Agenda item

(Heading amended from published agenda)  Delegated conditional approval + Section 106

(Heading amended from published agenda)

The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mr R Wright (North Walsham Town Council)

Mr C Bird (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager explained that the proposed new access from Kidas Way had now been omitted from the proposal and it was intended to use the existing access.  He presented the report, displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons stated in the report.

Councillor Ms V Gay, the local Member, stated that she had sympathy with the speakers on this application but Councillor Seward would speak on this application as she had an interest in the decision.

Councillor E Seward considered that there were material considerations in this case to outweigh the SS1 policy objections.  He stated that there had been no objection from the public, North Walsham  Town Council and Worstead Parish Council, and there were no highway, design, landscape or amenity issues that could not be addressed by conditions.  The business was well-respected, financially viable and expanding.  He considered that the area was not physically remote or isolated, being only a short drive from North Walsham, and the site was adjacent to a busy County Council recycling site.  However, the actual location of the site was physically and visually isolated which raised security and safety concerns.  The applicant was of the view that he needed to live on site and that CCTV alone was not sufficient.   If approved, the applicant intended to close the existing site at Grammar School Road which would take HGVs away from the residential roads and be a major step to help the town.  He considered that the proposal was compliant with Policy HO5.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that it would be clearly beneficial for someone to live on the site on health and safety grounds.  He stated that the applicant was a respected businessman who had respect for the town and its residents.  He fully supported this application.

Councillor N Pearce considered that a dwelling on the site for management purposes in relation to the applicant’s future proposals would be a preventative measure against possible problems.  He supported this application.

Councillor P Heinrich also expressed support for the proposal and considered that the benefit of removing HGVs from Grammar School Road outweighed all other issues.  He considered that the possible future use of the existing site for housing or other purposes that would benefit the town had to be taken into consideration.

The Acting Development Manager explained that more weight could have been attached to the relocation of the business if planning permission had been in place and a legal agreement entered into to cease the present use at Grammar School Road.  There was no certainty that the use would cease.

The Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that there had to be clear reasons to depart from policy and to ensure that approval did not result in an isolated house in the Countryside with no link to a business.  It was possible to link the house to the business through a Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Obligation, and also to seek an obligation to cease the use of the Grammar School Road site to secure the added public benefits of removing traffic from the town.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she supported the application on the following grounds:

1.     Necessity for the waste disposal site;

2.     Security of the waste disposal site, in the event of fire, burglary etc.;

3.     A Section 106 agreement could (a) tie the dwelling to the waste site in perpetuity; and (b) secure relocation of the Grammar School Road depot within a reasonable timescale.

The Major Projects Manager stated that it would be desirable for an application to relocate the business to be submitted quickly to establish permission for the full extent of the use of the site.

Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer considered that the proposal was compliant with Policy EC3 as one house would be appropriate to the scale of the existing development and would not have a detrimental effect on the area as it would be well screened.  She referred to the climate emergency and considered that the proposal would improve air quality in the town and improve the health and safety of the public, in accordance with Policy EN13.

Councillor Dr C Stockton considered that there was a need for someone to be on the site and that material considerations relating to the practicalities and security of the business outweighed policy in this case. 

At the request of Councillor A Brown, the Locum Solicitor explained the differences between a Section 106 Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking.  She confirmed that either would be appropriate in this case.

Councillor D Baker referred to the Corporate Plan which placed emphasis on the need to support business in North Norfolk.  He supported this application.

Councillor A Yiasimi stated that each application had to be considered on its own merits and in this case the benefits to the community far outweighed refusal.

There was no proposer for the Officer’s recommendation.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Councillor N Lloyd and

RESOLVED unanimously

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to:

1.     The prior completion of a Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Obligation to link ownership and occupation of the dwelling to the ownership of the business, and to cease the use of HGVs on the Grammar School Road site within a timescale to be agreed; and

2.     The imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.

Reasons: the necessity of the waste management site, security from theft, fire and antisocial behaviour, and improvement in air quality by removal of HGVs from the town are considered to be compliant with Local Plan policies EC3 and EN13.