10 NOVEMBER 2011
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)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
N Smith - substitute for B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - Poppyland Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
D Young - High Heath Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Young - Senior Conservation and Design Officer
Mrs N Turner - Strategy Team Leader
Mr P Lumb - Sustainability Assistant
Mr B Dye - Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(139) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and B Cabbell
Manners. There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
It was noted that Councillor Baker was currently on honeymoon. The Committee
wished him well for the future.
(140) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 13 October 2011 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(141) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
Development Committee
1
10 November 2011
(142) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the
item concerned.
(143) LANGHAM - 20060770 - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide hotel
and village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages; Former Glass
Factory, North Street for Avada Country Homes
Request for variation of terms of a Section 106 Obligation
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports concerning a request to
vary the terms of the obligation (agreement) made on 5 December 2008 and relating
to planning application 20060770.
The Planning Legal Manager recommended that owners of the holiday cottages be
required to remain members of the Management Company for as long as they owned
the property in order to maintain the permanent linkage to the hotel.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that Councillor P Terrington, a local Member,
was unable to attend the meeting but had sent his comments. Councillor Terrington
had consulted with members of the Parish Council, and his personal view was that
every effort must be taken to maximise the local employment opportunities of the
development. He also reported that the Parish Council had voted 3 to 1 in favour of
the variation, although two members who had expressed a contrary view had not
been able to attend the Parish Council meeting at which the vote was taken.
Councillor S J Partridge proposed the Officer’s recommendation, including
permanent linkage to the hotel by membership of the Management Company during
the period of ownership of the cottages. This was seconded by Councillor B Smith.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that she had opposed the cottages from the
beginning, although she supported the reuse of the building.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That the variation to the Obligation dated 5 December 2008 requested by
the developer be agreed subject to a requirement for owners of the
cottages to remain members of the Management Company for as long
as they own the property.
(144) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 2 of the Officers’ reports concerning the quarterly report in
respect of planning applications and appeals for the period from July to September
2011, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcome, and land
charge searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the backlog of cases had been
reduced since the appointment of the planning graduate, but that headline
performance figures would be unlikely to improve before the final quarter of the
financial year.
Development Committee
2
10 November 2011
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.
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 report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(145) BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr B Shrive (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to an email which had been sent by the
applicant to all Members in respect of the draft National Planning Policy Framework
(NNPF) and PPS2. The Senior Planning Officer outlined the relevant issues.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee an email which had been
received from Councillor T Ivory, Cabinet Member for Localism, in which he referred
to local support, and policy issues including the draft NPPF and the Ministerial
Statement for Growth, which makes a presumption in favour of sustainable
development, including economic and social sustainability, and the need to create
economic growth. The proposal would provide a dwelling which would enable a local
person to return to the area. Councillor Ivory considered that harm to the landscape
setting of the area was a subjective issue of a single officer and that this view was
not shared by local people. He urged the Committee to give appropriate weight to
the views of the local community. He had also raised the point that whilst the report
stated that the ruins made a contribution to the landscape, they were not listed and
could be demolished at any time. He also considered that concerns regarding
precedent were disingenuous as all planning applications had to be considered on
their own merits.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the site was in an area where conversion to
residential would be permitted under Policy HO9. However, Policy HO9 also
required a building to be capable of conversion without substantial extension or
rebuilding. This building was in a ruinous condition and would need a considerable
amount of reconstruction. It was not possible to prevent removal of the structure. He
also considered that the location was not sustainable.
The Development Manager referred to Councillor Ivory’s comments and stated that
there was no technical objection to the proposal, and he could understand why
somebody would wish to return to their local area. However, Officers considered that
Development Committee
3
10 November 2011
the substantial policy objections in this case were not outweighed by other material
considerations. In terms of precedent, he stated that there were other people who
would wish to move back to the area. The views expressed in the report with regard
to the contribution the ruins made to the landscape setting of the area were those of
the Head of Planning and Building Control and of the Planning Division.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, referred to nearby buildings which
had been rescued from a ruinous state. He considered that the area was being
improved and restored. He stated that the proposal would result in an additional
dwelling in an area where there was a shortage. He proposed approval of this
application which was seconded by Councillor N Smith.
Councillor R Shepherd supported this application subject to recovery of materials.
The Development Manager stated that the sites referred to by the local Member had
an existing residential use at the time of restoration, whereas this site did not. There
was a distinct difference in policy terms. He referred to a similar situation in Gunton
Park which was refused and dismissed on appeal.
Councillors S J Partridge and Mrs L M Brettle supported the Officer’s
recommendation.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor
R Reynolds
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 7 votes to 5 and
on being put as the substantive proposition it was RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4.
