Agenda item

Refusal

The Planning Officer presented the report and referred to the presentation that had been forwarded to Members.  She also presented drone footage of the site and its surroundings.  She reported that the Human Rights section of the report should refer to refusal and not approval as stated.  She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Landscape Officer emphasised the undeveloped nature of the west side of The Greenway.  She did not consider that conversion to holiday lets would be readily assimilated into the landscape given the open, undeveloped, quiet nature of this particular part of the AONB..  The proposal would have an impact on the defined special qualities of the AONB, particularly that of remoteness, tranquillity and wildness, not only in terms of the landscape and visual impact, but also through human activity and disturbance of the designated sites.  It was appropriate for the building to remain in agricultural use surrounded as it was by agricultural land.

The Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Ms K Ward, the local Member.  Councillor Ms Ward supported the repurposing of the existing buildings, as alternative agricultural structures would have a much greater visual impact on the landscape and increase the use of Beach Road by large machinery and lorries.  This was a low key diversification scheme for a local farming family and would be in keeping with the existing campsite on the opposite side of the road.  The proposal would minimise its visual impact and boost local economic activity at a difficult time.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that the drone footage had been very helpful and had highlighted all the concerns.  She endorsed the comments of the Norfolk Coast Partnership.  She referred to the military history of the site.  She highlighted the concerns regarding light pollution and highway safety.  She proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that the buildings were temporary WW2 structures in poor condition and with dubious historical significance.  The site was isolated from the village, with poor access and would be visible due to the lighting.  He could give no weight to the proposed use as disabled accommodation as there were no controls.  He seconded the proposal to refuse this application.

Councillor R Kershaw referred to the existing campsite, which was closer to the salt marsh than the application site.  He was concerned that if this application were refused, the buildings could be demolished and replaced by another agricultural building that could attract more traffic.  He considered that the lighting issue had been mitigated.  He did not support the recommendation.

Councillor J Toye supported Councillor Kershaw’s comments.  He stated that there were three cottages on the other side of the campsite, and he questioned the ‘significant’ effect on habitats given that there was an existing car park, campsite and boat museum.  He also questioned the highway impact when there had been no accidents at that location.  He considered that, on balance, the application was acceptable.

Councillor N Lloyd stated that he had sympathy with the application but could not support it due to the lack of an ecological assessment report.

Councillor A Brown considered that this was a laudable proposal, but the buildings were only in situ as they had been exempt from planning control and he was not comfortable with the intensification of their use for any other purpose.  He also referred to the need for an ecological report due to the location of the site in the Undeveloped Coast which was precious and sensitive in the District.

The Head of Planning stated that permitted development rights for new uses and new buildings were very restricted in the AONB.  The fallback position was to retain the buildings as existing and he was happy to assist the owner as to what uses were possible under permitted development.

RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.