Agenda item

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised that since the publication of the agenda that it had been agreed to amend the description of the application to conversation and renovation of building to create seven self-contained flats. Whilst the submitted photos and internal floors plans demonstrate that the building was used as a former Bed and Breakfast, insufficient information was available to confirm its lawful use. With specific regard to parking, the Highway Authority had submitted further comments following this clarification of use, having considered the proposals against the worst case fall-back position in parking terms, and continue to raise no-objection though note the development could result in increased pressure on the limited street-parking available.

The DMTL outlined the sites location, existing floor and proposed floor plans and photos of the site. He advised that the existing floor plans were for an 18 bedroom property and not a 21 bedroom property as quoted elsewhere in the agenda.

The DMTL advised that as the use had been clarified and the Highway Authority had provided an updated response, the recommendation could therefore be amended to reflect these matters.

Public Speakers

Lindsey Lovett – Objecting

Jordan Cribb – Supporting.

Members Debate and Questions

1. Cllr T Adams – Local Member- affirmed that there were no objections to the principle of development, noting this building was in need of updating following years of disrepair, rather the concern expressed by residents, and which he shared, was with respect of the scale of the development with the number of flats being disproportionate to its local context.

It was noted that Highways had agreed that there was the potential for significant impact arising from the development on parking and transport movements, but that they and the Authority were relaying on NNDC core strategy Policy CT6. Both his, and the view of the Town Council was that the development was not within the Town Centre (not being in the primary economic shopping area) and that other provisions of CT6 do not apply.  He did not consider that exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated, and that the application of Policy CT6 had been applied too loosely in this instance.

The Local Member argued that the parking situation warranted further consideration, and the only way to reduce the demand on parking was to reduce the number of flats. He considered that the photos provided by the Case Officer did not adequately demonstrate the parking situation, which he argued was much worse, particularly during summer months.

Cllr T Adams stated that if Members were minded to approve, careful consideration should be given on the impacts of dust and noise, particularly on the neighbouring B & B, and the use of skips and associated works vehicles on what is already a heavily congested road. The Local Member welcomed the use of a construction management plan, as suggested by the applicant.

2. The Chairman reflected that parking permits also came with issues, as they did not guarantee residents a parking space.

3. Cllr T Adams advised conversations had previously taken place for parking permits in Cromer (around 10 years prior) and it was the position of the County Council that they would only provide a permit scheme in Cromer on the basis of installing pay and display meters throughout the Town Centre. This situation had been an obstacle in providing permits to residents on St Marys Road, Central Road, Bernard Road, Alfred Road and others.

4. Cllr N Pearce agreed that St Mary Road was narrow with parking occurring on both sides. He considered parking permits would not offer a solution to this problem, and noted issued of parking permits in urban areas. Cllr N Pearce proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation for approval.

5. The ADP advised Members were asked to consider the application before it, and that he was unable to moderate or reduce the number of flats. He noted the representation made by the applicant, that they were minded to agree to a construction management plan, which may go some way to alleviate concerns from local residents.

6. Cllr V Holliday shared Members concerns regarding parking, and commented on the limited accessibility to the upper floor flats. She expressed a preference that the application go back to the drawing board, with fewer flats and the inclusion of a lift.

7. The DM advised that the application was compliant with building regulations, and had accorded with Core Strategy Policies with respect of accessibility.

8. Cllr P Heinrich considered the application to be well designed, maximising the internal space of the building. He commented that it would be a potential viability issue if there were only 4 flats. With regards parking, Cllr P Heinrich stated this was an issue, and that it would be good idea to explore parking options in Cromer with the Town and County Council to establish sensible solutions including parking permits. He expressed his concern that the flats may be used as holiday accommodation and not used as permanent residences for local people, which would increase the volume of traffic movements, and may result in other issues. Cllr P Heinrich asked if there was any way to restrict use of the flats to ensure they weren’t used as holiday rentals.

9. The DM noted that government were currently consulting on proposals for managing short term lets, and under the present planning system, permission, if granted, would be for 7 residential dwellings. He was unaware of a mechanism which would impose this as being a person’s 1^st home, further the enforcement of this supposed condition would be challenging.

10. The ADP affirmed that the Council would need to define a substantive materiality to the changing character that arises from the renting out of units as holiday lets, noting there was a high bar set. He reiterated the DM’s comments on the government’s consultation and stated that there is every likelihood that planning consent may soon be required for the letting out of residential properties for short term holiday lets.

11. The Chairman reflected that even if the properties were let as holiday rentals, the Council had controls in place to ensure they did not become a statutory nuisance with Environmental Health Officers responding to issues of noise, waste and others.

12. Cllr L Withington acknowledged the communal garden located on the plans and asked if it had been considered if this area may be used for parking, noting there was nearby amenity space for residents to use including North Lodge Park and the beach.

13. The DMTL advised the original proposals included access off the street, which the Highway Authority had raised concerns. The DM added that there would be increased concerns on the impact on resident’s amenity with car movements being so close to neighbouring property.

14. The Chairman commented that the properties along St Marys had been erected before the use of cars, and that individuals buying/renting these properties must take the lack of designated parking into consideration.

15. Cllr R Kershaw noted representations and correspondence received from residents, and affirmed that it was the scale of the development, not the development itself which was objected to. He considered a reduction in the number of flats to be preferable, with their increased floor plan being less likely to be used as holiday rentals. Regarding parking, Cllr R Kershaw stated that parking was available at NNDC carparks in Cromer, with seasonal tickets being around £112 per year. Should the 7 flats be approved, he was mindful that this may result in 7 bins per property, and this would exacerbate parking issues.

16. The DM reiterated that Members must consider the application before them for 7 flats, if they wished to consider fewer flats they would need to refuse the current application. He reflected that reducing the numbers of flats may not reduce parking demand as the bedrooms would be added to other flats.

17. Cllr P Fisher argued that more bedrooms would result in a different demographic and commented that given the nature of St Marys road it would not be possible for individuals to have 2 cars each parked on the road, irrespective of the outcome of this application.

18. Cllr J Toye advised that, whilst he had every sympathy for neighbours that the application would increase parking demands, there were alternate parking options available, and lack of parking was a consequence of living in a town. He argued that the 7 1-bedroom flats may not be used as holiday lets, and may instead be used by local people, and given the limited parking they may instead make better use of public transport. Cllr J Toye seconded the Officers recommendation for approval.

19. Cllr A Varley noted the concerns raised about the commencement of building works and asked if a works management scheme could be conditioned.

20. The DMTL reflected on comments made by the applicant that they would be broadly supportive of a construction management plan, and advised this could be added to the list of delegated conditions.

21. Cllr T Adams clarified that the road to the rear was exceptionally narrow, with neighbouring residents concerned about the levels of potential traffic movements. Further, he commented that the nearest long stay carpark during the summer was Runton Road which was significantly further away than Cadogen Road. He re-affirmed his comments and expressed his preference that the scale of the development be decreased.

IT WAS RESOLVED by 13 votes for, and 1 against.

That Planning Application PF/22/2651 be APPROVED in line with the Officers recommendation.