7 AUGUST 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Williams – Waterside Ward
N Smith - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(44) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were in attendance.
An apology had been received from Councillor N D Dixon who was unable to attend the meeting to present his comments in respect of Hoveton PF/14/0539.
(45) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 July 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(46) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished to bring before the Committee.
(47) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, R Reynolds and R Shepherd declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the items concerned.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications; updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and answered Members’ questions.
Development Committee 1 7 August 2014

Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents, letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the Officers’ report, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1 unless otherwise stated.
(48) BACTON - PF/14/0582 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of one and a half-storey dwelling with attached garage and garden shed;
Woodlands, Mill Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Derby
Councillor B Smith stated that he had spoken to the neighbours.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Murray (objecting)
Mrs J Derby (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council considered that the amendments to the scheme were minor in nature and considered that further amendments were needed to reduce the size of the windows. The Parish Council therefore maintained its objection to the amended scheme. An email had been received from the applicant’s agent stating that a shading analysis had been carried out which had indicated that shading would be similar to the existing building.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, expressed concern regarding the size of the building and its impact on Bacton Woods. He considered that it would not sit well in its location. He proposed a site inspection which was seconded by Councillor J
Perry-Warnes.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern regarding the zinc roof element.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed zinc roof was a small element of the building and contributed to its additive form. The site was very well screened and it would not be seen.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site inspection by the Committee and that the local Members and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to attend.
Development Committee 2 7 August 2014

(49) BEESTON REGIS - PF/14/0641 - Conversion of agricultural buildings to nine dwellings, erection of replacement dwelling, screened car port and walkers' refuge; Beeston Hall Farm, Cromer Road for Timewell Properties Ltd trading as
Blue Sky Leisure
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Beckley (Beeston Regis Parish Council)
Mr G Bloomfield (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Parish Council had not objected to this application but were concerned at the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty. The Parish Council was generally supportive of the proposals. The Norfolk
Coast Partnership and the Council’s Landscape Officer supported the proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer stated the scheme was simpler than the previously approved scheme for holiday conversion and subject to the use of appropriate materials, would sit comfortably in the landscape. He recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include removal of permitted development rights, landscaping and a requirement that the scheme be implemented within one year of the date of permission.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council felt strongly that the area should not be overdeveloped and urbanised. She requested that hedging be retained between the site and Beeston Hall School. She considered that the area should appear soft and pleasant in the future. She asked if it would be possible to incorporate affordable housing into the scheme.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that a comprehensive landscaping scheme would be requested, incorporating the existing trees on the boundary and additional landscaping on other boundaries. There was no requirement to provide affordable housing as the applicant wished to take advantage of the Housing Incentive Scheme and the proposed development was below the threshold. There had been no requirement for affordable housing under the extant permission for nine holiday dwellings.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern regarding the accesses from the track onto the A149.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that off-site highway improvement works had been agreed under the previous permission and a condition would be imposed to require those works to be carried out.
Councillor Shepherd considered that the proposal would enhance the AONB and tidy the site. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes seconded the proposal. He requested that the developer impose conditions to prevent the site becoming urbanised.
In response to comments by Councillor M J M Baker regarding the access track, the
Senior Planning Officer stated that the access was tarmacked and the track up to the development was hard surfaced. He was not aware of any flooding problems.
Development Committee 3 7 August 2014

Councillor R Reynolds referred to a covenant imposed by the National Trust which gave some control over future development. He considered that run-off from the site had been reduced as some of the buildings had been removed.
The Senior Planning Officer addressed a number of points which had been raised by the Parish Council. Conditions which had been imposed on the previous permission would be reimposed as appropriate. It was considered that landscaping on the eastern boundary should be soft planting and not solid hawthorn hedging as requested by the Parish Council. Access to Beeston Hall Common was a civil matter which could not be controlled under the planning process. The Senior Planning
Officer suggested that the Parish Council discuss this matter directly with the developer.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development rights, landscaping, highways and a requirement that the scheme be implemented within one year of the date of the permission.
(50) HOVETON - PF/14/0539 - Erection of an attached two-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 28 Waveney Drive, Hoveton for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Bryan (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the local Member had sent his comments which had been forwarded to Committee Members and which he had requested be read out.
The Development Manager read out the comments of Councillor N D Dixon, the local
Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. He had made a number of detailed comments with regard to the Inspector’s decision in respect of the previous application (PF/12/0216), the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and design issues. He considered that this application would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore conflict with Core Strategy Policy EN4 and paragraph 58 of the National
Planning Policy Framework. He had requested a further site inspection if the
Committee were minded to approve the application.
Councillor P W High considered that a further site inspection was unnecessary. He supported the views of the applicant that the appeal decision was not relevant to the current application. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard.
The Development Manager stated that the previous appeal decision was a material consideration, but the proposal had been amended to take account of the points which had been raised in the appeal determination and Officers considered that it was now acceptable.
Development Committee 4 7 August 2014

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(51) LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road for Mr A Tedder
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Brown (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that whilst the amenity issues could be resolved, the highway issues could not and the application was therefore recommended for refusal on highway safety grounds.
Councillor P Williams, the local Member, expressed his surprise at the Highway
Authority’s views and that the visibility requirement had been assessed at 20% above the actual speed limit. He stated that the road was fairly straight and there had been no reported accidents along this stretch of road. He had been informed by the
Highway Authority that the road was safe and that the speed limit was adhered to.
He stated that as the applicant owned the existing property he could remove the frontage and a fence in his ownership. He suggested a site inspection as he considered that the photographs displayed at the meeting had been taken more than
2.4 metres from the edge of the highway. The proposed dwelling would be let to a local person at an affordable rent, which was needed in Ludham given a shortfall in affordable housing, and he considered that the applicant would be willing to enter into a Section 106 Obligation if necessary.
The Development Control Officer (NCC Highways) stated that he had not seen the correspondence regarding the speed of traffic referred to by the local Member. He considered that an automatic traffic count would be the best method of assessing the speed of traffic. He stated that whilst the applicant could remove his hedge, he had no control over neighbouring boundaries. He considered that regardless of whether the requirement was assessed at 30mph or 37mph, the current level of visibility was wholly inappropriate for this proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site inspection by the Committee and that the local Members, Chairman of the Parish Council and a representative of the Highway Authority be invited to attend.
Development Committee 5 7 August 2014

(52) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
UPDATE
The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from April to July 2014 at item 5 of the Officers’ reports, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
The Development Manager stated that overall performance was good, although it was necessary to seek further improvement in respect of ‘minor’ applications.
Restructuring of the Planning Department was imminent.
The Development Manager reported on some of the personnel changes which had taken place or were about to take place. The Chairman stated that there would be no redundancies. The Technical Officer, Anne Fairchild, had recently retired and the
Development Manager paid tribute to her work. An internal appointment had been made to the post.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the Officers and the Committee should be congratulated on the improved performance. All had worked very hard.
The Committee wished to place on record its full support for the work of the Planning team and appreciation of the results that had been achieved.
(53) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(54) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(55) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(56) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(57) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(58) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(59) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported on recent developments in the case involving the Council and the Crisp Maltings site at Great Ryburgh.
Development Committee 6 7 August 2014

(60) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(61) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 13 of the Officers’ exempt report updating the situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 June 2014.
RESOLVED
That the report and annexed Schedules of cases be noted and that those cases which have been resolved be removed from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 11.30 am.
Development Committee 7 7 August 2014