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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The Chairman seconded the Officers
recommendation
THE VOTE WAS LOST by 3 votes
for, 7 against, and 2 abstentions.
- 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