Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Capewell and Councillor Freeman.

There were no declarations of interest declared at the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 December 2025 were confirmed as a true record.

The Chair addressed the Committee prior to the presentation to advise that officers had apologised for the length of the Addendum Report and offered Members 5 -10 to read it if they were unable to do so before the meeting due to the document being circulated the afternoon prior to the meeting. It was added that the length of the document was unavoidable in this particular case, and Officers acknowledged the Members need time to fully comprehend the information prior to attending the meeting. The Chair stated that officers will go through the points included in the Addendum Report within their presentations for each item. Officers were asked to give a brief explanation regarding the length of the Addendum Report.

The Development Manager apologised for the length  of the Addendum Report, explaining that, as a Planning Authority, officers have to consider all changes of circumstance and any additional information right up to the date of the meeting. It was added that the need for the Addendum Report in this case has arisen from significant pressure to get the Item 4 application to a point where it could be considered with a recommendation, relying on consultation from stakeholders. The Development Manager explained that it became apparent throughout the week prior to the meeting that the recommendation would need to be altered due to additional information received. It was noted that officers also aim to give Members as much up to date detail as possible in order to make an informed decision. It was stated that the length of this Addendum Report is unusual but reflects the importance of Item 4 and a desire to avoid deferring the application all together.

Members agreed to continue with the meeting so long as officers went through the Addendum Report within the presentation.

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planning Officer’s report which presented an application for the demolition of existing factory, depot and warehouse buildings. As well as the development of the site to construct 82 residential dwellings (Class C3) with associated highway, drainage, cycle stores, landscaping works and electric substation.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members, together with key issues relating to the application as per the agenda report and addendum report. It was reported that the development would consist of 47 flats and 35 houses to provide a balanced and sustainable scheme. It was noted that Officers have worked very closely with the applicants, their agent, external/internal consultees and external funding partners in order to develop the proposals in an amended form that has been assessed in the comprehensive agenda report leading to a recommendation of approval.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the development of this brownfield site, in viability terms, cannot support the planning obligations of affordable housing or financial commuted sums other than the mandatory GIRAMS HRA mitigation, thus the proposal is for a 100% open market housing scheme. It was added that it would be considered necessary to give weight to the fact that the applicant and the Council, as landowner, have entered into a strategic partnership to help deliver the development of this site, and it is hoped that the land sale agreement will facilitate more benefits than an otherwise viable development would be able to. It was noted that Officers have continued to hold further discussions with the applicant and public sector funding agencies, reflecting on the routes to determination, implementations and progression of the developments. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the complexities of the development are covered in section 3 of the Addendum Report, together with further detailed Officer Discussion. It was noted that these points led to the amendments to the recommendation as set out in pages 8 to 9 of the Addendum Report. It was concluded that Officers consider that the recommendation in the Addendum Report provides a fair and balanced mechanism to deliver housing on this key strategic brownfield site for the reasons set out in the presentation.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Officer Recommendation is as follows:

That application 06/24/0968/F should be resolved to be APPROVED and that authority should be delegated to Officers to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the Agenda Report and Addendum Report.

Councillor Boyd requested clarification on whether there was any potential of affordable housing being included at a later date. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the revised recommendation includes a commitment to an s106 agreement which allows for changes to be made to consider the delivery of affordable housing. It was added that the application is, at present, for 100% open market housing, however the s106 agreement will obligate the applicant to commission viability reviews twice throughout the process to assess profit within the scheme and consider whether affordable housing can be provided.

Councillor Hammond asked whether the contributions that have been waived could be claimed if there was money to be had. The Principal Planning Officer stated that there would be a potential way to achieve this through the s106 agreement. Councillor Hammond requested clarification as to whether the Conge would still be the main way to access the town centre and market parking. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Conge would remain a significant thoroughfare to the market from the train station, as part of the bigger picture of regeneration in that area of the town.

Councillor Martin referenced section 2.17 of the recommendation in the Agenda Report regarding parking and requested that Officers confirmed the number of parking spaces that will be available due to a discrepancy in the documentation. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the proposal would include 59 parking spaces for residents and 17 on-street parking spaces. It was added that there would not be an allocated space for every dwelling, though 60% of the properties would include a parking space and there will be cycle parking available for each dwelling.

Councillor Martin requested an explanation of the ‘pocket park’ referenced in the presentation and asked what that would include. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the ‘pocket park’ would be included on the southern edge of the development which would include an open space with play equipment. It was added that there would also be two landscaped courtyards running north and south within the development.

Councillor Martin asked how accurate the images in the presentation are compared to what will be delivered in reality. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the landscaping drawings are referenced in the conditions, therefore would be delivered should the application be approved as they would be approved drawings. It was added that the planned landscaping is as dense as can to adhere to an appropriate ratio between soft and hard landscaping. It was noted that the priority is to include landscaping along road edges which would then be integrated within the site.

Councillor Martin asked whether external lighting would be presented to the Committee at a later date due to concerns around safety and potential for anti-social behaviour. The Principal Planning Officer stated that details for external lighting would be submitted to Officers as the development progresses. The Development Manager commented that under delegated authority, it would not be deemed necessary to consult the Committee should the Officers recommendation for approval go through, though Members would be welcome to check in with Officers regarding this if interested. It was added that it is a common requirement for details to be agreed before lighting is installed.

Councillor Galer requested clarification as to whether there would be the provision for EV charging. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that every allocated parking space, not including the on-street visitor parking, would include an EV charging point. Councillor Murray-Smith asked why there would be no provision for public charging posts. The Principal Planning Officer explained that public charging posts would be an additional cost to the developer, and that this could be pursued at a later date through government grants for public charging if the applicant were so inclined. Councillor Murray-Smith suggested that the provision for public charging posts be explored with the developer as the ground will already be dug up during landscaping works. The Principal Planning Officer stated that this could be explored, however this would not be able to be added as a condition as there is no planning policy requirement.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether Officers have considered requested contributions through the planning system to address the flood risk concerns raised by the Environment Agency as outlined on pages 25 to 26 of the Agenda Report. The Development Manager explained that contributions are not being sought as there is no policy for flooding defences to be funded by contributions.

The Chair hereby invited Mr S Myles, agent on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee.

Mr S Myles thanked Officers for the thorough reports and presentation. It was explained that the Conge forms a key part of the Great Yarmouth waterfront area and is a designated key site within the Local Plan, therefore this is a transformational gateway site with the potential to deliver a number of benefits with the town. It was added that this development would transform the Conge, looking to provide crossing points and traffic calming measures to an integral route leading from the train station to the town centre. Mr S Myles explained that the applicants seek to provide a high quality site and an attractive new neighbourhood as sought in Policy CS17. It was added that there have been no objections from relevant authorities and that the proposal meets policy objectives whilst regenerating an underutilised brownfield site in a sustainable location. Mr S Myles asked that members endorse and approve the application as per the Officer Recommendation.

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether it would be possible to see whether EV charging companies would add public charging posts along the 17 on-street parking spaces. Mr S Myles stated that this would be challenging to include as a planning condition, however the applicants could speak to EV charging companies to explore options as part of the detailed design.

The Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Pilkington thanked Officers for the thorough report and stated that this is a positive scheme that would transform a mostly unattractive area that is a thoroughfare in the town, however there are concerns regarding the waiving of s106 contributions. It was added that the challenges of viability are understood due to rising costs, however a private developer would likely not get the same sympathy to have s106 contributions waived. Councillor Pilkington explained that the residents who elected the Members have concerns regarding public health resources, therefore he would be hesitant to approve a residential site of this size without a guarantee that local infrastructure would get a financial reward.

Councillor Martin stated that a correct balance in the town is need and there is a need for social housing which this scheme does not address. It was added that the open spaces are welcomed, however there is a concern regarding parking as there are pressures on parking in this area of the town at present, without the additional 82 dwellings. It was noted that parking in the town can be difficult for residents, as many people park for work or leisure. Councillor Martin commented that she does not want to delay development and a positive first impression for the town, however going forward the Council need to taking parking in the town seriously to ensure that residents are not adversely affected.

Councillor Hammond stated that this development would be an asset to the town.

Councillor Murray-Smith referenced concerns regarding s106 contributions and stated that, as per the Addendum Report, it is apparent that contributions could be paid if profits allow, therefore the option is to allow the development with a chance of s106 contributions, or to turn down the application an allow an eyesore to remain whilst putting additional housing pressure on other areas that are not currently developed. It was added that the application presents the best possible development considering the circumstances.

Councillor Mogford stated that the Council should ensure that whoever is responsible for the landscaping ensures that it is maintained as main planning schemes fail without comprehensive watering schemes. The Principal Planning Officer stated that the conditions contain a landscape maintenance plan, and that the applicants would maintain the site as a whole which includes the landscaping.

Councillor Williamson stated that this scheme would improve the area, through there are concerns regarding the type of landscaping. It was added that larger trees along the Conge leading to the market area would be more appealing. Councillor Williamson addressed the concerns regarding s106 contributions and explained that for every head of the population, the NHS gets an annual allocation of money, therefore some money will still be provided to the NHS due to the increase in residents, even if not from this development. Councillor Williamson stated that he fully supports the development and moved to approve the Officer’s Recommendation.

Councillor Boyd stated that this development would be a positive addition to the town as it utilises a brownfield site and may influence the development of other neglected brownfield sites in the town. It was added that concerns regarding s106 contributions have been noted, however on balance this development would be beneficial for the town by giving the area an uplift and providing needed housing. Councillor Boyd seconded the motion to approve.

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/24/0968/F be APPROVED and that authority should be delegated to Officers to grant full planning permission subject to the following -

(I) Satisfactory completion of an Appropriate Assessment by the LPA as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations, to be informed by suitable confirmation from Natural England.

(II) Completion of an appropriate Draft Section 106 Agreement with he applicant, to be appended to the planning permission decision notice, which shall secure the following matters:

  a) Funding for GIRAMS financial contributions (currently £304.17 per dwelling, or a total of £24,941.94, if permission is granted in the 2025/25 financial year)

  b) A review of the development's viability, and if necessary enactment of an appropriately-worded overage clause/claw-back mechanism for funding in whole or in part, of planning obligations towards education, libraries, public open space, affordable housing and health service enhancements as below:

  i) Education - up to £31, 539.00 for mainstream schools SEND funding, and up to £96,806,00 for specialist schools funding - if there is still a requirement at the time of the viability review;

  ii) Libraries - up to £15,170.00 for increasing capacity of the Great Yarmouth library;

  iii) Public Open Space - up to £132,101.17 for providing enhanced public open space facilities in the Central and Northgate Ward area, to address the 4.445sqm under-supply/deficit in Play Space, Informal Amenity Space and Accessible Natural Green Space, compared to that which would ordinarily be required on-site (£72,593.77), and the requirement for off-site expansion of Outdoor Sport and Parks and Gardens facilities (£59,507.40);

  iv) Health Service - up to £40,508.00 to be used towards increasing capacity at the local GP practices at Park Surgery and East Norfolk Medical Practice, by way of reconfiguration or extension of existing premises; and, 

  v) Affordable Housing - up to 9 dwellings to be provided as on-site affordable housing, or a financial contribution to be provided in lieu of on-site affordable dwellings to be calculated against the costs and values of construction those dwellings.

  c) Such viability review to be undertaken both prior to commencement of development, and upon the first occupation of 70 dwellings (85% occupancy of the development)

  d) If the viability reviews do evidence that contributions can be provided for social infrastructure listed above, the LPA should determine how those contributions should be spent, through liaison with relevant stakeholders and service providers, to ensure the contributions remain necessary and reasonable in planning terms.

(III) Securing completion of suitable legal mechanism or undertaking from the applicant which commits the applicant to entering into the Section 106 Agreement as drafted, at the point at which they acquire a legal interest/ownership in the site;

(IV) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include those listed at Appendix 1 to the Addendum Report (to be modified added to and updated as necessary), including agreeing pre-commencement conditions with the applicant;

(V) If preparation of the Section 106 Agreement or suitable alternative measures are not progression 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 Senior Planning Officer’s report which presented an application for construction of hard surfacing to extend the existing car park to provide an additional 37no. parking spaces, with associated landscaping, planting, CCTV and lighting.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members, together with key issues relating to the application as per the agenda report and addendum report. It was explained that there is a proposed variation to conditions 6 and 8 within the Agenda Report as a result of the installations of CCTV and cycle stands. It was proposed that a new condition is added to the recommendation to require the details of the CCTV installed to be submitted.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Officer Recommendation is as follows:

That application 06/24/0756/F is APPROVED and planning permission is granted subject to Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as listed in Section 18 in the published Committee Agenda Report (to be renumbered accordingly), and the following changes to the conditions:

• Reworded Condition 6:

  Prior to their installation, full details of the proposed lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first use of the hereby approved car park extension the lights shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details and shall thereafter be maintained and retained in perpetuity.

