Agenda item

The ADP introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He noted the late representations received and advised a synopsis of late comments had been circulated to Members via email prior to the meeting, this as a consequence of the ongoing consultation process which had only been concluded that day.

He affirmed the context of the site and the proposals relationship within the AONB which had influenced the landscape report. The view from Incleborough Hill of the AONB over the open countryside and the undeveloped coast area was considered to be of significant importance and critical in terms of weighting in the Officers recommendation.

The ADP noted that issues surrounding golf safety had been mitigated and that the proposal included realignment of the golf course which would aid to minimise the concerns of potential conflict between the users of the golf course and the occupants of the holiday lodges, as well as the inclusion of golf safety nets which would be implemented in the short term until tree planting had been established. As such, concerns raised by the Environmental Health team on the matter of safety of the proposal, were considered to be resolved.

He advised Members that the lodges had been designed in such a way to assimilate closely with the nearby dwellings located the northern edge of the site boundary, and with the local landscape. The proposed lodges would be timber cladded, with a flat roof, and had been subject to a landscape visual impact assessment, provided by the applicant. The ADP affirmed the longer term strategy to minimise the impact of the development and the aim to plant both Deciduous and Coniferous trees which would effectively screen the lodges and minimise the harm arising from the proposal. He reflected that there would be an interim period in the short and medium term where the landscaping would not be effective in assimilating the harm arising to the site for a period up to 15 years.

The ADP noted that there was no formal access for visitors or parking at the lodges, and that the visitors would be dependent on the use of golf buggies and pedestrian access routes. The latest proposal was determined to form a stronger linkage to the hotel than prior applications in which the lodges were proposed in a different location. Officers considered there to be no overriding issues in terms of Local Amenity or Highways concerns.

He commented that Officers had considered the impact of biodiversity and habitat and were satisfied that the measures for mitigation within the applicant’s ecological report had been satisfactory. He advised if Members were minded to approve the scheme that this would require a GI/Rams payment due to the proposals relationship with the local areas sensitive habitat and biodiversity.

The ADP stated that a key issue in considering the proposal was the matter of economic development, and reflected on the important role which the tourism economy has on the district and the importance of the provision of tourism accommodation. The Applicant had expressed a need for diversification of their tourist offer and the need to seek alternatives as they plan for the eventual loss of the Sea Marge Hotel due to matters surrounding Coastal Protection. The proposal would generate the provision of 6 additional jobs, as well as those associated with building the units, and would have a beneficial spin off effect on the local economy, as well as on the Links Hotel and the wider Hotel Group.

To summarise, the ADP commented that significance was attached to the diversification of the tourism offer and the proposals associated benefits, which were not considered to be inconsequential. He noted a range of mitigation measures had been introduced which would have some short and long term benefits. However Officers concluded that the harm arising to the landscape and the views from Inclebourgh Hill over the undeveloped coast was considered to outweigh the economic benefits, or other mitigations and enhancements arising from the proposal. The siting of the lodges within a sensitive area of the AONB would result in overriding harm and was considered contrary to NNDC Core Strategy Policies EN1, EN2, EN3, EN4 and the NPPF paragraph 176.

Public Speakers:

Carole Davidson – Runton Parish Council

William Macadam – Objecting

Marc Mackenzie - Supporting

1. Local Member – Cllr S Bütikofer – affirmed her support for the Officers recommendation for refusal and provided images of the view from Incleborough Hill. She stressed the Councils responsibility to act as a guardian for the local landscape, protecting the national asset of the AONB, and that that this should be the foremost consideration in Members deliberations. She reflected that the hotel was an important contributor to the local economy but that it was not the only hotel group or independent hotel within the district. The Local Member noted objections raised by the local parish council, Norfolk Coast Partnership, CPRE, The National Trust, The Open Spaces Society, as well as the Councils own Landscape Officers, and that of local residents and members of the public. Cllr S Bütikofer affirmed that the proposal was contrary to five of the Councils own policies, and recited pertinent lines for policies EC3, EN1, and EN2, as well as the NPPF. She considered that whilst it was important to support businesses, this should not be to the detriment of the local environment and that the proposal would have an unacceptable encroachment into the AONB.

2. Cllr P Heinrich stated that this application must be considered on planning grounds only. He noted that the application was located within the AONB and that there were other large developments located nearby. In addition, he noted that the proposals were designed to be low, with flat roofs, and were somewhat concealed by existing tree planting and that the additional proposed tree planting would be beneficial in concealing the development in the long term. He noted that North Norfolk was reliant on tourism and that the proposed lodges would provide a mix of accommodation to meet the demands of those tourists. He argued that considerable weight must be applied to the economic arguments but that that was a finely balanced application and he could see the merits of both arguments.

3. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle considered it disappointing that the development could not be sited closer to the clubhouse, and noted the visual impact that the proposal would have on the undeveloped area. He noted that the development would have a negative impact on light pollution and whilst he supported the argument for economic growth, he considered the location of the development as an obstruction.

4. Cllr J Rest stated his sympathy with the owner, and commended them for being forward thinking. He acknowledged that North Norfolk is a beautiful area that others should be able to appreciate, and that those tourists would bring a tremendous amount of revenue which would benefit the district more broadly. He queried that the Holiday Lodges were not specified as being DDA compliant as set out on page 14 of the Agenda Pack.

5. In response to Cllr J Rest, the ADP advised that the matter of DDA compliance could be resolved through the use of suitable planning conditions or through the building regulations process and that he would be surprised that any business would want to exclude potential customers. He advised that the operator would need to ensure that some of the units were DDA compliant.

6. At the discretion of the Chairman the Applicant was invited to speak and address member’s questions. He advised that several of the lodges would be accessible for disabled users and have disabled facilities contained within. Access to the lodges was by way of a rough road without top dressing but that this would be addressed to ensure smooth access to lodges and that this would be wheelchair and buggy accessible. He stated that the intention, as a business model, was to encourage guests to forgo their cars and to make use of walking, biking or golf buggies as needed. He hoped that the guests would be able to enjoy the countryside without the need for vehicles.

7. Cllr N Pearce commented that this was a very complex case, but that on balance he considered that the Officers had come to the correct conclusion. He noted the contents of pages 14 and 15 of the Agenda Pack reflected that the proposed development would not be policy compliant. He stated he was galled that the application was part retrospective, and this was against planning law. Cllr N Pearce supported the comments made by the Local Member in that the Council were the guardians of the districts natural heritage, and that the views from Incleborough Hill overlooking the AONB out to the sea would be harmed by way of the proposal. He affirmed that such views were part of the reason why so many tourists wished to come to North Norfolk. He considered the need for economic development but reflected that this did not outweigh the harm caused to the local landscape and so proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation.

8. Cllr N Lloyd seconded the proposal and reflected that the proposed development would be in breach of many planning policies and would result in an encroachment into the AONB. He agreed with the Local Member and Cllr N Pearce of the Council’s responsibility in protecting the AONB, and determined that he could not see sufficient benefits which would offset the harm caused to the AONB. He commented that had the proposed lodges been designed with special environmental considerations and were in affect ‘green lodges’ that he may have come to a different determination.

9. Cllr R Kershaw stated that this was a finely balanced application and acknowledged the economic benefits which the proposal would bring. He agreed with Cllr N Lloyd that the development of ‘eco lodges’ would have been preferable and be better in keeping with the AONB. He concluded that the lodges were in the wrong location and as such would support the Officers recommendation.

10. Cllr A Brown commented that both he and the Council understood the important role that Tourism had on the local economy as demonstrated through the distribution of grant awards. He identified three areas of concern. First, the impact the proposal would have on the dark skies policy for High Kelling and Weybourne. Second, that use of a eco-friendly design rather than an industry standard construction, would be a more attractive proposal. Third, that the AONB was a hard bar for any development to overcome and that even with the economic argument taken into consideration, the development would be in breach of several planning policies.

11. Cllr L Withington agreed that an eco-friendly design would have been preferable. She asked whether the accommodation would be used all season round, and reflected that if the accommodation did not extend the season in may not be considered appropriate. The ADP advised that the lodges were part of the diversification of the offer of the business and would be available all year round. He noted that most modern accommodations was available to book 12 months of the year.

12. Cllr V Holliday affirmed that even if the proposal’s design had been more environmentally friendly it did not address issues relating to the harm caused to the landscape and the AONB. She noted that none of the submissions made from the public had been in support of the application.

RESOLVED by 12 votes for, and 2 against.

That planning application PF/21/0694 be REFUSED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation with final wording of the conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning