15 MAY 2014
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 (Vice-Chairman, in the Chair)
M J M Baker
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds (substitute for Mrs S A Arnold)
N D Dixon (substitute for Mrs L M Brettle)
Mrs H P Eales – The Runtons Ward
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
Ms V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
R Wright – Astley Ward
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Board – Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Young – Senior Conservation & Design Officer
(265) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were present.
(266) MINUTES
The Head of Planning sought clarification of the Committee’s intention in respect of
the second part of its resolution under Minute 247 of the Minutes of the meeting held
on 17 April, relating to planning application PF/13/1521 – Erection of crematorium
with access roads, car park and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery,
Holt Road, Cromer for Crematoria Management Ltd. It was unclear as to whether or
not it was the Committee’s wish to consider both this application and the application
for a woodland burial site at the same meeting regardless of the outcome of
discussions on a possible joint scheme.
The Committee confirmed that it was its intention to consider both applications at the
same meeting. To clarify this point, it was agreed that the Minute be amended to
read:
Development Committee
1
15 May 2014
“RESOLVED unanimously
1. That consideration of this application be deferred to allow
discussions with the applicant in respect of landscaping and
highways.
2. That a further meeting be arranged between the applicant and the
developer of the woodland burial site to explore opportunities for a
joint scheme.
3. Regardless of the outcome of 2 above, that both applications (the
woodland burial proposal and the crematorium proposal) are
reported back to Committee at the same meeting.”
Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 April
2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(267) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(268) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor B Smith declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the item concerned.
(269) CROMER PF/13/1521 – Erection of crematorium with access roads, car park
and ancillary works; Land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for Crematoria
Management Ltd
The Head of Planning requested that this application be deferred in the light of the
amendment to the minutes of 17 April 2014 as agreed above.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred.
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.
Development Committee
2
15 May 2014
(270) AYLMERTON - PO/14/0464 - Erection of replacement single-storey dwelling;
One Acre, Sandy Lane, West Runton for Mr D Oliver
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr D Oliver (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had no objection to this
application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(271) BRININGHAM - PF/14/0296 - Conversion and extension of outbuilding to
provide dwelling; The Olde White Horse, The Street for Dr S Lomax
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs J Hull (Briningham Parish Council)
Mr G Hull (objecting)
Mr R Lomax (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority had indicated that it
had no objection subject to the provision of visibility splays and an increase in the
depth of the turning area. If the visibility improvements necessitated the removal of
the existing hedge, the hedge should be replaced. If it were not replaced, the
existing hedge should be improved and maintained at a minimum height of 2 metres.
Environmental Health had no objection to the proposed drainage measures subject
to discharge consent being obtained from the Environment Agency.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development
rights restricting the alteration and extension of the dwelling.
Councillor R J Wright, the local Member, considered that the proposal was
overdevelopment and would have an unacceptable impact on the setting of the
nearby Grade I listed church. He expressed concerns with regard to foul and surface
water drainage and the quality of water which would be discharged from the
treatment plant. He considered that it would be preferable for access to be shared
with The Olde White Horse. He considered that a site inspection would be beneficial.
With regard to drainage, Officers stated that Environmental Health had no concerns
but a discharge licence would be required from the Environment Agency. Further
information as to the proposed sewage treatment plant could be sought from the
agent if necessary. The Environment Agency would undertake monitoring of water
quality.
Development Committee
3
15 May 2014
With regard to the setting of the church, the site was not within the Conservation
Area and therefore at present the hedge could be removed which could have an
impact on Church Lane and possibly the church itself.
Councillor P W High proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor J
A Wyatt.
Councillor M J M Baker commented on technical issues regarding waste treatment.
The Chairman requested that further details of the proposed sewage treatment plant
be obtained for consideration at the site inspection.
With regard to a shared access, the Senior Planning Officer considered that the
Highway Authority would have concerns regarding the narrowness of the access and
the ability of two vehicles being able to pass in the access. However, this matter had
not been explored and did not form part of this application.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
One Member abstained from voting.
