12 NOVEMBER 2015
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
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
Mrs M Prior – substitute for S Shaw
Mrs G Perry-Warnes – Corpusty Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
T FitzPatrick – observer
B Palmer – observer
J Rest - observer
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mrs E Poole - NCC Highways
(130) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S Shaw and S Ward. Two
substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
(131) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 15 October 2015 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(132) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
(133) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
Development Committee
1
12 November 2015
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.
(134) CROMER - PF/15/1186 - Variation of condition 1 of 99/0949 to allow A1 retail
use for a wider range of goods.; Cromer Furniture Ltd, Cadogan Road for QD
Market Towns
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr L Short (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader read to the Committee an email which
had been received from Mr T Adams, Cromer Town Mayor, who was unable to
attend the meeting.
The Development Management Team Leader displayed plans and aerial
photographs illustrating the relationship of the site with the town centre. He stated
that there were few vacant units in the town centre, none of which were likely to be
suitable or available for the proposed use. There was an identified need for
additional comparison goods shopping in Cromer. The proposal was likely to
encourage linked trips. Subject to appropriate conditions to control the range of
goods to be sold, the proposal would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the
vitality and viability of the town centre.
Councillor N Pearce referred to the identified need for such a proposal and
considered that the loss of Woolworths had taken some of the heart out of the town.
He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the site was on the edge of the primary shopping
area and close to Morrisons. There would be an increase in the number of jobs for
local people. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that this was an excellent application and
would bring back into use an empty building which would have limited appeal to most
retail businesses. It was close to a car park and the town centre.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer stated that there was an ideal footpath link and that this
was an ideal site for this type of business.
Development Committee
2
12 November 2015
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(135) LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J
Woodeson
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr M Burton (Little Barningham Parish Council)
Mr Reynolds (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reminded the Committee of the issues
outlined in the comprehensive presentation given at the previous meeting, and
displayed plans and images of the site and proposed building. An updated
arboricultural report had now been received but there had been insufficient time for
detailed consideration. However, the Landscape Officer considered that it was
unlikely to raise overriding concerns which could not be overcome by conditions. He
requested delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the
recommendation contained in the report.
Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, the local Member, referred to localism and the
strong local opposition to this application. She considered that the design was
inappropriate in this location and urged the Committee to refuse the application.
The Chairman stated that a sample of the zinc roofing material had been made
available at the site inspection, as requested.
Councillor P W High stated that he had visited the site independently. He referred to
the number of modern buildings in villages which had won awards. He was in favour
of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd acknowledged the local Member’s comments regarding
localism. However, it was necessary to follow planning law and there was no reason
to refuse this application. He expressed reservations regarding the design, but
stated that there were various building types in the village.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the design was interesting and the
roofing material would be recessive. She requested clarification with regard to the
service tower.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the service tower would sit
higher than the roof. However, Officers considered that it would not result in harmful
impact on the setting of the church.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed approval of this application.
Councillor B Smith considered that the service tower increased the scale and
massing of the building and would detract from the iconic Grade II church. He was
also concerned at the number of trees which would be removed.
Development Committee
3
12 November 2015
The Chairman stated that the hardwood trees would remain but some of the
softwood trees would be removed.
Councillor S Hester stated that he understood the views of the local community and
that “post-modern” architecture could highlight ageing buildings around it. However,
villages changed. He considered that the architecture of the new building had
character and that the size and style would blend in over time. He seconded the
proposal.
Councillor P Rice considered that the service tower should be treated to make it
appear less obvious, and sought assurances that 20ft high trees would be planted.
The Chairman stated that the Landscape Officer had given assurance with regard to
the trees.
At the suggestion of the Head of Planning, the Chairman invited the architect for
clarification as to the materials to be used on the tower.
Mr Reynolds explained that the tower would be clad in larch boarding to match the
boarding on the dwelling, laid horizontally instead of vertically.
In answer to questions by Members, the Head of Planning confirmed that the height
of the trees could be secured by a planning condition. She understood that the
height of the service tower had been reduced and there appeared to be no scope for
further reduction in the height.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objections from the Landscape Officer, and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including statutory time limit, in
accordance with approved and amended plans, Arboricultural Impact
Assessment and Protected Species mitigation, materials, landscaping
including specifying the height of replacement trees to be 20 ft, and any
other conditions deemed necessary by the Landscape Officer.
(136) SCULTHORPE - PF/15/0907 - Erection of 71 dwellings, new access road, side
roads, water attenuation ponds, drainage works, play areas, landscaping and
associated works (Phase 1- full planning) and Phase 2 of up to 129 dwellings,
side roads, primary school, land and community resource centre, play areas,
water attenuation ponds and drainage works (outline permission with all
matters reserved); Grove Farm Land for Amstel Group Corporation Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs S Wilson, Dr C Valentine, Mr R Francis & Mr B Watkin (objecting)
Mr T Walters (Sculthorpe Parish Council)
Mr S Neate (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report. He displayed plans and
photographs of the site and the proposed development. He reported that the
applicants had now withdrawn the proposal under the Housing Incentive Scheme and
the application now included a policy compliant amount of affordable housing (50%).
Development Committee
4
12 November 2015
He displayed a revised plan indicating the proposed dwellings which would now be
affordable. Amended design proposals had been submitted which had made some
gains and were considered to be acceptable by the Conservation and Design Officer,
although some opportunities had been missed. The Major Projects Team Leader
stated that the amended plans were not substantially different to require
readvertisement and did not affect the objections made. He explained the access
proposals.
The Major Projects Team Leader explained in detail the reasons for the
recommendation of refusal of this application. He updated the Committee with
regard to the following issues:






He reported that the applicants continued to dispute the Authority’s position with
regard to its 5 year land supply and outlined their reasons for doing so.
He displayed maps indicating the proximity of the site to Fakenham and stated
that it would take 30 minutes to walk into the town, crossing two busy A roads.
He displayed plans and photographs indicating the Conservation Area and listed
buildings. He referred to the highway reasons for refusal and reported that the
applicants were in discussion with the Highway Authority with a view to submitting
plans to address a number of technical issues. It was unlikely that those plans
would require readvertisement but this would depend on how significant the
amendments were.
Further details were awaited in respect of drainage issues.
Natural England had confirmed that the Habitats Regulations Assessment had
concluded that there was unlikely to be a significant effect on the River Wensum
Special Area of Conservation.
Two further letters of objection had been received.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to refuse this
application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject
to:



the deletion of paragraph 3 relating to affordable housing;
the addition of the highway reasons as set out in the report or varied as
necessary, in the event of highway issues not being resolved to the satisfaction of
the Highway Authority;
receipt of satisfactory drainage details.
The Chairman referred to the site inspection which had given included Old
Sculthorpe Road and given the Committee the opportunity to consider amendments
to the junction. He reiterated that the Council had a five-year land supply.
The Highway Engineer (Major Developments) addressed the Committee with regard
to highway issues. She explained that the applicants had not provided an acceptable
scheme but they had given assurance that they could do so.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to comments made by Mr Neate. He
confirmed that there had been a legal challenge to the Inspector’s decision in respect
of a planning application at Holt, in which the Inspector had concluded that the
Council had a 5.4 year supply of housing land. He stated that the Core Strategy was
reviewed to reflect conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework
requirements, and had been accepted by the Inspector. Mr Neate had suggested
that the appropriate course of action was to defer this application. The Planning
Legal Manager advised the Committee that whilst it was an option, he did not
Development Committee
5
12 November 2015
consider it to be necessary as the Committee had all the information necessary to
determine the application.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, stated that he had spoken to people in the
village and only one person was in favour of the application, one was indifferent and
the remainder were against it. He was in favour of planned, sustainable development
which provided greater benefits, but this application did not meet those criteria. The
Council had a Core Strategy and a five-year land supply. The Council was achieving
its targets with regard to delivery of housing. The village had reached its limit
according to the Local Development Framework. This application would double the
size of the village and irrevocably change its character. The village was completely
separate from Fakenham. He expressed concern that the proposed development
would lead to greater run-off towards Sculthorpe Moore, an important nature reserve.
He urged the Committee to refuse this application for the reasons stated in the
report.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was generally supportive of applications
which offered 50% affordable housing, and was supportive of change. However, in
this case, given the sustainability issues, she supported the recommendation and
proposed delegated refusal of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the site was not designated, North Norfolk had a
5.4 year land supply and the majority of consultees considered that the site was not
sustainable. The proposal would result in heavy traffic on roads which were not fit for
purpose. He considered that the proposed junction changes would not work, and
expressed concern regarding the safety of schoolchildren who were likely to attempt
to walk along the A148 to cross at the roundabout. He stated that the site was a
wonderful green space and ecologically important, with the Hawk and Owl Trust and
River Wensum nearby. He urged the Committee to note the policies involved. Whilst
affordable housing was needed, this was not the right place. He seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds supported the Officer’s recommendation. The
site was not sustainable, most trips would be by car, it took 30 minutes to walk into
Fakenham crossing main roads. She also considered that children would be likely to
cross at the roundabout. People wanted to keep the village character as it was.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse this application in
accordance with the recommendation contained in the report, subject
to:



the deletion of paragraph 3 relating to affordable housing;
the addition of the highway reasons as set out in the report or varied
as necessary, in the event of highway issues not being resolved to
the satisfaction of the Highway Authority;
receipt of satisfactory drainage details.
Development Committee
6
12 November 2015
(137) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals
for the period from July to September 2015, covering the turnaround of applications,
workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
The Head of Planning reported that performance had improved, despite an increase
in workload and two staff vacancies. She stated that there was an error in the report
as the Government’s target for major applications had risen to 50%. However,
performance was ahead of the revised target.
Councillor R Shepherd praised the staff for their performance, which was supported
by the Committee. The Committee requested that the Head of Planning pass on its
thanks to the staff.
(138) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection:
TUNSTEAD – PF/15/1024– continued use of agricultural land for B1
(business), B2 (general Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses
at Beeches Farm, Crowgate Street for Mr Paterson
(139) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(140) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(141) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(142) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(143) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(144) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(145) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
7
12 November 2015
(146) QUALITY OF VISUAL DISPLAY
The Portfolio Holder expressed concern at the quality of the photographs on the
screen in the Council Chamber. It was noted that the images on the small television
screens were better than those on the projector screen.
The quality of the visual display had not been helped by the sun shining through the
rooflights at the rear of the Council Chamber.
The meeting closed at 12.26 pm.
CHAIRMAN
14 January 2016
Development Committee
8
12 November 2015