17 FEBRUARY 2011 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

17 FEBRUARY 2011

Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held in the Council

Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:

Councillors

S J Partridge (Chairman)

J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman)

S C Mears Mrs J Trett

P J Willcox

B Cabbell Manners - substitute for J D Savory

Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - Poppyland Ward

J Lisher - Lancaster South Ward

P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward

Mrs A M Moore - observer

Officers

Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control

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

Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer

Mr C Young - Senior Conservation and Design Officer

Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer

Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)

(195) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

An apology for absence was received from Councillor J D Savory. There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.

(196) MINUTES

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 20 January 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(197) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at North Walsham, reference PF/11/0078. The reason for urgency was to expedite processing of the application by undertaking a site inspection.

Development Control Committee 1 17

(198) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors B Smith, Mrs L Walker and P J Willcox and the Planning Legal Manager declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.

(199) NORTH WALSHAM - ENQ/10/0187- the material change of use of former

Anglian Water Sewage Works

Councillor Mrs L Walker declared a personal interest in this matter as she was acquainted with the owner of the Company.

Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this matter as he had spoken to the Director of the Company.

The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports which sought confirmation of urgent action taken concerning this enforcement case.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that since the preparation of the report the appellants had decided not to withdraw the appeal. The situation therefore remained that the Planning Inspectorate would determine whether the timescale for compliance with the Enforcement Notice was reasonable.

Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, expressed his disappointment at the latest development in this matter. He stated that he had been assured that a planning application was imminent. Whilst it was clearly the intention of the Company to relocate to the industrial estate, it would be a tenant of the site and was not the applicant. However, he had spoken to the architect and was satisfied that the application was genuinely for Enviroco to relocate to the site. He stated that it had been 18 months since the appeal against refusal of planning permission in respect of the existing site had been dismissed by the Inspector. He thanked the Officers for trying to resolve this issue.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that he had been involved in discussions regarding the proposed site. If it involved the transfer of waste the application was likely to come within the remit of Norfolk County Council, and the agent was seeking clarity on this issue from his client.

The Chairman stated that the Officers were taking the appropriate action in this matter.

RESOLVED

That the situation be noted in the light of the response from the agent.

(200) PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE

The Committee noted item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly performance report covering the planning service for the period from October to

December 2010. It covered the turnround of planning applications, workload and appeal outcomes and provided the latest update on staffing changes which had taken place through the restructuring of the service.


The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that future targets in respect of major applications should relate to output and delivery of housing and affordable housing, rather than speed. Councils were no longer rewarded on the basis of speed of determination. Future rewards would be based on delivery. He considered that a median target should be set in respect of turnround of minor and other applications.

In answer to a question by Councillor S C Mears, the Head of Planning and Building

Control explained that the New Homes Bonus would reward Councils for delivering dwellings, based on new dwellings on the Council Tax register. The Council would need to assist developers in bringing sites forward. It would be a much more proactive approach than at present. The emphasis was on development management rather than development control.

In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes regarding fees, the Head of

Planning and Building Control stated that the Government had indicated that the

Council would be able to set its own fees from October 2011. He envisaged that charges would be much higher than at present for major applications.

The Development Manager added that fees for major applications did not currently reflect the cost of processing these applications.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that it was necessary to set a target for determination of applications in order that timescales did not slip.

The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that the Committee would not wish to see a major housing application refused at 13 weeks if a successful outcome could be achieved in 15 weeks.

The Development Manager stated that the Planning Division had been significantly downsized in terms of the number of people who were processing applications because of the need to cut the Council’s budget. It was necessary to bear in mind that there were implications in doing so.

Councillor P J Willcox asked if there was a danger that the Council could be seen by the public and objectors to be giving permission in order to deliver housing.

The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the sites concerned had already been subject to extensive public consultation under the Local Development

Framework process.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications; updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and answered Members’ questions.

Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents, letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for inspection at the meeting.

Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and

Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.


Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1 unless otherwise stated.

(201) BRISTON - PO/10/1216 - Erection of dwelling; Land adjoining Carefree,

Providence Place for Mr L Watts

The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority had reiterated its concerns. He recommended refusal of this application on highway safety grounds in respect of inadequate access onto Edgefield Road.

The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that he was aware of the planning history. However, planning permission had lapsed and he had to consider the application in accordance with the current guidance. The proposal would be likely to result in a 4% increase in traffic. He had raised an objection in principle given the failings of the site access.

Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, stated that the site was the last plot on

Providence Place which could be developed. Planning permission had been given on seven previous occasions. He understood the view expressed by the

Development Control Officer (Highways) given the poor visibility to the left at the junction. However, he would not make a proposal in this case.

Councillor P W High considered that one further dwelling would make little difference and a 4% increase in traffic was insufficient to justify refusal of this application. He proposed approval of this application which was seconded.

Councillor H C Cordeaux referred to the breach of policy in respect of the number of dwellings on an unmade road. He asked if it would be possible to impose a condition to require the road to be made up.

Councillor Mrs M Seward considered that one additional dwelling could result in four or five additional vehicles on any particular day. She was concerned at the accident risk at the junction. She considered that policy should not be ignored.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the only policy which had changed was the ‘Manual for Streets’. This Council’s policy had not changed.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that, in his opinion, there were no Human Rights issues that would prevent approval of this application.

RESOLVED by 7 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Reason: The Committee has taken in to account the history of the site and considers that a 4% increase in vehicle movements is insufficient to justify refusal of this application.


(202) CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0933 - Change of use and conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings; Sunbeams, High Street for Mr A Taylor


The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had now withdrawn its objection to this application following receipt of further information. He recommended approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

It was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, duly seconded and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

(203) CROMER - PF/10/1376 - Erection of replacement rear extension and installation of dormer windows; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price


The Planning Legal Manager stated that Councillor Price was speaking at the meeting in his private capacity.

Public Speakers

Mrs Candlish (objecting)

Mr Price (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that amended plans had been received which indicated a reduction in size of the rear dormer. The Conservation, Design and

Landscape Manager no longer objected to the rear dormer but continued to object in respect of the dormer on the side elevation. The Georgian Group and Cromer

Preservation Society maintained their objections. There were no objections to the rear extension from any of the consultees; however there were objections to the monopitched dormer on the hipped side elevation.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal of this application on the basis of damage to the special interest of the listed building and the failure of the proposed dormer window to the hipped end to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Senior Conservation and Design Officer explained that the main issue with the dormer on the hipped elevation related to the sensitive roofscape. He stated that the existing dormer at the front pre-dated the listing of the building. He considered that the proposed dormer would be very top-heavy and detract from the building as a whole.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, welcomed the refurbishment of this building and considered that the dormer windows were acceptable. He referred to the dormer windows on the Merchant’s Court building opposite the site. He stated that the building had to be habitable. He proposed a site inspection.

Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that discussions should take place to see if an acceptable compromise could be achieved.


The Development Manager stated that there needed to be further dialogue with the applicant with regard to submitting a heritage statement.

It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor P J

Willcox and

RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town

Mayor be invited to attend.

(204) CROMER - LA/10/1377 - Internal alterations, erection of replacement rear extension and installation of dormer windows; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr

R Price


RESOLVED



(205) CROMER - LA/10/1484 - Renovation of rear elevation including removal of render; Newstead House, 7 The Gangway for Mrs B Price


Public Speaker

Mr Price (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Town Council had no objection to this application.

It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor H C

Cordeaux and

RESOLVED

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the time limit and requiring more details of remedial work once the existing render has been removed.

(206) FAKENHAM - PF/10/1349 - Erection of replacement single-storey rear extension and single-storey/two-storey front extension; 163 Holt Road for Mr I Kendle


The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been received from a local resident who considered that the proposed extensions would be overbearing and obtrusive. However, Officers considered that the relationship with the neighbouring properties was acceptable.


Councillor J Lisher, a local Member, referred to the concerns raised by the occupier of 161 Holt Road regarding possible damage to the boundary wall, which he understood had been resolved. However, he was concerned at the loss of view and light to 165 Holt Road. He requested that this application be refused.

Councillor S C Mears considered that the impact on 165 Holt Road would be negligible as the garage to that dwelling was adjacent to the proposed extension and the window to the property was forward of the proposed extension.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs M Seward and

RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1

That this application be approved subject to a condition removing permitted development rights in relation to the insertion of windows on the north-east elevation of the two-storey extension.

(207) FAKENHAM - PO/10/1427 - Erection of 2 one and half storey dwellings;

Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist


Public Speakers

Mrs Chappell (Fakenham Town Council)

Mr Thomas (objecting)

The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs

G M D Lisher, a local Member, in respect of the impact on trees and highway issues.

Councillor Mrs Lisher had requested refusal of this application.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that an addendum had been received to the

Arboricultural Assessment to address the impact on the trees. The Landscape

Officer remained of the opinion that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the trees.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal on grounds that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on trees which are subject to Tree

Preservation Orders and which are of high amenity value, contrary to Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Councillor J Lisher, a local Member, considered that this application was almost identical to that previously refused, except that an additional access was proposed.

He considered that the amendment would do nothing to alleviate the problems on

Heath Lane. He expressed concerns with regard to damage to trees and the footpath and traffic issues on Heath Lane. He requested refusal of this application.

Councillor S C Mears stated that the road was dangerous and that adding more properties would not improve the situation. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded.

The Development Manager stated that amending the access had had an impact on the trees, which had not been a reason for the refusal of application PLA/10/0898.

He stated that in the light of Members’ concern inclusion of a highway reason for refusal as previous would be consistent with the refusal of that application.


RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on trees which are subject to Tree

Preservation Orders and which are of high amenity value, contrary to

Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy, and on grounds of the unsuitability of the access to cater for the development by reason of its construction and width and detriment to highway safety.

(208) KELLING - PF/10/1211 - Erection of two semi-detached replacement dwellings;

1 & 2 Brookside, The Street for Kelling Estate LLP

KELLING - LE/10/1284 - Demolition of two dwellings; 1 & 2 Brookside, The

Street for Kelling Estate LLP

The Committee considered items 10 and 11 of the Officers’ reports.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council objected to the amended plans and would prefer the existing cottages to be preserved. The Parish

Council had requested a site inspection.

The Senior Planning Officer recommended that these applications be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Councillor H C Cordeaux, the local Member, referred to the comments of the Historic

Environment Service. He proposed a site inspection which was seconded by

Councillor P J Willcox.

RESOLVED

That consideration of these applications 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.

(209) SUSTEAD - PF/10/1317 - Erection of general purpose agricultural building;

Manor House Farm, New Road, Bessingham for Mr I Clark

Councillor P J Willcox declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he had business dealings with the applicant, and vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.

The Planning Legal Manager declared that he lived in Bessingham and could see the site clearly from his home. He had also discussed this application with some of the villagers. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.


Public Speaker

Mr Witham (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had accepted the need for a

Section 106 Obligation to ensure that only one building is erected. It would also be necessary for additional landscaping to screen the building from neighbouring dwellings. Further supporting information had been received from the applicant’s agent. She recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.


Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, considered that the proposed building was too large and that its position to the right of the existing barn would be detrimental to the Manor and the Coach House.

Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that this application should be refused on grounds of scale and massing of the development and that the applicant should be encouraged to revert to the approved plan.

The Development Manager stated that no objection had been received from the owners of the Manor, which was to be demolished and rebuilt further away from the proposed building. However, there appeared to be an issue with the relationship with the Coach House as the proposed building would extend beyond the end of the existing building.

Councillor S C Mears suggested that if the building were rotated through 90 o

it would be gable end on to the existing building and would have less impact.

The Development Manager stated that this suggestion would result in the length of the building being visible from the Manor and the landscape impact of this was unknown. He suggested that the simplest solution would be to move the proposed building further to the west.

In response to a question Mr Witham stated that there were three large oak trees which would screen the building from the Coach House, and that the site was only overlooked by a small window. The current view from the Coach House was of agricultural machinery, trees and some bales.

Councillor Mrs L Walker suggested that this application be deferred until all options had been explored.

Councillor J H Perry-Warnes suggested that this application deferred to realign the planting scheme and move the building to a more acceptable position.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to Mr Witham’s comments and considered that it would be preferable for the equipment and bales to be under cover. He considered that the issues could be satisfactorily resolved if the proposed building were moved slightly to the west.

In response, Mr Witham explained that the applicant had put forward the current proposal in the light of the decision to relocate the Manor further away from the site.

He stated that the neighbouring landowner had a barn which could possibly be converted and the approved siting would result in the occupiers of the barn having a view of a steel structure.

The Development Manager suggested a site inspection.

It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, duly seconded 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.


(210) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION


RESOLVED

That a site inspection be arranged in respect of the following applications and that the local Members and Chairmen of the

Parish/Town Councils be invited to attend:

LETHERINGSETT - PF/10/1428 – Erection of two-storey extension; The

Glebe, Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Markham

NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 – Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway

Triangle site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes

WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0484 – Formation of public vehicle park with associated pedestrian and vehicular accesses and landscaping; land to north of Freeman Street for Holkham Estate

(211) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.

Councillor P W High referred to application reference PF/10/1451 and expressed concern that the applicant had commenced work on a number of occasions prior to approval of planning applications, which caused difficulties for local Members.

(212) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(213) NEW APPEALS


(214) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS


(215) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS


(216) APPEAL DECISIONS


(217) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0078 - Erection of 24 bed ward; North Walsham

Cottage Hospital, 62 Yarmouth Road for Norlife

The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local

Government Act 1972.


The Development Manager recommended that the Committee visit the site to expedite processing of this application.

RESOLVED



(218) 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.

(219) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES

This report updates the situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 December 2010.

Councillor Mrs M Seward reported that the business under case ENQ/10/0046 was still operating. She requested that case ENQ/10/0040 be concluded.

Councillor B Smith requested an update on case ENQ/09/0242. He stated that he had not been consulted in respect of case ENQ/10/0167.

The Planning Legal Manager reminded the Committee that in order to make savings the Enforcement Section had been reduced from three Officers to two. Delays in dealing with cases were an inevitable consequence of such reduction.

RESOLVED

1. That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current

Enforcement Cases be noted.

2. That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed from the Schedules.

The meeting closed at 12.10 pm.


17 FEBRUARY 2011 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Related documents

Products

Support

17 FEBRUARY 2011 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib