DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

11 FEBRUARY 2016

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

R Reynolds (Chairman)

R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)

Mrs S Butikofer

N Coppack

Mrs P Grove-Jones

S Hester

B Smith

Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward

Mrs M Prior – substitute for N Smith

E Seward – substitute for Mrs V Uprichard

P High

N Pearce

P Rice

S Shaw

Ms V Gay – North Walsham West Ward

Mrs A Moore - North Walsham West Ward

P Moore - North Walsham East Ward

A Wells – Glaven Valley Ward

Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder

Officers

Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning

Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager

Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager

Mr G Linder – Major Projects Team Leader

Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader

Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader

(174) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N Smith, Mrs V Uprichard and

S Ward. Three substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.

(175) MINUTES

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 14 January 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(176) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

There was one item of urgent business which the Chairman wished to bring before the Committee, relating to:

Alby with Thwaite - PF/15/1361

Reason for urgency

Amended plans have been received which differ from the Committee’s resolution.

Development Committee 1 11 February 2016

(177) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Minute

163

Councillor:

P W High

163 S Hester

163 S Shaw

Interest

Knows Mr Labouchere and his agent and had met the applicant ’s father. He confirmed he had come to the meeting with an open mind.

Knows Mr Labouchere

Knows Mr Labouchere

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 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.

(178) BLAKENEY - PF/15/1655 - Demolition of existing dwelling, barn and outbuildings and erection of two and a half-storey dwelling (re-submission); Three Owls Farm,

Saxlingham Road for Mrs K Cargill

The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mr Crossley (Wiveton Parish Council)

Mr Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)

Mr C Wheeler (objecting)

Mr T Schofield (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader referred to the Inspector’s decision in respect of application PF/14/1566 and stated that the only reason for dismissing the appeal was the lack of a Section 106 Agreement to prevent the construction of two dwellings.

Councillor A Wells, the local Member, stated that the appeal decision was one

Inspector’s planning judgement and another Inspector could come to different conclusion. He reminded the Committee of its previous grounds of refusal. He stated that the application constituted a substantial increase over the existing building and would have a higher ridge line. It would be significant in the AONB and have an unacceptable impact on the landscape. He urged the Committee to refuse this application.

The Planning Legal Manager referred to the long and complicated planning history of this site. A previous appeal in respect of PF/14/0785 which was dismissed related to a contemporary design further away from the existing bungalow. The main issue was now the decision of the second Planning Inspector, who had concluded that the


proposal under PF/14/1566 would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding countryside, AONB and heritage assets. The only reason for dismissal related to the lack of a Section 106 Agreement. The current application was identical to PF/14/1566 except for the inclusion of a draft Section 106 Agreement. He explained that Policy

HO8 did not necessarily require a replacement dwelling to be on the site of, or overlap, the dwelling which it would replace.

In response to a question by Councillor P Rice, the Planning Legal Manager explained that there had previously been a threat of a High Court challenge in respect of a previous application but he was not aware that a challenge was being contemplated in respect of the current application.

Councillor R Shepherd considered that the Committee had quite rightly turned down the two previous applications. In the light of the Ins pector’s decision, he sought guidance as to the possible consequences of refusal of this application.

The Planning Legal Manager explained that the law required planning decisions to be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless other material considerations indicat ed otherwise. Both Inspectors’ decisions had to be considered. However,

Planning Officers would find it very difficult to find defensible reasons for refusal given the second Inspector’s decision and if the Committee were minded to refuse it would be required to articulate its reasons for doing so. He advised the Committee with regard to the possibility of costs.

Councillor Ms M Prior proposed approval in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning. This was seconded by Councillor P W High.

Councillor E Seward stated that he was sympathetic to the views of the Parish Council.

He considered that whilst the Inspector’s decision was a material consideration, another Inspector could come to a different conclusion.

The Head of Planning stated that she had sought legal advice on this matter. The weight to be given to the Inspector’s decision was a matter of planning judgement.

She explained that the lack of material changes in the interim and the fact that proposal was in accordance with other planning considerations suggested that the weight to be afforded was substantial.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds requested additional tree screening.

The Major Projects Team Leader explained that landscaping conditions would be imposed requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at the impact of the proposal on the

AONB and Glaven Valley Conservation Area. However, she considered that in this case it was a fait accompli.

