14 MARCH 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
E Seward – substitute for J A Wyatt
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
Miss B Palmer – observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer (Design)
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr D Higgins – Principal Engineer, Norfolk County Council
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(218) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor J A Wyatt. There was one
substitute Member in attendance. The Chairman reported that Councillor Wyatt had
been in hospital but had now returned home. The Committee wished him well and
the Chairman agreed to send a card.
(219) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meetings of the Committee held on 14 February 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Development Committee
1
14 March 2013
(220) 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:
1. A planning application at Northrepps, reference PO/13/0117. The reason for
urgency was to expedite processing of this application by undertaking a site
inspection.
2. An invitation to visit a highly energy-efficient development at Fulmodeston on 22
March 2013.
(221) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors R Reynolds, E Seward and B Smith declared interests, the details of
which are given under the minute of the item concerned. The Chairman also
declared an interest on behalf of the Committee in respect of Minute 226.
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.
(222) 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
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Beckley (Beeston Regis Parish Council)
Mr Richardson (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that further information had been received from
the applicant’s highway consultant in response to the comments of the Highway
Authority. The use of the southern access would be reduced and the northern
access would be regularised. However, the Highway Authority considered that the
proposal would be detrimental to highway safety given the inability to provide
adequate visibility. The application was therefore recommended for refusal on the
grounds stated in the report and on highway safety grounds.
Development Committee
2
14 March 2013
In answer to a question by the Chairman regarding the tidying up of the site, Mr
Richardson stated that the removal of the existing caravans would result in a net
reduction in the number of dwellings on the site. There would be gain from the
removal of clutter and fewer vehicle movements.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, expressed concern regarding
highway safety issues and two-storey development. She proposed refusal of this
application which was seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained in detail the highway
objections in respect of visibility.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Development Management and on highway safety
grounds.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was an existing Enforcement Notice
which required demolition of the building and removal of materials from the site. She
recommended that a further three months be given for compliance with the Notice.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to commence
prosecution proceedings in the event of non-compliance with the
existing Enforcement Notice within three months.
(223) BLAKENEY - PF/12/1224 - Erection of replacement workshops and change of
use of area of land to domestic garden; Stratton Long Marine, Westgate Street
for Mr P Long
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Draper (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection and two
letters commenting on the amended application had been received. These letters
raised similar issues to those already outlined in the report.
Further landscaping proposals had been received to which the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager (Landscape) had no objection.
The Highway Authority had no objection in respect of the amended plans. It would
not welcome the subdivision of the building but had not requested a restriction on the
planning permission.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the recommendation should refer to no new
grounds of objection being received following reconsultation and readvertisement of
the amended plans.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that whilst the proposal was
within the AONB, it was historically an industrial site. She considered that the
proposal would improve the site. She proposed delegated approval in accordance
with the Officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
Development Committee
3
14 March 2013
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there would be no additional noise coming
from the site.
In answer to a question by Councillor R Reynolds, the Senior Planning Officer
confirmed that as far as she was aware only one unit was proposed.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green regarding possible restriction of
the use to boat building, the Head of Development Management explained that the
current workshop had no restriction and there was no justification to place a
restriction on the proposed replacement building.
The Chairman stated that other conditions placed on the permission, eg. ventilation,
would restrict the potential uses for the building.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no new grounds of objection being received
on reconsultation and readvertisement of the amended plans, and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include extraction
and ventilation, plant and machinery, Arboricultural Method Statement,
landscaping, ground levels and materials.
(224) HOLT - PF/12/1164 - Change of use from A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) and two
residential flats, conversion of barn to two dwellings and erection of two one
and a half storey dwellings; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for Capricorn
Estates Partnership
Councillor E Seward declared a personal interest in this application as he was a
member of CAMRA.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Read (Holt Town Council)
Mr A Groom (objecting)
Mr R Kirby (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to an email which had been sent to Members by
the applicant explaining in more detail the financial information. Whilst the public
house had made a small profit in the last six months, this did not take into account
repairs to the listed building. The applicant had assessed the cost of repairs at
£100,000 and internal maintenance costs at £10,000-15,000 per year. The applicant
had stated that the rent did not cover the cost of repairs to the fabric of the building.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that planning law allowed the conversion of a
public house to retail without the need for planning permission. The application
accorded with Policies SS5 and CT3.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, stated that figures supplied referred to the
first six months of trading as an independent public house and covered the winter
period. He stated that the summer period was longer than the winter period. He
considered that the cleaning and maintenance costs referred to by the applicant were
Development Committee
4
14 March 2013
unrealistically high in comparison with those of his own business. He expressed
concern that the appearance of a Grade II listed building would be altered. He
questioned the Officer’s assessment of viability and the application of Policy CT2.
He stated that whilst there were other premises which sold alcohol, they were
expensive and food orientated. There had been a darts team at another premises,
but this was no longer in operation. The Railway Tavern was a real local pub which
fitted in with the ethos of Holt as a community. He had no objection to the new build
element, redevelopment of the barn and conversion of the upper floors of the listed
building. However, he considered that the ground floor should remain as a public
house.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that he did not wish to see the public
house closed, but regardless of whether the application were refused or approved,
the applicant could close it at any time. He requested that the applicant consider the
suggestion made by Councillor Baker.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Kirby responded to the comments made. He
stated that he had discussed the possibility with Officers. He was not blind to the fact
that there were some people who were keen on the public house. However, he did
not consider that the residential units would be saleable if the public house were to
remain. He was happy to consider the suggestion further, but at this stage he wished
to hear the views of other Members.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that he had sympathy for the tenant, but the
applicant had a right, within planning law, to use the building for the purpose for
which it was purchased. The applicant could not be forced to continue the tenancy.
He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he lived close to the site and sometimes
used the premises. He supported the retention of the public house.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported Councillor B Cabbell Manners’ comments
regarding planning law, but considered that the impact on the local environment and
local people should be taken into account. She referred to the historic nature of the
town.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had read the figures and considered that there
was potential for the business to flourish. He considered that Councillor Baker’s
suggestion required further dialogue between the parties.
Councillor E Seward considered that the only ground on which the application could
be refused was one of viability under Policy CT3. He asked if the figures had been
considered by someone with a financial or business background to verify whether the
applicant or landlord was correct.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the figures had not been checked as they
were not relevant in this case. The Railway Tavern was not the last public house in
Holt and the viability test did not apply.
The Head of Development Management stated that the interpretation of Policy CT3
could be argued, but ultimately the change of use was permitted by law. Refusal of
this application would be a frivolous decision as the use could be changed without
the Council’s permission.
With regret, Councillor R Shepherd seconded Councillor B Cabbell Manners’
proposal to approve this application.
Development Committee
5
14 March 2013
As an amendment, Councillor M J M Baker proposed deferral of this application
pending further negotiations between Officers and the developer.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, Mr Kirby explained that the
tenancy had been offered to the landlord on a short term basis and was not a regular
commercial agreement.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor Baker’s amendment to defer
consideration of this application.
On being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the amendment and 7
against, and on the casting vote of the Chairman the amendment was declared lost.
The proposal to approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions was put to the vote and lost by 5 votes to 7 with 2 abstentions.
Councillor M J M Baker reiterated his suggestion for the retention of the public house.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed that this application be approved subject to
the retention of the public house.
The Head of Development Management stated that this would require delegated
authority to approve since it would need to be subject to discussion with the
applicant.
Mr Kirby stated that he would prefer some certainty with regard to the decision, but
he would need to seek further advice.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he had been advised by the Development
Control Officer (Highways) that retention of the public house would require car
parking facilities.
Mr Kirby confirmed that the current landlord had stated that he did not rely on an onsite car park.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to the amendment of the application to retain
the public house, and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(225) HORNING - PO/11/1505 - Residential development of up to 26 dwellings; Land
east of Abbot Road for Church Commissioners for England
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss J Bailey (supporting)
Development Committee
6
14 March 2013
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained the issues regarding sewage and
referred to discussions which had taken place with Anglian Water regarding
improvements to the sewage treatment works and network. There was a possibility
that the work could be completed within two years, but as it currently stood, the
application was recommended for refusal.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that no comment had been
received from the local Member.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed concern that after all the work done on the
Local Development Framework, and by the developer in respect of this application,
that this application was recommended for refusal on a technicality. He proposed
approval of this application subject to a condition which would allow building to
commence but that no occupation take place until Anglian Water had resolved the
sewage issues. He considered that Anglian Water should be required to complete
the work within 12 months.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that this Authority could not require Anglian
Water to carry out works. He advised the Committee that, in his opinion, a Grampian
condition, as mentioned by the speaker, would be an appropriate approach.
