14 FEBRUARY 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
R Oliver – Sheringham South Ward
P Williams – Waterside Ward
Miss B Palmer – observer
S Ward - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Young – Senior Conservation and Design Officer
Mr J Wilson – Environmental Protection Team Leader
Mr D Higgins – Principal Engineer, Norfolk County Council
(202) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
There were no apologies for absence.
attendance.
All Members of the Committee were in
(203) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 10 and 17 January 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(204) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee regarding an additional meeting which was being called
to consider a number of major applications. The reason for urgency was to give
Members notice of this meeting.
(205) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor R Shepherd declared an interest in Minute 208, the details of which are
given under that minute.
Development Committee
1
14 February 2013
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 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.
(206) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0018 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to D1 (dropin/advice centre); 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for Norfolk and Suffolk
NHS Foundation Trust
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs D Grimes (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of the Council’s
Health Improvement Officer and Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, both of
whom supported this application, and of North Walsham Town Council, which
objected to this application on grounds related to the loss of a large retail unit.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, stated that whilst the Committee had
heard that an application may be submitted for A1 retail use of the building, it could
only deal with the application before it. She sympathised with the views of the Town
Council, but with reluctance she considered that there were no planning reasons to
refuse this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that it was unlikely that any retailer would wish to
locate an anchor store in the precinct because of the surroundings and cost of
conversion.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the internet was changing town
centres, resulting in empty retail units, and proposals such as this were a way of
naturally reinventing them. He considered that it was preferable for the building to be
used rather than being left to stand empty.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A
Arnold and
Development Committee
2
14 February 2013
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no objections being raised by the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(207) POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/12/1141 - Continued use of building for B2 (general
industrial) and B8 (storage) use; Rose Farm, Green Lane for Mr S Hill
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs J Greenwood (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Officer had
visited the site and found no evidence of the burning of waste. Whilst a condition
could be imposed to prevent the burning of waste, the Senior Planning Officer
considered that such a condition was unnecessary as no complaints had been
received, nor evidence of burning found. Any nuisance could be dealt with under
Environmental Health powers.
Councillor P Williams, a local Member, expressed concern regarding working times
and requested a condition to prevent work being carried out on Saturday afternoons,
Sundays or Bank Holidays. He considered that a copy of the contract between the
landlord and tenant should be supplied to the District Council. He stated that the
lane was already used by farm traffic and he therefore did not wish to make
representations on this matter.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that the contract between the
owner and tenant was not a matter in which the Council could become involved. He
suggested that contact details be requested for people with permission to use the
building and that conditions be imposed on the planning permission regarding
working times.
The Head of Development Management stated that whilst the Council could request
a copy of the contract, it was more important to impose appropriate conditions.
The Environmental Protection Team Leader stated that the adjoining unit was in
agricultural use with unrestricted hours which could create its own noise issues. He
was unsure as to whether restricting hours of use in respect of this application would
make much difference. However, Environmental Health had requested a condition
regarding the extraction system for unit 4 which would cover noise and dust. He
suggested a condition to require all work to take place inside the building.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that farm diversification was important to
maintain a vibrant agricultural industry. He proposed approval of this application with
conditions delegated to Officers. This was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
In response to comments by Councillor P W High and Councillor B Smith, the
proposer and seconder agreed to incorporate conditions to prevent working on
Saturday afternoons, Sundays and Bank Holidays and to prevent outside working.
They also agreed to request a register of occupiers.
Development Committee
3
14 February 2013
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions in respect of ventilation/extraction systems, to restrict hours
of use to those requested in the application, no working on Saturday
afternoons, Sundays or Bank Holidays, no work to take place outside
the building and that the applicant be requested to supply a register of
occupiers of the building.
(208) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0568 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings
with garages; Land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal interest in this application as the
objecting spokesperson had been his dentist but he had not discussed the matter
with him.
