Agenda item

The DM introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions for Planning Applications PF/20/0523 and PO/20/0524.

 

He commented that these were complex proposals as set out in the Officers report, the six accompanying appendices and a set of draft planning conditions which were supplied to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting.

 

Updates

 

The DM updated Members that further representation had been received from the Environment Agency on 21^st November, confirming that guidance issued by Natural England to the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in March advising that a Nutrient Neutrality approach should be used in certain planning decisions, was not replicated for applications under the environmental permitting regime. Applications under the environmental permitting regime for discharge to a watercourse were already subject to assessment and modelling of the ecological impacts on the receiving waterbody and catchment.

 

The Environment Agency (EA) advised, as the Competent Authority in respect of environmental permitting, the existing HRA is considered adequate for discharges up to the permitted volumes and until such time as any variation is applied for. The EA’s position was therefore one of no objection but Officers suggested appropriate conditions linked to surface water.

 

The DM further updated that a late representation had been received from Natural England on 16^th November. Natural England indicated that they require further information in order to determine the significance of impacts and the scope for mitigation. The following information was required:

 

1. An update to the Council’s HRA which records North Norfolk District Council’s conclusion as to whether an adverse effect on integrity will occur as a result of the development proposals, and

2. Any necessary conditions or limitations that need to be secured to avoid any adverse effects on integrity and/or mitigation measures.

Without this information, Natural England have indicated that they may need to object to the proposal.

 

The DM stated, since receiving the response from Natural England, Officers had provided Natural England with a copy of the Committee report and appendices, a copy of the draft conditions and further comments from the Council’s ecologist. Officers had been unable to secure updated comments from Natural England, despite Officers attempts to obtain a response. The DM reiterated the Officer Recommendation, set out on pages 88 and 89 of the agenda, requests delegated approval subject to no objection from Natural England in relation to Habitats Regulations matters or subject to Natural England being comfortable with the Council as competent authority to discharge its duties under the Habitats Regulations.

 

The DM noted that one further letter of representation had been received 22^nd November from Mr Rundle, which had been circulated to Members of the Committee. The DM stated that whilst many of the issues contained within the letter from Mr Rundle were captured within the public representations set out across pages 23 to 29 of the agenda, the representations set out that the author of the letter did not agree with the Officer assessment that the departure from the Development Plan in relation to Landscape and extensions to business was outweighed by material planning considerations in favour in terms of the balance of pros and cons. The DM advised it was for Members of the Committee to consider and weigh up the various competing issues and apply a planning judgement.

 

The DM noted the comments from Ryburgh Parish Council objecting to the proposals were set out on page 22 of the agenda, and a full copy of their comments were attached at Appendix A  (pages 91 to 95) which included photographs of traffic in the village.

 

The DM outlined the main considerations for the proposals were:

 

Principle (Page 34) sets out key policy considerations.

 

Ryburgh Neighbourhood Plan (Page 35) set out the status of the neighbourhood plan and the relevant policies applicable to these applications.

 

Environmental Statement (Page 35) set out the context of the EIA Regulations for these applications.

 

HRA (Page 37) set out a summary of the issues that have been considered linked to the potential impact of the proposals on the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest. HRA matters had been a significant factor leading to delays in determination of the applications with additional information and updates provided across multiple stages.

 

Officers considered that subject to the imposition of conditions, a conclusion of no adverse effect on the integrity of a European site (in this case the River Wensum SAC) can be reached. However, the DM set out in relation to updates, Natural England require further information to enable them to remove any objections and stated this is reflected in the officer recommendation.

 

Responding to the Climate Emergency (Page 42) The DM advised that much work had been undertaken by the applicant resulting in a Sustainability Statement submitted in October 2022 which (Appendix D -pages 177 to 184 of the agenda). He affirmed that the Committee will recognise it was important to turn words into actions and the commitments set out in the sustainability statement will be secured through suggested planning conditions. Officers considered substantial positive weight should be afforded to these commitments.

 

Extensions to existing businesses in the Countryside (Page 50) Officers considered that the proposals did not accord with the aims of this Policy because of the detrimental effect the proposal would have on the landscape character which are considered in Section 8.

 

Highway safety (Page 51) The DM advised that the Highway Authority had indicated their overall support for the proposals as a whole but this support is subject to securing Traffic Regulation Orders to limit HGV traffic through the village, limiting when certain aspects of the scheme can be delivered as part of a phasing plan, ensuring existing off-site storage activities within the village cease when the warehouse is first used and on the basis that the benefit of the HGV access road is delivered as early as possible to reduce impacts within the village centre.

 

The measures would be secured through a combination of planning conditions and legal agreements. Discussions are ongoing in the preparation of planning conditions and drafting of the S106 Obligation to ensure the Highway Authority objectives enabling support of the proposals are met including the requirements of the CIL regulations.

 

Impact on landscape (Page 60) whilst lighting impacts can be made acceptable through imposition of conditions, the report concludes landscape impacts contrary to the aims of Core Strategy Policy EN 2. These impacts weigh against the grant of planning permission as set out in the conclusions for each application.

 

Noise Impacts (Page 68) whilst the silos, warehouse, new access road and increase in output tonnage of malt would likely add additional noise sources, subject to the imposition of conditions to control activities on site, both applications would be capable of being made acceptable in planning terms and would accord with Development Plan Policy. 

 

Impact on Residential Amenity (Page 71) when considered as a whole, the residential amenity impact of the development is in the main capable of being made acceptable in planning terms via planning conditions, legal obligations and traffic regulation orders. There are positive benefits through reductions in HGV traffic using Fakenham Road, Station Road and Bridge Road, to which significant weight should be given. However, the DM advised that these positive benefits overall need to be tempered by the impact of the warehouse for an extended period until landscape mitigation matures and as a result of the adverse impacts likely to arise as a result of the noise and disturbance impacts from the increase in the output tonnage of malt, including on the amenity value of the land along Highfield Lane.

 

Surface Water Drainage (Page 74) Officers consider that surface water drainage matters in relation to the Applications are satisfactorily resolved and the required mitigation measures can be secured through the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

 

Impact on Ecology and Biodiversity (Page 78) In the current form and based on the existing supporting information, notwithstanding the submission set out at Appendix F (pages 187 to 193) the Council’s Landscape Officer (Ecology) considers that the development proposals for both applications would fail to accord with policy EN9 of the Core Strategy and other relevant local and national policies. Officers acknowledge the concerns raised by the Landscape Officer and consider that, through the use of a Grampian condition, it would be possible to secure the necessary ecological scheme with the aim to reduce impacts, remedy and offset/compensate where impacts on ecological features are unavoidable. Conditions have been drafted on the basis of securing a % of biodiversity net gain. Officers would like to see a figure of 10% net gain but the applicant is yet to commit to that figure. Subject to securing an acceptable scheme, officers consider on balance the proposal would be compliant with the objectives of Core Strategy Policy EN 9 and the general biodiversity objective set out within the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

 

Phasing of Delivery (Page 83) whilst it was envisaged that phasing matters would be secured by way of conditions, it is looking likely that this would be secured across both applications through S106 obligation, affecting the recommendations for both applications.

 

Cumulative Impacts (Page 84) The Environment Statement is submitted on the basis of both proposals occurring together and officers consider that cumulative impact issues are appropriately assessed by the applicant. Conditions will be required to secure mitigation in line with agreed phasing plans.

Material Planning Considerations (Page 85) sets out the range of economic benefits associated with the application and other benefits.

 

Planning Balance (Page 86) outlines the material considerations in favour and considerations against with indicated weight to be afforded.

 

Conclusion

 

The DM stated that both PF/20/0523 and PO/20/0524 were significant planning applications which individually and cumulatively impact on the surrounding area, some of which were negative and which would amount to a departure from the Development Plan, but many were positive impacts that would collectively attract sufficient positive weight to outweigh the conflicts with the Development Plan and thus enable the conditional grant of planning permission.

 

He affirmed that the applicant had provided a significant volume of information within the Environmental Statement and Addendum Jan 2021 and Addendum March 2022 and across supporting documentation. This additional information had helped address key matters, including those linked to the understanding of the impact of the scheme on the River Wensum (SAC, SSSI), particularly those impacts associated with the increase in output tonnage of malt from 115,000 tonnes in any one calendar year to 172,000 tonnes, such that a positive way forward had been identified with the assistance of DTA Ecology.

 

The DM advised, In order to grant permission, the Development Committee would need to be satisfied that North Norfolk District Council, as a competent authority under the Habitats Regulations, has properly exercised its duty to help protect, conserve and restore European sites. He stated that Officers offer assurance to the Development Committee that HRA matters had been properly addressed but this is subject to Natural England confirming their final position.

 

He commented that these applications represent a significant milestone in the history of the Crisp Maltings site at Great Ryburgh. Whilst Crisp have indicated ambitions to reduce environmental impacts, it is only right that, if permission is granted and operations significantly expand, that every effort is taken to secure commitments that ensure that expanded operations are undertaken in a way that reduces adverse impacts on the environment. The applicant’s commitments set out in the Sustainability Statement (October 2022) to be secured as part of the permission(s) would provide a robust framework for delivery of the identified 10 strategies including a Net Zero Strategy that will aid the transition to achieving net-zero carbon by 2050, in line with Government legislation. The DM advised that the applications were the first in the District to secure such commitments and the applicant should be commended for their stated ambitions in this regard. It was considered that the proposals will derive environmental benefits far beyond the application site and will help shape positive farming practices involved in all aspects of the production of barley to be used by the Maltings. 

 

The DM concluded, taking all of the issues into consideration that Officers could make, on balance, a positive recommendation for both applications subject to conditions.

 

The DM went through the Officers presentation and established the location of the proposals, their relationship with surrounding landscape, site photos, planting mitigation scheme and various elevations.

 

Public Speakers

 

Elizabeth Savory - Great Ryburgh Parish Council

Nina Basset – Objecting

David Holliday – Supporting

Rebecca Gee – Supporting

Stuart Sands – Supporting

Jim Papworth – Supporting

 

1. The Local Member – Cllr V Fitzpatrick – expressed his thanks to Officers and commended them for their efforts in bringing the proposals to Committee. He offered historical context for the site location, and stated that Great Ryburgh and the Maltings had grown together and existed in their current forms because of each other. The Local Member considered the Maltings provided tremendous support in helping to establish and sustain the community shop and other community spaces.

 

He affirmed his support for the Officers recommendation on both applications, and encouraged Members to approve the applications subject to conditions for the following reasons; public benefit, economic development within North Norfolk and the wider East Anglian region, a more sustainable production process which outweigh public harm.

 

The Local Member stated that the relief road would reduce the number of HGV movements through the village, and considered the applicant had made attempts to help improve the traffic situation. He accepted that there was some disagreement on the number of movements and degree of reduction, however considered that the road, which would cost the applicant several million pounds, along with the proposed traffic regulation orders would result in a substantial reduction in HGV movements through Great Ryburgh and would by extension improve the living conditions of residents.

 

Cllr V Fitzpatrick stated that he was most compelled by the economic argument, and was minded of the current economic crisis both nationally and globally. He argued that the applications would result in significant gains for North Norfolk and the region, and noted that Norfolk’s climate was especially suitable to growing Maris Otter Barley. Further, the applications would increase value-added processing, creating jobs in North Norfolk both at Crisp Maltings and across the supporting businesses. Crisp Maltings as part of a supply chain, was supported by local famers; with the malt sold locally, nationally and globally, and noted that upwards of 280 farmers contributed to Crisp Maltings. The Local Member reflected that many food and drink processors made use of the Malt produced, and commented on the explosive growth of microbreweries in North Norfolk fuelled in part by the ready supply of good quality Malt. He considered such businesses to be local and sustainable, employing local people within their own communities. Further, those individuals associated with the Great Ryburgh Crisp Maltings site added to the economic prosperity of the region by spending money supporting other local businesses.

 

The Local Member considered the applications to be more sustainable, increasing output whilst using resources in a far more environmentally, and less resource intensive manor, with greater reuse of energy and water, and through the introduction of solar panels.  

 

With regards to landscape matters, Cllr V Fitzpatrick noted that the Maltings had existed as part of the landscape for 150 years and were well established, rather than an adjunct.

 

Finally, The Local Member reflected on comments received from members of the public. He commented that whilst made of the representations were against the developments, some submissions were against the Maltings in general rather than the applications specifically. He noted that there was also a degree of support for the applications; a silent minority, as well as those who were unbothered by the expansion of the Maltings.

 

Cllr V Fitzpatrick urged the Committee to support the delegated approval of the applications.

 

2. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked for clarification regarding the Natural England representation, as he considered the report to be misleading regarding Nutrient Neutrality.  Additionally he asked whether HGV vehicles have to go through Ryburgh to gain access to the Crisp Malting site, should the access road be approved.

 

3. The DM advised that the Council had sought a response from Natural England following their 16^th November communication. He stated that Members should not dismiss Natural England advice, but reiterated that it was the Council who were the relevant competent authority under the HRA. If the Council were to ignore Natural England’s advice, its reasons must be justified. The DM commented that Members were asked to delegate authority to the ADP to make a decision, in the interim Officers would continue discussions with Natural England to ensure they were satisfied with NNDC’s ability to properly discharge its duties as a competent authority.

 

4. Cllr R Kershaw advised that he was familiar with the site as portfolio holder for sustainable growth, but this had not swayed his opinion. He was encouraged by the environmental considerations in the proposal specifically around carbon reductions, water extraction within the existing license, and control of the amount of water in the seepage tanks. Further, he considered the proposed new road and TRO critical in reducing traffic through the village. He questioned the differing of opinion with respect of whether the weigh bridge would be accessible from within the site.

 

Cllr R Kershaw acknowledged that these were complex applications, and was minded that through Crisp Maltings 180 local farmers were supported. He argued that there were not the alternate sites within North Norfolk for Crisp Maltings to move its operations to as an alternate, which would result in a loss of employment. Additionally, any relocation may result in increased mileage from local farms, whose climate were well suited to growing the Malt crop, to a processing site elsewhere.

 

Arguably, without investment the Maltings would likely close with the potential that the site to become a housing estate, which would lead to an increase of traffic. He expressed his support for the Officers report and so proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation for approval subject to conditions

 

5. Cllr L Withington noted public representations and concerns about the weigh bridge. She considered the impact on the river to be important, with SAC and SSSI status locally, and was pleased that the Council were continuing conversations with Natural England, as she would not wish for NNDC to ignore their suggestions. She considered the important cyclical nature of Crisp Maltings on the local economy across the district, and noted farmers within her ward contributed to Crisp Maltings, as well as those who were employed through there graduate programme. Cllr L Withington seconded the Officers recommendation.

 

6. The DM stated that, in addition to the new access road, there will be existing gates which will remain open, as addressed in the Officers report. The weigh-bridge was not located on site but adjoining traffic would need to move through the existing part of the site to go onto the weigh-bridge. He noted as part of the list of conditions for PF/20/0524, draft condition 34 – The Crisp Maltings Traffic Plan – provided an effective way to ensure management and traffic control going into the site, encouraging HGV Vehicles and other traffic movements via the proposed new road.

 

7. Cllr P Heinrich acknowledged that these were a complex set of applications, and commended officers for the detailed reports provided. He stated that there is widespread concern in Ryburgh regarding the expansion of the significant industrial site particularly on traffic and environmental grounds, and Members’ need to be assured that all appropriate mitigations were in place if approved. Cllr P Heinrich noted the history of the site and area, stating that Crisp Maltings was a long established business, predating the arrival of many current residents of the village. He further commented that while it may not be the ideal site, it must be accepted that given the scale of the business a relocation of any or all operations to a completely new site within the District or elsewhere is not realistic. Crisp Malting had made clear that expansion was essential to their growth and to the many local farms producing malting barley. Additionally, the business supported the employment of agricultural workers, HGV drivers, farm supplies, agricultural engineers and well as others. The economic importance to North Norfolk and the county as a whole was highly significant, which he argued must be given considerable weight.

 

Cllr P Heinrich stated the importance that the landscape planting would be fast growing to support native species and provide an effective screen as rapidly as possible. He considered that while there will still be some level of intrusion into the landscape, he considered that this could be mitigated to an acceptable level. In addition, He stated that the proposed access road would reduce traffic in the village, and stressed the importance of the TRO to effectively restrict larger vehicles and in mitigating traffic problems.

 

Cllr P Heinrich stated he had come concerns over the potential impact on the upper Wensum, however noted that Officers were broadly content that these matters could be resolved and secured through conditions.

 

He concluded that this was perhaps the most controversial non-residential application to come before the committee, and that whilst the recommendations would a require a departure from planned policy, he considered the economic argument could not underestimated nor could the assurances from the company regarding not only mitigations but their overall environmental approach including working towards net zero carbon emissions. Cllr P Heinrich affirmed his support for the Officers recommendation and for the conditions outlined.

 

8. Cllr P Fisher asked if the proposed new road would be private road or adopted by NCC, and how maintenance of the road could be guaranteed. He noted that prior road improvements had focused on the existing route, and noted the need to improve other junctions as a result of proposed changed. He concluded that different types of road surfacing resulted in different sounds, with some being much louder than others. He asked if this could be considered within the final set of recommendations.

 

9. The DM advised that traffic movements to the site currently travel from the east but, if the applications we granted, would come from the west. Regarding the adopted status of the road, The DM advised that it would be remain a private road. He demonstrated this route on the map to Members.

 

The DM stated that one of the conditions outlined related to construction materials, and agreed that noise surfacing could impact on types and volume of noises. He confirmed that Officers would work with Crisp to ensure road finish was as quiet as possible.

 

10. The Chairman asked if the road surface would be permeable. The DM advised that a hard finish would be required in accordance with the outlined scheme.

 

11. Cllr J Toye thanked Officers for their report but expressed disappointment that the applicant could be considered to have paid lip-service to some of the environmental considerations. He noted 3 parts of the NPPF focused on cycling and walking, and yet this had not been discussed in the report once. Further, it had not been considered whether the old railway could be used as a cycle route for workers from Fakenham, only a few miles down the road, not had any other methods of sustainable movement. Cllr J Toye considered the scheme could go further and acknowledged the Castle Maltings site in Belgium which utilised a large solar panel roof.

 

Whilst Norfolk was considered the right climate for malt barely, there was no specific merit in the site being located in Great Ryburgh as opposed to another site in the area, perhaps making use of former airbases. The site didn’t have to be located in Ryburgh to be North Norfolk produced, to ensure the continued use of the local barley, and to support local people.

 

He noted the use of language in the applicant’s sustainability statement that they were ‘considering’ ‘could include’ or were ‘in process of’, which did not represent a guaranteed commitment to the environment, and he was unconvinced that Crisp Maltings were indeed committed. Whilst he considered the applications may be acceptable in planning terms, he stated he was undecided on the applications, and although he understood the economic benefits associated with the applications, he was unconvinced this was the right way forward for the scheme. 

 

12. The DM advised that Crisp Maltings had set out its Net Zero strategy commitment contained within the list of conditions, but agreed with Cllr J Toye that the Council would expect words to be turned into actions. He commended the applicant on their environmental ambitions and noted that this was the first application in the district to agree to ‘Net-Zero’ as a planning condition.

 

13. In response to questions from the Chairman, the DM advised that Officers had not focused on how Crisp Malting employees travelled to work, and contended that it was difficult to predict where employees may travel in from. There was no guarantee that workers would live in Fakenham and would therefore benefit from a cycle route.

 

14. Cllr J Toye expressed his support for the current list of conditions but considered that more could be done. He cited 3 occasions in which the NPPF was referenced and the need alternate sustainable modes of transport needs to be considered.

 

15. The ADP advised that the application of Planning Policy was a matter of balance. He was uncertain what the government may seek to introduce through the Levelling Up Paper in the New Year, and commented that the Committee and Officers could only form decisions on current policy and guidance for what was acceptable at the time in which the decision was made.

 

16. Cllr N Pearce noted this was an extremely complex application, and acknowledged both sides of the argument which were very emotive. He stated that the village was located in the heart of an agricultural county and reflected that the business sought to expand its operations due to its success. Cllr N Pearce wished to congratulate Officers for their report, and for the extensive list of conditions detailed. He expressed his support for the applications which he believed would benefit the local economy.

 

17. Cllr V Holliday stated, whilst understanding the positive impacts of the agribusiness of the local economy, she considered that the economic and highways benefits of this proposed development are overstated , and the residential amenity and landscape impacts understated. Cllr V Holliday commented the residents should be listened to, and considered the landscape and environment should be put first.

 

18. The Chairman permitted the objecting speaker, Ms Nina Basset, to make a further representation with regard to the proposed relief road.

 

19. The Chairman permitted Mr Stuart Sands, to make an additional representation as a supporting speaker.

 

 

IT WAS RESOLVED by 11 votes for and 1 against.

 

That Planning Application PF/20/0523 be APPROVED subject to conditions circulated to the Development Committee. Any other conditions considered necessary, and final wording of conditions, to be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning.

 

IT WAS RESOLVED by 11 votes for and 1 against.

 

That Planning Application PO/20/0524 be APPROVED subject to conditions circulated to the Development Committee. Any other conditions considered necessary, and final wording of conditions, to be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning.