Agenda item

Refusal

The Major Projects Manager presented the report and highlighted the issues that could be taken into account when considering permission in principle.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speaker

David Taylor (supporting)

Councillor E Seward, local Member, stated that it had always been accepted that the site was outside the designated settlement boundary.  However, there was residential development on two sides of the site, good proximity to town centre facilities and public transport, and the site could not be described as remote or isolated.  Development would have no adverse visual impact on the countryside, and the demolition of the existing ugly agricultural building would be a great improvement.  There was no local opposition or material highway concerns, and the suggested footpath could be provided.  He stated that National Planning Policy Guidance recognised that decisions should follow policy, but also that local circumstances should be taken into account to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area, and advice from a planning lawyer had stated that brownfield sites could be brought back into reuse even though they were not within the settlement boundary.   He considered that there would be no planning harm given the modest scale of development, it would make better use of the site and there were no material highway issues.  He considered that there were sufficient benefits to outweigh any technical conflict with policies SS1 and SS2, but emphasised the need for clarity as to the reasons for departing from policy given the interests that had been expressed in building in the Countryside surrounding the town.

Councillor N Lloyd stated that he had been the former Ward Councillor for 8 years and knew the site very well.  He accepted that the site was within the designated Countryside area, but it was completely surrounded by residential development, a farm and a holiday park.  He considered that the site was brownfield, and the Government was pushing towards making it easier to develop such sites.  The existing building had been vacated by businesses that had moved on, and the site as it stood was ugly.  He considered that there could be a net biodiversity gain in developing the site with planting included.  He stated that he would vote against the Officer’s recommendation as he considered that planning policy did not fit the actual circumstances and he did not consider that the Countryside would be damaged by developing the site.

Councillor J Toye asked the Committee to consider if more weight could be attached to policies EN2: enhancing the landscape and settlement character, and EN8: enhancing the historic environment, and requested guidance from the Officers as to the correct interpretation.

Councillor R Kershaw stated that he had been surprised at the amount of development surrounding this site, which was only 10 metres north of the speed limit on the approach to the town.  He considered that the existing building was an eyesore and there would be no harm in its demolition.  He considered that the development would benefit the town, it would be sustainable as shopping facilities were within walking distance and modest development would be an improvement.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle supported the views that had been expressed by the previous speakers.  He questioned why a large house in the countryside was considered to be acceptable, whereas four small dwellings were not.  He considered there was an ideal opportunity to introduce heat source pumps and solar energy into any development on this site.

The Chairman reminded the Committee that this application was concerned with location and the use of the land at this stage, and not matters of detail.

Councillor N Pearce requested clarification with regard to Policies SS1 and SS2 as it appeared that they were sometimes applied quite rigidly and at other times a pragmatic and sensible approach was taken.  He considered that this proposal appeared to be a sensible development which would remove an eyesore and benefit the local economy and ecology.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that an unsightly site did not justify a departure from policy.   She considered that a dangerous precedent would be set if this application were approved.

Councillor A Yiasimi reminded the Committee that each application should be taken on its own merits and the balance should be considered.

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks stated that there was a desperate need for housing in North Walsham.  She supported Councillor Yiasimi’s comments and referred to a large stately home at Holkham that had recently been permitted in the Countryside because of its merits.

The Assistant Director of Planning explained that the basis for making planning decisions remained the current Local Plan that had had been adopted in 2008 and the material planning policies were those that were compliant with the NPPF.  He explained that the Holkham application had been an exceptional case which accorded with paragraph 79 of the NPPF and was policy compliant.  In the current case, the proposal was not within the existing development limit for North Walsham, although it was close to that limit.  Under current adopted Local Plan policy, there was a requirement for the development to be within the development limit and it was therefore correct to consider it as a departure from policy.  Emerging policy that would allow development to be considered if it was adjacent to or well related to existing development limits carried no weight at the present time and could not be applied to this application.  He advised that there should be exceptional and unique circumstances to depart from policy and that significant wider benefit would need to be identified.  The Officer’s consideration of this application had not identified any overwhelming wider benefit to justify a departure from policy in this case.

The Major Projects Manager outlined the issues that Members had identified as being material to the consideration of this application, which they could explore further if they decided to reject the Officer’s recommendation:

-        the reuse of previously developed land;

-       close proximity to North Walsham so people could walk or cycle into town to meet their day to day needs, which was one of the main strands of sustainability;

-       the proposal would not result in harm to the wider landscape or settlement character of North Walsham (Policy EN2); and

-       the proposal would help enhance the setting of adjacent heritage assets (Policy EN8).

The Lawyer reiterated that the law required that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless there were material considerations that would indicate otherwise.

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

RESOLVED by 7 votes to 6

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