15 OCTOBER 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
R Reynolds (Chairman)
Mrs S Butikofer
N Coppack
S Hester
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs A Green – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mrs M Prior – substitute for S Shaw
V FitzPatrick – Priory Ward
Mrs G Perry-Warnes – Corpusty Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
T FitzPatrick - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
(111) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs P Grove-Jones, S Shaw,
Mrs V Uprichard and S Ward. Two substitute Member attended the meeting as
shown above.
(112) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 17 September 2015 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(113) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
(114) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
117
Councillor:
R Reynolds
Development Committee
Interest
Knows the applicant but has not discussed
this application
1
15 October 2015
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the Officers’ report, the Committee
reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(115) ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/0849 - Conversion and extension of former
reading rooms to wedding venue; car park for 30 cars with new access off
Church Road; pedestrian path between car park and proposed venue; The Old
Rectory, Church Road, Alby for Mr S Williams
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr S Wade (Alby with Thwaite Parish Council)
Mrs Williams (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the Highway Authority
had no objection to the revised access and considered that it was an improvement on
the access as originally proposed. The applicant had agreed to erect an acoustic
fence inside the car park hedge. A detailed management plan was required with
regard to the operation of the venue.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that this was an extremely difficult
application. He was very much in favour of promoting business and this application
would bring additional business to the area. The building was beautiful and it was a
pity it was not used. However, he was very concerned with regard to highway safety.
The access for service vehicles was on a bend, Church Road was a fast road and
visibility to the west was limited. The access onto the A140 was on a dangerous
stretch of road which had been described by an objector as an accident blackspot.
He reminded the Committee of its duty of care.
The Development Manager referred to concerns regarding noise and disturbance.
He stated that these concerns had been taken account of in the proposed conditions.
With regard to highway concerns, the Highway Authority had raised no objection to
the proposal and would not therefore support refusal of this application.
Councillor S Hester considered that the number of events which were anticipated
would put pressure on local residents. He expressed concern at the effect on their
health and welfare as weddings were not quiet.
Development Committee
2
15 October 2015
In response to questions by Councillor P Rice, the Development Management Team
Leader explained that lighting would be low level and subject to conditions. He
outlined the conditions required by the Highway Authority. He explained that the
Highway Authority had no objection to the service access as it served an existing
property.
Councillor N Coppack stated that he was impressed with the plans and pleased to
see the building reused for the proposed purpose. The walkway would be beneficial
and disabled access had been addressed. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer stated that she lived close to a wedding venue and was
aware of how disturbing it could be. She asked if there would be any restriction on
music outside the building.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that music inside the building
could be controlled by noise limiters and other measures. A condition could be
imposed to prevent live or amplified music outside the building.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Planning Legal Manager
stated that it was not possible to restrict the use of the building to the church.
Councillor Ms M Prior seconded the proposal.
Councillor B Smith stated that he had raised highway issues at the site inspection.
Whilst there were some problems, the Highway Authority had no objection. Having
listened to the debate, he considered that the proposal was acceptable.
Councillor N Smith reiterated his concerns regarding the highway.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions to cover the following matters:
 Time limit for implementation;
 Approved plans;
 Samples of external materials;
 Large scale details;
 Tree protection;
 Retention of roadside hedge;
 Sound insulation measures, including an acoustic fence;
 Hours of use;
 Operation in accordance with a management plan;
 Details of external lighting;
 Protection of bats;
 No live or amplified music to be played outside the building.
(116) ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/15/1088 - Variation of condition 2 of Planning
Permission ref PF/12/0767 to allow adjustment to building position, timber
walkway along the south and west elevations and insertion of two windows;
Oaklea, Thwaite Common, Erpingham for Mr J Taylor and Mrs M Harris
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr S Wade (Alby with Thwaite Parish Council)
Development Committee
3
15 October 2015
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the concerns regarding
overlooking of the adjacent land could be addressed by the erection of a 2m high
fence.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that he had received a number of
telephone calls questioning the point of having plans if they were not adhered to. He
considered that there would have been more objections to the original application if
the building had been proposed in this location. He stated that the site was in a
Conservation Area and he understood that part of it may be on agricultural land.
The Chairman stated that the building was overlooking a paddock and not a private
residence.
Councillor P W High considered that the erection of a fence was the only way to
resolve the issue.
Councillor P Rice supported the erection of a fence and also suggested that the
applicant carry out planting on the neighbour’s land.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that it was not possible to impose a condition
to require planting as suggested. He stated that the building had been erected 7m
away from the approved siting which was a significant distance. He suggested that a
letter of reprimand be sent to the applicants. The Committee supported this
suggestion.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor P Rice and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning, and that a letter of reprimand
be sent to the applicants expressing the Committee’s concerns with
regard to the breaches of planning control.
(117) FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr C Yardley (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported the further detailed comments
of the Highway Authority. The Highway Authority had recommended refusal of this
application on highway safety grounds related to the intensification of use of the
access, interference with the free flow of traffic on Holt Road and substandard
visibility splays.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended refusal of this
application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and as
recommended by the Highway Authority.
The Highways Development Management Officer explained the issues regarding
visibility.
Development Committee
4
15 October 2015
The Landscape Officer explained that in terms of impact on the tree, one dwelling
was borderline but two dwellings would double the pressure on the tree and there
would be insufficient living space for two families.
Councillor Ms M Prior considered that if two dwellings were erected they would be
very dark and there was no way of increasing the light into the second dwelling. A
single dwelling on the site would have a pleasant garden with the tree as a focal point
but she did not consider that two dwellings would fit the space.
Councillor P Rice proposed refusal of this application as recommended.
Councillor N Pearce expressed concern at the damage already done to the tree. He
considered that the proposed development would cause further damage to the tree.
He seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning with the revised reasons as recommended by
the Highway Authority.
(118) LITTLE BARNINGHAM - PF/15/1035 - Demolition of dwelling and erection of
two-storey dwelling and garage; Church Cottage, The Street for Mr J
Woodeson
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Burton (Little Barningham Parish Council)
Mr M Reynolds (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader displayed photographs of the existing
site, plans showing site levels and artist’s impressions of the proposed development
when completed.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that no objections had been
received from the outstanding consultees. A revised arboricultural report was
awaited. The applicant’s arboricultural consultants had advised that the revised
survey would be submitted shortly and that they would be appointed to supervise the
construction in relation to the trees. The Development Management Team Leader
updated the Committee with regard to management of trees and hedges. Two
further objections had been received on the same grounds as already reported and
also in respect of erosion of the Conservation Area.
The Development Management Team Leader requested delegated authority to
approve this application as set out in the report.
Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, the local Member, expressed concerns regarding
screening of the site, inappropriate design and materials. She requested a site
inspection or refusal of the proposal as submitted.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed that the Committee visit the site. She requested
that the Conservation and Design Officer attend the next meeting.
Development Committee
5
15 October 2015
Councillor P W High seconded the proposal. He referred to other modern buildings
which had been approved by the Committee. Some of these had been entered for
the Graham Allen Award and one had won it. There were other examples of similar
buildings in the Countryside.
Councillor N Pearce considered that the proposed building was an innovative and
challenging design, but it had to blend in with existing architecture. He supported a
site inspection.
Councillor S Hester considered that modern and traditional buildings could work well
together and stated that around the country there were examples of modern
architecture in the grounds of stately homes.
Councillor N Coppack requested that a sample of the zinc roofing material be made
available at the site inspection.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the Landscape Officer
would be requested to attend, together with the Conservation and Design Officer.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
(119) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1137 - Erection of single-storey side and rear
extensions and replacement detached garage (re-submission 15/0847) Part
retrospective; 3 St Benets Avenue for Mr G Sexton
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr G Sexton (supporting)
The Chairman reported that an email had been received from Councillor P W Moore,
a local Member, expressing concern at the previous history of the site and the
proposed materials.
In response to a question by Councillor P W High regarding the relevance of the
previous application and appeal, the Planning Legal Manager stated that each
application had to be considered on its own merits. Although the current application
was retrospective, the Committee had to make its decision based on the application
as submitted.
The Development Manager added that the previous application referred to a new
dwelling and did not relate to the extension of the existing building.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor P Rice and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
6
in
accordance
with
the
15 October 2015
(120) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of
planning permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting
windows to east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son
(Norwich) Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Grey (objecting)
Mr D Reeve (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader referred the Committee to the nonstatutory definition of ‘a minor material amendment’ and displayed photographs of the
windows as built, including damage to one of the windows. Photographs taken by
Councillor V FitzPatrick were also displayed, and an annotated plan and photograph
provided by the applicant.
The Development Management Team Leader referred to an email from Norfolk
County Council to one of the residents stating that they did not accept their view that
the windows were dangerous to pedestrians, and the windows did not impede the
right of way on foot. He stated that the approved windows would have overhung the
public right of way and there was therefore no difference in this effect. The windows
as built were not substantially different from the approved windows.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval of this
application.
The Chairman stated that most Members had received emails in respect of this
application.
Councillor V FitzPatrick, the local Member, expressed concerns regarding highway
safety and loss of residential amenity. He also considered that the appearance of the
windows was unacceptable and urged the Committee to refuse the application.
The Chairman referred to the concerns which had been expressed regarding
highway issues. He advised the Committee that if it were minded to refuse this
application, its reasons had to be correct, or to consider a site inspection.
Councillor P Rice considered there should be further investigation into the highway
issues and clarification sought regarding the footpath. He referred to the presence of
white lines and kerbing.
The Major Projects Manager stated that he understood the kerb line had been
installed by the developer and differed from the original plan. Full information
regarding ownership of the roadway was not previously available, however the
Highway Authority considered that the windows did not impinge on the public right of
way on foot. The increase in size was small and with regard to visual appearance,
there had been only a minor change from the approved design. Some of the issues
raised were civil matters for the objector to address with the developer. Licensing
issues relating to the overhanging windows were for the County Council to deal with.
The Highways Development Management Officer explained that the Rights of Way
Officer had commented that there was only a public right of way on foot over Croft
Yard.
Development Committee
7
15 October 2015
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor N Coppack and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
The Development Manager considered that it would be helpful to invite Norfolk
County Council to address the Committee regarding rights of way and licensing
issues.
(121) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections:
BLAKENEY - PF/15/1208 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station tower with six antennas and
associated ground-based equipment cabinets at Friary Farm Caravan
Park, Cley Road for Arqiva
HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1191 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling
(re-submission PF/14/1499); Land adjacent Lion House, 6 The Street for
Mr & Mrs P Iles
ITTERINGHAM - PF/15/1204 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment, land to the rear of Stulps Plantation,
Wolterton Road for Arqiva
(122) ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Portfolio Holder, stated that she wished to raise a
number of issues arising from this meeting and in relation to site inspections.
She referred to application PF/15/1137 at North Walsham, which had been called in
by the local Member who had submitted his comments by email. She considered
that a reminder should be published in the Members’ Bulletin to remind Members that
if they called in an application they were expected to attend the meeting at which it
was discussed.
There had been a number of applications on the agenda which contained
retrospective elements. She acknowledged that the Committee, and the Council as a
whole, was unhappy with retrospective applications. This issue would be raised at
the next Agents’ meeting.
It was important that Members who would be attending Development Committee also
attend site inspections, including any substitute Members who would be attending.
Site visits could be extremely valuable to the decision making process. Issues had
been raised with regard to the use of a coach. A coach would be arranged if there
were several sites to visit, but it was not cost effective to arrange a coach for one site
Development Committee
8
15 October 2015
inspection. However, Members were expected to attend unless they had a good
reason not to do so.
The Chairman referred to a site inspection at Fakenham which was not well attended
and it did not give a very good impression. He supported the Portfolio Holder and
considered that her message should be communicated to Members who had been
unable to attend this Development Committee meeting. He wanted to impress on
Members that they should attend all meetings.
The Portfolio Holder endorsed the Chairman’s comments and added that elected
Members had a duty to attend meetings of the bodies they were appointed to.
Councillor P Rice considered that the issue of breaches of planning control and
retrospective applications should be investigated. He asked if there was any
leverage to deal with retrospective applications.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Government advice in respect of
retrospective applications was that they should be dealt with as though the breach
had not happened. Refusal of retrospective applications could be subject to appeal.
He referred to a Court case which had confirmed that breach of planning control was
not a criminal offence.
In answer to Members’ questions regarding retrospective applications and planning
breaches, the Development Manager and Planning Legal Manager stated that the
Council had a reactive approach to enforcement and subsequent applications to
regularise matters often generated many objections, and therefore came before the
Committee. The Building Control service checked setting out for new buildings but
not extensions, and should bring significant deviations to the attention of the
Enforcement team. However, developers were not obliged to use the Council’s
Building Control service.
The Portfolio Holder stated that she had asked Building Control to report breaches
and Members should also report matters of concern.
The Chairman stated that it was important that Members respond quickly when
contacted by Officers in order to save time.
(123) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(124) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(125) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(126) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
9
15 October 2015
(127) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager and Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on
current appeal cases.
(128) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(129) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.26 pm.
CHAIRMAN
12 November 2015
Development Committee
10
15 October 2015