• Reworded Condition 8:

  The 5 Sheffield cycle stands installed to the east elevation of the Village Hall, north of the main pedestrian entrance doors, shall be retained and maintained available for public use in perpetuity.

• A new Condition:

  Within 30 days of this decision notice details of the recently installed CCTV (on a pole on the south elevation of the Village Hall shall) be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. If found acceptable by the Local Planning Authority they shall thereafter be maintained and retained in perpetuity.

   

  The Chair hereby invited Ms J Payne, applicant and Chair of the Fleggburgh Village Hall Committee, to address the Committee. Ms J Payne advised that the village hall is an integral part of the community as it hosts 13 clubs per week on average that promote the physical and well-being of parishioners, as well as accommodating the local primary school regularly for physical education classes when there is wet weather. It was added that a post office is available at the village hall once a week, which is essential for local residents, and that the hall can be hired for private parties or fundraising events. Ms J Payne explained that the lack of parking is a serious concern and that a planned fundraising event that was due to take place in December 2025 had to be cancelled due to concerns regarding parking after wet weather, meaning that the local church lost about £800 as many tickets had already been sold for the event. It was added that parents often park at the village hall to drop off and collect their children from school, meaning there can be at least 40 cars in the car park twice a day on weekdays. It was concluded that this application would be to extend the village hall car park to provide essential parking to the local community and local businesses.

   

  The Committee hereby entered into debate.

   

  Councillor Pilkinton commented that village halls are an important asset for rural villages and that this particular village hall is utilised regularly. Objections regarding the reduction to the size of the playing feild were noted, however it was stated that the playing field is currently and would remain a significant size adequate to host any sport. It was added that additional parking provision would reduce the number of cars parked along the road at night, making the road safer. Councillor Pilkington stated that this expansion would be a benefit to the village and moved to approve as per the Officer’s Recommendation. Councillor Hammond seconded the motion.

   

  Councillor Williamson stated that the playing field meets the requirements for a one star field and that the football association have no objection, therefore he would fully support this application.

   

  Following a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:

  That application 06/24/0756/F is APPROVED and planning permission is granted subject to Conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 as listed in Section 18 in the published Committee Agenda Report (to be renumbered accordingly), and the following changes to the conditions: 

• Condition 6:

  Prior to their installation, full details of the proposed lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the first use of the hereby approved car park extension the lights shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details and shall thereafter be maintained and retained in perpetuity.

•  Condition 8:

  The 5 Sheffield cycle stands installed to the east elevation of the Village Hall, north of the main pedestrian entrance doors, shall be retained and maintained available for public use in perpetuity.

•  A new Condition:

  Within 30 days of this decision notice details of the recently installed CCTV (on a pole on the south elevation of the Village Hall shall) be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. If found acceptable by the Local Planning Authority they shall thereafter be maintained and retained in perpetuity.

   

  Informative note to applicant:

  The applicant is advised that the installed CCTV is currently unauthorised until the details required by this condition have been approved, as per this condition. If the submitted details are unable to be approved the developer could find themselves in breach of this condition, and the CCTV units would require express planning permission.

The Chair hereby moved to extend the meeting as per section 26.11.3 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor Mogford seconded the motion. Following a unanimous vote, the meeting was extended for a period of 30 minutes.

The Chair thanked Principal Planner, Hannah Northrop, on behalf of the Committee as this would be her last meeting.

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planner’s report which presented an application to vary Conditions 2, 7, 12, 21, 29, 34, 40, 41, 42 and 44 of planning permission 06/21/0917/F (Conversion of existing barn to 2 dwellings and erection of 44 dwellings and associated infrastructure), to amend the design, appearance and siting of house types, layout of the site access, landscaping and tree protection, and boundary treatments.

The Principal Planner presented the salient matters of the application to Members, together with key issues relating to the application as per the agenda report and addendum report. It was reported that this application is a variation application, therefore the scheme as a whole is not subject to this application as the principle has already been determined under the original permission. It was advised that previous planning permission had been implemented, therefore the permission for previous layout could still go ahead should this application not be approved. The Principal Planner stated that there had been 21 additional public objections received as detailed in the Addendum Report, however these concerns, where material, had been previously addressed in the main Agenda Report.

