Refusal

The Senior Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report by remote link and recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.

Public Speakers

Stephen Pegg (Sheringham Town Council)

Lewis Gray (supporting)

The Chairman informed the Committee that the local Member, Councillor Mrs L Withington, was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted her comments.

The Assistant Director for Planning stated that Councillor Mrs Withington’s full comments were contained within the report.  She had in addition submitted the following explanation as to why she had called in the application, which he read to the Committee:  “This application has been very controversial and I have received many emails, telephone calls and comments in regard to both sides of the discussion. It would seem that this application may also determine precedents for future uses of promenade areas in Sheringham. Therefore I felt it was important that the decision was considered on planning terms in an objective, open and transparent arena.” 

Councillor A Brown requested clarification with regard to the relationship of the site with the Conservation Area boundary.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application site was 16 metres outside the Conservation Area boundary for Sheringham, but there were concerns with regard to the impact of the proposal on the setting and significance of the Conservation Area.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett declared that she was very involved with water sports and would abstain from voting on this matter.  Whilst there were many planning reasons why the application should not be approved, she considered that there were Human Rights issues to take into account in view of the importance of outdoor recreation in the pandemic.  Whilst siting a container where proposed would be a problem, there was nowhere else to operate from as paddleboards had to be within sight of a lifeguard.  She considered that it would be restrictive for the applicant to transport the paddleboards to and from the Promenade and the proposal would be a very good tourist offer. 

The Chairman pointed out that the benefits of the proposal had been highlighted in the report but it was necessary to consider the planning issues.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he understood the desire to expand the business but was not convinced that it was appropriate to place a container on the Promenade, which could not be compared with the situation at Cromer as it was much more constrained.  Whilst he was supportive of small businesses, it could not be at the expense of the landscape and other aspects of tourism.  The container would be an ugly structure and it would be difficult to improve its appearance.  He considered that the Officer’s report had balanced the issues well.  He proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor N Lloyd expressed sympathy for the applicant, who was trying to make a success of his business, and referred to the benefits of outdoor activities in the current circumstances.  However, he was disappointed that the proposed structure was a shipping container and there were no proposals to mitigate its appearance.

Councillor R Kershaw considered that this was the right business but in the wrong place.  He considered that the proposed container would be a blot on the landscape of the Promenade.  He seconded the proposal to refuse this application.

The Chairman stated that the Committee would welcome the business but the shipping container was the issue on which the Committee had to make its decision.

Councillor N Pearce stated that his comments were included in the report as the consultation had been sent to him in error.  Whilst the proposal contravened a number of policies, the new business would provide economic benefits and the container was not a permanent structure.  It was a novel use of the coastline and the tourist season was expected to be busy.  He commended the applicant on his business venture and considered that a one-year permission would help the applicant.

The Chairman asked the applicant how he would get the container onto the Promenade.

Mr Gray explained that it would be delivered onto the Promenade on a low loader.

Councillor A Brown considered that the applicant should be applauded for bringing his venture to Sheringham to satisfy visitor demands and promote tourism in the town.  He had reservations regarding the application as there was a need to consider the public realm.  He hoped the Council would work with the applicant to find alternative premises or alternative arrangements that would assist him to move forward with his business venture. 

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention

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

The Assistant Director for Planning confirmed that he would be happy to discuss with the applicant as to alternatives to mitigate the scheme and include the Town Council in discussions.