14 JANUARY 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
S Hester
P High
S Shaw
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
Mrs A Green – substitute for B Smith
Mrs M Prior – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
G Williams – Worstead Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
(158) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N Coppack, Mrs P GroveJones, N Pearce, P Rice, B Smith and S Ward. Three substitute Members attended
the meeting as shown above.
(159) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 12 November and 26 November
2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(160) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were two items of urgent business which the Chairman wished to bring before
the Committee, relating to:
Reason for urgency
To
expedite
processing
of
this
application.
To expedite processing of this application
by undertaking a site inspection.
Cromer PF/15/1422
Wells-next-the-Sea PF/15/1515.
Development Committee
1
14 January 2016
(161) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minute
164
Councillor:
Mrs A Green
Interest
Knows applicant personally but has not
spoken to him on this matter
(162) HINDOLVESTON – TPO (Hindolveston) 2015 No.23 Land at 43 The Street
Ref No. TPO/15/0908
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports relating to a Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an individual Sycamore tree at the above site.
Public Speaker
Mr G Sawyer (objecting)
The Landscape Officer reported that the Parish Council would be happy for the tree
to be removed, but if not, would support a canopy reduction as a compromise. He
reported the comments of the local Member, Councillor S Ward, who requested
revocation of the TPO.
The Landscape Officer explained the reasons for serving the TPO. It was accepted
that the tree required maintenance, and a TPO would not prevent appropriate
maintenance being carried out. He explained that a condition had been imposed to
require tree protection during development and it was therefore assumed that the
tree was to be retained.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to the size of the tree and the recommended
maintenance. The tree had been large prior to development taking place. He
proposed that the Order be confirmed and that appropriate maintenance be carried
out.
Councillor P W High considered that the tree was magnificent, but he could
understand the residents’ concerns. However, he considered that the tree could be
retained with appropriate management and seconded the proposal.
In response to questions from Members, the Landscape Officer explained that it was
not recommended to just reduce the crown. It was advised that maintenance would
initially be crown thinning and lifting. The crown could be reduced at a later stage
once the tree had recovered sufficiently. The tree could grow larger if not
maintained, but with proper maintenance it could remain at its current size.
RESOLVED with 9 Members voting in favour
That Tree Preservation Order (Hindolveston) 2015 No.23 Land at 43 The
Street be confirmed and that appropriate maintenance be carried out.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Development Committee
2
14 January 2016
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.
(163) ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1361 - Erection of extensions to side and rear of
dwelling; Garden Cottage, Alby Hill for Mr & Mrs Hughes
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ report.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the local Member,
Councillor N Smith considered that the proposal would be acceptable if the proposed
first floor windows were replaced with skylights. He requested delegated authority to
approve this application subject to the submission of amended plans to include
skylights in the western and eastern elevations instead of windows, and subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the submission of amended plans to include skylights
instead of windows on the first floor of the western and eastern
elevations, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(164) 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
Councillor P W High stated that he had received a call from the applicant and had
discussions with the agent for the application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr T Schofield (objecting)
Mr G Ambler (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that a letter had been
received from the applicants’ ecologist questioning the need for an ecological impact
assessment. The Landscape Officer had agreed that the impact on bats would be
negligible and recommended a condition to require details of external lighting to be
approved. She recommended approval of this application subject to conditions as
listed in the report.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer reported the comments of Councillor A Wells, a local
Member, who was unable to attend the meeting, referring to the previous history of
the site.
Councillor P W High referred to the previous site inspection and previous
Committee’s unanimous decision to refuse a building on this land and the extension
of the residential curtilage. He considered that the application should be refused.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds suggested that a further site visit would be
appropriate as the Committee was new.
Development Committee
3
14 January 2016
The Development Manager explained the difference between the current and
previous applications. He stated that the Officers had raised no objection to the
previous application.
Councillor S Hester considered that the applicant had made efforts to compromise.
He considered that if the intention was to use the building for storage of tools and
lawnmowers, the proximity to the neighbour was not unreasonable.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that the proposal was for a studio/office and store
and was a fairly substantial building. She questioned why the building could not be
located on the site of the approved building.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Ms
M Prior and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
(165) HIGH KELLING - PO/15/1532 - Erection of two dwellings; Land adj. 28
Pineheath Road for Mr & Mrs J Gethin
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mr J Gethin (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader displayed photographs and plans of
the site. Whilst the proposal could be considered to be infill development and was not
in a remote location, it was within designated Countryside and there was no
sufficiently compelling reason to approve this application. Refusal would be
consistent with the Committee’s decision on a recent infill proposal at Hindringham,
and with similar recent appeal decisions.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that he had visited the applicant and
considered that this proposal should be considered as an exception to policy. The
existing garden was large and the reduced size would still be generous. He stated
that the site was set back from the road, the neighbours had not objected and given
the size of the plot he did not consider that a precedent would be set. He considered
that the proposal would not detract from the rural setting, the site was not isolated,
and was close to services and a bus route. He considered that this proposal would
cause no harm to anybody or to heritage assets and the AONB.
The Chairman drew the Committee’s attention to Core Strategy policy SS2.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that this proposal differed from the application
at Hindringham in that it was close to a number of services.
Councillor P W High stated that there had been previous infill on Heath Road prior to
the current policies. He was inclined to agree with the comments in favour of this
proposal and suggested that this application be approved and any issues resolved at
reserved matters stage.
Development Committee
4
14 January 2016
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that whilst she agreed it was a good site,
this was not the Committee in which to make changes to policy. She proposed
refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that there was plenty of room for the development but
it was contrary to Policy SS2 and unsustainable under paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
He seconded the proposal for refusal.
The Development Manager reported that the Planning Policy Manager considered
that the site was unsustainable. The plot was of sufficient size to develop but the
principle of development in the Countryside was contrary to policy SS2. A review of
the Core Strategy had recently commenced and any changes to policy should be
considered under that review.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
(166) HOLT - PF/15/1434 - Change of use from retail (Class A1) to restaurant (Class
A3) and erection of external flue (Revised scheme PF/15/0388); 4 Fish Hill, Holt
for Mr Bradley
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Miss A Murday (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the change of use had
been established under application PF/15/0388.
The only new issue for
consideration under the current application was the flue. Environmental Health had
confirmed that further information submitted in respect of a noise assessment was
acceptable.
Discussions were taking place with regard to sound insulation
requirements to comply with Part E of the Building Regulations.
The Development Management Team Leader requested delegated authority to
approve this application subject to no objection from Environmental Health and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Ms M Prior, a local Member, considered that there was no clear evidence
that efforts had been made to protect residential users of the courtyard. She
expressed concern that information had been given to the Committee at this meeting
which Members had not had time to consider. She remained concerned that there
would be an impact on the residents in the immediate vicinity.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that the principle had been established
and the application had only come forward as it related to a listed building. He
proposed delegated approval of this application as recommended. This was
seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
The Development Manager explained that issues were often raised during
consultation on applications which required further information which was reported at
Committee meetings. He added that the Town Council had raised no objection.
Development Committee
5
14 January 2016
The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that the only issue for consideration was the
flue and the principle of the use of the building had been established. This
application was in conformity with Development Plan policies. There was a need to
move forward and bring the building back into use.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objection from Environmental Health and to the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
(167) RUNTON - PF/15/1386 - Conversion of 31 grass pitches to stone finish
hardstandings and extension of internal site access road to provide all weather
site access; Camping & Caravan Club, Holgate Lane, West Runton for The
Camping and Caravanning Club
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer stated that she had spoken to the AONB representative
and Parish Council.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr S Morris (Aylmerton Parish Council)
Mr W Macadam (objecting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that an objection had been
received from Aylmerton Parish Council on grounds that the hardstandings and
roadway were inappropriate in the AONB as part of the site could be seen from the
adjacent bridleway. He referred to a letter from the applicant’s agent which had been
circulated to Members.
The Development Management Team Leader displayed photographs of the site, both
in summer and winter. He stated that the Landscape Officer had no objection to this
application, and confirmed that the number of pitches and visitors would not increase.
He stated that refusal of PLA/20021015 listed in the planning history section of the
report related to an adjacent site at Incleborough Hill. He requested delegated
authority to approve this application subject to agreement on the colour of the
hardstandings and imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head
of Planning.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the local Member, expressed concerns regarding highway
safety and erosion of banks on Sandy Lane. She stated that Holgate Lane was little
more than a steep track. She considered that the use by larger, unsuitable vehicles,
including large motor homes, would increase. She considered that the proposal
would lead to intensification of use of the site and would be more visible in the winter
months. She considered that the proposal did not comply with policies CT5, EN1
and paragraph 115 of the NPPF.
Councillor N Smith stated that he was a former caravanner and had used the site.
He considered that the proposal would not increase the problems with the access. In
his experience people wanted hardstandings. If the application were refused, there
could be an impact on tourism as fewer people would visit the site.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the proposal was not new development but an
improvement to an existing facility. He considered that the hardstandings would
Development Committee
6
14 January 2016
make no difference to the AONB as approval would be subject to agreement on
materials and colour.
Councillor N Smith proposed delegated approval of this
recommended, which was seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
application
as
Councillor S Hester referred to the importance of tourism to North Norfolk and the
need to improve facilities. He stated that shingle had been used at Morston and
considered that the development would not detract from the AONB.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to agreement on the colour of the hardstandings and imposition
of appropriate conditions.
(168) 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
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Vale (objecting)
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that a further letter of
objection had been received which raised similar issues to those set out in the report.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he had supported the erection of six bungalows as
originally proposed and residents of Abbey Road had not objected to bungalows.
However, the bungalows had now become houses. He considered that the proposal
would result in the perception of loss of privacy and overlooking. He was also
concerned that surface water run-off from the site would affect neighbouring gardens
and requested that a flood risk assessment be carried out. He considered that the
scheme as previously approved complied with the requirement of Policy HO1 that
20% of schemes of five or more dwellings should be adaptable for elderly or disabled
people. However, this would no longer be the case if Plot 6 was amended as
proposed. He considered that this application should be refused on grounds that it
was contrary to policies HO1, EN4 and EN10 or that a site visit be undertaken.
Councillor P W High proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor
Mrs A R Green.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds expressed concern at the incremental change
to this scheme.
The Development Manager advised that a full flood risk assessment was not required
in this case but information should be sought as to how surface water would be dealt
with. Whilst the Government was considering ways to deal with applications seeking
changes to approved schemes, there was currently no way of restricting the
submission of such proposals.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
Development Committee
7
14 January 2016
(169) TRUNCH - PF/15/1502 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Park Farm Barn,
Knapton Road for Mr & Mrs Bennett
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mrs M Bennett (supporting)
Members were supportive of the design of the proposed dwelling. However, given
the policy objections it was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, seconded by
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
Councillor P W High referred to the forthcoming policy review and suggested that in
the event of changes to policy, the application be resubmitted.
(170) TUNSTEAD - PF/15/1024 - Continued use of agricultural land for B1 (Business),
B2 (General Industry) and B8 (storage or distribution) uses and retention of
earth bund; Beeches Farm, Crowgate Street for Mr Paterson
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr N Williams (Tunstead Parish Council)
Mrs A Taylor (objecting)
Mr J Paterson (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that an amended plan had
been received indicating the position of the bund and acoustic fence. The
Landscape Officer had no objection to this application subject to a landscaping
condition to require the planting of a native mixed species hedge on top of the bund.
The Development Management Team Leader referred to the objections received
from Environmental Health and the Environment Agency. She stated that 38 people
were employed on the site and Officers were mindful of the potential implications of
refusal. The Economic Development Team would be prepared to provide assistance
to affected businesses in terms of relocation.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended refusal as set out in the
report and sought authority to commence enforcement proceedings if necessary.
This would be 12 months from the effective date of the notice.
At the request of Mrs Taylor, the Planning Legal Manager circulated to Members
copies of a letter from her agent, on the basis that the letter had been received by the
Planning Department in October and taken into account when the Committee report
was prepared.
Councillor S Shaw, the local Member, considered that the location was unsuitable for
the development. The highway network was not suitable for traffic associated with
Development Committee
8
14 January 2016
the businesses on the site and traffic movements could not be limited. He was
concerned at the impact on residential properties and local residents, particularly at
Beech House.
Councillor P W High referred to the comments of the Highway Authority and
Environmental Health. He supported the comments of the local Member. He
proposed refusal of this application and enforcement action in accordance with the
recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application would have been refused if it
related to new development given the objections raised by the Highway Authority and
other responsible bodies. He considered that 12 months would allow the businesses
time to relocate. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor N Smith suggested that as a compromise the businesses could be limited
to those which did not require heavy traffic movements.
Councillor S Hester stated that it was not uncommon for farm buildings to be used for
industrial purposes. However, this was a noisy enterprise in a residential area and
had grown to the size where it was no longer an agricultural use.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
1.
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
2.
That the Head of Planning be authorised to commence enforcement
action to remove the unauthorised uses from the site within 12 months
from the effective date of the notice under Section 172 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and
Compensation Act 1991.
(171) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections:
BLAKENEY – PF/15/1312 – Demolition of dwelling and erection of
replacement dwelling; Larkfields, 144 Morston Road, Blakeney for Mr
Goff
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/15/1515 - Change of Use of building under
conversion to ancillary public house accommodation; Sunnyside
Cottage, The Buttlands for Mr S Bournes (urgent business)
(172) CROMER - PF/15/1422 - Use of annexe as separate residential dwelling; Annexe
at 4A Arbor Road for Mr A Wright
This application was considered as an item of urgent business under Section
100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Development Manager explained that the applicant was a member of staff and
the application had been brought before the Committee as an objection had been
Development Committee
9
14 January 2016
received. He requested delegated authority to determine this application under
delegated powers, subject to the agreement of both local Members and the
Chairman of the Development Committee.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to determine this application
under delegated powers, subject to the agreement of both local
Members and the Chairman of the Development Committee.
(173) MR ANDY MITCHELL, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, Portfolio Holder, presented Mr Mitchell with a card and a
gift as this was his last meeting of the Committee before retirement. She stated that
his advice and wisdom was invaluable and thanked him for all he had done. The
Chairman reiterated her comments.
Mr Mitchell suitably responded.
At 12.40 pm the meeting became inquorate as a number of Members left to attend a funeral.
The following matters were not considered:
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0512 - Erection of single-storey extension and conversion of
outbuilding to 1 additional unit; The White Lady, Front Street for Mr Gilligan
This application will be considered as the first item at the meeting on 11 February 2016.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
NEW APPEALS
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
CHAIRMAN
11 February 2016
Development Committee
10
14 January 2016