The Principal Planner reported that the Officer Recommendation is as follows:

That application 06/24/0386/VCF is resolved to be APPROVED and that authority is delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

(I) Receiving financial contributions for, or negotiating suitable means to secure financial contributions through planning obligations, as required to satisfy the GIRAMS strategy and policies CS11, GSP5 and GSP8, sufficient to pass the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations (as described at paragraphs 10.51-10.54 of this report);

(II) The planning obligations required within existing Section 106 Agreement originally dated 15th February 2019 and as varied by Deed of Variation on 12th April 2022; and,

(III) the proposed conditions listed in Section 11 of the Committee Agenda Report, to be added to and modified as necessary including with updated references to the revised Site Layout Plan described above (drawing WSMA-CF-ZZ-XX-DR-A-0502 - REVISION P10) and the applicant’s confirmation that they agree to the proposed pre-commencement conditions.

Councillor Green queried the loss of trees and asked whether any could be saved to be replanted. The Principal Planner stated that this could be explored with the applicant and would be welcomed if possible.

The Chair hereby invited Mr A Bell, applicant, to address the Committee. Mr A Bell thanks Officer for the through report and presentation. It was stated that the new design proposed in the application would be more fitting for a rural location and the amended layout would be more attractive to potential buyers in the area. It was added that the removal of the 4 trees is unavoidable, however 34 new trees and a hedgerow will be introduced. Mr A Bell stated that the demolition process will be managed to control ecological harm and that any reptiles found on site before construction will be relocated. Mr A Bell stated that the additional GIRAMS payment will be made and that statutory consultees were satisfied with the proposals. It was concluded that this proposal would improve the already implemented scheme.

The Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Boyd stated that as this application is to vary the type of building and layout to an already implemented scheme, he would move to approve the application as per the Officer’s Recommendation. Councillor Williamson seconded the motion.

The Chair stated that it is always disappointing for mature trees to be removed and that it would be nice to see the trees replanted, however the challenges surrounding this are understood.

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/24/0386/VCF be APPROVED and that authority is delegated to Officers to grant planning permission subject to:

1. Receipt of the necessary £9,041.82 financial contribution for mitigation of visitor recreation impacts on designated sites as required under the GIRAMS scheme, or negotiating suitable means to secure the financial contributions through planning obligations, as required to satisfy policies CS11, GSP5 and GSP8, sufficient to pass the Appropriate Assessment stage of the Habitats Regulations;

    

2. The planning obligations required within existing Section 106 Agreement originally dated 15th February 2019 and as varied by Deed of Variation on 12th April 2022; and,

    

3. Completion of a suitable Appropriate Assessment by the LPA as Competent Authority under the Habitats Regulations, and relevant consultation with Natural England to ensure the process is satisfied; and,

    

4. The proposed conditions listed in Section 11 of the Committee Agenda Report, to be added to and modified as necessary including with updated references to the revised Site Layout Plan described in the Addendum Report (drawing WSMA-CF-ZZ-XX-DR-A-0502 - REVISION P10) and the applicant’s confirmed agreement to pre-commencement conditions.

The Committee received and considered the Principal Planner’s report which presented a retrospective application to install 1.95 metre high close boarded timber fencing alongside Hodds Lane and Woodfarm Lane.

The Principal Planner presented the salient matters of the application to Members, together with key issues relating to the application as per the agenda report and addendum report. It was reported that several parts of the fence had already been installed and that temporary permission has been recommended for a 3 year period due to the long term design impact of the fence. It was added that the expiry date would be 14 January 2029, with note that structures should be removed within 28 days of the expiry date.

The Principal Planner reported that the Officer Recommendation is as follows:

That application 06/25/0812/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions listed in the Agenda Report and Addendum Report.

There were no questions for the Principal Planner, therefore the Committee hereby entered into debate.

Councillor Pilkington moved to approve the application as per the Officer’s Recommendation, Councillor Hammond seconded the motion.

Following a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:

That application 06/25/0812/F is APPROVED and planning permission granted subject to the conditions listed at Section 12 of the Agenda Report.

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