Agenda item

Decision

Deferred

The SPO-JB introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval subject to an extensive list of conditions. He established the sites location and context within the wider setting, advising that coastal erosion threatened the access point to the existing car park which would render the current car park unusable. The SPO-JB noted the predicated 100 year coastal erosion estimate, the existing car park falling within the predicated eroded area.

The SPO-JB confirmed the proposed plan for 74 spaces inclusive of 6 disability accessible spaces and 5 motorbikes with a landscaping and ecological buffer zone and enhancements (as detailed in the report) between the car park and neighbouring properties providing amenity screening. Through the consultation concerns had been raised with regards anti-social behaviour, it had subsequently been agreed with the applicant that a gate could be provided and maintained to address this matter, with further limits on opening hours and prohibition of overnight camping and parking conditions.

Aerial images were provided from 2014, 2020 and 2023 for context, establishing the levels of coastal retreat. It was understood that there was only around 15 meters from the existing access point and the cliff edge, with the potential that a turbulent winter storm further risk loss of the access point to the existing car park.

The SPO-JB affirmed that key elements of the proposal was the provision of new access drive to keep the existing car park open, delivery of new spaces (only when the existing car park was deemed unsafe) ecological enhancements and landscaping to the north and west, and grasscrete surface to be used throughout. The proposal was supported by the Council’s coastal erosion roll back policies. Additionally, there was ongoing need access to the Deep History Coast, Norfolk Coast Footpath, Happisburgh Lighthouse, and to maintain access for a nationally important geography case study.

In was noted that much of the Officers report detailed matters of Highway Safety. The SPO-JB set out the proposed access routes with demonstratives.

Public Speakers

David Mole – Happisburgh Parish Council

Paul Sanders – Objecting

Frances Batt – Objecting

Jo Beardshaw – Supporting

Bryony Nierop-Reading – Supporting

Thomas Love – Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr L Paterson – Local Member – expressed his support for the application and of the balanced view presented by Officers. He considered the amenity offered essential, particularly given the lack of public transport and reliance on private vehicles. He highlighted that the beach nearby and Play Park provided an affordable day out to families, and that access to these facilities may be lost without the car park. Further, the loss of the car park would place increased pressure on street parking.

     ii.        At the request of the Chairman, the SPO-JB affirmed the importance of the roll-back policy in Officers considerations. Policy EN12 of the Local Plan establishes a list of criteria to justify rollback (provided on P.27 of the Agenda).

    iii.        Cllr H Blathwayt – Portfolio Holder for Coast – thanked the Parish Council for its far-sighted views on this matter and stressed that roll back was an unfortunate necessity which he urged the Committee to facilitate in accepting the Officer’s recommendation. He noted that coastal erosion and rollback affected communities along the entire coastline and that this was therefore not an isolated matter affecting Happisburgh. Cllr H Blathwayt considered the Highways Objections failed to comprehend the imminent loss of Beach Road access due to coastal erosion, and argued that the traffic problems arising paled in comparison the issue’s arising from the loss of access to the car park.

   iv.        The Chairman supported Cllr H Blathwayt’s comments with regards the urgency of the problem, and reflected on his own observations that the rate of erosion to the cliffs was increasing. He relayed his expectation that current access would likely be lost in the next 5 years, if not sooner.

     v.        Cllr A Fitch-Tillett affirmed that, in 2011, she had been the portfolio holder for Coastal Management during which time the then Labour government accepted that defending all of the coast would not be possible. The Council were granted money from central government for the ‘Pathfinder’ project to establish ways of managing the coast. She considered that through Pathfinder, life was put back into Happisburgh, commenting that this community had previously been blighted due to coastal erosion. Further, it was noted that the Carpark had been achieved through Pathfinder with the expectation that 20-30 years in future there may be an issue.  Cllr A Fitch-Tillett acknowledged the increasing pressure of sea level rise and more dramatic storms which had contributed to an accelerated erosion in Happisburgh that initially forecasted. She noted that the accessible ramp created through Pathfinder to the beach, had been re-profiled at least three times already, including once more in the last 12 months. She stressed the archaeological significance of Happisburgh with respect the Deep Coast History, and affirmed that parking and access must be maintained to ensure access to the beach.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett expressed her sympathy with those residents on lighthouse lane, but reflected that there were countless other locations along the coast were vehicles and pedestrians mixed without issue and in a respectful manor.  She commented that she was assured that the Council would do everything possible to minimise danger to pedestrians.

Given her prior role, which she had served for the last 20 years, Cllr A Fitch-Tillett affirmed she would abstain from voting on the application.

   vi.        Cllr K Toye stated that she would it challenging to justify the scheme to the residents of Water Lane, who would be adversely affected by the application. She visited the area for the first time 2 weeks prior, and reflected on how lovely it was, sympathising with the objections of residents. Cllr K Toye affirmed that she would like to see the access lane improved, if this were not possible alternate locations should be investigated.

  vii.        The Chairman acknowledged this issues surrounding access to Lighthouse Lane and asked if discussions could take place with Highways to seek improvements.

 viii.        The DM advised, should Members be minded to approve the application, that it could be conditioned that the design of the Bell mouth is a matters to be agreed with the Highway Authority and the Local Planning Authority. He confirmed that there were countless examples across the country where road users were actively encourages using certain routes in a specific direction. It was noted the applicants willingness to work with both authorities to achieve the scheme. The DM commented that an appropriate signage strategy would seek to ensure road users followed the most appropriate routes and eliminate conflicts between drivers and pedestrians.

   ix.        Cllr R Macdonald noted the repeated Highways Authority objections, and sought clarity how much weight should be attributed to their representation. In addition, he asked the viability of a one way system, which be considered to be a reasonable solution.

     x.        The DM stated that, at present, a one way system was not a feature of the proposed application. A traffic regulation order (TRO) would need to be secured in order to have a one way system as this would result in a change to the highway network. Such a TRO may be objected to by residents of Lighthouse Lane who may not wish to be restricted in their movements. The DM considered a TRO may go some way to alleviate traffic concerns, and commented it was a matter for the applicant to consider.

   xi.        The Applicant advised a one way system had been considered, and acknowledged the access along Lighthouse lane was not without its issues. He commented that access between Beach Road and Lighthouse Lane could be improved, and contended this would be better than an alternate one way system which would take a significant amount of resource.

  xii.        Cllr A Brown stated that the principle of re-siting the car park was supported by the Committee, however questioned the justification for the size of the car park and traffic management (which would be seasonably affected) leading to an intense usage of Lighthouse Lane. He affirmed that the junction from Beach road to Whimpwell Street was far superior than that from Whimpwell Street to Lighthouse Lane, and expressed his concern with the alternate route proposed. Cllr A Brown questioned which properties would be directly opposed the bell mouth entrance, and asked if consideration could be given to a chicane giving priority to the direction of traffic to the south. He asked whether the landowner may be minded to facilitate passing places along Lighthouse Lane to alleviate issues of Vehicles using the entrances of Residents’ Properties as passing places.

 xiii.        Cllr J Toye considered the irony of the situation that the area was subject to rapidly increasing coastal erosion, in part because of cars. Whilst there may be some community benefit from the income generated from the car park being spent locally, he was uncertain how much of the visitor economy affects the village. Cllr J Toye noted that policy EN12 related to the replacement of Community Facilities, had the application related solely to the relocation of the toilet facilities and the play park he considered this would satisfy this criteria, however he argued this was not relevant to the car park. He stated he was unable to support the continued use of cars in this areas which was contributing to coastal erosion.

 xiv.        The Chairman advised, should Members have ongoing questions about traffic issues, that the application could be deferred, pending further investigation on this matter.  

  xv.        Cllr V Holliday agreed with Cllr J Toye and affirmed that the Council should be discouraging car use on the coast and coming up with innovative ways of managing this. She commented that she was really uncomfortable with continuing to provide coastal car parks, and that she was concerned about the local transport network. Cllr V Holliday noted the conflicting public views on the application, and the petition signed by 95 persons against the scheme.

 xvi.        Cllr L Withington confirmed this was not an isolated issue and was indicative of challenges being faced along the coast, therefore, the approach set by the Committee would establish a precedent for other application’s moving forward. Cllr L Withington noted that access to the beach was vital in ensuring continued coastal management, which she commented was key consideration. Like other Members, she was concerned about the Highways Authority objection and frustrated that solutions had not been provided to alleviate issues. Cllr L Withington proposed deferral of the application to enable further investigation of traffic issues and solutions.

xvii.        Cllr A Brown seconded a deferral.

xviii.        The Chairman asked that Members clearly articulate those aspects which they required further details of before the application was brought back to Committee.

 xix.        The DM reflected on Members debate, and the concerns expressed about access on to Lighthouse Lane. He commented conversations could take place to explore options to improve access from Beach Road onto Lighthouse Lane to ensure this was made as safe as possible, but also to explore highway concerns and reasonably possible solutions more broadly to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

  xx.        The SPO-JB advised that requesting a restrictive bell mouth which prohibits vehicular movements left, and further highway works to the south of such bell mouth, would be an interesting relationship to explore. Certainly, there was scope to improve the Highway network. 

 xxi.        Cllr L Withington asked if clarity could be provided by the coastal management team about the impact of the scheme on their work.

xxii.        The CWM confirmed that the public access ramp to the beach was intended to support recreational use, however it was also used in the management of the rock armour and debris on the beach. Whilst the beach could be accessed from cart gap to the south east, this was a much longer distance with added complications in transporting essential equipment. Erosion rates vary year on year, with an extreme of 13 metres being lost in one month in Happisburgh. The CWM advised that the loss of the car park with subsequently mean the loss of the adjacent play area. He noted that the Car Park had been placed in situ following community discussions in 2010-2011, where it was understood that there was a need to accommodate visitor services and associated infrastructure near the coast, which was the attraction to visitors.

xxiii.        Cllr H Blathwayt reminded Members of the 50 year expected erosion forecast and asked Officers to re-display this image for the benefit of the Committee.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for

That Planning Application PF/22/2510 be deferred.