prepared to pay the original contribution based on the June 2024 viability assessment which represented an additional £22,000 over the current 2025 assessment. 

Councillor Jeal asked what the total sum was before the £22,000 was added and was advised that the commuted sum was £96,000 but Mr Marsden had offered £118,000.

Mr Shaun Day, Rollesby Parish Councillor, addressed the Committee and stated that he understood the delays but there had already been several amendments to this application. Could there not be a further amendment allowing the affordable home properties to be dealt with at a later stage, which would allow the scheme to proceed. He also voiced concerns that Rollesby would not get affordable homes, but Great Yarmouth would get the commuted sum of money.

The Chair stated his understanding was that if the application was amended, as per the suggestion of Mr Day, that it would require a new planning application.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the money would go into a pot for affordable homes within the Borough which might result it being spent anywhere in the Borough, and not specifically in Rollesby.

The Chair stated that the Planning Committee wanted to see affordable homes being built across the borough, but as there were no registered providers who were interested in acquiring these two homes, it had made the site difficult to deliver as the site had stalled due to the inability to secure a sales contract to a Registered Provider. This was a very rare set of circumstances and most developments do have to have an element of affordable housing. The Committee needed to consider what action to take and would take into consideration everything that had been presented to them in the report and at the meeting.

Mr Day asked whether it would be possible to sell the properties at a discounted rate. The Head of Planning advised that this had been looked at as a possible option, but the Housing Team had advised that the overwhelming housing need in the Borough is for good quality rental properties.

The Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Boyd stated that although there is a need for affordable housing, it is not needed in every area of the borough and that future applications would need to be looked at to see if AH units were viable since the downturn in the economy. However, he reported that he sympathised with both parties.

The Chair commented that a viability test was carried out when the application was first submitted and that numbers of affordable homes have been reduced in the past due to viability issues. In this case, which is very rare, there were specific difficulties to overcome.

Proposer: Councillor Freeman

Seconder: Councillor Boyd

That authority is delegated to Officers to APPROVE application 06/25/0368/DOV and vary the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 14 May 2021 pursuant to planning permission 06/18/0315/O, in the manner described in the agenda report, to include the alterations required as set out at Appendix 2 in the report. 

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/25/0368/DOV be delegated to Officers to approve and to vary the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 14 May 2021, pursuant to planning permission 06/18/0315/O, in the manner described in the agenda report, to include the alterations required, as set out at Appendix 2 of the report. 

CARRIED

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report and addendum report which presented an application for amending the approved drainage strategy and to vary the delivery hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays from 09:00 – 18:00 to 08:30 – 21:00.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Members were provided with updates to the report, additional representations received and amendments to the recommendations which had been made since publication of the report.

Members were advised of the additional representation that has been received from the LLFA which requested an updated maintenance and management plan be provided, and that updates to recommend Conditions 1, 21 and 23, all include reference to an agreed maintenance and management plan.



The Senior Planning Officer advised that the proposed amendments to the revised drainage scheme and changes to delivery hours and use of Banksmen are considered acceptable and she was satisfied that broadband reversing was still required.

The Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Jeal asked how far it was from the application site to the Travellers’ site and was advised that this was reported in the original application which the Planning Officer did not have to hand. Councillor Jeal further commented that it seemed farcical discussing the reversing alarms when there were two major roads nearby.

Councillor Boyd stated that the revised application seemed sensible and that he was happy to support the application.

Proposer: Councillor Boyd

Seconder: Councillor Lawn

That authority is delegated to Officers to approve application 06/25/0480/VCF and grant planning permission, subject to:-

(i) First liaising with the applicant and Lead Local Flood Authority to agree an updated Management and Maintenance Plan reflecting the new surface water drainage scheme design; and
 


(ii) Subject to the proposed Conditions listed at section 13 of the Agenda report  (to be modified, amended or added to as necessary), to include amendments to Conditions 1 (compliance with approved plans and details), 21 (compliance with approved drainage strategy), and 23 (compliance with drainage system maintenance and management plan details), once an updated Management and Maintenance Plan has been agreed under part (i) above. 

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/25/0480/VCF be delegated to Officers to approve, subject to:-



(i) First liaising with the applicant and Lead Local Flood Authority to agree an updated Management and Maintenance Plan reflecting the new surface water drainage scheme design; and
 


(ii) Subject to the proposed Conditions listed at section 13 of the Agenda report  (to be modified, amended or added to as necessary), to include amendments to Conditions 1 (compliance with approved plans and details), 21 (compliance with approved drainage strategy), and 23 (compliance with drainage system maintenance and management plan details), once an updated Management and Maintenance Plan has been agreed under part (i) above. 

CARRIED

The Committee received and considered the Planning Graduate's report and addendum report which presented an application submitted by a staff member of GYBC.

The Planning Graduate presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

The Committee was advised that since the agenda report was published a planning application has been submitted for 10 Willows Court, proposing a ‘larger home extension’ under Permitted Development Rights to construct a 6.3m deep hipped-roof extension across the rear of the property. This proposal is unlikely to have an overshadowing or overlooking effect on the rear extension at 6 Willows Court, the subject of this application, due to No10 not being an immediate neighbour to this application site. When considered in combination, the two extensions are unlikely to cause unacceptable levels of enclosure of no.8 Willows Court as this proposal has a relatively modest depth that does not extend further than the existing extensions already at no.8.

The Committee hereby entered in debate.

Councillor Jeal moved to approve the application. This motion was seconded by Councillor Freeman.

Proposer: Councillor Jeal 

Seconder: Councillor Freeman 

That application 06/25/0358/HH is APPROVED and planning permission is granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 12 of the published Agenda report.

Following a vote, it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/25/0358/HH be approved and planning permission is granted, subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 12 of the published Agenda report.

CARRIED

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planning Officer's report and addendum report for an application for advertisement consent to host a permanent display of various flags from two existing flag poles sited on land to the north of the Town Hall, Hall Plain, Great Yarmouth.      

The Planning Graduate presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with the key issues relating to the application.

Members were advised that the application site is not within the ‘curtilage’ of the Town Hall building, although it is appreciated that it is part of its setting and to have a linked civic function to the Town Hall. As such, if a flag is not within Schedule 1, it will need consent. Therefore, flying any Schedule 3 flag and any other form of flag from the two flag poles will need express consent. 

The Development Manager reported that, the applicant has applied for a permanent permission for their display until 2124; it is not considered necessary to restrict their display to the standard limit of 5 years, and it is not considered reasonable or necessary to restrict the use to any shorter period of time than that which has been applied for, even though it is noted that the area is subject to regeneration aspirations.

Councillor Jeal asked why the application site did not come under the curtilage of the Town Hall, as permission would not be needed. It was advised that there was an error in the report and the application site is owned by the Highways Authority.



The Chair stated that the Committee could only consider the application that was in front of them and that any queries regarding to the area in question coming under the curtilage of the Town Hall should be taken to the Leader or the Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Capewell asked whether the application was retrospective as some Schedule 3 flags had been flown from the flagpoles. He was advised that some Schedule 3 flags may have been flown.

Members hereby entered in debate.

Councillor Freeman queried how much it had cost in Officer’s time and to bring this application to Committee and moved to approve the application.

Proposer: Councillor Freeman

Seconder: Councillor Galer

Following a vote; it was RESOLVED:-

That application 06/24/0815/A be approved and planning permission is granted subject to the proposed conditions set out at Section 12 of the published Agenda report.  

CARRIED

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