Cold store and plant room at Albert Bartlett Westwick, Worstead, North Walsham

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing part of the existing building and constructing a high-efficiency cold store holding up to 4,000 frozen-product pallets, with a plant room.

“Site Description: The Westwick site has been used for food production for a number of decades, the site is currently used by Albert Bartlett for the processing and storage of potato products and has been since 2015. The application site (edged red) sits within the existing factory site and has…”

“Proposal: Demolition of part existing building and erection of new cold store. The proposed development would provide the applicant with a new, high efficiency cold store which would hold up to 4000 pallets of frozen products at -20 degrees C, together with an associated plant room. The new store would completely replace the current on-site cold store and expand the on-site frozen storage capacity.”

Officer report

Earlier site permissions

Earlier permissions covered LPG tanks, a potato unloading bay extension, an acoustic screen and an odour treatment system.

“Reference PF/12/0121 Description Erection of extension to potato unloading bay and extension to acoustic screen Outcome Approved…”

“Reference PF/09/0711 Description Installation of odourous air treatment system Outcome Approved…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because economic and sustainability benefits outweighed identified amenity, landscape and heritage harms.

“Less than substantial heritage harm has been identified to heritage assets. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. In the case of less than substantial harm, this should be weighed against any public benefits generated by the development.”

“On balance, it is considered that the wider public benefits including economic and sustainability benefits would outweigh the identified amenity, landscape and heritage harms. This positive balance and appropriate mitigation enable a departure from Development Plan policies EC 3 and EN 2.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Parish councils, the Landscape Officer, Highways and a ward councillor raised objections, while economic development and Environmental Health supported the proposal or had no objection.

“Sloley Parish Council - Objection due to visual impact and highways implications on residents and lack of economic benefits.”

“Environmental Health - No objection as existing site noise would be reduced as a result of the development.”

Officer report

Objections from residents

Thirty-eight letters objected, citing the building’s height and scale, visual and landscape effects, highways, noise, ecology, heritage, lighting and consultation.

“Height and scale of the proposed building are excessive • Overshadowing and residential amenity impacts • Detrimental visual and landscape impact • Not in keeping with the local area • Detrimental impact on highways • Detrimental impact on wildlife and ecology • Increased noise levels • Heritage concerns • Lack of public engagement • Lack of information submitted • Light pollution • Inadequate justification provided…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included representatives of Worstead and Sloley parish councils, an objector, an additional local resident and the applicant.

The committee vote

The application was approved by six votes to six, with the Chair using a casting vote in favour.

“He reminded the Committee that they could give a different weight to the issues and could come to a different view. g. Members considered a potential deferment for a site visit with Cllr Neatherway and Cllr Brown expressing support and the Chair doubting its usefulness. Cllr Fitch-Tillett proposed and Cllr Adams seconded the recommendation…”

“It WAS RESOLVED by 6 votes in favour and 6 votes against with the Chair exercising his casting vote in favour that the Application be Approved subject to the Conditions covering the matters detailed in the report.”

Minutes