Agenda item

FULMODESTON - PF/21/3458 - ERECTION OF TWO ONE-BED TREE HOUSES WITH EXTERNAL WORKS AND SERVICING (TO INCLUDE BIOROCK DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND SOLAR PANELS) AT LAND AT WOODLAND, BROWNS COVERT, HINDOLVESTON ROAD, FULMODESTON

 

The SPO – JS introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. She advised that the application was for the provision of two self-contained treehouses within Swanton Novers Wood on the Astley Estate to be used as visitor accommodation as part of a proposed farm diversification and tourism venture scheme.

 

The Case Officer outlined the site location which was contained within a current commercial woodland for timber extraction, and the proposals relationship with its setting including proximity of the Swanton Great Wood and Little Wood. The SPO- JS highlighted the floor plan and proposed elevations for each of the treehouses, and commented on the use of materials consisting of galvanised steel frame, large, glazed openings on the south east and north west elevations where the solid external element (kitchen and bathroom pods) are externally clad with larch.

 

The SPO-JS offered photographs to better inform the Committees understanding of the site, its viability from the meadow and public right of way. With respect of access to the site, the Case Officer advised that parking was not proposed to be adjacent to the units, rather it was some 220m away. Once cars had parked off the main drive from the Hindleveston Road, it was proposed that wheel barrows be made available to guests to transport belongings. Access to both tree houses followed pre-existing logging tracks. 

 

In conclusion, the SPO-JS reiterated the Officer recommendation for refusal, and advised that the proposal was considered contrary to policy EC7, EC1, SS4 EN2, EN 4, EN 9 and CT5 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, paragraphs 105, 130, 134 and 174 of the NPPF and the principles set out in the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment 20221 and the North Norfolk Design Guide.

 

Public Speakers

Lord Hastings – Supporting

 

Members questions and debate

 

i.          The Local Member – Cllr V FitzPatrick – thanked Officers for their work on the application, but disagreed with their assessment for refusal. He contended that the application title of ‘treehouse’ belittles the intention to offer off-grid, sustainable holiday accommodation, and having attended the site, he argued that the Development would add interest and usage to the woodland site. With regard to its location, he contended that whilst it was situated away from services, this was part of the holiday homes attraction as a secluded, tranquil location which arguably wouldn’t work in an urbanised setting. Further, Cllr V FitzPatrick placed weight on the sustainable intentions of the proposal both in its construction and intended mode of operation, and in the economic development which would provide the Astley estate another, diversified, income stream during challenging economic times, supporting the development of the estates low impact farming methods, increase its biodiversity and increase its woodland. The Local Member considered that the proposal would help to place North Norfolk on the map as an eco-friendly tourist destination.

 

ii.          Cllr P Heinrich noted the Officers recommendation accorded with existing policy, but argued that this novel proposal warranted further consideration and a justified departure from planning policy. He noted the proposal was an application for an eco-tourist provision and the site would attract those wishing to be located in a countryside setting away from larger settlements, with the remote nature of the site being a key attraction. Cllr P Heinrich questioned Officers interpretation of the designation of the site; considering the  woodland was ancillary to the wider faming and other activities of the estate, and description of the site being unsustainable; noting the design, access, construction and services were all sustainable and innovative in their design. He noted that the scheme formed part of a programme of ecological enhancement in line with current government policy to encourage farms to re-wild land where appropriate, as such he considered policies SS4, EN2 and EN9 were met. With regards to concerns of light spill, Cllr P Heinrich stated this could be eliminated through the use of electrochromic glass (smart glazing) programmed to deliver maximum light during the day and switching to non-see-through state controlled by light sensors. He concluded by commenting that guests would be fully aware of the remote nature of the site, and argued that applications of this nature needed to be assessed in a different way, considering this to be a positive development.

 

iii.         Cllr N Lloyd supported the views presented by Cllr P Heinrich, and considered the Applicants commitment to sustainable forms of agriculture and to increase biodiversity thousands of times over in that area refreshing and something which be believed should have been afforded greater weight. Whilst he could understand why Officers had made their determination, in according with existing policy, he argued there was justified reasons for departure including business diversification, welfare benefits to those using the site, and the reasons previously outlined.

 

iv.        Cllr L Withington noted regular discussion at Development Committee surrounding the use of lighting in proposals, and considered it important that solutions be found to minimise light spill.