Councillor Cabbell Manners proposed approval of this application subject to a
Grampian condition which would prevent the commencement of work until the
necessary work was carried out.
The Landscape Officer advised the Committee that it was necessary to ascertain
whether there would be significant impact on the Broads Special Area of
Conservation. The Authority had a duty to listen to the Environment Agency and
would have to undertake an Appropriate Assessment. She advised that the
application as presented should be rejected under the Habitats Regulations. Failure
to do so could expose the Authority to risk of legal challenge.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application should be refused in
accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor Cabbell Manners’ proposal.
He
considered that there was no reason why housing of any type, particularly affordable
housing, should be lost. He accepted that waste water was a concern but did not
consider that the Authority should be held responsible for Anglian Water being slow
to carry out the necessary work.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the necessary works would be easy to do
and not very expensive. He supported this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that this application should be deferred to
seek clarity on the issues that had been raised. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs
A R Green.
Following advice by the Head of Development Management, Councillors Councillor B
Cabbell Manners and Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew their proposals.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
Development Committee
7
14 March 2013
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to the satisfactory completion of an Appropriate
Assessment and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to
include a Grampian condition to require no work to be commenced prior
to Anglian Water undertaking a programme of works to address the
STW capacity issues.
(226) RUNTON - PF/12/1196 - Erection of part first floor and part two-storey side
extension and front porch; 2 Garden Cottages, Sandy Lane, West Runton for
Ms S Brocklehurst
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this application as he was a friend
of a Mr Hutchinson who was present in the room.
The Chairman declared an interest on behalf of the Committee as Mr Frew, who was
objecting to this application, was a former employee of the Council.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr P Frew (objecting)
Mr A Wragg (supporting)
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, stated that the proposal was for a
substantial extension in a long-established residential area. She expressed concern
regarding overlooking.
Councillor P W High stated that having heard that the dwelling had been vacant for
ten years he considered that there was a need to redevelop the building. He
proposed approval of this application in accordance with the recommendation, which
was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern regarding the proposed materials and
considered that the extension should match the existing building. Following advice
from the Senior Planning Officer regarding materials, Councillor Shepherd proposed
an amendment that this application be approved subject to the use of red brick.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with the majority of
Members voting against it.
The original proposition was put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED
That this application be approved in accordance
recommendation of the Head of Development Management.
Development Committee
8
with
the
14 March 2013
(227) 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 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr M Clarke (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that formal confirmation had been
received from the Highway Authority that it had no objections to the amended
proposal.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) read to the Committee two emails which
had been received from Anglian Water confirming that there was adequate capacity
both in the network and sewage treatment works to accommodate the proposed
development.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained to the Committee the
amendments that had been made to the proposal to overcome the concerns raised at
the previous meeting in respect of design issues and the linkage between the
residential and commercial areas. He outlined the off-site highway works which were
proposed. Amended landscaping proposals had been received. The surface water
attenuation basin had been amended and there would be no surface water drainage
onto adjacent land. A full landscaping plan would be required in the event of
approval of this application. In response to an issue raised at the previous meeting,
he confirmed that some natural materials would be incorporated into the design. The
Section 106 Obligation was close to final agreement.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) requested delegated authority to approve
this application subject to completion of the Section 106 Obligation and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, stated that there was a desperate
need for housing in Stalham and considered that the plan was well thought out. She
supported the application but expressed reservations in respect of a number of
issues including the reduction in the amount of landscaping along Yarmouth Road,
the removal of four poplar trees to accommodate the entrance to the site, and
sewage. She proposed delegated approval of this application in accordance with the
recommendation.
The Principal Engineer clarified the need for the poplar trees to be removed. It would
not be possible to accommodate the access without removing some of the trees, but
only a minimum number would be removed.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that, whilst he did not have an objection to the
proposed Section 106 Obligation, he had concerns that the amount of financial
commitment placed on the developer was not set out in the report, and also that the
conditions were not set out for Members to consider and approve. The Chairman
stated that most of the information was contained within the report.
Development Committee
9
14 March 2013
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney raised concerns regarding danger to children from the
surface water attenuation pond. The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained
that it would be a wet basin which would contain standing water in heavy rain, rather
than a pond. The Environment Agency had agreed in principle but required further
information.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to:
1. The completion of a Section 106 Obligation in respect of
The provision of the affordable housing (including its phasing
and other detailed requirements)
County Council contributions towards library provision
A commuted sum to the District Council for adoption of the areas
of open space.
A contribution towards minimising increased visitor pressure
impacts on the nearby Broads area, to meet the site allocation
policy requirement.
2. The imposition of appropriate conditions to include the following:
Full landscaping details;
Highway requirements;
Drainage details;
Details of children's play provision;
Archaeological investigation;
Code for sustainable homes;
Renewable energy requirements;
Class B1 restriction on employment units;
Submission of a marketing strategy for employment units, and any
other conditions required in the opinion of the Head of Development
Management.
(228) WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0168 - Construction of 20 mw solar photovoltaic farm
with associated works including inverter housing; Land at North Creake
Airfield, Egmere for British Solar Renewables Limited
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest in this application as he thought
that two of his customers might farm the land, although he was not sure. He had not
spoken to them on this matter.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr N Morter (objecting)
Mr A McDonald and Lord Coke (supporting)
Development Committee
10
14 March 2013
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that four further letters
of representation had been received, primarily relating to the visual impact on the
landscape and impact on the AONB. A petition had been submitted which had been
referred to during consideration of application reference PF/12/1256 for the
construction of a biomass facility.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that Walsingham
Parish Council had no objection. Barsham Parish Council had raised concerns
regarding landscape impact, loss of arable land, construction traffic and impact on an
ancient monument. Holkham Parish Council had no objection subject to the land
under the panels being used for the grazing of sheep.
Whilst CCTV was an insurance requirement, the number of cameras had been
limited.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that English Heritage
had objected to this application on grounds that there was insufficient information to
conclude that there would be no impact on St Edmunds Church or the mediaeval
village. However, Officers considered that there was no reason to support these
concerns. The Landscape Officer had no objection. He stated that further
negotiations may be necessary with regard to improved landscaping around the site.
No objection had been received from the Norfolk Coast Partnership or Norfolk
County Council (Highways).
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended approval subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those relating to landscape
mitigation, landscape management, biodiversity enhancement and provision of
interpretation boards relating to the former airfield.
Councillor Miss B Palmer, speaking on behalf of Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local
Member, requested the Committee to bear in mind that the site was the former North
Creake airfield and that it was on the main route for holiday traffic to reach the North
Norfolk coast.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that this was a very good site for electricity
generating use. He proposed approval of this application as recommended, which
was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
In response to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mr McDonald explained
that sheep were grazed at a number of solar farms, which retained the site in
agriculture and helped to keep the grass short.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the energy supply situation would become worse.
He considered that solar energy was the way forward in terms of renewable energy.
He asked how the proposal would benefit Fakenham. He was pleased that the land
would remain in agricultural use by grazing sheep on the land.
Mr McDonald explained that the advantage of having the facility in the local
community was that the energy generated would go to the nearest place it was
needed. There would be a saving as energy was lost over distance.
Councillor B Smith considered that there would be no obstruction of the skyline or
impact on the landscape as it was low down. The alternative would be pylons and
turbines. He supported this application.
Development Committee
11
14 March 2013
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Team Leader (Enforcement
and Special Cases) suggested that a condition be imposed to require removal of the
equipment when it is no longer producing electricity.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr McDonald confirmed that a suggestion made by
Mr Morter with regard to relocation of the boundary would be acceptable. Lord Coke
stated that the tenants would continue to farm the land and he would be reluctant to
turn the site into a wildlife area.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the relocation of the
boundary and the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
relating to landscape mitigation, landscape management, biodiversity
enhancement, an artefact search and provision of interpretation boards
relating to the former airfield.
(229) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1228 - Erection of petrol filling station including
kiosk with associated residential flat; Land at Polka Road for Lindum Group
Limited
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr S Mitchell (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that that the applicant had confirmed that open
delivery hours would be desirable.
