17 APRIL 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
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
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
B Cabbell Manners – Cromer Town Ward
Mrs H P Eales – The Runtons Ward
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
Mrs L Walker – Happisburgh Ward
A Yiasimi – Cromer Town Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
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
Mr J Shaw – Senior Engineer (NCC Highways)
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(240) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were present.
(241) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 March 2014 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the heading of Minute
228 being amended to refer to seventeen dwellings.
(242) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
The Development Manager requested the Committee’s agreement to defer item 6 of
the agenda to allow the adjoining Parish Council to make representations at the
meeting.
Development Committee
1
17 April 2014
RESOLVED
That the following application be deferred:
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to
residential dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V
Purkiss
(243) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor R Reynolds declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the item concerned.
The Development Manager stated that he would take no part in the meeting in
connection with application PF/13/1521 as he was related by marriage to some of the
objectors.
(244) BRISTON: 1986 0410 - Land to the north of Hall Farm, Mill Road
Request for release of section 52 Planning agreement
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which sought Development
Committee approval to release of section 52 Planning agreement tying dwelling and
agricultural holding.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That the Planning Agreement made under Section 52 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1971 with Mr D E Lakey in respect of land to the
north of Hall Farm, Mill Road, Briston be cancelled.
(245) HUNWORTH: NOS. 1 & 2 GREEN FARM BARN, THE GREEN
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports which sought agreement to
take no action in respect of fencing erected between two residential properties, on
the basis of it not being expedient to take action due to the limited impact of the
developments and the lack of a wider public interest in doing so.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, declined her right to speak and vote on
this matter, except to confirm that the Parish Council had not discussed this case.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that this was a civil case.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED
That it is not considered expedient to take enforcement action in
respect of either of the fences erected, on the basis that, given the
limited impact on either neighbour, any subsequent applications would
be likely to be considered acceptable. Furthermore, there is no wider
public interest in taking formal enforcement action. Any applications
submitted to retain the fencing as erected would be considered
acceptable under adopted Core Strategy EN4: Design.
Development Committee
2
17 April 2014
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.
(246) CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0237 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey side extension with attached garage; Stone Cutters Cottage, The
Fairstead for Mr S Young
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Warren (objecting)
Mr S Young (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that there were some discrepancies between the
dimensions shown on the floor plans and the elevations and further revised plans had
been requested.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Cley Parish Council now objected to the
application. Three further objections had been received in respect of the amended
plans which reiterated objections listed in the report and raised additional issues
regarding the impact on Masons Yard and the height of the wall adjacent to the
footpath. She recommended deferral of this application for a site inspection to allow
the Committee to see the site and to obtain further amended plans from the applicant.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, expressed concern regarding the size of the
garage and considered the plans were misleading with regard to parking space and
relationship with Masons Yard.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the application had come before the
Committee at this stage prior to final plans being submitted.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to obtain further
amended plans and to allow a site inspection by the Committee and that
the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend.
Development Committee
3
17 April 2014
(247) 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
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold vacated the Chair during consideration of this application to
allow her to speak as Member for the adjacent Ward, as many of the representations
had been received from people living in her Ward.
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman) chaired the meeting during consideration of
this application.
All Members declared that they had received representations in respect of this
application.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Pritchard (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Connelly (Roughton Parish Council)
Dr I Shepherd, Mr J Macadam, Mrs J Davies (objecting)
Mr R Anderson (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) presented revised plans which
had recently been received, indicating the relocation of the car park, amended
materials, amended landscaping and additional planting to the northern boundary.
515 representations had been received in respect of this application, 486 of which
were letters of objection. He outlined the main issues raised in the representations,
many of which contained standard text.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the site was covered
by the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation. The development would rely
on woodland to the north to screen the development. The owner of the woodland had
a licence to thin the woodland by 30% which could open up views of the development.
Further licences would be required to thin the woodland further, upon which the
Council would be consulted, and replanting would be required in the event of clear
felling. He referred to concerns regarding impact on key views, and presented
photographs indicating these impacts. With regard to cumulative impact, he referred
to a meeting which had been held between the applicant and the developer of the
woodland burial site, who was unwilling to relocate the crematorium on his land. He
referred to the requests for a roundabout at the junction of the A148 and B1436 and
drew attention to the Highway Authority’s report which was appended to the Officers’
report.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to a letter of objection
received from Mr Macadam which had been copied to Members. The letter
challenged the Officer’s recommendation and suggested that the application should
be refused.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a further letter had
been received from the Highway Authority, which had no objections subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions, based on an agreement between the applicant
and Town Council not to hold crematorium and cemetery services at the same time.
This could be secured by a planning condition. The applicant had agreed to funds
being held on account for a period of time for a post-opening review of highway
impacts.
Development Committee
4
17 April 2014
The Environment Agency had no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
No response had been received from the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager in respect of the latest plans which had only recently been received.
However, the amendments related to minor changes in terms of materials and Officers
considered that there was no reason to refuse the application on design grounds.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended approval of this
application subject to the inclusion of specific conditions set out by the Highway
Authority in relation to highway matters, by the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager in relation to design and landscape matters and conditions proposed by
Environmental Health, and any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the
Head of Planning.
The Chairman stated that the Committee was considering a specific site and not
highways or the adjacent site.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, supported the principle of a
crematorium as St Faiths Crematorium was busy and impersonal, but it had to be
right. He stated that the woodland to the north was over-mature and not in the
ownership of the applicant. If it was not managed it would be lost, and there would be
no landscaping at that point. He considered that the proposed landscaping was
inadequate. He referred to the difficulty in crossing the Felbrigg junction, particularly
in summer, and considered that this issue should be resolved properly. He
considered that the crematorium and woodland burial site should be considered
together. He suggested two proposals, firstly to defer the application to allow
discussions with the applicant in respect of landscaping and discussions regarding
highways, and secondly, to refer the woodland burial site back to the Committee for
discussion with the crematorium application.
The Planning Legal Manager clarified that Councillor Cabbell Manners was a local
Ward Member and was not a member of the Committee.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed deferral of this application as suggested by
Councillor B Cabbell Manners and reconsideration of the woodland burial site
application together with the current application.
Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, supported deferral of this application. He stated
that he was a member of the Town Council and seen the hard work they had put into
this matter. He considered that the long wait for St Faiths extended the grief for
people and stressed the importance of the decision for future generations.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold welcomed the principle of a crematorium for North Norfolk.
The crematoria in Norwich were often full and this created additional distress and
expense. She seconded the proposal. She paid tribute to the work of the AONB
Action Group. She stated that movements of traffic from North Norfolk to Norwich
would decrease. However, most of the traffic coming to the crematorium would use
the Felbrigg junction. She did not agree with a statement that only 10 cars would
attend each service. She requested that, if approved, strong representations be made
by the District Council to the Highway Authority to give the highest priority to
improvements at the junction. She intended to seek a meeting with Councillor Hilary
Cox when the outcome was known.
Development Committee
5
17 April 2014
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, Member for The Runtons Ward, expressed concern that
there was no room for growth and that pressure would be put on a small remaining
area of parkland. She stated that the drainage system was inadequate and became
blocked during heavy rain due to soil washing down Davy Hill. She expressed
concern that hard surfaces would exacerbate the problem. She expressed concern
with regard to the junction and considered that a slow cortege trying to cross the A148
would cause accidents as people became impatient. She requested refusal or
deferral of the application.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes requested that thanks be recorded to the speakers. He
considered that there was a need for the crematorium but that it was in the wrong
place. He referred to the objections which had been received from the surrounding
parishes.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the age profile of North Norfolk, which was one of
the highest in the country. He considered that there was a need for a crematorium in
North Norfolk but there was a need for forward planning. He considered that there
would be a high number of services and pressure for future expansion. He stated that
the Felbrigg Road was used as a Cromer by-pass and problems were increasing each
year. There was a need for a roundabout and he considered that a joint option was a
way to resolve the issue.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the Team Leader (Enforcement
and Special Cases) stated that the woodland burial site had been considered before
the current application had been submitted. He requested clarification of the issues
which the Committee sought to resolve. He stated that a joint scheme had been
discussed but the applicants could not be forced to work together and each were
entitled to have their applications determined as submitted. There were no specific
planning grounds on which to refuse the applications. The Highway Authority had
stated that the current proposal could not be used to provide a roundabout.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the importance of landscaping to the north of the
site. He requested that a further meeting be brokered between the applicant and the
applicant for the woodland burial site, which he would be willing to chair.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there would be no objection to a Member
attending a meeting between the parties but it was for the meeting to decide who
would chair. The parties had already discussed the matter and the developer of the
woodland burial site was not interested in a joint scheme as the crematorium did not
match the ethos of his scheme. He suggested that if the parties were willing to attend
a further meeting, it should be minuted and a public statement made to be reported
back to the Committee. The possibility of highway improvements could be explored
with one or more of the parties being asked to contribute, and improvements sought to
the landscaping if possible.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that if the crematorium were developed as
proposed the number of vehicles turning right would increase dramatically. She
considered that a roundabout was desperately needed.
The Senior Engineer stated that the Highway Authority considered that the increase in
traffic would be slight and, based on the Highway Authority’s calculations, would
generate an insufficient level of contribution to bring about a roundabout.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold referred to Councillor Mrs Eales’ concerns regarding
drainage and requested that mitigation measures be investigated.
Development Committee
6
17 April 2014
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold
and
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.
(248) HAPPISBURGH - PF/14/0120 - Formation of caravan park to provide pitches for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area with office/warden
accommodation and amenity building; Land South of North Walsham Road,
Happisburgh for Happisburgh Estates
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Bailey, Mr Burke, Mrs Dye (objecting)
Mr H Ivins, Mrs S Stockton, Mr Hall (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that one further letter of support and one further
letter of objection had been received.
With regard to flood risk, the Senior Planning Officer stated that no floodwater
generated from the hardstandings would leave the site and the majority of the
surfacing would be permeable. The amount of run-off would be less than at present if
the field were laid to grass. The comments of the County Council Flood and Water
Management Team were awaited.
The results of a geophysical survey had been received. There were some
archaeological anomalies in the north of the site and if approved, a condition would be
imposed to require monitoring of ground works in that area.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was a need to relocate the site and the
application was compliant in terms of Policy EN12. However, it was considered that
the harm caused by the development outweighed the benefits in this case. The
Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal as set out in the report subject to an
additional reason that there was no justifiable reason to divert the public footpath.
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member, considered that there were better sites
towards Cart Gap and that the proposed site was in the wrong location and too large.
She considered that it would overwhelm the drainage network and cause damage to
dwellings. It would ruin the unique setting of Happisburgh and be visible in the wider
landscape.
She considered that the economic benefit would be lost and the
community would be blighted as it would deter visitors to the village. She requested
Development Committee
7
17 April 2014
refusal of this application. If the Committee were minded to approve the application
she requested deferral to allow Officers to consider a number of conditions to include
landscape mitigation, noise, a ban on any shop or club facilities, footpaths,
construction of waste water system, and contributions to community projects.
Councillor B Smith appreciated the need to relocate the caravans. However, he
expressed concern that relocating the caravans to the proposed location would spoil
the beautiful approach to Happisburgh village and blight the valley to the west. He
considered that there would be reflection from the caravans and cars. He proposed
refusal of this application as recommended.
Following an explanation by the Senior Planning Officer as to why site A had been
rejected, Councillor R Shepherd considered that site A would make sense but would
not benefit the village. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that he knew Mr Ivins and Mr Hall who had spoken
at the meeting. He supported the application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that there was a need to relocate the caravan site.
However, the site would take precedence over the village and affect the historic
environment.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4
That this application be refused on grounds that the cumulative impact
of the proposed development would result in significant harm to the
setting of the Happisburgh Conservation Area, wider landscape and
listed buildings, contrary to Core Strategy Policies EN2 and EN8.
Furthermore, insufficient justification in respect of the “public benefits”
derived from the scheme has been put forward which outweighs the
harm to the historic environment, as required by the NPPF, paragraph
134, and no justifiable reason has been put forward to divert the public
footpath.
(249) HOLT - PO/13/1306 - Residential and employment (A3,A4,B1,B2,B8,C1,C2,D1 and
D2 Class Uses) development including provision of public open space,
roundabout and vehicular link road; Heath Farm, Hempstead Road for Brown
Brothers and Bullen Investments Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest as he had recently purchased a
property on Hempstead Road.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr D Fletcher (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that two further representations had
been received. Hopkins Homes, which had an interest in the majority of the remainder
of the allocation, had requested that a requirement of this application should be the
timed provision of an adoptable road linking their site with this development. As an
alternative, the Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended that a clause be
included in the Section 106 Obligation to require the current applicants to safeguard a
Development Committee
8
17 April 2014
corridor within the site to provide potential access to the Hopkins owned land, without
any financial hindrance, in the absence of access being provided from elsewhere.
This would ensure that the whole of the allocation could come forward without being
prejudiced by ownership constraints.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that in respect of condition 1, the
applicants had requested a longer period in respect of the submission of reserved
matters applications for the employment and commercial land. It had provisionally
been agreed that the period be increased to 7 years, with the period for submitting the
residential reserved matters applications being reduced to two years. The applicants
had also requested minor rewording to some of the highway conditions.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) recommended approval of this application
subject to the imposition of conditions and completion of a Section 106 Obligation.
Councillor P W High stated that he had nothing to add to the speakers’ comments and
proposed approval of this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that if a condition were to be imposed which would
benefit Hopkins Homes, a much higher proportion of affordable housing should be
sought on its own site. He expressed concern at the infrastructure costs in relation to
the roundabout. He stated that a private contractor could build the roundabout at less
cost than that quoted by the Highway Authority and he intended to lobby the County
Council as to why the Highway Authority was insisting that it built the roundabout. He
requested that the Officers take the matter up with Norfolk County Council to seek
open tenders.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Team Leader (Major Developments)
explained that an uplift clause would be included in the Section 106 Obligation to
require a contribution towards affordable housing if profit levels rose above the
estimated level.
The Senior Engineer explained that the Highway Authority’s policy was to undertake
work on main distributor routes itself and the estimate was in line with other
roundabouts it had built in Norfolk. If Members requested a review it would be taken
on board but he could give no assurances as to the outcome.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that a proviso with regard to the roundabout be
added to the proposal. Councillor P W High did not share Councillor Baker’s views.
He considered that this was a matter of general principle which did not affect the
determination of this application.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded Councillor High’s proposal.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that he had received an email from a member of the
Town Council who lived close to the site.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard asked if the footway improvements would extend to a
block of cottages on Hempstead Road which had no pavement or front garden. The
Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the footway improvements would be
relatively minor and would be subject to future agreement. However, there would be
an improvement to the highway situation as HGVs would no longer use the road.
The Senior Engineer considered that there would not be a footway in front of the
cottages concerned.
Development Committee
9
17 April 2014
Councillor R Reynolds supported the proposal and considered that 50 affordable
houses would be an advantage to Holt.
Councillor B Smith stated that he had received an email expressing concern regarding
the amount of affordable housing. Whilst he would support a higher proportion of
affordable housing, he did not wish to delay this matter.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the completion of a Section
106 Obligation and subject to the imposition of the recommended
conditions, amended as outlined by the Team Leader (Major
Developments).
(250) HOLT - PF/14/0203 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; Green Banks, Peacock Lane for Bliss Space
Design Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Prior (Holt Town Council)
Mr Waller (supporting)
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had called in this application as it was the first
proposal for a modern building in Holt and he considered that there should be wider
discussion on this matter. He had no particular concerns regarding the proposal.
Councillor P W High stated that the extension to the Parish Church had been a
modern design. He referred to other modern dwellings which had been built in the
District. He proposed approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor J
Perry-Warnes.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if consideration had been given to a sedum roof.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Waller, responded that it had been considered
but there was a massive extra cost and it would not have worked well with the building
itself. He would not recommend the type of roof proposed if he did not believe in it.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(251) LITTLE SNORING - PF/14/0193 - Erection of single-storey side/rear, twostorey/first floor rear and single-storey front extensions and raising height of
roof; 6 Thursford Road for Mr & Mrs S Amos
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer explained in detail the changes from the scheme
approved under application reference PF/13/0207.
Development Committee
10
17 April 2014
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, referred to the Parish Council’s concerns
regarding the scale of the development in comparison with the original dwelling. She
considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the character of the
estate and overlook properties to the rear. She proposed refusal of this application on
overdevelopment grounds.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Burton (agent) who was present but had not
wished to speak, commented that the layout was the same as the approved scheme
but a slight increase was being sought to the size of the rooms.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Senior Planning Officer
confirmed that the proposal exceeded the basic amenity criteria in terms of distance
from neighbouring dwellings.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(252) 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 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Wotherspoon (objecting)
Mr Debbage (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor P W
Moore, a local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. He supported the
Officer’s recommendation.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Anglian Water would not allow the discharge
of trade effluent into the surface water sewer and had made comments on best
practice. She reported that a telephone call had been received from a resident of
Happisburgh Road in support of this application. She recommended refusal of this
application with enforcement action as set out in the report.
In response to questions by the Chairman, Mr Debbage stated that there were toilet
facilities nearby which the employees of the car wash now understood they should
use. The company had recently purchased quieter vacuums and the working area
was moved at weekends. Mr Debbage stated that he would ensure that radios were
switched off.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, stated that this was the only car wash in
North Walsham and it was a successful business which she did not want to lose.
However, the rights of the neighbours could not be overlooked. She stated that when
she moved to the town, there was a coin operated hand car wash on the site with
limited operating time, which was seldom used. She referred to the objections by the
statutory consultees and considered that the operation had gone beyond the point
where conditions could be imposed to address the neighbours’ concerns. She
proposed refusal of this application as recommended.
Development Committee
11
17 April 2014
Councillor Mrs A R Green did not wish to see the business close. She asked if the
issues could be overcome by relocating the portacabin and installing a canopy where
the portacabin was currently sited.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Debbage confirmed that this suggestion would be
feasible and he was happy to do whatever was needed.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed temporary approval for six months to see if the
issues could be addressed.
Councillor B Smith stated that when the equipment had been demonstrated on the site
it was quite quiet, but he had been surprised at the level of noise which could be heard
in the neighbouring garden. He referred to the Human Rights of the objectors. He
seconded refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that this was a difficult application, but on
balance seconded Councillor Mrs A R Green’s proposal.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern with regard to the uneven surface of the
site.
Councillor R Reynolds expressed concern at the loss of jobs and loss of the facility to
the town if this application were refused. However, he was aware of the noise issues
which affected the neighbour. He considered that the main noise problems arose from
the vacuums rather than the pressure washers. In respect of drainage, he referred to
a statement by Mr Debbage that interceptors were already installed and requested
that this matter be investigated. He considered that some of the drainage problems
were caused by the broken concrete surface. He supported temporary approval for
six months.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney suggested that rubber mats might reduce the noise from
the vacuum cleaners.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle expressed concern that the neighbours would suffer
disturbance throughout the summer if the application were approved for six months.
She stated that so far the business had made no attempt to mitigate the noise
nuisance.
The Development Manager suggested that the application be deferred to allow
Officers to seek the views of Environmental Health on the noise mitigation measures
which had been suggested and to take up the safety issues raised by Councillor
Baker.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard requested no working on Bank Holidays.
The Development Manager stated that Officers would explore with the applicant as to
whether he was willing to accept a condition to prevent working on Sundays and Bank
Holidays.
Councillor Mrs A R Green withdrew her proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A
Arnold and
Development Committee
12
17 April 2014
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow explore
mitigation measures with the applicant and Environmental Health.
(253) 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 Speakers
Mr S Moore (objecting)
Mr Pettifer (supporting)
Councillor T FitzPatrick stated that none of the objectors were known to him
personally. He was a member of the Parish Council. He stated that Walsingham was
a mediaeval village and that anything built in the centre of the village should reflect its
uniqueness. He considered that the density of the development was too high. Swan
Entry was not a normal village street as it was a historic way out of the village. He
referred to the concerns raised by the objectors and did not consider that the
proposed conditions were sufficient. He considered that the proposal did not fulfil the
Conservation Area appraisal or take into account the setting and context. He
requested a site inspection.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1
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.
(254) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Members and Town Mayor or Chairman of the Parish Council
be invited to attend:
HOLT – PO/14/0283 – Residential development for a maximum of 126
dwellings; Land south of Cromer Road and east of Grove Lane for
Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd and Gresham’s School
HOLT – PO/14/0284 – Residential development for a maximum of 19
dwellings; land south of Cromer Road and west of Grove Lane for
Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd and Gresham’s School
HOLT – PO/14/0274 – Residential development for a maximum of eight
dwellings; land north of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates Strategic
Land Ltd and Gresham’s School
Development Committee
13
17 April 2014
SHERINGHAM – PF/14/0143 – erection of two two-storey dwellings, plots
4 & 5, 20 Abbey Road for Mr A Clark
(255) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 13 relating to the quarterly report on planning applications
and appeals for the period from January to March 2014, covering the turnaround of
applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
The Chairman stated that staff had done well.
(256) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(257) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(258) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(259) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(260) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
(261) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 19 of the Officers’ reports.
(262) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 20 of the Officers’ reports.
(263) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Development Committee
14
17 April 2014
(264) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 21 of the Officers’ exempt reports updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 March 2014.
RESOLVED
That the report and annexed Schedules of cases be noted and that
those cases which have been resolved be removed from the Schedules.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.52 pm, resumed at 2.30 pm and closed at 3.22
pm.
Development Committee
15
17 April 2014