Agenda item

 HPA-HG introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He outlined the site’s location, context within the wider setting, elevations of the gazebos, details of the integrated soakaway system, relocation of the flue, and provided site photos.

The key issues for the proposal were the principle of development; the effect on the character and appearance of the area; the cost on residential amenity, coastal erosion; and highways safety.

Public Speakers

Nicholas Dent – Supporting

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr W Fredericks – expressed her disappointment regarding the retrospective nature of the application. She welcomed the proposed changes to the flue as she considered that the original placement had been an issue. The Local Member noted that information pertaining to the impact of noise and smell was missing, additionally details relating to gazebos and lighting needed to be carefully scrutinised particularly with respect of the drainage system. The Local Member was not satisfied that enough consideration had been given by the Environment Agency or officers to this component of the scheme and contended that information was lacking on water displacement and light pollution. In addition, she considered the noise impact of the flue was notable given her assertion that it was running late into the evening and beyond the opening hours of the Chip Shop.

     ii.        The DM advised that the surface water matter had been discussed with the Coastal Team, who were satisfied that the proposed soakaway scheme would acceptably dispose of surface water. The gazebos were constructed with louvers which, when open, would allow for water to be discharged to the ground as it would otherwise have done. Irrespective of whether the louvers were open or closed, the Coastal Engineers had advised they were supportive of the scheme. With respect of the extractor system, the Council were still awaiting information which was required within 28 days of the date of the decision. The Environmental Health Officer had confirmed they were content for this matter to be resolved by condition. The DM advised he was confident that matters outlined could be resolved by condition.

    iii.        Cllr W Fredericks asked how use of the louvers could be enforced to ensure they were opened when not in use.

   iv.        The DM affirmed this was not a key issue and reiterated that the Coastal Engineers were satisfied with the scheme regardless of whether the louvers were opened or closed.

     v.        Cllr L Vickers noted the public speaker’s representation that the gazebos were permitted development under COVID-19 and asked if this was correct.

   vi.        The DM was unable to offer precise specifications of what was permitted during COVID but confirmed that there was an expansion of outdoor seating to encourage users to sit in the open air and not within buildings.

  vii.        Cllr L Vickers stated that she was persuaded by the economic merits of the proposal, with the public house employing local people and the business generating revenue within the local economy.

 viii.        Cllr V Holliday considered the scheme to be intrusive and was concerned about light pollution for such a sensitive site. In response to earlier comments regarding economic merits of the proposal, Cllr V Holliday reflected that tourism was not a well-paid occupation.

   ix.        The Chairman stated that whilst tourism was not a well-paid occupation it was an essential part of the local economy.

     x.        Cllr A Brown agreed that tourism along with agriculture were essential to the local economy, with tourism being hardest hit when the pandemic started and was slow to get back up to prior levels. He commented that the Council were committed to supporting tourist businesses and remarked that the premises were a vital facility for local people and visitors alike. Cllr A Brown welcomed the relocation of the flue though expressed his disappointment regarding the lack of detail supplied on the impact of noise and smell of the extractor system and considered that sufficient time had passed to address such matters. Cllr A Brown accepted the use of the gazebo’s would not constitute as overdevelopment, though shared Cllr V Holliday’s concerns regarding light pollution. He noted the conditions proposed to restrict the operation of lights between 7am – 11pm and commented that it was always a concern whether such conditions could be enforced and monitored given how busy the enforcement team were.

   xi.        Cllr J Toye expressed concerns about the proposed drainage but accepted that specialists had considered the scheme and were satisfied with the soakaway system, and noted Cllr A Brown’s comments that the enforcement team were busy. Cllr J Toye asked if conditions could be applied to ensure the monitoring of the soakaways, particularly given one was sited in a car park and would be subject to movement, given the size of the soakaways he argued they could easily become soiled up resulting in them being ineffective. With the Coastal team being in situ in Mundesley over the next few years, he argued this presented an opportunity for them to monitor whether the soakaways were operating as expected.

  xii.        The DM advised that it was challenging to monitor the effectiveness of bellow ground systems. Typically, the Council would ask applicants to provide details over the construction of soakaways, usually to specific standard required. Provided the soakaway was built to the correct standard, it would be very hard to monitor whether it was working as expected. The DM advised against adding a condition for the monitoring of the soakaway to the level of detail discussed and was minded that it may give a false impression to residents over the enforcement of the condition.  Should issues arise on the site with increased surface water appearing on site, the Council would then enter discussions with the applicant.

 xiii.        Cllr J Toye commented that if the downpipes were blocked, and the drainage system not maintained, rain would fall off in large quantities down the cliff face and not where it was intended. Monitoring the system was functioning effectively would be as simple as checking the rain was going down the downpipe and into the soakaway whilst it rained. Cllr J Toye stated that he was not seeking an onerous or complex solution, and this could be remedied by simple maintenance. 

 xiv.        The DM affirmed that condition 5 would address concerns over the management of the soakaways for the lifetime of the development, ensuring the soakaways were built in accordance with the manufacturers specifications and maintained as such thereafter.

  xv.        Cllr J Toye reflected that residents would likely inform the Council if there were an issue with the system and reiterated his concern over the sensitive nature of the site.

 xvi.        At the discretion of the Chairman, the applicant was permitted to make a further representation addressing members comments. Mr Dent advised that it was in the best interest of his business that the soakaways be maintained. He confirmed that he would ensure that there were no adverse effects and was committed that the scheme would function as expected.

xvii.        Cllr J Toye suggested that a simple check list be imposed that the drainage was checked once a month, particularly during leaf fall, ensuring the guttering was clear. This simple solution would be in the best interest of the applicant to mitigate the risk of cliff erosion.

xviii.        The applicant advised he was happy to ensure checks were undertaken. In response to earlier comments, Mr Dent confirmed that the business was going for green tourism accreditation, to receive such accreditation the business must operate to a high environmental standard, including energy efficiency. He countered that use of extraction systems and lighting when not needed would conflict with green tourism accreditation and was something which made no sense for the business to do. Whilst there may have been issues in the past, the applicant advised this would not be the case moving forward with the environmental focus of the business.

 xix.        The Chairman reminded members they must consider the merits of the application on planning grounds.

  xx.        Cllr M Hankins stated he was broadly in support of the application, noting it had weathered the pandemic when many other public houses had not. He affirmed it was a good attraction for tourists, though expressed concern over the proposed lighting. The officer’s report detailed that there ‘may’ be an impact on Highways, and that Highways reserved the right to seek the removal of any lighting causing obstruction or nuisance. Cllr M Hankins asked if this issue had been discharged and whether officers were now confident that the proposed lighting was acceptable.

 xxi.        The Chairman advised the proposed lighting would confirm with policies CT5 and CT6 and was therefore acceptable in policy terms.

xxii.        The DM confirmed discussions had taken place with the Highways authority and no specific concerns had been raised about the proposed lighting. The informative note detailed was included to ensure the applicant maintained the lighting so that it would not become a nuisance from a highway perspective.

xxiii.        Cllr M Hankins sought confirmation that the lighting was policy compliant.

xxiv.        The DM affirmed the lighting was policy complaint and that Highways had raised no objections. The informative detailed was a standard note applied on developments with external lighting, highlighting to the applicant that simply because they had received planning permission, such permission did not allow for lighting to be adjusted resulting in glare onto highways. The Highways Authority would reserve the right under this condition to ask for the lighting to be removed should it cause a traffic impact or safety issue under the highways act.

xxv.        Cllr L Vickers noted with the officer’s report that the lights would be fitted with cowls to direct the light downwards, she sought confirmation that this was correct.

xxvi.        The HPA-HG advised this would be conditioned via the second condition.

xxvii.        Cllr A Varley thanked officers for their thorough report. Having listened to the varied discussions and the mitigation proposed for the sensitive location, he was content to propose acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

xxviii.        Cllr K Toye stated that whilst she was initially concerned about the impact on neighbours with respect of light pollution, she considered the conditions detailed were acceptable provided they were adhered to. Cllr K Toye seconded the officer’s recommendation.

xxix.        Cllr A Brown asked if there were any safety implications arising from glass perimeter fence from a building regulations perspective. Additionally, he encouraged the applicant and others to avoid submitting retrospective applications and to seek permission ahead of commencement of works.

xxx.        The DM advised that the glass balustrade was not a feature of the planning application and was considered to be permitted development. He was unable to offer guaranteed assurances without speaking to the Building Control team whether the glass fence was acceptable.

xxxi.        Cllr A Brown accepted the fence did not form part of the planning application and asked that his question be directed to the Building Control team for a response outside of the meeting.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 against.

That planning application PF/23/1150 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.