(272) FIELD DALLING - PF/14/0310 - Conversion of barns to three residential
dwellings, re-location of access and change of use of land from agricultural to
residential; Blue Tile Farm Barns, Holt Road for Blue Tile Farm Barns Limited
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr H Labouchere (objecting)
Mr G Ambler (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority had confirmed that it
had no objection to the amended plan subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions. An email had been received from the applicant which attempted to
address some of the objectors’ concerns. He stated that the large site area was to
accommodate the drainage fields. A piece of land had been offered to the owners of
the neighbouring property to overcome their concerns, but the offer had been
rejected. The barns had the benefit of a previous planning permission which could
still be implemented. The neighbour’s concern was a civil matter and therefore not
an issue for consideration by the Committee.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
One Member abstained from voting.
Development Committee
4
15 May 2014
(273) HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Cooper (Baconsthorpe Parish Council)
Mrs V Purkiss (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a survey had been submitted which
indicated that 210 out of 215 people supported the retention of the public house.
Hempstead and Baconsthorpe Parish Councils objected to this application. The key
issue in this case related to whether or not the inadequate foul drainage made the
public house unviable. Officers were satisfied that the cost of providing adequate
drainage would make the continued use of the building as a public house unviable.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes, the local Member, referred to the history of the public
house, the downturn in the pub trade in general and the circumstances of the
applicant. He asked whether the adjacent camp site had a licence to sell alcohol.
He declined to make a proposal and wished to hear the views of other Members.
In response to a question by Councillor B Smith regarding marketing of the property,
the Development Manager stated that Officers were not convinced that the public
house had been marketed for the required 12 month period at a realistic price.
Notwithstanding that, Officers considered that there was a viability issue in terms of
the cost of providing adequate drainage and therefore the marketing issue had not
been pursued further.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that as the economy was no longer in
recession a further attempt to market the property as a public house may be more
successful. She understood that the owner of the campsite was willing to allow
drainage onto his land which would allow the pub to reopen. She disputed the
comments made by the supporting speaker regarding the lack of footpaths as “Fit
Together” had assembled at the pub before some of its walks.
Councillor N D Dixon referred to the loss of community facilities in rural locations. He
was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence in the report to make the case for
change of use.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the Committee should think very carefully
before making a decision which would wipe away 250 years of heritage. He
considered that anything would sell at the right price. He had used the Hare and
Hounds since the mid-1960s and it had become an unpleasant place to visit and had
sometimes been closed. He considered that it had been deliberately run down. He
stated that some pubs had become hugely successful because they provided what
the customer wanted.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that walkers and ramblers had used the pub
regularly in the past. He considered that the applicant had been badly let down when
she bought the premises as her legal advisors had failed to investigate the drainage
issues.
Councillor P W High proposed that this application be refused for discussions
between the applicant and the adjacent landowner with regard to drainage.
Development Committee
5
15 May 2014
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to Policy CT3 and
possible reasons for refusal of this application, based on that policy.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the Committee is not
satisfied from the details as submitted that the applicant has
demonstrated that the public house is not viable in terms of drainage
issues and is also not satisfied that the property has been marketed for
12 months at a realistic price.
One Member abstained from voting.
(274) MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road
for Mr & Mrs J Bonham
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Bale (objecting)
Miss D Bonham (supporting)
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, stated that the former stables had fallen into
disrepair. However, he expressed concern that the building which had replaced them
had the appearance of a possible future dwelling. He expressed concern that the
applicant had stated that he may wish to store domestic items in the building in the
future. He considered that the building was inappropriate development in the area
and would cause light pollution where there was currently none. He proposed refusal
of this application on design grounds.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed delegated approval in accordance with the
recommendation. He stated that Miss Bonham had explained why the building
appeared as it did and the reasons why planning permission had not been sought.
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to Policy EN1 He
confirmed that part of the site was within the AONB and therefore this policy was
relevant. Officers considered that the development was not significantly detrimental
to the character and appearance of the AONB and was acceptable under that policy.
