Agenda item

Delegated conditional approval + Section 106 Obligation

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and displayed a location plan on screen.  She stated that the site had been erroneously described in the report as a Coastal Village, whereas it was defined in the current Local Plan as a Countryside location.  She recommended the approval of this application as set out in the report.

The Committee was informed that the Applicant, Mr Warren, did not wish to make a statement but he was available to answer any questions.

Councillor C Stockton, the local Member, stated that exceptions sites were the only mechanism for providing affordable housing for local people in coastal and rural communities, and it was necessary to take advantage of these sites to keep communities local and provide opportunities for local people.  He considered that as a result of the pandemic, there would be added pressure on local housing from people looking to move out of cities for a more peaceful life, with internet connections enabling them to work from home.  It was therefore essential that exception sites were approved wherever possible.  He considered that this pressure overrode the policy issues in this case, and proposed the approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she had initially been concerned regarding flooding issues, but given the Coastal Team’s view on the issue she was relaxed that there were no flooding concerns.  She referred to the sandscaping scheme, which protected the coast from the Bacton Gas Terminal down to Ostend.  She was keen to ensure that mitigation of the landscape impact of this development was included if the application were approved.

Councillor P Heinrich fully supported Councillor Stockton’s comments regarding the need for affordable homes.  He considered that the site was not ideal but the scheme would provide houses that would meet a local need.  He referred to the changes that had occurred along the beach since the sandscaping scheme was introduced, with sand accumulating at the base of the cliffs and only small amounts of slumping due to surface water penetration.  Although Ostend Road was narrow, there would only be a problem during the peak summer season, and traffic generation could not be based on 2 or 3 cars per household as a number of the houses were not occupied full time.  He considered that the design of the scheme was reflective of the history of the area.  He seconded the proposal.

Councillor A Brown considered that it was refreshing to see an application that provided 16 affordable units out of 18.  It was a stated aim of the Corporate Plan to provide local housing for local need and he was happy to support this application, notwithstanding that it was not fully policy compliant.   He stated that it was estimated that based on a cost benefit analysis, one affordable house was worth £140,000 to the local economy, which meant that this development could potentially contribute £2.24m.  He asked if there was clarity on the method of heating proposed.

At the Chairman’s invitation, Mr Warren, the applicant, explained that it was proposed to use ground source heating if possible, but the affordability of this method would need to be reviewed in the light of the Government removing its renewable heat incentive.  If ground source heating was not viable, it was proposed to use air source heating instead.  In answer to a supplementary question by the Chairman regarding noise levels of air source heat pumps, Mr Warren explained how noise intrusion would be mitigated by the placement of the units.

Councillor A Yiasimi stated that he agreed with Councillor Stockton’s points and Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett had allayed his concerns regarding flooding.  He considered that there was a need for this affordable housing.

Councillor R Kershaw was pleased to see a Passivhaus design in the District, and commended the developer for bringing it forward.  He considered that it was very important that people who lived in affordable homes did not suffer high fuel costs.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle was pleased with the amount of affordable housing proposed and use of heat source pumps.  He referred to the noise levels in comparison with gas boilers.  Heat source pumps were noisier the more they were used, so in the summer months they would be very quiet.  He added that heat source pumps were becoming less noisy as designs were improved and that gas boilers would no longer be available from 2026.

Councillor N Lloyd was very supportive of the application and pleased to see the contribution to renewable energy schemes.  However, he considered that solar panels would be beneficial for the occupants and asked why the applicant had not considered them in this scheme.

Mr Warren explained that there was a limit to the number of technologies he could include while remaining viable.  The dwellings had been designed to enable the Housing Association to install solar panels at a later date if desired.  He explained that the houses used very little energy and generated most of their heat from solar gain.  The heat pumps would be used very little, even in the winter months.

It was proposed by Councillor C Stockton, seconded by Councillor P Heinrich and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Obligation within three months of the decision and the imposition of conditions, or refused if a suitable section 106 agreement is not completed within three months of the date of resolution to approve and, in the opinion of the  Assistant Director of Planning, there is no realistic prospect of a suitable section 106 agreement being completed within a reasonable timescale, in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning.