Support
New, Revised and Small Sites
Representation ID: 17950
Received: 13/12/2018
Respondent: Mr Eddy Edwards
Agent: Mr Michael Haslam
The site had the benefit of a full planning permission, 2012/0940/F, that lapsed because condition 9 had not been complied with. The site owner believed that he had commenced the development by constructing substantial highway works and asks that because of these highway works sympathetic consideration be given to the allocation of the site.
The assessment of the site on page 71 of the "Site Proposals Document Addendum, New, Revised and Small Sites" document does not fairly represent the facts behind the submission and it suggests, incorrectly, that the flood Risk Assessment (submitted in connection with application 2102/0940/F, did not model the impact of climate change on the site.
In October 2012 the South Norfolk Planning Committee granted full planning permission for the construction of a building for the repair and retail sale of mowers and horticultural equipment on the site, ref 2012/0940/F, and subject to 11 conditions. Two of the conditions required works to the adjoining public highway to be undertaken prior to any work commencing on the site.
The site owner, Mr Edwards, concentrated his attention on complying with the highway conditions, this entailed detailed negotiations by his transport consultants with Norfolk County Council highways and providing a bond designed to ensure that the highway works, which alone cost over £64,000, were completed in a satisfactory manner. The construction work was completed in 2013. By this time Mr Edwards had spent a very considerable sum of money on the project, including the highway improvement works and the fees for the design of the building, the Transport Assessment, the flood Risk Assessment, the Sequential Test, the Noise Impact Assessment and the Ecology Assessment and Mitigation Plan and he believed that by constructing the highway improvements he had preserved the permission.
In January 2017 Mr Edward's agent was told that the permission had lapsed because condition 9, which required a contaminated land assessment, had not been complied. The site owner was shattered by this decision which, in the particular circumstances of the planning history of this site is harsh.
The site is currently well maintained by the owner who cuts the grass regularly and it presents a very tidy appearance at the entrance to the town, located as it is opposite the Desira car showroom. In less caring ownership the site could easily be very untidy.
In making this proposal for the site to be allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan the owner is asking the Council to consider sympathetically the very unusual circumstances set out in this statement and support the allocation.