Councillor B Smith considered that a replacement building did not need to be in the
same location as the previous stable and could be built nearer the applicant’s house
to be less intrusive to the neighbours.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded Councillor B Smith’s proposal to refuse this
application.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen- Reynolds indicated that she would second Councillor M J
M Baker’s proposal.
On being put to the vote, the original proposal for refusal on design grounds was lost
with 4 Members voting in favour and 5 against.
Development Committee
6
15 May 2014
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4
That subject to no new material issues being raised following the readvertisement of amended plans, the Head of Planning be authorised to
approve this application in accordance with her recommendation.
(275) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1335 - Continued use of land for hand car wash and
valeting services and retention of canopy and two containers; Land at 29 New
Road for Mr M Meizeraitis
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Wotherspoon (objecting)
Mr M Debbage (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the amended proposals put forward by the
applicant in response to the Committee’s concerns and the measures already taken
to reduce noise and disturbance to the neighbours. He stated that Environmental
Health had no objection subject to a temporary one year permission with no Sunday
working and a fence erected in connection with the canopy to limit noise. A further
objection had been received from a neighbour.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
for a temporary period of one year, subject to no new planning grounds of objection
being received following expiry of the reconsultation period and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions to include no Sunday working, a revised layout
and fencing to be agreed.
The Development Manager stated that Anglian Water would be meeting the applicant
on site to discuss technical issues.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, considered that the revised plan was an
improvement but should be conditioned. She requested details of the proposed
fencing and a restriction on working on Bank Holidays and specific hours and times
of working. She considered that approval for six months would be appropriate.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to concerns regarding the working surface which the
supporting speaker had stated would be addressed.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that, in terms of hours of work, the applicant had
offered Mondays to Fridays until 6pm and Saturdays until 5pm. The applicants
wished to retain Bank Holiday working. He referred to the conditions required by
Environmental Health and stated that the fencing details were still under discussion.
With regard to the working surface, discussions had taken place between the case
officer and the Health and Safety Executive but this was a matter outside the
planning application.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed that the application be approved for a period of two
years. There were many issues to be resolved and this period would give time for to
assess whether the proposals were successful. This was seconded by Councillor M J
M Baker.
Development Committee
7
15 May 2014
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that approval as proposed could
potentially subject the neighbours to two years of noise and disturbance. She
proposed that this application be approved for a temporary period of six months
subject to the imposition of the conditions as recommended and subject to no Bank
Holiday working.
The Development Manager reported that Councillor P W Moore, a local Member,
supported approval for a period of six months.
The Development Manager considered that six months was not reasonable as it
would not give sufficient time for monitoring to take place. He suggested 18 months
as there was work to be done to the site to make it ready to operate as it should.
This would then allow the site to be monitored for a period of one year. This did not
preclude action being taken by Environmental Health if noise problems continued.
Councillor R Shepherd, with the agreement of his seconder, amended his proposal to
include an 18 month temporary period.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard withdrew her proposal.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application for
a temporary period of eighteen months, subject to no new planning
grounds of objection being received following expiry of the
reconsultation period and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include no Sunday working, a revised layout and fencing
to be agreed.
(276) NORTH WALSHAM - PO/13/1531 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and
erection of 2 two-storey dwellings; 43 Marshgate for Mr M Alexander
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this application as he had known
Mr Alexander for a number of years.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Alexander (supporting)
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that both she and Councillor P W Moore, the local
Members, had no objection to this application. She proposed approval of this
application as recommended, which was seconded by Councillor B Smith.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that this was an outline application with all matters
reserved.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
8
15 May 2014
(277) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/0286 - Demolition of A1 (retail) food store and
residential dwelling and erection of replacement A1 (retail) food store; 7-11
Yarmouth Road for Lidl UK GmbH
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Beaumont (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a revised plan had
been received which indicated a raised entrance porch, contrast of materials and
brick piers. A further alternative scheme had been submitted for information only to
demonstrate that an all brick scheme would be heavy in appearance.