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4

That this application be approved subject to the completion of a Section

106 Obligation limiting the erection of only one replacement dwelling at the site and the imposition of the conditions listed in the report.


(179) FIELD DALLING - PF/15/1584 - Change of use of agricultural land to residential garden and erection of studio/office/store; 3 Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for

Blue Tile Farm Barns Ltd


Public Speakers

Mr H Labouchere (objecting)

Mr G Ambler (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the ecological impact would be negligible, there would be no loss of privacy or adverse landscape impact. He recommended approval in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Councillor A Wells, the local Member, referred to the history of this site. He considered that the application moved the building closer to Blue Tile Farmhouse and the building would be more substantial than the original shed.

A number of Members commented as to the position of the building and asked if it could be sited in the same position as the existing shed, which was to be removed.

The Chairman invited the applicant to comment on this suggestion.

Mr Ambler expressed his disappointment that the Committee could not consider the proposal as submitted and considered that the siting of the proposed building was reasonable given the location of the neighbour’s consented pavilion. He stated that potentially he could consider moving the building but it was not what was being sought.

It was a detached building for gardening use.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Ms

M Prior that this application be approved as recommended.

Councillor P W High reminded the Committee that it had previously been concerned about any buildings being erected on the wedge of land. He was also concerned that the proposed building would be detached from unit 3. He considered that the proposed building was in the wrong place.

RESOLVED by 10 for 3 against

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including a time limit, in accordance with approved plans, materials, external lighting, boundary treatments and ancillary residential use only.

(180) MORSTON - PF/15/1312 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr & Mrs M Goff


Public Speaker

Mr R Delafield (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader reported that the Campaign for the Protection of


Rural England (CPRE) had expressed concerns regarding Policy HO8 and the increase in the size of the building, the high value of the area in terms of visual impact and development pressure. He referred to concerns raised by the Landscape Officer.

He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor A Wells, the local Member, referred to the comments of Blakeney Parish

Council. He stated that there had been a very small number of objections compared to other proposals in the Blakeney area and people generally considered the design to be sympathetic.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that Blakeney was one of the most iconic places in East

Anglia. He considered that the existing building was of a reasonable size and sat back from the AONB. However, the proposed replacement was unacceptable in scale and would sit forward of the existing building. He considered that it was contrary to

Core Strategy Policies HO7, EN1, EN2, EN3 and also the NPPF. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that if the proposed building were set back on the footprint of the existing dwelling it could be acceptable.

Councillor P W High stated that Blakeney had many different styles of building and there was no uniformity. He considered that the proposal was acceptable.

Councillor S Hester stated that there were vast areas of land in Morston which could not be built on, there was an existing house on the site and he considered that the proposal would not spoil the area.

Councillor P Rice spoke in favour of the design. However, he considered that the building should be set further back on the site and the application should be refused as currently submitted.

The Major Projects Manager suggested deferral to consider the possibility of resiting the building as suggested by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and possibly reducing or removing the boot-room element.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor S Hester and


Defer for further negotiations regarding moving building back on the site and removal/reduction of outbuilding element.

(181) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal- Full planning permission for erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road for Peter Foster Tofts,

Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon

The Co mmittee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speaker

Mr J Jennings (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader reported that the Highway Authority considered that the package of measures would reduce traffic speeds. He presented amended plans in respect of house designs and layout.


The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this application subject to minor amendments, formal reconsultation with the Highway

Authority on the amended plans, conditions required by the Highway Authority, completion of a Section 106 Obligation and appropriate conditions including highways, landscaping, materials, marketing strategy for the employment land and use of on-site sand and gravel.

Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, stated that she had no objection in principle but raised concerns regarding the design of the dwellings, use of cladding and highway issues. She stated that the frontage of the site was a gateway to the southern part of the town and the design did not reflect this. She requested 1) that the house designs and layout be reconsidered and that new designs and layout be agreed with the Conservation and Design Officer, 2) that the layout and planting of the open spaces be reconsidered and the new layout and designs be agreed with the

Landscape Officer, and 3) that the recommendations of the Highway Authority on highway safety be followed. She requested that the completion of the spine road to the boundary be included in the Section 106 Obligation to avoid the creation of a ransom strip.