No objection had been received from
Environmental Health. Norfolk Fire Service had no objection.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that correspondence had been received from
Councillor P Terrington with regard to comments from Wells Town Council, which
supported the application but had concerns regarding alternative provision of a coach
parking area for the town.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that the application site was in the ownership
of the District Council.
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, referred to the amount of local support for
this application. He referred to the concerns raised by the environment Agency and
the creation of a residential unit in an industrial area. He requested alternative
provision for coach parking and any on-street parking spaces that would be lost as a
result of this application.
The Chairman advised Councillor Terrington that it was for him as local Member to
lobby Cabinet to ensure that there was parking available to retain tourism in the town.
Development Committee
12
14 March 2013
Councillor Terrington requested a condition to prevent development taking place until
such time as alternative parking provision was provided.
The Head of Development Management stated that it was not appropriate to deal
with the issue of alternative parking as part of this application, but if the Committee
were minded to support Councillor Terrington’s request it could ask the Estates
Manager to take the matter on board.
Councillor B Smith referred to a plan by the Holkham Estate to provide parking. The
Head of Development Management stated that there was a proposal but it was a
matter for the Holkham Estate as to whether or not they wished to bring it forward,
and if so, when.
The Chairman suggested that if this application were approved, the Committee write
to Cabinet and the Holkham Estate to request alternative parking provision.
Councillor E Seward added that there was also scope to raise the matter at Overview
and Scrutiny Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
1.
That this application be approved, subject to further consultation with
the Environment Agency advising them of the Committee’s resolution,
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
relating to drainage; flood resilience and resistance measures; flood
evacuation plan; mitigation measures for protection of groundwater;
contamination; waste; external lighting; extraction and ventilation;
landscaping; flat not to be occupied until petrol filling station trading;
implementation of measures to minimise energy use; resource use and
to adapt the building to withstand climate change; materials; access;
signage; on site car parking; servicing; loading and unloading; turning
and waiting areas; parking for construction workers; Construction
Management Plan and Access Route, and wheel cleaning facilities.
2.
That Cabinet and the Holkham Estate be requested to consider
alternative parking provision for buses and on-street parking spaces
lost as a result of this development.
(230) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 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.
The Head of Development Management reported that a request had been received
from a member of the public to fly a blimp at the height of the proposed wind turbine
at Selbrigg Road, Hempstead. The Committee supported this suggestion and further
requested that the same be done in respect of the proposed wind turbines at
Scottow.
Development Committee
13
14 March 2013
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:
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0116 - Formation of woodland burial ground with
ancillary buildings and vehicular access; Woodland at Holt Road/Tower
Road for Mr D Oliver
HEMPSTEAD – PF/12/1339 – Erection of 78m high (to tip) wind turbine
with access track, substation, temporary metrological mast and
associated infrastructure; Land at Selbrigg Road for Selbrigg
Generation
MUNDESLEY – PF/12/1441 – Formation of artisan education
centre/holiday development consisting of the erection of 7
residential/holiday lodges, camping area and change of use of dwelling
to communal facilities/holiday accommodation, retention of two static
caravans for holiday accommodation; 67 Cromer Road for Kiln Cliffs Ltd
NORTHREPPS – PO/13/0117 – Demolition of buildings and erection of
up to 32 dwellings and conversion of frontage building to 2 dwellings;
former Cherryridge Poultry site, Church Street for Christchurch
Property Company Limited
SCOTTOW – PF/13/0033 - Erection of two wind turbines each with a
maximum blade tip height of 126.5 metres together with substation and
control building, access tracks and other infrastructure; Scottow Estate,
land off Potspoon Hole, North Walsham Road for Airvolution Energy
Limited
(231) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(232) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(233) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(234) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(235) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(236) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
14
14 March 2013
(237) INVITATION TO PASSIVHAUS DEVELOPMENT, FULMODESTON
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 reported that an invitation had been
received to visit a highly energy-efficient development which had recently been
completed at Fulmodeston on Friday 22 March 2013. Members were welcome to
attend this event if they wished to do so.
The meeting closed at 1.35 pm.
Development Committee
15
14 March 2013