(146) CROMER - PF/11/1025 - Erection of A1 (retail foodstore) with A3 (cafe) unit; B P
I Service Station, Holt Road for Lidl UK GmbH
All Members declared that they knew the landowner as he was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr S Eastwood (Cromer Town Council)
Mrs D Meggy (objecting)
Mr R Beaumont (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that one further letter
had been received from a resident of Holt Road requesting the provision of a
footbridge by the applicant. However, it was considered that there was insufficient
justification to require the applicants to provide a footbridge in connection with this
application.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that Environmental
Health had requested a condition in respect of a ground source heat pump and
confirmation of delivery hours. Discussion was needed with the applicant on these
issues.
Development Committee
4
10 November 2011
With regard to landscaping and biodiversity issues, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Landscape) had expressed concerns as to how the proposed
low level planting scheme would fit in with other landscaping in the area. Further
consideration of this issue, possibly involving relocation of the car parking area, may
be necessary. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested
delegated authority to resolve this issue. He also requested delegated authority to
address outstanding biodiversity issues, particularly with regard to bats.
The Chairman referred to an issue that had arisen when the adjacent Homebase
store was constructed in respect of a water tank to serve the sprinkler system. She
also commented that although the landscaping surrounding the Homebase site was
good, the internal landscaping was poor and she requested that attention be paid to
this issue in respect of the current application.
In response to comments made by the objecting spokesperson, the Planning Legal
Manager considered that a Section 106 Obligation for the provision of a footbridge
could not be justified as, in his opinion, it would fail to meet all the required tests.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, congratulated the Officers on the amount of
work put into this application. He had received only letters of support for this
application, with no objections. He considered that the concerns mainly related to
the loss of the petrol filling station. However, many independent petrol stations had
been lost because of competition and he considered that this facility would eventually
close regardless of this proposal. With regard to traffic, he considered that this part
of Cromer suffered because of the ‘by-pass’ created through Felbrigg. He
considered that other measures could be put in place along the full length of Holt
Road. He stated that the filling station employed five people, whereas the proposed
supermarket would employ 44 people. He supported the application.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that the bridge was dangerous to cross. However, it
was some distance from the proposed store and it was unfair to place the burden on
the applicant. He considered that this was an issue for the Highway Authority to
resolve. He proposed approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor
B Smith.
The Chairman suggested that a motion be raised at Full Council in support of the
local residents’ request for a footbridge.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that the County Council was considering
schemes it should support. He suggested that the applicant be requested to make a
contribution towards the provision of a footbridge to start the process. The Planning
Legal Manager reiterated his view that it was not appropriate to seek a contribution
from the applicant.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of
landscaping and biodiversity issues, no objection being received from
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, including limiting the total area
devoted to the sale of goods, a limit on the amount of comparison
goods sales area and limiting the store to occupation by a Limited
Assortment Discount Retailer (LAD) as well as other relevant conditions
required by consultees, including those requested by the Highway
Authority.
Development Committee
5
10 November 2011
It was further proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Committee supports the submission of a motion to Full Council
in support of the local residents’ request to Norfolk County Council for a
footbridge to be provided over the railway line on the A148.
(147) CROMER - PF/11/1082 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Bond (Cromer Town Council)
Mrs C Candish (objecting)
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, expressed concern that the applicant had
once again not sent a representative to attend the meeting. He considered that this
showed contempt for the Council. He stated that Cromer Town Council had not
changed its previous view and he urged the Committee to support the Officer’s
recommendation.
The Chairman stated that she had received a telephone call from the applicant
stating that they had not been aware that the application would be considered at this
meeting. However, the Head of Planning and Building Control had assured her that
the applicant’s agent had been notified in accordance with the Council’s procedures.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on the grounds that the design for the
replacement shopfront would continue to damage to the character and
appearance of this highly prominent part of the Conservation Area in
that it would fail to respect the balance and symmetry of the building,
would create a flat and featureless facade, lacking depth and modelling,
and would include a deep fascia which would bear no relationship to the
capitals which define the lateral extent of the shopfront. The proposal
would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area and would conflict with adopted
Core Strategy policies EN 4 and EN 8 of the Development Plan and
would also fail to accord with Government guidance contained within
Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment.
(148) CROMER - LA/11/1214 - Application of painted render to approved rear
extension; Exton House, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
All Members declared that they knew the applicant as he was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
6
10 November 2011
Public Speaker
Mr R Price (supporting)
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(149) HIGH KELLING - PF/11/1074 - Change of use to a spa retreat including single
storey extensions to the side and rear, sauna, entrance canopy, new access
route from Kelling Heath Holiday Park and formation of car park.; Squirrelwood
Farm, Warren Road for Imagine Health & Spa Ltd
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs A Finnegan (objecting)
Mr B Boydell (objecting)
Mr G Davis (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from the owner
of a mobile home on Kelling Heath Holiday Park who had objected to this application
confirming that his concerns had been addressed. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager (Landscape) had confirmed that there was no evidence of bats
on the application site and no further survey was necessary.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that there were arguments in favour of
this application in respect of employment and tourism. He referred to the points
raised by the objectors to this application and considered that some of these had
been addressed or were not relevant to the current application. He considered that a
condition should be imposed to require the construction of the roadway prior to the
commencement of the development and to require construction traffic to use the new
roadway. He considered that the address and postcode of the spa should be the
same as Kelling Heath Holiday Park. He was concerned that delivery drivers may
exit the site via Warren Road once they were through the gate from the car park.
However, the house could be used as a large family house or bed and breakfast
without the need for planning permission and he considered that the proposed
development would create no more traffic than those uses. He requested that a
condition be imposed to restrict opening times to those stated.
The Senior Planning Officer accepted the suggestion with regard to the construction
and use of the roadway. The gate should only be open for delivery vehicles. He
stated that a lighting condition would be imposed to ensure that lighting was kept to a
minimum. He referred to the applicant’s Design and Access Statement which gave
details of the proposed session times and stated that a condition would be imposed if
the application were approved.
Councillor P W High suggested that a sign be placed at the entrance to Warren Road
to prevent access from that direction. He proposed approval of this application
subject to conditions.
Development Committee
7
10 November 2011
The Development Manager stated that Use Class D2 related to leisure uses, and
given the concerns of local residents in respect of noise he suggested that in this
case the use be restricted to that applied for. He stated that it was not possible to
impose a condition in respect of the postcode of the premises.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include the construction of the roadway prior to
commencement of development and routing of construction traffic,
lighting, restriction of the use of the premises to that applied for and
restriction of opening hours to between 9.30 am and 9 pm.
(150) HOLT - AI/11/1066 - Display of illuminated/non illuminated advertisements;
Budgens Store, Kerridge Way for Musgrave Retail Partners GB
All Members declared that they knew the owner of the premises, who was a fellow
Councillor.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objection being received
following expiry of the press notice and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(151) NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 - Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway Triangle
Site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Ms L Fish (Northrepps Parish Council)
Mr P McSparrow (objecting)
Mrs V Callaghan (objecting)
Mr R Houghton (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that whilst there were still concerns
regarding the design, positive changes had been made from the original submission.
He acknowledged the hard work that the Enabling Team Leader had put into
analysing the viability report. He outlined the viability considerations and the offer
made by the applicants. He stated that the applicants were now not offering a
contribution towards upgrading of the footpath along the Norwich Road. Officers
considered that there was no further scope for negotiations. The applicants had
offered to commence the development within 12 months.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that correspondence had been
received from the agent acting for the former owners of the site expressing concern
at the reference to over-valuation of the land referred to in the report. The agent had
explained that an offer had initially been made by the developer which had been
Development Committee
8
10 November 2011
accepted without offering the land for sale on the open market to ensure that the land
was developed by a reputable company. The owner was not prepared to reduce the
price.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that trial trenches required by
Norfolk Landscape Archaeology had been dug and were due to inspected shortly.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended approval of this application
in accordance with the recommendation in the report and subject to the comments of
the County Archaeologist.
The Strategy Team Leader informed the Committee that she was generally satisfied
with the location of the affordable housing units. To some extent this had been
dictated by the constraints of the site, in that the flats are best located in the triangle
part of the site. There were two groups, with the second in the middle of the scheme.
The Sustainability Assistant stated that whilst full compliance with Policy EN6 would
be ideal, in the event of concessions being necessary to secure the affordable
housing, compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes should be sought as a
priority over renewable energy.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, commended the Officers,
applicant and agent for the work they had put into this application. However, she
remained concerned about the overbearing appearance of the block at the entrance
to the site. This concern was shared by Northrepps Parish Council and Cromer
Town Council. She considered that a single-storey unit would be more appropriate.
She referred to the difference in ground levels between the site and the adjacent
dwellings. She also expressed concern in respect of the design of the scheme and
lack of local distinctiveness at the entrance to Cromer. She considered that The
Avenue could be used as a rat run and stated that she would pursue the County
Council’s suggestion that the entire length of The Avenue be designated as a Quiet
Lane with the Parish Council.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the elevation facing properties
on The Avenue had only a toilet window at ground floor level. He suggested that
permitted development rights be removed in respect of the nearmost dwelling. He
considered that there was now no reason to object to the relationship between the
dwellings with the existing dwellings on The Avenue.
The Chairman requested assurance that the proposal met the Council’s aim to
ensure that affordable housing sat comfortably with market housing.
The Senior Conservation and Design Officer stated that the affordable housing units
had been sited at the far end of the site and others around the open space in the
middle of the site. He stated that all materials used were for the most part traditional
in appearance and the brick types were consistent throughout the scheme. Whilst
sash windows and higher quality bricks were not used on the affordable units, they
were not dissimilar in appearance. He suggested that a condition be imposed to
require precise window details to be submitted for all units.
Councillor B Smith expressed concern that the different road surfaces segregated
parts of the site. He was also concerned at the design of the affordable units
surrounding the open space and lack of landscaping around the flats. He considered
that the large units at the entrance should be located further into the site with smaller
properties at the edge.
Development Committee
9
10 November 2011
The Senior Conservation and Design Officer explained that the changes in road
surface and wall were to break up the roadway. He had no objection to the design of
the affordable units.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the views of the local Member. He considered that
many of the concerns raised at the site inspection had been addressed. However,
he considered that the affordable units should be spread across the site.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle suggested that the unit at the entrance be turned round so
that the garage was adjacent to the dwellings on The Avenue. The Team Leader
(Major Developments) explained that this would raise issues of liveability and reduce
the visual interest at the entrance of the site.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the proposal was acceptable, subject to
integrating the affordable units more closely in terms of materials. He proposed
approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor S J Partridge.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to:
1) The receipt of the final comments of Norfolk Landscape Archaeology;
2) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure the provision
and phasing of the 16 units of affordable housing, a payment of £25,000
towards local play facility provision together with payments towards
library and fire hydrant provision;
3) A condition requiring the commencement of development within 12
months of the date of approval;
4) Details of materials to be submitted to ensure that the affordable
units are integrated with the market housing; and
5) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include materials,
landscaping, highway works, open space provision/future maintenance,
Code Level 3 compliance, foul and surface water details, and removal of
permitted development rights in respect of the dwelling on plot 2.
(152) THURSFORD - PF/11/0879 - Siting of mobile home for use of Equestrian Yard
Manager; Land at Lime Kiln Farm, Hindringham Road for T F Lee & Son
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest in this application as he had
known Miss Lee’s parents some years ago, although he did not know Miss Lee.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss A Lee
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, referred to the Government’s support
for enterprise. She stated that animals were unpredictable and problems could not
be foreseen. She considered that there was no reason to refuse this application.
She stated that this was a form of farm diversity. She proposed approval of this
application for a temporary period of two years.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that this enterprise should be encouraged. He
seconded the proposal.
Development Committee
10
10 November 2011
In response to a comment from Councillor B Smith, the Development Manager stated
that in the view of the Officers, the need for a second person to live full time on the
site had not been justified. There was no question that a great deal of work had been
put into the business.
The Development Manager suggested that if the Committee were minded to approve
this application, a condition should be imposed to tie the caravan to someone who is
working on the holding and permission should be for a temporary period to allow
monitoring. Whilst the current siting of the caravan was relatively unobtrusive, it was
intended to relocate it to a more open area to allow connection into the septic tank
and therefore a landscaping scheme would be required to reduce its impact.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst it could be considered as a
diversification of the agricultural business, the livery business itself did not fall within
the agricultural classification and therefore an agricultural occupancy condition could
not be imposed.
Following further discussion it was considered that a three year temporary approval
could be justified.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved for a temporary period of three years
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include restriction
of occupancy of the caravan to a person who is employed on the
holding and landscaping.
Reason: The Committee accepts that there is a functional need for a
second person working full-time in the livery and has taken into account
the economic and employment issues which have been put forward by
the applicant.
(153) TRIMINGHAM - PF/11/0720 - Extension of caravan site to provide additional
touring pitches; Land at Woodlands Holiday Park for Mr E Harrison
Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, Mrs A R Green, J H Perry-Warnes and R Reynolds
declared a personal interest in this application as they knew the Harrison family.
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr J Harrison (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicants would erect signs in respect
of the permissive footpath. She reported that the Norfolk Coast Partnership had no
objection to the proposal. The Countryside Access Officer was satisfied with the
information submitted in respect of the permissive path.
In answer to a question by the Chairman in respect of comments by the Open
Spaces Society, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the permissive footpath
would provide a link which did not currently exist.
Development Committee
11
10 November 2011
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, commended the application to the
Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include details of existing and proposed
levels across the site to be submitted and agreed.
(154) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind turbine maximum hub height
60m, maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey
substation building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at
Pond Farm for Genatec Ltd
(155) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(156) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(157) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(158) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(159) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(160) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 1.45 pm.
Development Committee
12
10 November 2011