The Major Projects Team Leader confirmed that the applicants had agreed to include the spine road in the Section 106 Obligation. The Highway Authority would be consulted on the amended plans, the Landscape Officer was happy with the most recent landscaping scheme and the Conservation and Design Team Leader accepted that the latest designs were an improvement on the previous designs and had raised no objection. The layout of the scheme worked and provided a number of benefits.

Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that this was a very significant application for the town and she welcomed the Section 106 contributions. However, she shared Councillor Mrs Moore’s concerns with regard to design and open space.

She considered that the landscaping belt on the southern boundary was essential and the maintenance agreement should be fully funded. She expressed disappointment that Officers had been unable to secure a better locally distinctive design.

The Major Projects Team Leader confirmed that the Section 106 Obligation would require management of open space and he understood that the applicants would appoint a management company to maintain it.

Councillor E Seward welcomed the inclusion of a pedestrian crossing. However he considered that a light controlled crossing would be preferable as it would be used by primary-age children. He welcomed the funding contributions towards education and the NHS and asked for clarification as to its purpose. He asked if the junction with the bypass would have to wait until the whole site was developed.

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that trigger points in terms of the junction would be agreed as part of the Section 106 Obligation. He agreed to clarify issues regarding this matter and the funding contributions and inform Councillor Seward.

Councillor B Smith supported the local Members with regard to design. He considered that a tree avenue should be created on the spine road and that the dwelling designs on the frontage should be reconsidered.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the design of some of the affordable dwellings was extremely plain and would be distinguishable from the market dwellings.


In response to questions by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds concerning parking, the Major Projects Team Leader explained that parking provision met the requirements and all properties had on-site parking. The Highway Authority had requested additional parking and laybys had been provided within the site.

Councillor S Hester considered that the designs did not reflect the vernacular of the area. However it was necessary to keep costs down in order to provide affordable housing. He considered that the frontage dwellings could be improved.

In response to a question by Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the Major Projects Team

Leader explained that the Countryside and Parks Manager considered that the open space areas were not large enough to provide play equipment and had instead requested a contribution towards off site play equipment which would be used on a larger area of open space in a future proposal.

It was proposed by Councillor P Rice that consideration of this application be deferred for further negotiations with regard to design and to await the formal response of the

Highway Authority.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds that the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application as recommended. This was seconded.

Councillor E Seward seconded the proposal for deferral as an amendment.

The amendment for deferral of this application was put to the vote and carried by 9 votes to 4.

On being put as the substantive proposal, it was


(182) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1536 - Installation of 5MW solar farm with ancillary buildings, security fencing, CCTV, access tracks and landscaping; Land at

Wayside Farm for YGE Solar Field 6 Limited

That consideration of this application be deferred for further negotiations with regard to design and to await the formal response of the Highway Authority.


Public Speakers

Ms R Rusbridge (supporting)

Mr R Buxton (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader reported that an amended landscaping scheme had been submitted to include climbing plants on the fence and a mix of trees. The

Landscaping Officer was happy with the scheme. A cross-section of across the site had also been submitted indicating the position of the security fence in relation to the carriageway and proposed solar panels. Whilst the proposal would alter the character of the land, the proposed landscaping would soften the impact of the panels.

Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, considered that this was a very good proposal and that the proposed landscaping was useful and imaginative. She considered that this proposal should be a model for future landscaping of such sites.


In response to concerns raised by Councillor S Hester, the Chairman and Major

Projects Team Leader confirmed that the panels were not reflective and would have no impact on drivers.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor N Coppack and

(183) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1551 - Retention of entrance walls and gates.; Norfolk

Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.


Councillor E Seward, a local Member, expressed his disappointment at the retrospective nature of this application and also the related applications PF/15/1552 and PF/15/1556. He referred to the applicant’s credentials as stated on its website and questioned why a company of this standard would develop a site without going through the planning process. He commented regarding the lack of promotion of local businesses by the applicant. He asked if there was anything that could be done to reprimand the applicant.

Referring to the application, he disagreed with the Officer’s statement that the entrance to the park was not in a visually sensitive area. He stated that there was an established pond and historic public house, typical of a Norfolk village scene. He agreed that quality materials had been used but considered that the entrance as built had a suburban character.

In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Head of Planning explained that the only elements of the proposal which required planning permission were those over 2m high. It was possible to request that the piers be removed and leave the wall which did not require planning permission.

Councillor B Smith also expressed his displeasure at retrospective applications.

However he considered that the entrance was a great improvement on the original entrance and would be an asset. The entrance had been established for a long time and was originally larger than the entrance as built.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that retrospective applications were a cause for concern to Officers as well as Members. However, the Government’s advice was that they should be dealt with as though they were not retrospective. Enforcement action could not be taken on the basis of the retrospective nature of the application.

It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor P W High and

(184) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1552 - Retention of submerged gas tanks and fence;

Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group


That this application be approved.



Councillor E Seward, a local Member, referred to the health and safety aspects of the proposal and the proximity of the adjacent dwellings. He asked if accredited suppliers had to check with the Council and if the installation should be checked by the Fire

Service.

The Chairman stated that accredited installers were required to have a Gas Safe

Certificate.

The Head of Planning stated that it was hoped that accredited suppliers would carry out the necessary checks. She was unaware as to whether the Fire Service had to inspect the installation.

The Development Management Team Leader referred to the comments of

Environmental Health who were satisfied that the appropriate certification was in place, that the tanks had been installed properly and complied with the appropriate legislation.

Councillor P Rice considered that the Fire Service should have been consulted. He considered that signage should be installed.

It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded and



(185) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1556 - Retention of building for gym and hair and nail salon; Norfolk Park Homes, Bacton Road for The Dream Lodge Group


Councillor E Seward, a local Member, considered that the building was not very attractive but had to be considered in the context of other buildings on the site. He considered that the Town Council’s concern regarding retail impact was legitimate.

He stated that there was no shortage of hairdressers in North Walsham.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that competition was not a planning issue.

Councillor N Pearce commented that there was inconsistency between the amount of safety signage around this building and the lack of any signage for the gas tanks.



It was further


That the Chairman send a letter of reprimand to the Managing Director of the Dream Lodge Group expressing the Committee’s disappointment at the disregard for planning regulations.

The Portfolio Holder suggested that Councillor Seward take up his concern regarding the lack of support for North Walsham directly with the Company.


(186) RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg

Road, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish


Public Speaker

Mr Huish (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader reported that the final paragraph on page 60 of the report should read “…it is not in a promi nent position …”. He recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions contained in the report.

Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to the applicants’ son and the neighbour and had listened carefully to the Officer’s presentation. She considered that the proposal was overdevelopment of the site and of questionable scale for an annexe. There was no link shown between the annexe and the main house. She considered that the proposal would have an overbearing impact and cause overshadowing and loss of daylight to the neighbouring dwellings, and that the flat roof would be out of keeping with the area. She requested a site inspection.

The Major Projects Team Leader advised that a site inspection would be beneficial.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and


That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the

Committee to undertake a site inspection.

(187) SCOTTOW - PF/15/1829 - Temporary change of use of Hangers 1, 2 and 3 to storage of processed sugar (retrospective); Hanger 1, 2 and 3, Scottow

Enterprise Park, Lamas Road, Badersfield for Greenheath Limited


The Major Projects Manager referred to the previous reasons for refusal and proposals by the applicant for removing the sugar. He reported that Scottow Parish

Council had requested restrictions on the number of vehicles going to and from the site and on hours of traffic movement. The Parish Council had also expressed concern regarding fire risk. The Health and Safety Executive had raised no concerns regarding fire risk.

The Major Projects Manager recommended approval subject to conditions as set out in the report.

Councillor S Shaw considered that the current proposal was a compromise and would spread movements over a longer period.

Councillor P W High proposed approval of this application as recommended.

In response to questions by Members, the Major Projects Manager stated that he understood that Norfolk County Council did not intend to use the buildings for low-key storage purposes in the long term. With regard to hours of movement, Environmental

Health considered the proposal to be reasonable.


It was proposed by Councillor E Seward, seconded by Councillor P Rice and


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions to include restrictions on delivery/dispatch times to 7am to

(188) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1468 - Erection of two and a half storey dwelling and access road; Plot 6, Land at 20 Abbey Road for Mr Clark

10pm Monday to Friday, 7am to 4pm on Saturdays and no deliveries on

Sundays or Bank or Public Holidays and any other conditions considered to be necessary by the Head of Planning.


Public Speaker

Mr A Presslee (supporting)

Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, considered that the proposed dwelling would overlook, or appear to overlook, the adjacent bungalows. However, the bungalows would be protected from flooding. He considered that the proposal was contrary to

Core Strategy Policy HO1 in terms of adaptability for elderly or disabled people. He proposed refusal of this application on grounds that the proposal was contrary to

Policy HO1, would infringe the human rights of the occupiers of the adjacent bungalows and was inappropriate in the street scene. In the event of approval of this application, he requested a construction management plan to include the made-up section of Abbey Road.

Councillor Ms M Prior seconded the proposal.

Councillor B Smith considered that the scale and massing of the building was excessive, would be imposing on the adjacent bungalows and already appeared cramped. He requested clarification of the height of the proposed dwelling in relation to the bungalows.

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the new building would be taller than the bungalows but it would be further away than the previously approved bungalow. He referred to page 71 of the Officers’ report which addressed policy HO1 and advised the Committee that it would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds related to policy

HO1.

Councillor Mrs A ClaussenReynolds proposed the Officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.

The proposal to refuse this application was put to the vote and declared lost by 4 votes to 9.


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include a requirement for the precise details of slab levels to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement of development.


(189) SOUTHREPPS - PF/15/1565 - Erection of three detached dwelling houses; Land at Beechlands Park for Mr Codling

This application was deferred to a future meeting at the request of the Head of

Planning.

(190) WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension to outbuildings to provide an additional unit of holiday accommodation; The White Lady, Front

Street for Mr Gilligan


The Development Management Team Leader reported the comments of Councillor G

Williams, the local Member, who had referred to local concerns and requested the following conditions:

1. That construction of the additional 8 parking spaces for this application takes place before construction of the unit commences

2. That a traffic management and parking plan is provided to include parking layout, bay markings and signage to ensure all car parking at the pub and associated facilities is used effectively and is always available, particularly for events.

Councillor Williams also referred to a request by Worstead Parish Council for a parking management plan that directs customers of the public house to the provided parking areas so as to minimise obstruction and inconvenience to residents who live nearby and that appropriate and timely enforcement is carried out in the event of any breach of condition.

The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval of this application subject to conditions to cover the issues listed in the report and including those issues raised by Councillor Williams.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and


That this application be approved subject to conditions to cover the following matters:



Time limit for implementation



External materials and details



Car parking, retention and signing, to include the issues raised by the local Member



Holiday occupancy only



Archaeology

(191) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION


RESOLVED

That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections:


18 February 2016

BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class

C3) with associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station - Land off Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.

EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class

C3) with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Rectory

Road and Holt Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.

TRUNCH - PF/15/1227 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Cornish Avenue,

Trunch, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.

GREAT RYBURGH - PF/15/1228 - Erection of five residential units (Class

C3) with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Highfield

Close, Great Ryburgh, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.

ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class

C3) with associated highway and landscape works - Land off Eagle Road,

Erpingham, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts.

ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1587 - Erection of 10 dwellings and garages with access off Eagle Road - Land to the south of Eagle Road, Erpingham,

NR11 7AD for Mr Alston.

3 March 2016

MUNDESLEY - PF/15/1534 - Erection of 51 dwellings, public open space and associated infrastructure - Land off High Street and Water Lane,

Mundesley for Dewing Properties Ltd.

PASTON – PF/15/1198 – Demolition of accommodation Block B, swimming pool and laundry. Use of land to station 21 holiday lodges, reception building, wardens accommodation together with realignment of internal roads and associated landscaping; Mundesley Holiday Centre,

Paston Road for Mundesley Holiday Village Ltd

(192) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE

UPDATE

The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from October to December 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.

The Head of Planning reported that Mrs Sarah Ashurst, the current Planning Policy

Team Leader, had been appointed as Development Manager and would take up her new post on 1 March 2016.

(193) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.


(194) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(195) NEW APPEALS


(196) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 19 o f the Officers’ reports.

(197) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND


(198) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES


(199) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS


ITEM OF URGENT BUSINESS

(200) ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1361 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of dwelling; Garden Cottage, Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Hughes

The Head of Planning reported that amended plans had been submitted which did not fully accord with the resolution of the Committee on 14 January 2016. However,

Officers and the local Member were happy with the scheme as now submitted.

RESOLVED

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application, as amended, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.15pm, returned at 2pm and closed at 3pm.

CHAIRMAN

10 March 2016


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Products

Support

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib