12 JANUARY 2012
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
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer - substitute for P W High
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
D Young - High Heath Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - observer
K E Johnson - observer
Mrs A M Moore - observer
N Smith - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner - Strategy Team Leader
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mr D Thompson - Soil Consultant
(182) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and S J Partridge.
There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(183) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 December 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(184) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
Development Committee
1
12 January 2012
1.
Request to reconsider an extension to the time period for compliance with an
Enforcement Notice at Marshgate, North Walsham.
Reason for urgency: the date for compliance is 27 January 2012.
2.
Planning application PF/11/1492, Sculthorpe Road, Fakenham.
Reason for urgency: to expedite processing of the application by undertaking
a site inspection.
(185) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, B Smith and R Reynolds
declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item
concerned.
(186) HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs V Woods (Hempton Parish Council)
Mr M Champion (objecting)
Mr M Burghall (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received in
respect of alterations to the car park surfacing and the porch design on one of the
dwellings.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an updated map and earthworks survey
plan had been supplied by Historic Environment Services in respect of the
archaeological remains of the former Priory. She reported the contents of an email
received from consultants acting on behalf of Hempton Parish Council in respect of
concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposal on the archaeological
remains and requesting deferral pending the outcome of an application to extend the
area of the Scheduled Ancient Monument. The Senior Planning Officer read to the
Committee the comments of English Heritage, which had excavated a trial trench and
considered that there were no archaeological remains on the site of the proposed
dwellings.
English Heritage considered that there was no reason to delay
consideration of this application and had requested the imposition of archaeological
conditions. A further email had been received from English Heritage stating that it
was clear that the area of the proposed development was not without merit and was
likely to have been associated with the priory but outside its precinct. Whilst the
development area was not appropriate for designation, archaeological conditions
were recommended to ensure that the site was recorded. However, the area of the
drainage pipe could possibly be designated.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the drainage pipe could be non-porous as
requested by English Heritage.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include a programme of archaeological work to be carried
out and further details in respect of the drainage pipe to be submitted and agreed
with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with English Heritage and the
Historic Environment Service.
Development Committee
2
12 January 2012
Councillor Miss B Palmer, the local Member, stated that there was a need for
affordable housing but not on the proposed site. She referred to the waterlogged
nature of the site, highway issues, impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument, the
need for care in keeping soil disturbance to a minimum and careful disposal of any
soil given the presence of blackleg.
Councillor R Shepherd asked if the adjacent dwellings had ever flooded. Councillor
Mrs A R Green confirmed that they had suffered considerable damage, including
subsidence.
Councillor Mrs Green expressed concern at any work being undertaken near the
archaeological site. She also stated that the right turn at the junction was difficult to
negotiate.
The Chairman asked whether development could be stopped if any items of merit
were found as a result of the archaeological dig.
The Development Manager stated that the highway issues had previously been
debated and the Highway Authority had no objection. Issues regarding flooding and
subsidence had been raised previously and there were technical ways to overcome
these issues. An alternative location had been discussed which was unacceptable to
the Highway Authority and in terms of proximity to Fakenham. The only issue
remaining was in respect of archaeology. He reiterated the comments made by the
Senior Planning Officer in respect of the consultation responses from English
Heritage and the Historic Environment Service.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the Fakenham area needed as much affordable
housing as it could get. He considered that the archaeological conditions should be
strictly adhered to. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by
Councillor J A Wyatt.
The Development Manager requested delegated authority to approve subject to the
wording of draft conditions to cover the protection of archaeological interests being
agreed with English Heritage and the Historic Environment Service and subject to the
agreement of the developer to those conditions.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include a programme of archaeological work to be carried
out, subject to the wording of those conditions being agreed by English
Heritage, the Historic Environment Service and the developer, and
further details in respect of the drainage pipe to be submitted and
agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with English
Heritage and the Historic Environment Service.
Development Committee
3
12 January 2012
(187) WEYBOURNE – PF/09/1270 – Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Bolton (representing Parish Councils of Kelling, Salthouse, Gunthorpe,
Thursford, Fulmodeston and Ryburgh)
Mr A Case, Mrs Runciman and Mr D Ross (objecting)
Mr M Petterson (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Stibbard Parish Council continued to raise
a strong objection to this application. Keith Simpson MP had also forwarded
objections which he requested were taken into account. The Senior Planning Officer
outlined the grounds of objection raised in 5 letters of objection which had been
received. A letter had been received which confirmed that Crown Estates had not
granted an offshore licence. Some of the objectors had disputed part of the report
which stated that constructive discussions had taken place between the applicants
and the objector. An email in response to that point had been received from the
applicants stating that they had kept to the agenda proposed by the objectors. An
email had been received from the applicants’ solicitor stating that the soil
temperatures quoted were the worst case scenario and were not normal operating
temperatures.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that no objections had been received from expert
bodies and technical consultees. She recommended approval as set out in the
report.
Councillor M J M Baker raised a point of order as to why the application was being
discussed when the issue regarding the sub-station was not resolved and there were
no connections at either end of the route.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July
2011 when it was resolved to defer to await the outcome of the inquiry in respect of
Little Dunham sub-station. The minute did not refer to any subsequent legal
challenge. The appeal had been dismissed by the Secretaries of State and a legal
challenge brought against the decision. There was an existing planning permission
for the cable route through Breckland District, which connected to the proposed route
now being considered. The applicants had requested that the application be
determined. They had a right of appeal against non-determination, in which case the
application would have to be brought to Committee and its views sought on what it
would have decided. The Planning Legal Manager stated that for these reasons, in
his opinion it was appropriate to consider the application and make a decision.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there were other legal issues to consider.
Late responses had been received, raising issues in respect of land values and
compensatory payments to landowners and tenant farmers. Whilst these concerns
were understood they were civil matters and, in his view, not material to the planning
decision.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the Committee was a semi-judicial body
and had to consider this matter and make a decision.
Development Committee
4
12 January 2012
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor P
Terrington, Member for Priory Ward, expressing a number of concerns regarding soil
impact, shortcomings in the report by Wells Harbour Commissioners in respect of the
Sheringham Shoal project cited by the applicants, possible negative social,
environmental and economic impacts, the potential increase in the number of
households in fuel poverty as a result of subsidies paid to wind energy generating
companies and raising questions regarding the starting point of directional drilling
under watercourses in respect of potential flooding and contamination.
Councillor D Young, Member for High Heath Ward, referred to his previous
objections. He considered that there had been little change, the Little Dunham
substation proposal had been refused by two Secretaries of State who were probusiness and pro-renewable energy, and there was no guarantee that a suitable site
would be found anywhere near Little Dunham. He expressed concern at the impact
on hedgerows and asked if it would be possible to cut the trenches under the
hedgerows in order that they could be retained. He queried how it would be possible
to cut a trench through a watercourse. He expressed concern at the timescale for
reinstatement of soil and considered that the proposal should be limited to stage 1 or
the reinstatement period be measured from the commencement of work rather than
the end, and possibly to require ducting for stage 2 to be installed.
The Landscape Officer explained that the width of the trench had been reduced to
20m at all hedgerow crossing points. There were proposals to replace the lost
sections with a species rich mix which should increase the biodiversity value of the
hedgerow. She explained the methodology for crossing the watercourses where
horizontal directional drilling would not be used.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that this meeting was premature given the
uncertainty as to the proposals at either end of the route. She stated that the
concerns of the parishes in her Ward had been addressed and they had no objection.
She asked whether permission for the cable route would preclude the erection of
pylons.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the applicant had
considered and discounted the overhead option. He stated that a separate consent
process would be required if a further proposal for pylons came forward.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that all parishes in her Ward were opposed to the
proposal. She considered that the proposed route was not an option. There had
been no further changes and the route through Mr Boeson’s farm remained the
same. She stated that the recovery time of the land was unknown. She referred to
the study by Cranfield University which referred to soil problems and considered that
there were reasons for further investigation. She was very concerned at the
possibility of laying cables in two stages and stated that there had been no
negotiation with Crown Estates to increase the size of the proposed windfarm. She
considered that the East Coast Transmission Route should be used and that modern
style pylons would solve many of the problems. She considered that the advantages
of putting the cables underground were minimal. She considered that any benefits
would be outweighed by the impact on the local agricultural industry, there would be
no benefit for tourism and the associated costs would lead to an increase in fuel
poverty. She considered that this application should be refused.
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mr Petterson stated that the
cables could possibly be ducted but no decision had been made on this issue. There
would be no impact on the width of the trench regardless of whether the cables were
ducted or laid directly in the ground. The Head of Planning and Building Control
added that the width of the trench was dictated by the working corridor.
Development Committee
5
12 January 2012
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the majority of landowners had not
objected. At his request, the amendments to the route through the land farmed by Mr
Runciman and Mr Boeson were displayed. In respect of the land farmed by Mr
Boeson, the Senior Planning Officer understood that the landowner had agreed to
the proposed route.
Councillor Cabbell Manners considered that whilst only minor changes had been
made to the route through Mr Boeson’s farm, it was as close to the hedgerow as
possible. Major changes had been made to the route through Mr Runciman’s land.
He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor Baker referred to the width of the land which would be affected. He
referred to areas where the soil structure had been damaged by disturbance of the
soil, and stated that soil movements from Neolithic times could still be mapped from
space because of differences in the growth of crops. He referred to the growing of
root crops in the area, and stated that supermarkets insisted on certain methods and
conditions for growing and would not award contracts where first-class quality could
not be guaranteed. He stated that there was no evidence that the necessary
offshore permissions were forthcoming and no evidence that there would be no
impact on the chalk reef.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the concerns remained in respect of the small
farms. He queried the timescale for reinstatement of soil and asked if other methods
of construction had been considered. He requested clarification as to whether
permission would be needed for construction of pylons if the cable route were not
approved.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that consent would be required,
possibly from the Secretary of State. However, the Committee was not being asked
to consider this issue.
Mr Petterson stated that it was expected that topsoil would be stripped for a
maximum period of six months, but this would depend on the length of the section
involved. In respect of Mr Runciman’s farm it would probably be a maximum of 2-3
months. The trench itself would be open for 2-3 days only, given the safety risk and
risk of theft of cables. He stated that it would not be possible to use other methods of
construction through the farms in question, given the length that would be required.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that there had been no complaints following the
Sheringham Shoal development and seconded Councillor B Cabbell Manners’
proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application should be refused, but
proposed deferral pending granting of offshore consent and planning permission for a
substation. There was no seconder.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that whilst it was a direct negative of the proposal, he
would like to propose refusal of this application. This was supported by Councillor
Mrs A R Green.
The proposal to approve this application was put to the vote and declared lost by 3
votes to 9.
Development Committee
6
12 January 2012
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 5
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
have a detrimental impact on the landscape and a detrimental impact on
the local agricultural economy.
(188) SALTHOUSE - Residential conversion of barns at Bard Hill (applications
20060642 and 20060736)
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports which sought approval to
waive payment of the first financial contribution towards affordable housing and
renegotiate the second payment.
The Senior Planning Officer corrected the report and stated that liability under the
Section 106 Obligation would pass to successors in title of the developer. He
reported that a letter had been received from a local resident requesting that the
Obligation be enforced, possibly by the payment of smaller instalments, and stating
that Salthouse needed affordable housing.
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
The Strategy Team Leader explained the viability issues relating to this case and
answered Members’ questions.
RESOLVED
That the press and public be re-admitted to the meeting.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That consideration of this matter be deferred for a more detailed report
following advice from the District Valuer in respect of the figures
discussed under private business, and that further consideration be
given to the legal consequences of the agreement on present and future
occupiers of the barns.
(189) CHANGE TO PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING ENFORCEMENT CASES
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports in respect of a strategy for
the management of Enforcement caseload.
The Chairman stated that there were enforcement issues in her Ward in which both
she and the Vice-Chairman had declared interests. It was suggested that Officers be
authorised to find an alternative Member to consult in such cases.
Development Committee
7
12 January 2012
The Chairman suggested that matters deleted under the proposed procedure be
reported to Committee as part of the quarterly schedule. It was suggested that the
scheme be piloted for an initial period of six months.
RESOLVED
That the use of delegated powers to resolve outstanding Enforcement
cases in consultation with local Ward Members and the Chairman/Vice
Chairman of the Development Committee as set out in the report be
supported and that a six-month trial be undertaken. In cases where the
Chairman and Vice-Chairman both have an interest in a case, the
Officers be authorised to consult another appropriate Member.
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.
(190) HOLT - PF/11/0989 - Conversion of outbuilding to two-storey dwelling and
erection of 2 two-and-a-half-storey dwellings; Land rear of 27 High Street for C
T Baker Ltd
Councillor M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was
the Managing Director of the applicant Company and left the Council Chamber during
consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager had no objection in respect of changes to the fenestration.
He
recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions as listed in the report.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include submission of precise details of
materials, the removal of permitted development rights for alterations,
extensions and outbuildings, submission of a scheme for on-site cycle
parking provision, and compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes
and Sustainable Construction Checklist.
Development Committee
8
12 January 2012
(191) HOLT - LE/11/1013 - Demolition of outbuildings; Rear of 27 High Street for C T
Baker Ltd
Councillor M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was
the Managing Director of the applicant Company and left the Council Chamber during
consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of a
condition requiring a scheme for the method of demolition to be
submitted and agreed.
(192) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0372 - Conversion of A1 (retail)/office unit to
residential flat; 4 Bank Loke for Anchor Homes Ltd
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that item 3 of the main issues for consideration
should read “amenity and parking issues”.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs A
M Moore, a local Member, who had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of
this matter. Councillor Mrs Moore objected to this application as the site was within
the core retail area and a condition had been imposed in 2006 to require two
retail/office units. She had also referred to an application which was approved at the
previous meeting (despite local objections) to convert a residential unit in the core
retail area to a hairdressing salon.
In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones that it appeared that
applications were often determined against the wishes of the Town Council and local
residents, the Development Manager stated that in this case the Town Council
supported the application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions as set out in the report.
(193) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(194) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
9
12 January 2012
(195) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(196) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(197) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(198) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that the following items be considered
as matters of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of
the Local Government Act 1972.
(199) NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
Councillor B Smith referred to a personal interest he had declared at the previous
meeting as he knew the proprietor at the time of the original application in 2008.
This matter had been considered at the meeting of the Committee on 8 December
when it had been resolved to refuse a request to defer the time period for compliance
with the Enforcement Notice and to authorise prosecution proceedings in the event of
non-compliance with the Notice. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
read to the Committee a letter which had been received from HFS Enviroco outlining
the implications of the decision for the Company and requesting that further
consideration be given to this matter. The Company considered that it would be
unable to relocate until 5 March 2012, given the timescale for obtaining a licence
from VOSA to site the HGVs on the alternative site which was currently subject to an
application for planning permission, whereas the date for compliance with the
Enforcement Notice was 27 January 2012.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, referred to the planning history in relation to
this matter. He stated that the Town Council did not support an extension of time.
However, he expressed concern with regard to employment issues and considered
that the Council could delay taking action until the Company relocated. He also
suggested that the Council put pressure on VOSA to expedite processing of the
licence application. He considered that a verbal report was insufficient and that this
matter should be deferred for a full written report.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there was no desire to jeopardise jobs and
the Company seemed to be making an effort to relocate. He advised that the
prosecution could be delayed if necessary. He understood that VOSA would take 9
to 10 weeks to process an application and he was not sure if they would
accommodate a request for an earlier decision.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed refusal of the request.
Development Committee
10
12 January 2012
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the planning application for the new site
was very likely to be approved, without prejudice.
Councillor B Smith stated that he was sympathetic to the applicants. He considered
that it was difficult to secure alternative sites. He stated that the jobs of the 15
employees on the site had to be considered. He proposed that consideration of this
matter be deferred to a full report to the next meeting.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that further action should be delayed until
7 March.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there was a meeting
of the Committee scheduled for 8 March, by which time it would be known if the
Company had removed the HGVs from the site. He suggested that a report be
submitted to that meeting to update the Committee.
The Chairman seconded the proposal for a further report to be considered by the
Committee.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that in the event of the HGVs being moved from
the site, the local Member be requested to check that they were not illegally parked
elsewhere.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this matter be deferred for a full report to the
Committee on 9 February 2012.
(200) FAKENHAM - PF/11/1492 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings with cartsheds;
land rear of 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillors R Reynolds and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the local Members, declared
a prejudicial interest in this application and left the meeting prior to the consideration
of this matter.
The Development Manager stated that there had a number of objections to this
application and the local Members lived very close to the site and as such had
declared a prejudicial interest. He recommended that the Committee visit this site
prior to a full report being considered.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the Town Mayor be invited to
attend.
The meeting closed at 1.15 pm.
Development Committee
11
12 January 2012