North Walsham Town Council had taken into account the concerns of local residents
and expressed concerns in respect of car parking.
The Highway Authority had raised concerns regarding the amount of car parking and
had suggested changes to the access and highway improvements, including traffic
lights on the pedestrian crossing. The concerns were not sufficiently severe to justify
a recommendation of refusal, therefore the Highway Authority had no objection
subject to conditions.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to no new material issues being raised following
readvertisement of the amended plans, the imposition of conditions required by
consultees and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Councillor P W Moore expressed concern regarding the design of the proposed
building and considered that it should incorporate more brick. He did not consider
that the alternative design which had been submitted for information was a fair
representation compared to photographs which had been shown. The car park
doubled as a free car park for the town and was therefore important for the town as
well as the store. There was frequently nowhere to park at the store and the car park
was considerably below standard. He was pleased that the applicants were
considering additional parking provision. He supported the installation of traffic lights
at the pedestrian crossing. He considered that a bus parking facility was required.
He referred to problems with traffic flow and considered that there was an opportunity
for a comprehensive look at transport issues in the town and that this application
could be the key to resolving some of the issues. He considered that this application
should be deferred to await the outcome of negotiations with regard to additional car
parking.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that she had received
representations. Lidl was appreciated by customers in North Walsham. However,
she had significant concerns regarding the design. She expressed concern at the
loss of trees and considered that this should be ameliorated. The site adjoined the
park and the green space behind it. She stated that the site was a gateway to the
town. She considered that it was a shame that a bus lane was not proposed but this
was outside the scope of the application.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee an email
from Councillor E Seward, Member for North Walsham North Ward, who supported
the application in principle but had made comments regarding design concerns,
conditions which would address noise and delivery times, shortfall in landscaping,
highway issues including a bus interchange, and car park capacity.
Development Committee
9
15 May 2014
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the Highway
Authority was no longer requesting a contribution towards a bus layby but required
traffic lights on the pedestrian crossing.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard supported the comments made by other North Walsham
Members. She considered that the store was an extremely important asset to North
Walsham but the car park was inadequate. She proposed deferral of this application
pending the outcome of negotiations regarding additional land for car parking.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Beaumont stated that discussions were being
held with regard to adjacent land. However, the current application related to 76 car
parking spaces which should be determined under the current application. A further
application would be submitted when the applicant was in a legal position to increase
car parking provision. Lidl wished to maintain the current 1½ hours free parking but
this may be reduced if it impacted on the store.
The Development Manager stated that in his view there was no policy reason to
refuse this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application potentially created a
precedent in town centres by demolishing good housing to create space for
commercial development. He considered that additional parking should be provided
at this stage.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that the Committee should insist on additional
car parking.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds requested clarification with regard to the loss of
car parking spaces and details of other town centre car parks that shoppers could
use to visit the store.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that additional
landscaping could require the loss of additional spaces. There was a shortfall of
parking spaces in comparison with adopted standards. However, the Highway
Authority did not consider that the impact would be sufficiently severe to justify
refusal.
The Development Manager stated that there were other car parks nearby, including
one at New Road.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that the proposed new building was a retrograde
step. The design was uninspiring and did little to support the character of the town
and the Conservation Area. Given the prominent position of the site he was inclined
to support deferral.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there was no objection in principle to the
loss of a dwelling and a historical precedent had been set some years ago at
Hoveton. He stated that there were other car parks available which were not
currently used to capacity.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported comments made regarding the design of
the building. She considered that the highway issues should be resolved. She
asked how many parking spaces would be lost in order to provide additional
landscaping.
Development Committee
10
15 May 2014
Mr Beaumont confirmed that two spaces would be lost.
Councillor B Smith considered that the design was acceptable. However, he
considered that there was a dire need for traffic regulation on the Yarmouth Road
and traffic was backed up to the main bypass. There was adequate parking in the
town but people did not use them when shopping at the store. He considered that
more control over car parking could help alleviate the parking problem.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that if free parking at Lidl
was reduced to 1 hour it may discourage linked trips to the town centre and cause
harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. With regard to bus parking, the
Highway Authority was in the process of designing a scheme which would address
the issue, which he understood had been funded and was going ahead. He advised
the Committee that there were no strong grounds to refuse based on lack of parking.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern at any further reduction in the free
parking period.
Councillor Mrs A R Green suggested that trees could be planted in front of the car
parking spaces as was done at other stores, without loss of parking. She considered
that additional trees should be planted.
The Development Manager stated that Officers were seeking additional landscaping
in areas which did not affect the parking spaces. Ideally the existing car park should
be larger but NPPF guidance meant that it could not be insisted upon. The agent
had made it clear that his client had requested that the application be determined as
submitted.
The Senior Conservation & Design Officer stated that his original comments that the
building had very little resonance with North Walsham related to the wedge shape of
the original design. This had been addressed to a certain extent by the amended
plans. Whilst he had some reservations regarding the design, it included brickwork
and render. Many original buildings in North Walsham were rendered and it was the
predominant material in the area around the store. The proposal was outside the
Conservation Area.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the proposal represented a substantial
investment by a multi-national company in the town, which was in need of inward
investment.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, seconded by Councillor N D Dixon
that this application be deferred for further design negotiations with regard to the
shape and design of the building.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds,
seconded by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney that the Head of Planning be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new material issues being raised following
readvertisement of the amended plans, the imposition of conditions required by
consultees and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried by 9 votes to 5, and on
being put as the substantive proposition it was
Development Committee
11
15 May 2014
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new material issues being raised following
readvertisement of the amended plans, the imposition of conditions
required by consultees and any other conditions considered
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(278) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0143 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; Plots 4 & 5,
20 Abbey Road for Mr A D Clark
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating the removal of balconies from the rear elevations of the proposed
dwellings. This helped to address an earlier email received from a neighbour in
Uplands Park regarding concerns in respect of the balconies and potential
overlooking. He recommended approval subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, stated that he had a great deal of sympathy
with the residents of Uplands Park with regard to the potential for overlooking. The
site was sloping but there was a good degree of separation between the properties
and he considered that the removal of the balconies would address the concerns.
Councillor R Oliver, a local Member, considered that there was now no reason to
refuse this application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved as amended subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions.
(279) WALSINGHAM - PF/13/1464 - Demolition of hall building and erection of two
semi-detached two-storey dwellings; British Red Cross Society, Swan Entry for
Mrs S Davey
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Pettifer (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that there was a shortfall in the basic amenity
criteria with regard to windows, but this was typical of the village.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, stated that he was a member of the
Parish Council and knew the neighbours. He stated that Walsingham was a historic
village. The neighbours were generally supportive of the principle of two dwellings
Development Committee
12
15 May 2014
on the site. However, concerns had been raised regarding proximity of the proposed
dwellings, privacy and overlooking. He requested that the Committee consider
conditions to address issues of privacy and overlooking.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the relationship of the proposed dwellings to
No. 8 Swan Entry was discussed. He considered that there was no reason why the
gable could not be replaced by a mono-pitched roof. Boundary treatment and height
of fencing could be included as a condition.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that overlooking at the frontage of the building had
been discussed. The Senior Planning Officer explained that given the site
constraints the proposed dwellings could not be sited further back.
Councillor T FitzPatrick suggested that windows be aligned so that they were not
directly opposite the neighbour’s windows.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the local Member’s comments regarding windows.
He proposed approval of this application subject to the elevation facing no. 8 being
amended to match the elevation at the opposite end of the proposed building and
attention being paid to the window placement. This was seconded by Councillor P W
High.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the door canopies should be pitched
instead of flat as proposed.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he would seek amendments for separate
porches.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the receipt of amended plans to address the issues raised by
the Committee.
(280) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(281) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(282) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(283) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(284) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
13
15 May 2014
(285) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(286) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 1.40 pm
Development Committee
14
15 May 2014