11 APRIL 2013
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)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs H P Eales – The Runtons Ward
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
T Ivory – Scottow Ward
Mrs B McGoun – St Benet Ward
A Yiasimi – Cromer Town Ward
Miss B Palmer – representing S Ward (Lancaster South Ward)
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(245) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Committee Members were present.
(246) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meetings of the Committee held on 14 March 2013 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(247) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a recent appeal decision in respect of a
planning application at Bodham. The reason for urgency was to seek the
Committee’s view as to the action which should be taken with regard to the outcome.
Development Committee
1
11 April 2013
(248) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor B Smith declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the item concerned.
(249) HORNING – Tree Preservation Order, 1 Parkland Crescent
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers report.
Public Speaker
Mr Horey (objecting)
In response to a comment by Mr Horey, the Landscape Officer explained how the
root protection area was assessed.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, considered that the Tree Preservation
Order (TPO) should not be confirmed given Mr Horey’s stated intention to retain the
tree. Whilst the tree was a very important part of the street scene, it was not under
threat. No planning application had been made for an extension to the bungalow and
the owner had confirmed that he no longer intended to do so. A TPO would involve
the owner and the Council in unnecessary expense when the tree needed
maintenance. She considered that there was no point in undertaking a site
inspection.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed that no site inspection be undertaken in this case.
This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
The Development Manager recommended that the Tree Preservation Order be
confirmed.
RESOLVED unanimously
That no site inspection be undertaken.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That Tree Preservation Order (Horning) 2012 No.17 at 1 Parkland
Crescent, Horning be confirmed.
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.
Development Committee
2
11 April 2013
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Development
Management, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(250) AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with ancillary
buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower Road for Mr D
Oliver
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers report.
Public Speakers
Mr Simpson (Runton Parish Council)
Mrs Neat (Aylmerton Parish Council)
Mr J Rampling, Mr W McAdam, Mr Wisdom and Mr Tucker (objecting)
Mrs W Bryan, Miss E Bryan, Mr L Chapman and Mr D Oliver (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Landscape Officer did not object in
principle to the proposal, but considered that insufficient information had been
submitted to assess the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There
were concerns regarding the management of the woodland. It was not considered
that there would be a negative impact on protected species. The agent had
attempted to address a number of points of concern. However, further information
was required with regard to the woodland management plan and details of services
entering the site.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Historic Environment Service had been
reconsulted and had reiterated its comments regarding information required prior to
determination of the application.
The applicant had now confirmed in writing that a Heritage Statement, Woodland
Management Plan and tree survey in accordance with British Standards would be
submitted, and had submitted details in respect of incoming services.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further 46 letters of support, 10 letters
commenting on the application and 25 objections had been received. She outlined
the additional grounds of objection which had been raised by objectors. With regard
to concerns raised regarding the need for the development, she stated that whilst the
case was statistically thin, consideration had to be given to the letters of support and
petition which demonstrated local support for the proposal. She also referred to
responses received from the Landscape Officer and Historic Environment Service.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Woodland Management Plan, tree survey and
Heritage Statement, including an archaeological survey, no further objections being
received following readvertisement of the proposal and the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, referred to the local representations
which had been received. Whilst most objectors supported the burial site itself, many
of the concerns related to the proposed access on Tower Road. She stated that the
issues raised by those most affected should be taken into account. She stated that
for most of the year the lanes were a nightmare for those living on them. She
Development Committee
3
11 April 2013
considered that additional traffic should be taken into account. She suggested that a
roundabout at the Felbrigg junction would enable safer access to be gained to the
site from the A148. She referred to the visibility of the site and questioned the need
for the building when many other burial sites did not have one. She considered that
opening times should be specified to prevent the use of the site for purposes other
than burials. She expressed concern regarding deer crossing the road and
requested that fencing be kept to a minimum to avoid them running back into the
road. She requested deferral of this information to seek more information on access,
wildlife and visual impact.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he supported the scheme and requested that
burials commence as far from residential dwellings as possible. He considered that
burials should be deep to avoid tree roots. He referred to concerns regarding access
which he considered was the biggest drawback in terms of this proposal.
In response to a question from the Chairman, the applicant stated that there was a
statutory minimum depth for burials.
Councillor P W High proposed deferral to seek further information in respect of
highways and consideration of an alternative access.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that objections with regard to visual impact from
the Norfolk Coast Path could be overcome with a substantial landscaping belt. He
considered that the application could be used as a catalyst to provide a roundabout at
the Felbrigg Road junction at public expense, possibly with a contribution from the
applicant.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the site was in the right place. He stated that
the existing crematorium at St Faiths was grossly over-subscribed. He considered
that there would be little of historical value on the site. He proposed approval of this
application as recommended and asked that the distance between burials and the
adjacent dwellings should be considered.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposed access was inadequate
and that access should be taken directly from the A148. She considered that there
was good visibility at the existing access into the woodland. She seconded
Councillor High’s proposal to defer this application.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that there was no need for this proposal at the
present time.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the proposal would result in a queue of
traffic waiting to turn right whether the access was directly from the A148 or as
proposed. He considered that the Highway Authority needed to think strategically.
In answer to a question from Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the Head of Development
Management stated that access through the cemetery had been ruled out because of
a change in levels which would make it difficult. Tower Road had been considered to
be the safest route. The Highway Authority had made it clear to the applicant that it
would not support direct access from the A148.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) commented on informal discussions
between the Highway Authority and the applicant and explained the reason for his
recommendation. He stated that the existing access into the woodland from the
A148 was an agricultural access for logging.
Development Committee
4
11 April 2013
The Head of Development Management stated that if the Committee was minded to
explore an alternative access, either via the logging access or to seek a contribution
towards a roundabout, the application should be deferred to allow discussions with
the applicant. However, the Highway Authority was satisfied with the application as
submitted.
Councillor P W High proposed deferral of this application to request the applicant to
reconsider the access proposals, either by the logging route or to explore whether
there is scope for a roundabout at the Felbrigg junction. This was seconded by
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
At the request of the Head of Development Management, the Committee confirmed
that it was happy for Officers to continue to seek the further information which had
been requested.
Councillor B Smith considered that Tower Lane could be improved by removing some
of the existing bank.
He seconded Councillor Shepherd’s proposal as an
amendment.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried by 5 votes to 3 with 5
abstentions, and on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to the receipt of a satisfactory Woodland
Management Plan, tree survey and Heritage Statement, including an
archaeological survey, no further objections being received following
readvertisement of the proposal following receipt of these details and
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(251) CROMER - PF/13/0060 - Installation of replacement shopfront; 57-59 Church
Street for Iceland Foods Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers report.
Public Speaker
Mr A Boyce (objecting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that this application
represented the minimum necessary to address the concerns raised by previous
Planning Inspectors regarding the existing shopfront. Whilst he was mindful of the
concerns expressed by the Cromer Preservation Society in respect of the current
proposal, on the basis of the amendments made he did not consider that refusal
could be justified. A valid Enforcement Notice remained in place. The applicant had
indicated that the works could be completed within a reasonable timescale and the
Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) suggested that the applicant be
given six months to complete the works.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that the proposal was not
ideal, but it addressed the Inspector’s criticisms. He proposed the Officer’s
recommendation.
Development Committee
5
11 April 2013
Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, considered that it was time this matter was
moved on.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that it was important to specify a timescale for
completion of the works and that six months would give plenty of time. He
considered that the Enforcement Notice should remain until completion of the work.
He seconded the proposal.
The Chairman expressed concern that the works might have an impact on the tourist
industry if carried out during the tourist season.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the applicant had
stated that the works could be completed relatively quickly and that the Enforcement
Notice would remain in place pending completion of the works.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Development Management and subject
to a condition to require the works to be completed within six months of
the date of the permission.
(252) FAKENHAM - PF/12/1299 - Variation of Conditions 2, 7 and 8 of planning
permission reference: 11/0344 to permit revised design and siting of dwelling
and to regularise the removal of the hedge along the eastern boundary; Land
to rear of 75 Norwich Road for Mr J Hammond
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers report.
Public Speaker
Mr J Hammond (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been
received which raised additional concerns regarding scale, the access drive,
compliance with Policy EN4, parking and overdevelopment.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor J
Punchard, a local Member, who had no objection to this application.
The Chairman reported that Councillor S Ward, a local Member, had been unable to
attend and that Councillor Miss B Palmer had agreed to present his comments.
However, she had felt unwell and had left the meeting prior to consideration of this
application. Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones presented Councillor Ward’s comments.
Councillor Ward had called in the application because of the concerns raised by local
residents. He considered that timber joinery would be preferable to aluminium as it
would blend in better, and had requested that the remaining hedge be retained.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had received a letter in respect of this
application. He had spoken at length with Councillor Punchard regarding this matter,
but had had no dialogue with Councillor Ward. He had considered all the issues and
proposed approval of this application in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
Development Committee
6
11 April 2013
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved, subject to the imposition of
conditions including the retention and maintenance of the existing
hedgerow along the northern and western boundaries at a minimum
height of 2.5m from ground level and compliance with the Arboricultural
Implications Assessment document, with the exception of the retention
of the eastern boundary hedge.
(253) LANGHAM - PF/13/0076 - Erection of one and half storey rear extension; 2
Marryats Loke for Mr Banks
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers report.
Public Speakers
Mr Greenhill (objecting)
Mr Powles (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of Councillor P Terrington, a
local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. Councillor Terrington had
expressed concern regarding impact on the neighbour because of loss of light and
overbearing impact.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Development Manager
explained that the proposed extension would be the same height as the existing
bungalow.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green questioned why the applicant could not convert the existing
loft and expressed concern that the hedge would be removed and replaced by a brick
wall. She proposed refusal of this application, which was seconded by Councillor M J
M Baker.
The Development Manager stated that the removal of the hedge was not an issue
over which the Council had control. The Committee had to consider whether the
scale and relationship with the neighbouring property was acceptable in terms of loss
of light and privacy.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker
and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in loss of light and have an overbearing impact in relation to the
neighbouring property.
Development Committee
7
11 April 2013
(254) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1441 - Formation of artisan education centre/holiday
development consisting of the erection of 7 residential/holiday lodges,
camping area and change of use of dwelling to communal facilities/holiday
accommodation, retention of two static caravans for holiday accommodation;
67 Cromer Road for Kiln Cliffs Ltd
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this application as he was known to
Mrs Malone and Mrs Gill whom he had spoken to and received correspondence from
in relation to this application.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers report.
Public Speakers
Mr Gill (objecting)
Mr Malone (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the tents and static caravans would be
used between April and October and the residents of the pods were not included in
the staff numbers.
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposal did not accord with Policy EN4 and
EN6 and expressed concern regarding the impact on adjacent dwellings from noise
and light pollution. He supported the comments of the Parish Council. He proposed
refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
In response to a question by Councillor R Reynolds, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that Environmental Health had not raised an objection on grounds of noise nor
requested conditions. Councillor Reynolds referred to concerns raised by local
residents.
Councillor R Shepherd commended the applicant on what he had sought to achieve,
but considered that it was in the wrong location and would impact on the Human
Rights of local residents.
The Development Manager stated that he could not see an objection in terms of the
design of the units, but concerns had been expressed with regard to the potential for
noise and disturbance.
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposal also failed Policy HO2.
The Development Manager stated that the proposal was a form of housing, which
was acceptable in principle.
Councillor M J M Baker had no objection in principle to this application but expressed
concern that the recommendation put forward was for permanent housing when the
units were clearly referred to as holiday accommodation.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard supported the proposal.
unlikely to attract a noisy clientele.
She considered that it was
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
and
Development Committee
8
11 April 2013
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1
That this application be refused on grounds that the use could
potentially cause noise and disturbance and would therefore be
detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings.
(255) NORTHREPPS - PO/13/0117 - Demolition of buildings and erection of up to 32
dwellings and conversion of frontage building to 2 dwellings; Former
Cherryridge Poultry Site, Church Street for Christchurch Property Company
Ltd
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers report.
The Senior Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the comments of the
Highway Authority and Norfolk Coast Partnership. She requested delegated authority
to approve this application as set out in the report.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that the site was screened
from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It had been empty for many years and
subject to vandalism. She requested that the Committee support the application.
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the Senior Planning Officer
confirmed that a new footpath would be provided to the front of the existing building
and a crossing installed to link to a new footpath.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application in accordance with his recommendation, to include the
completion of a Section 106 Obligation.
(256) SCOTTOW - PF/13/0033 - Erection of two wind turbines each with a maximum
blade tip height of 126.5 metres together with substation and control building,
access tracks and other infrastructure; Scottow Estate, Land off Potspoon
Hole, North Walsham Road for Airvolution Energy Limited
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers report.
Public Speakers
Mrs Badger (Tunstead and Sco Ruston Parish Council)
Mrs Rix (Buxton with Lammas Parish Council)
Mr S Riley (objecting)
Mr Hart-George (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) displayed photographs
demonstrating views of the site from a number of locations. He stated that the key
issues related to the public benefits weighed against the adverse effects. Whilst the
turbines would be prominent in the landscape, the Landscape Officer considered that
there was insufficient justification to refuse the application. There was a lack of
clarification regarding the effect on the former RAF Coltishall Conservation Area and
the Scheduled Ancient Monuments within it. The Conservation, Design and
Development Committee
9
11 April 2013
Landscape Manager had requested further information in order to assess the impact
on these heritage settings, but it would not be received until the deadline for
determination of this application had passed.
Whilst the application could have
significant public benefits, the application was recommended for refusal given the
objections by the Ministry of Defence in respect of its impact on air defence radar and
the need to further consider the effect on the setting of heritage assets.
Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, stated that he strongly objected to this
application for a number of reasons. The objection from the Ministry of Defence was
an important consideration.
He also considered that the proposal was not
economically or socially sustainable as it would have a prejudicial effect on the future
use of RAF Coltishall, particularly in respect of possible restoration of aviation uses.
He referred to a successful campaign to retain the runway for this purpose. He
stated that there was a statutory requirement to preserve the setting of listed
buildings and there was insufficient information to assess the impact on heritage
assets. He considered that there were flaws in the Landscape and Visual Impact
Assessment (LVIA). He considered that the photomontages did not provide a true
reflection of the visual impact of the turbines and that it was fanciful to suggest that
126.5m turbines would not cause harm in a flat landscape.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that there would be a detrimental impact on
aviation as set out in the relevant section of the Officer’s report. He referred to a
suggestion that the airfield could become an airpark in the future which would not be
possible if the turbines were sited close to the runway. He expressed concern that
local jobs could be compromised as a result. He supported the local Member’s views
in respect of landscape impact and referred to the wind turbines installed at
Swaffham, which he considered were 25m smaller than the two under consideration.
He proposed refusal of this application as recommended.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the turbines would attract public subsidy and add
20% to household heating bills, which was not socially sustainable. He considered
that the landscape should not be ruined without good reason. He seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to the site inspection by the Committee and
stated that a 60m mast could be seen at all locations. She considered that the
proposal would dominate the landscape.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the turbines at
Swaffham were slightly taller than suggested by Councillor Reynolds and therefore
comparable in size to those proposed. He referred to the concerns raised regarding
landscape impact and advice received from consultees. He referred to a High Court
challenge against a decision in Northamptonshire and advised the Committee not to
include reasons for refusal which could not be defended.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application should be refused on grounds
related to national security, failure to consider properly the need to preserve the
setting of listed buildings and other heritage assets, including the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty, the proposal would be prejudicial to the regeneration of the former
RAF Coltishall site and the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harmful
impact on the landscape.
Development Committee
10
11 April 2013
The proposed reasons for refusal were discussed and Officers gave detailed advice
with regard to those reasons and whether or not they could be substantiated in the
event of an appeal. Following lengthy discussion it was proposed by Councillor R
Reynolds, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on the following grounds:
1. The turbines would be 16km from, detectable by, and would cause
unacceptable interference to the Air Defence radar at Trimingham
and therefore would pose a significant risk of compromising
national security through the desensitisation of radar in the vicinity
of the turbines, and the creation of “false” aircraft returns. The
probability of the radar detecting aircraft flying over or in the
vicinity of the turbines would be reduced, and the RAF would be
unable to provide a full air surveillance service in the area of the
proposed wind farm.
It is considered that issues of national security through the
maintenance of effective air defence radar systems and the
protection or residents within and around the area would outweigh
the requirement to provide renewable energy generation facilities.
2.
The Committee is not satisfied that the application meets the tests
contained in Sections 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings and
Conservation Areas Act 1990 and paragraph 134 of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
3.
The Committee is not satisfied that the turbines would not prejudice
the future redevelopment potential of the former RAF Coltishall.
4.
The Committee considers that the proposed turbines would have an
adverse impact on the landscape.
The Committee considers that the benefits of the proposal do not
outweigh the disbenefits referred to above.
(257) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/12/0927 – Erection of first floor rear extension,
installation of first floor front balcony, removal of pitched roof and installation
of solar panels and screens to provide roof terrace and erection of attached
garage to facilitate conversion to single dwelling; Marshlands and Travellers
Rest, Coast Road for Mr S Scamell-Katz.
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/12/1219 – Erection of two storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr and Mrs M
Warren.
CROMER – PF/13/0247 - Erection of 145 dwellings with access road, public
open space and associated works; land west of Roughton Road for Norfolk
Homes Ltd
Development Committee
11
11 April 2013
(258) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(259) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(260) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(261) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that a decision had now been issued in
respect of an appeal against refusal of application PF/11/0983 at Bodham. The
Inspector had upheld the appeal. The Council had a right of challenge if it
considered that the decision was flawed. He suggested that the Council seek
Counsel’s opinion on this matter. He understood that English Heritage was also
considering this issue and that one of the objectors had also instructed her solicitor to
consider the matter.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That Counsel’s opinion be sought as to whether there are grounds to
challenge the Inspector’s decision in respect of application PF/11/0983.
(262) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(263) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 2.00 pm.
Development Committee
12
11 April 2013