 

v.         Cllr J Toye reflected on his own experiences, and contended that there would be benefits to the environment, local tourism and the local community brought through the proposal.

 

vi.        The Chairman advised the Committee that the application was for 2 treehouses, but that the intention of the estate was for 14 treehouses pending planning permission. She noted that this was not a matter for consideration, but something which may have an impact in future.

 

vii.        Cllr R Kershaw expressed sympathy for Officers, and argued that NNDC’s policies were outdated to deal with such proposals. He contended that the eco-tourist offering was something the Council had been working to promote through its Corporate Plan, brining economic benefits to the area. Further, the Council were trying to assist Estates in diversifying and noted the former timber extraction site would have a woodland manager, and offer educational trips to educate future generations about the importance of biodiversity. Like Cllr N Lloyd, he did not consider enough weight had been given to the biodiversity gained through the project. Cllr R Kershaw spoke highly of the design quality, which he argued could be award winning.

 

viii.       The DM advised that Officers report and recommendation was based on existing policies contained in the Local Plan, and that the Committee should support and uphold policy unless there were material considerations to justify a departure.  Whilst there had been some discussion about policies and whether they were outdated, it was noted that Paragraph 85 of the NPPF aligns with Policy EC 7 of the Local Plan. Should Members wish to depart from polices they must articulate what the material considerations are which justify departing from policy. If the departure were to hinge on biodiversity net-gain, the DM advised that Members will need to ensure this is secured as part of the planning permission to ensure those benefits are realised.

 

ix.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed concern about the fire safety of the scheme, including on site mitigation, and how the site could be accessed by a proper fire engine.

 

x.         The Chairman asked the Applicant if fire engines could access the site. The Applicant advised that this was not a requirement under building regulations and that it was possible to access the site by various tracks. He advised there would be a pump in place, with training offered to staff to address potential fires, however if this was an overriding concern for the Committee, he would be willing to consider other mitigations.

 

xi.        Cllr J Rest supported the concerns raised by Cllr G Manini-Boyle and advised he was uncomfortable with the report produced by the Fire Service. In addition, he was disappointed that the proposal would be inaccessible for those with physical disabilities.

 

xii.        Cllr H Blathwayt asked, if the Officers recommendation was refused, whether conditions could be added to ensure the training of fire wardens. He asked for clarity over the expected lifespan of the development, as he reflected that the structures were of their time. The Applicant advised the lifespan was envisaged to be 50 years.

 

xiii.       Cllr A Brown commented that policies were regularly reviewed and updated, with the Council having a positive record at appeal. He considered the application of policy EC 7 which would treat the accommodation as permanent dwellings for planning purposes and therefore the proposal would not accord with NNDC Core Policy. Whilst Cllr A Brown championed NNDC planning policies, he considered there to be much merit in the proposal in protecting and enhancing biodiversity and providing dedicated tourist accommodation. He commented that he would have liked to have been provided more detail of where the other 12 units would be positioned, as he considered there would be a cumulative effect on the landscape. Additionally, he would like further detail on how the biodiversity enhancement could be secured and whether this could secured by condition or by way of S106 agreement.

 

xiv.      The PL, on reviewing the section on fire safety, considered that greater detail could have been provided by way of a full comment from Norfolk County Council Fire Service,

 

xv.       The DM advised that if Members were minded to grant a delegated conditional approval, Officers could seek to obtain a full comment from Norfolk Fire Service and to incorporate any advice into the decision notice. With regards to the application of policy EC 7, the DM clarified that the site was located in the rural tourist asset zone. The DM advised that either a planning condition or legal agreement could be secure depending on where the biodiversity enhancements were placed which could be delegated to the Assistant Director for planning, should Members be minded to do so.

 

xvi.      In response to Members comments, the DM affirmed that in going against the Officers recommendation, Members consider the proposal as a departure from the development plan for the reasons outlined. The proposal should be considered on its merits, and it was a matter of planning judgement whether the material considerations justified departure from policy.

 

xvii.      Cllr J Rest proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation, Cllr P Fisher seconded.

 

 

THE VOTE WAS LOST by 3 votes for, 7 votes against and 2 abstentions.

 

The Officers recommendation for refusal did not gain the necessary support.

 

The Committee sought to form an alternate recommendation

 

 

xviii.     Cllr J Toye argued that a departure for policy was justified for the proposal as it promised net gains which aligned with the Councils green agenda, offered diversification of the business which would not impede the local countryside, rather it would enhance the countryside setting.  He contended there were clear positive benefits, and good design, which merited conditional approval subject to addressing the discussed concerns, and ensuring biodiversity net gain.

 

xix.      Cllr A Varley considered the proposal innovative and ambitious both as a planning application and in broader terms of Economic Development, aligning with Policy EN 9 and EC 7. 

 

xx.       The Chairman noted Members discussion that conditions be applied to address concerns of fire risk including proper engagement with Norfolk Fire Service over this and future proposals in the area, in addition conditions be applied for the use of electrochromic glass.

 

xxi.      Cllr H Blathwayt expressed his concern for the future appearance of the treehouses in 50 years’ time, and further raised concerns that if these and the further proposals were to be approved, the fire safety risk would significantly increase with 14 potential BBQs, fire fits and others.

 

xxii.      The Chairman stated that a condition could be added to restrict fire pits and other things of this nature.

 

xxiii.     The PL suggested that a restrictions should be added to control the occupancy of the units to specify that they are holiday accommodations, and not to be occupied on a permanent basis. If no prohibition or limitation was applied the units could be sold off as freehold dwellings. 

 

xxiv.    The Applicant advised that they had not considered the occupancy but noted that the units would be shut from time to time for maintenance and during periods of deer management. The Applicant indicated that they had no intention to sell off the units and would be agreeable to this condition.

 

xxv.     Cllr R Kershaw proposed the applications be accepted subject to the discussed conditions with final wording delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning.

 

xxvi.    Cllr A Varley seconded the recommendation.

 

xxvii.    The DM summarised Members comments justifying a departure from the plan, with the Committee having considered good design gains in terms of eco-tourism, biodiversity net gains delivered by the project and supporting of local economic development. With respect of conditions, Members had identified the following matters they wished to delegate to the Assistant Director for Planning; to consult with the Norfolk Fire Service and include any suggested fire safety recommendations, to control the occupation and use of each the properties, to prevent the sale of the properties to a third-party (though this may need to be secured as a legal agreement as opposed to a condition), no external lighting, no fire pits or BBQs, and restrictions / controls on the glazing.

 

xxviii.   Cllr L Withington noted that the Applicant had shown willing to prepare and implement a conservation management plan and considered that this be included as a condition, which would ensure biodiversity net gain, should this application set a precedent for other similar schemes.

 

xxix.    The DM advised the biodiversity net gains would be secured as either a condition or by way of a legal agreement. It was noted that Applicant had indicated a 10,000% biodiversity net gain, a huge figure, which Members may wish to secure as a condition.

 

xxx.     Cllr J Toye asked if there were a recognised metric or practice which could be applied, and which methodology would be best.

 

xxxi.    Cllr N Lloyd noted the supporting documents within the proposal which highlighted in detail plans for increasing biodiversity, which made a compelling case. He contended that the conservation management plan would ensure the Applicant was held to account.

 

xxxii.    The DM advised that there were metrics used by DEFRA to measure biodiversity net gain.

 

xxxiii.   The Applicant asked the Committee if the legal agreement could be provided at the earliest opportunity to allow for occupation in the summer.

 

xxxiv.  The DM advised there was no set time limit for how long a legal agreement should take, and that this was dependent on parties working together and providing the necessary documentation and details in a timely manner.

 

xxxv.   The Applicants agent indicated willingness to secure by condition biodiversity net gain and implementation on the conservation management plan which could be reported back to the Council on an annual basis. She asked that there be a unilateral undertaking to ensure expediency of the proposal.

 

xxxvi.  The PL advised that the Council were typically quick in sending legal agreements out by contract to private firms. She advised she would be agreeable to the Applicants request.

 

xxxvii.  Cllr A Brown asked if the Councils costs would be borne by the Applicant. The PL advised in this instance they would be, but that the Council were very reasonably priced.

 

IT WAS AGREED by 8 votes for, 1 against, and 3 abstentions.

 

That Application PF/21/3458 be APPROVED subject to conditions outlined at the meeting and any other considered necessary by the Assistant Director-Planning.

 

Final wording to be delegated the Assistant Director - Planning.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10.45am and resumed at 11.01am