Officer’s Report

The SPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He affirmed the location plan for the site and its relationship with neighbouring surroundings including AONB, proposed site plan, floor plans and elevations which included 9 EV parking spaces 2 of which were accessible, as well as cycle and motorcycle parking and solar array to the roof. Photographs were offered to better demonstrate the site’s context. Access to the car park would be obtained via the car park on the adjacent Reef Leisure Centre.

The SPO stated that the scale and design of the proposal had been chosen to accord with the Reef, making an overall cohesive development. The extensive proposed landscaping scheme would aid to obscure aspects of the development, in addition, as the development would sit lower in the landscape than the nearby residential area and football club, it’s the visual impact was considered to be less noticeable.

The Case Officer outlined the key areas of consideration and reiterated the recommendation subject to conditions. He noted that GIRAMS payment had been secured since the publication of the Officer Report, however matters of surface water drainage were outstanding.

Public Speakers

None

Member’s Question’s and Debate

1. Cllr L Withington, Member for Sheringham North, speaking on behalf of Local Member Cllr C Heinink for Sheringham South, acknowledged the positive and negative impacts the proposed development would result in. She stated that whilst there would be economic benefits, there remained concern in the local community that the development would have the opposite effect. There were misgivings about the nature of the apartment-hotel model, and in missed opportunities for the town’s economy. Cllr L Withington stated, given the limited availability of land in Sheringham for development, there was some scepticism that the proposal was the best use of land to bring the greatest benefit to the local economy. The Local Member considered an expansion of the adjacent industrial site was desperately needed, allowing smaller businesses to expand and potentially bring additional employment opportunities and more resilience to the community. Alternatively, a housing scheme which included an assisted living complex would have brought a synergy with the new residential home being built at Westwood (adjacent to the Reef site).

Reflecting on the application, Cllr L Withington stated that there had been concerns expressed about the density of the development, and that the design would be far more imposing than the neighbouring Reef development. The proposed development was considered to result in a marked change in the town’s character and tourist accommodation offering. Views from the western entrance to the town would be impacted, and the Northern elevation ‘block-like’ design she contended lacked in design quality. Cllr L Withington affirmed that many felt that the landscape design was disappointing, and although extensive hedging was utilised, this was considered an easy option with little thought as to how the large construction could be immersed in its AONB setting.

With respect of drainage, the Local Member advised that there were already concerns about the drainage, and that there had been significant flooding to properties to the rear to the development associated with changes linked to climate change.

Cllr L Withington asked if a cycle path to the town could be included in the proposal as a S106 condition, which had been requested by the Town Council at the time of the Reef development, and argued that there was a greater need given the increased volume of traffic from the development

Further, concerns had also been raised regarding the speed of traffic on this section of road, which would be worsened by increased traffic flow from the proposal. Cllr L Withington stated it would be beneficial to move the 30mph zone further west, beyond Cemetery Lane, allowing for safer access for pedestrians and vehicles.

2. Cllr A Brown expressed his disappointment in the design, size and simulated art-deco style which he was uncertain accorded with the design guide. Given the proposals status in the AONB, he considered that the applicant could have submitted a much improved scheme. His principle concern for the proposal related to the lack of documentation on the sustainable urban drainage system, particularly at this late stage. He was concerned how this scheme would be agreed, as believed a S106 agreement should be conditioned. Cllr A Brown argued that as there remained outstanding drainage concerns, this justified reasons for deferment.

3. Cllr R Kershaw spoke favourably of the application, which he reflected would bring economic benefits to Sheringham. Further, he considered the site was well suited to siting a hotel. Cllr R Kershaw expressed his surprise to the Local Members comments on community sentiment, and reflected on the lack of objections raised within the Officers report. He did not consider the hotel objectionable, and contended it would be in keeping with the Reef, both in height and size. He argued that it was preferable to have the brownfield land developed, particularly given the need for tourist accommodation in Sheringham, than for it to sit vacant. Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

4. Cllr N Lloyd contended it was difficult to see what would fit in well within the local environment given as the site was located between the Reef Leisure Centre, an Industrial site, and Football Pitch. He considered the applicant had gone some way to make the scheme attractive, though taste was subjective.

As the Portfolio Holder for climate change, he spoke positively that the application had considered EBPC and solar, and noted within the Officers report that the scheme exceeded the minimum energy performance building standards, however stated this had not been evidenced. Cllr N Lloyd affirmed his preference that an energy efficiency report be provided by the applicant, something he considered pertinent given the size of the property. Whilst he understood that the building would be heated by gas, this had not be explicitly stated within the report. Cllr N Lloyd seconded the Officers recommendation, and asked that an energy report be provided by the applicant.

5. The DM advised that Officers were reviewing the local validation list and the suite of documents required by applicants when submitting proposals. At present, Policy EN6 of the Adopted Core Strategy was the key policy leaver. The DM noted Members suggestion that the local list be updated to reflect how applicants were positively responding to the Climate Emergency. But advised that the applicant had demonstrated compliance with current policies.

6. On reflection, Cllr N Lloyd stated that he was dissatisfied that the developer had not provided information he considered critical with relation to the Climate Emergency, and whilst noting the DM advice that the Developer had satisfied building regulations, he withdrew his seconding of the Officers recommendation. Cllr N Lloyd stated it was shocking, in light of the IPC report, that a 4 storey property could be approved without information on energy usage.

7. The DM advised the recommendation was for one of delegated authority subject to conditions and that additional conditions could be applied, should the Committee be minded to do so, that information on energy use be provided by that applicant to ensure full policy compliance.

8. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his concerns for the proposal both in its design, to a lesser extent, but also how the building would be managed to ensure the 90 day restriction was enforced, noting that this was not a traditional hotel model. He contended that the apartment owners may not live locally or in the County, and asked how compliance could be ensured. Cllr P Heinrich further shared in Members concerns raised regarding the drainage situation and sought assurances that such issues would be considered and resolved under delegated authority. He considered that more could be done to ensure the building was Carbon neutral including the introduction of additional solar panels on the roof and in the car park by way of solar car ports.

9. The DM advised that the apart-hotel model was not a new concept and were used elsewhere in the Country, particularly as these types of schemes de-risked development costs for developers. The hotel would be designated under C1 hotel calcification, and if approved would be subject to C1 restrictions including the prohibiting of the apartments from being used as someone’s sole or main residence. Further, a register of lettings would confirm occupancy, verifying that the accommodation did not exceed the restriction. The DM advised that the Councils enforcement team would be able to attend the site (if approved) to ensure compliance. He was satisfied that the aforementioned conditions would be met.

10. Cllr J Toye supported Cllr N Lloyd representations, and agreed that whilst the proposal would be policy compliant, he would be unable to support the proposal. He argued that in the absence of the flood report and evidence on energy usage and how the development would positively respond to the Climate Emergency, that a deferment was necessary.

11. Cllr W Fredericks asked, as Portfolio Holder for Housing, if S106 money could be conditioned through the development, and commented it was important that this development gave back to the community.

12. The DM advised that there were no S106 requirements as this was not a residential scheme. The C1 classification did not trigger S106 contributions. The proposal would require GIRAMS tariff payments, which had been paid by the developer.

13. The Chairman seconded the Officers recommendation

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

14. Cllr A Brown proposed and Cllr P Heinrich seconded, that the application be deferred to enable Officers and the Applicant to address issues raised by the Committee.

IT WAS RESOLVED by 6 votes for, 5 against, and one abstention.

That Planning Application PF/22/1660 be DEFFERED to enable the receipt of drainage scheme proposals and information on energy use, and how the proposal would respond the Climate Emergency