The Head of Development Management stated that he knew the objecting speaker
but the speaker had not discussed the application with him.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr J Cranshaw (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that further information had been received
regarding access rights but this was still under consideration. She requested
delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the
recommendation contained in the report.
Councillors R Shepherd and R Oliver considered that two dwellings on this site would
be overdevelopment, out of character with the surrounding area and result in loss of
amenity to the neighbours. Councillor Shepherd was also concerned that any hard
surfacing associated with the proposed dwellings could result in surface water run-off
onto adjacent property.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed refusal of this application which was
seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
Councillor P W High stated that the Committee had allowed development to take
place on smaller plots than the application site. He considered that this application
should be approved.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle stated that she would abstain from voting as she had been
unable to attend the site inspection.
The Head of Development Management stated that this proposal was less dense
than the general minimum density requirements for Sheringham. Outline planning
permission had already been given for one dwelling on a smaller area within the
application site. In his opinion, it would be difficult to defend refusal on density
grounds, although it may be possible to argue a case in terms of character.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that visual impact was important, and on visiting
the site it appeared to him that two dwellings would be too much for the site.
Development Committee
4
14 February 2013
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to its reasons for
refusal.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed
development does not reflect the grain and character of the surrounding
area, and would be detrimental to the amenities of the occupier of 23
Cremers Drift.
(209) STALHAM - PF/12/1427 - Mixed use development comprising 150 dwellings, B1
(a - c) employment buildings (3150sqm), public open space, landscaping and
associated highways and drainage infrastructure; Land off Yarmouth Road for
Hopkins Homes
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr McWilliams (Stalham Town Council)
Mr M Clarke (supporting)
The Planning Policy Manager reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating the resiting of the attenuation basin to address the concerns of the
Environment Agency, and a second access into the residential area as required by
the Highway Authority. Design amendments had attempted to address the concerns
of the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of landmark
buildings, but it was questionable as to whether these were acceptable.
Amendments had been made in response to concerns regarding the affordable
housing element of the proposal.
At the request of the Chairman, the Senior Conservation and Design Officer
explained the changes which had been made in respect of affordable housing. He
stated that ongoing discussions were taking place with the developer on this matter.
Improvements had been made to the parking courts, and feature chimneys had been
added to some of the units. However, some positive elements of the scheme had
been removed, such as feature gables.
With regard to the landmark buildings, the Senior Conservation and Design Officer
had concerns regarding the scale now proposed and further discussions were
necessary.
The Planning Policy Manager reported that the Housing Officer had confirmed that
there was broad agreement on the affordable housing units. He explained the
proposed tenures and proportion of affordable units proposed. The District Council
would retain nomination rights to the dwellings. Phasing proposals had been
submitted regarding the delivery of the affordable dwellings. One of the affordable
dwellings had been designed to be suitable for a disabled resident, but the proposed
parking area for that unit was some distance away and therefore required
amendment.
Development Committee
5
14 February 2013
The Planning Policy Manager stated that Norfolk County Council required a
contribution towards library facilities only. Natural England had no objection. The
amended proposals appeared to have addressed the concerns of the Environment
Agency, subject to formal confirmation. Further consultation was required in respect
of the amended plans and further work was needed in respect of the proposed
Section 106 Obligation.
The Planning Policy Manager recommended that the application be deferred to allow
further discussions and consultation to be carried out in respect of the outstanding
matters.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the supporting spokesperson stated that
he had been assured by Anglian Water that there was adequate capacity to cope
with sewage from the proposed development.
The Principal Engineer stated that whilst the proposed development would increase
the amount of traffic and make the roads busier, the transport assessment which had
been carried out indicated that the development would not give rise to any issues.
There would be issues during the summer peak period, but these problems already
existed on an occasional basis. He referred to the improvements proposed in terms
of highway and pedestrian safety.
The office-type nature of the proposed
employment area was unlikely to give rise to many HGV movements. A condition
would be recommended in respect of routing of construction traffic.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, considered that the Officer’s report
gave an unbiased and good account of the situation as it stood. She stated that the
Town Council had no objection to the overall plan and welcomed the proposed new
housing and employment area, although it was not the Town Council’s preferred site.
However, she was still unhappy in respect of the road layout and referred to traffic
problems associated with Yarmouth Road and the double roundabouts. She referred
to the number of traffic movements which would be generated, especially at peak
times. She considered that egress onto the B1151 was inadequate and stated that
Sutton Parish Council was very concerned with regard to additional traffic through the
village. She questioned Anglian Water’s assurance that the sewerage system had
adequate capacity as problems already occurred. She proposed deferral of this
application.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the Highway Authority’s concerns regarding a
pedestrian/cycle link between the residential and commercial areas. He considered
that this link would encourage residents employed on the commercial park to walk to
work rather than use a car.
The Principal Engineer stated that the Highway Authority would reconsider the
matter.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposed development was very good.
He seconded the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that it was likely that some of the commercial units
would be supplied by HGVs and asked if there would be any control. He expressed
concern with regard to Yarmouth Road. He was disappointed that the poplar trees
were to be removed and requested that they be replaced.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that there was no practical way to control
delivery vehicles. B1 units were usually serviced by smaller vehicles and he
considered that there was no reason to impose a tonnage restriction.
Development Committee
6
14 February 2013
Councillor B Smith expressed a preference for pantiles to be used on buildings on
the edge of the site. The Senior Conservation and Design Officer explained that
there would be a mix of artificial pantiles and slates used for the development. Whilst
it would be preferable to use natural materials, the site was not in a Conservation
Area and there was little scope to insist on their use. However, Officers would
consider the materials and ensure they were the best for the area.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow further
discussions in respect of details in respect of the affordable housing
element; highway issues; sewerage; landscaping and materials, and
consultation in respect of amended plans.
(210) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports and an item of urgent
business which the Chairman had determined should be considered pursuant to the
powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act
1972.
RESOLVED
That a site inspection be arranged in respect of the following
applications and that the local Members and Chairmen of the
Town/Parish Councils be invited to attend:
BEESTON REGIS – PF/12/1157 – Retention of partially constructed
dwelling with amendments to design to provide two storey dwelling;
Heath Barn, Britons Lane for Mr T Field
BLAKENEY – PF/12/1224 – Erection of replacement workshops and
change of use of area of land to domestic garden; Land at Stratton Long
Marine, Westgate Street for Mr P Long
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/13/0007 – Erection of 123 dwellings with
public park and open space and associated landscaping, drainage and
highway infrastructure; land off Two Furlong Hill and Market Lane for
Hopkins Homes Ltd and Holkham Estate
(211) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(212) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(213) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(214) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
7
14 February 2013
(215) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(216) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(217) ADDITIONAL MEETING
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Head of Development Management informed the Committee that an additional
meeting of the Development Committee had been arranged for Thursday 21 March
2013 in order to deal with major planning applications at Holt (PF/12/0929), North
Walsham (PF/12/0945) and Wells-next-the-Sea (PF/13/0007).
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she had grave concerns regarding highway
issues in respect of PF/12/0945 and proposed that the Committee visit the site. This
was seconded by Councillor P W High.
RESOLVED
That a site inspection be arranged in respect of the planning
application reference PF/12/0929 and that the local Members and
Town Mayor be invited to attend.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed a preference for applications PF/12/0929
and PF/12/0945, which were both supermarket applications, to be dealt with on
different days. On being informed that the Retail Consultant would be unavailable on
an alternative day, both he and Councillor J H Perry-Warnes questioned the need for
the Retail Consultant to be present. The Head of Development Management
explained that Officers lacked the specialist expertise necessary to deal with issues
which might arise during consideration of the applications by the Committee.
The meeting closed at 11.15 am.
Development Committee
8
14 February 2013