Agenda item

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He noted that Planning Permission had previously been refused for an earlier proposal in June 2021, the reasons for refusal were outlined on P.195 of the agenda pack. 

Whilst the proposal was considered contrary to NNDC Core Strategy policies to SS1, SS2 and EC7, as the site was located within the area designated as countryside, Officers considered the application to be acceptable and determined that the conflict with these policies was not cited as a reason for refusal of the prior application, and it was therefore reasonable assume that the current application was acceptable in principle. He confirmed that the applicant had sought to address the prior reasons for refusal.

The DMTL advised that the site was related to the existing built up part of Wells-next-the-sea, designated as a secondary settlement, lying only 60 metres outside of the settlement boundary and within easy walking distance of the town centre. Officers considered that there would be no significant harm to the aim of the policies in approving this application subject to conditions.

He proceeded to go through the presentation detailing the sites location, an aerial photo, settlement boundary, site plans, elevations, views of the site, and main issues for consideration.

Public Speakers

Michelle Lyon – Supporting

1. The Local Member – Cllr P Fisher, thanked Officers for their report and noted that no objecting speakers or Members of the Town Council were present as a consequence of timing rather than lack of inclination of disinterest. He considered the proposal failed to accord with NNDC Core Strategy Policy EC7 and was also contrary to policies SS1 and SS2. Wells Town Council had commented on the previous application that it was located outside of the settlement boundary, but the application was refused by the Officer due to matters of height and scale of unit 2, use of external materials failing to comply with EN4, and use of glass on unit 1 which would create light pollution. Cllr P Fisher noted that the revised application sought to address these issues alone, however this failed to address the Town Councils prior objections. He noted that as issues surrounding the boundary settlement had not been cited as a reason for refusal, it was considered by Officers that introducing this as a reason now was unreasonable and inconsistent – which he disagreed. Further, the Local Member considered that Wells-next-the-sea had a large proportion of holiday lets, and that the town did not require additional holiday accommodation. He drew Members attention to the representations and objections on p.196 from Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership. Cllr P Fisher disagreed with Highways lack of objection to the proposal and considered existing issues on Northfield lane which often had obstructed access due to the parking on vehicles by holiday makers. The Local Member stressed the importance to protect the AONB and considered that such boundaries were being eroded whether by bricks and mortar, noise or light and affirmed that he would be voting against the proposal.   

2. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett considered that too much glass had been utilised on the eastern elevation of unit 2, and noted that this might adversely affect the migratory path of wild fowl. Further, she did not see any reference to flood zones within the Officer report and sought clarification of the sites status, noting prior issues of flooding in the area. She reiterated her role as Vice-Chairman of Norfolk Coast Partnership and expressed her support for the view of the landscape officer. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett relayed the importance of the AONB as detailed on p.197 of the agenda pack as a nationally designated site, and commented that she did not consider that this application preserved or enhanced the AONB.

3. Cllr A Varley sought clarification on the Officers conclusion and planning balance section, and asked the presenting Officer why the application had not previously, and was not currently refused on basis of failure to accord with policies SS1, SS2 or EC7, and whether this was because Officers considered other matters were given greater weight.

4. The DMTL advised that Officers did not consider that harm would arise from a departure from policies for this application due to the sites close proximity, and easy access to the Town.

5. The ADP advised that this was a departure from policies for the specific reason that the application site was outside of the settlement boundary in which it would normally be acceptable in principle. When departing from policy, it was important to consider the materiality of reasons raised, and with this application it was important to consider the distance from services and impact on surrounding buildings in the area. The ADP noted that Wells-next-the-sea was a service centre and was in easy walking distance from the proposed site.

The ADP commented that it may be considered unreasonable to raise a matter at a later stage having made a refusal earlier, but that does not necessarily mean the Council should not consider the matter or decide it be a consideration in any refusal. However, it may be the case the applicant or appellant appeals for costs against the council because it is an issue which was previously raised when the application was refused. The ADP acknowledged that the applicant had worked hard to resolve and overcome those issues which had been materially raised under the precious refusal.

6. The DMTL advised, in response to the question by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett, that the site was located in Flood-zone 1, which was not considered to be the highest risk.

7. Cllr V Holliday stated despite the ADP reassurances that she was uncomfortable to depart from policy, regardless of whether these matters formed part of the prior reason for refusal. She supported comments made by Cllr A Fitch-Tillett with respect of glazing, and the need to protect the AONB. When considering applications in the AONB, she commented it was important to consider reduced visible light transition which she believed should be an absolute requirement that any vertical glazing is 0.65 VLT and any roof lights are 0.5 VLT.

8. The ADP advised that polices relating to light pollution were set out in the Officers report, and the policy ideas raised by Cllr V Holliday were not set out in the Councils supplementary planning guidance. He commented that the Committee must consider the application on the basis of current planning policy, the NPPF, and national guidance.

9. Cllr N Pearce stated he was disappointed that the boundary settlement status had not been previously raised as an issue, and expressed the need for consistency. He noted the need to protect the AONB, and commented that he would vote against the application.

10. Cllr J Toye asked what potential there would be for the windows to be replaced and made bigger, or if conditions could be applied to eliminate this risk. He further asked how overdevelopment of the site had been considered by Officers, and whether there was a metric used?

11. The DMTL advised that a condition had been recommended to withdraw permitted development rights for additional windows and roof lights on the eastern elevation of unit 1. With respect of overdevelopment, the DMTL advised this was a matter of planning judgement based on site coverage of buildings, and reiterated that this had not formed part of the prior reasons for refusal.

12. Cllr P Heinrich commented that he considered the boundary between countryside and built up areas rather arbitrary, and considered this specific site was located in an area with a number of buildings, within the curtilage of the existing site. On balance, he did not consider the site to be overcrowded given the scale of buildings surrounding. He commented that he would far rather see the creation of purpose built holiday accommodation as opposed to existing residential accommodation being taken over as a holiday property. Cllr P Heinrich accepted the Officers recommendation subject to conditions.

13. Cllr L Withington seconded the Officers recommendation

IT WAS RESOLVED by 7 votes for and 5 against.

That Planning Application PF/21/3227 be APPROVEDsubject 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.