Agenda item

The SPO introduced the report to members and reiterated recommendation for refusal with respect to NCC Highways objection located on P.22 of the Agenda Pack.

Public Speakers

Stephen Roberts (Supporting)

Questions and Discussion

1. The ADP, with the consent of the Chairman, relayed a statement prepared by the Local Member- Cllr G Perry-Warnes who was unable to attend the meeting which detailed her support for the application. The statement noted that the applicants and their agents had adapted a prior proposal with the assistance of the NNDC Planning team to bring their proposal into compliance with planning policy. Cllr G Perry-Warnes had also noted that the recommendation for refusal was based exclusively on the submission from NCC Highways, and reflected that the objection was not proportionate for a single household.

2. Cllr N Lloyd stated his support for the application as he did not believe there to be sufficient reason for refusal. Cllr N Lloyd added that it would have been preferable to see environmental considerations made within the application to address the Climate Emergency.

3. Cllr L Withington clarified that the prior designation for no further development from NCC was made in relation to the suitability of Peacock Lane to serve an additional 100 properties rather than 1.

4. The HDMO affirmed comments submitted by NCC Highways on the unsuitability of the junction with Cromer Road to cater for additional traffic and footfall, given the junction’s constraints. The HDMO noted that recent building developments erected on Peacock Lane had been replacements of existing dwellings, and added that development of 19 Peacock Lane had been consented on the condition that a footpath be implemented to mitigate risk to pedestrians. The HDMO referred to the NPPF, Section 9 – Sustainable Transport, paragraph 112 subsections a, b and c and cited these conditions would not be met by the application.

5. The ADP noted that Members should reflect on the proposed application rather than other historic planning developments, and that Members should consider the balance between the professional advice received and representations made from the applicant.

6. Cllr A Brown indicated his support for the application and expressed his belief that the impact of one new development was not so substantial as to put highways safety in jeopardy. Additionally, due to the nature of the junction between Peacock Lane with Cromer Road, road users approached with care, and this had been reflected in the absence of accident statistics.

7. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the application noting that the only reason given for refusal was the NCC Highways submission, and whilst Peacock Lane was narrow, he questioned whether the increase of road usage posed a real additional danger.

8. Cllr V Holiday spoke in favour of refusal of the application, noting that she was familiar with the road which she believed to be unsafe, particularly at the junction with Cromer Road.

9. In response to questions by the Chairman, the HDMO confirmed that there had been no accidents on the road in the last 20 years, but Highways considerations were not based solely on statistics, and there were other considerations made when determining whether to object to an application.

10. Cllr V Holiday proposed, the Chairman seconded, refusal of the application for the reasons as detailed in the officers report

VOTE WAS LOST by 4 votes for, 6 votes against.

11. The ADP detailed options which Councillors had available to them including to consider a different recommendation from that contained within the Officer’s recommendation, or to defer the application.

12. Cllr N Lloyd reiterated prior comments that the lack of accident data was an important influencing factor for voting in favour of the application, and that the perception of danger had not been reflected in the statistics. Cllr N Lloyd proposed approval of the application, subject to conditions placed by officers.

13. Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal that the application be approved subject to conditions for disabled access and energy efficiency.

14. Cllr R Kershaw enquired whether signage could be erected to alert road users that this was a shared space.

15. The HDMO, in response to Cllr R Kershaw, noted that whilst there was limited space for signage, this was something that NCC Highways could consider.

16. The ADP noted that the matter of signage would be added as an informative at the recommendation of the Development Committee, as this stood beyond the remit of Planning.

RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4

That the application be approved subject to conditions relating to disabled access and energy efficiency.