17 JANUARY 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer – substitute for B Cabbell Manners
N Smith – substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
P Terrington – substitute for M J M Baker
R Wright – Astley Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
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
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(182) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, B Cabbell
Manners and J H Perry-Warnes. Three substitutes were in attendance as listed
above.
(183) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2012 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(184) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A prior notification application at Cromer, reference NP/13/0041. The reason
for urgency was because the application was required to be determined within
28 days. The application could not be determined under delegated powers as
the applicant was a Member of the Council.
2.
A planning application at Sheringham, reference PF/12/0568. The reason for
urgency was to expedite the processing of this application by undertaking a
site inspection.
Development Committee
1
17 January 2013
(185) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors P W High, Miss B Palmer and R Reynolds declared interests, the details
of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members‟ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Development
Management, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(186) HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/1192 - Erection of one and a half storey side/front
extension; Carwood House, 59 The Street for Mr & Mrs Howard
Councillor Miss B Palmer declared a personal interest in this application as she was
a tennis coach to the applicants‟ children.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Goldsmith (objecting)
Mr M Howard (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to concerns raised regarding the external
staircase. He considered that whilst there could be an element of overlooking, it
would be minimal and the staircase would not be used for sitting out. He
recommended approval as set out in the report.
Councillor R J Wright, the local Member, considered that the staircase should be
located internally. It appeared as though the extension were a self-contained annexe
attached to the main dwelling and he was concerned at possible bed and breakfast
use, which could mean the staircase could be busy. He had no objection to the
design of the building.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that a dwelling could be used for bed and
breakfast for part of the year depending on the number of bedrooms used without the
need for planning permission.
In answer to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that he considered there would need to be some form of escape route from the
rooms in the extension if they were to be used for bed and breakfast accommodation.
Development Committee
2
17 January 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones questioned why the extension had been proposed at
the front of the property when there was ample space at the rear. She considered
that the proposal appeared to suggest that an application for a separate dwelling
could follow in the future.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that part of the proposal involved a garage
and car port which had to be forward of the existing building to allow access.
The Development Manager stated that a separate application would be required if it
were intended to use the extension as a separate dwelling. However, this would be
contrary to policy. The current application related to ancillary accommodation and
had to be determined as such.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed approval of this application as recommended.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Howard stated that there was an internal
staircase which would allow access. He referred to financial constraints and the way
it was intended to develop the scheme in phases with the garage element first.
Whilst it was theoretically possible to relocate the staircase on the other side of the
extension, he considered that it would spoil the appearance of the link. The
extension had been designed to meet Policy EN4.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Green‟s proposal.
The Development Manager suggested a condition to require the door to the external
staircase to be retained as a solid door with no glazing.
Councillor P Terrington requested that additional trees be planted. This was not
supported.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including the removal of permitted development rights for
additional first floor windows, fixed obscure glazing in those roof lights
on the eastern roof slope, installation and retention of a solid door in
the south elevation and the use of the extension to be ancillary to that of
the dwelling.
(187) HOLT - PF/12/1375 - Change of use of retail shop (A1) to tea-room (A3); 9C
Chapel Yard, Albert Street for Mrs C Howlett
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Farrow (objecting)
Mrs C Howlett (supporting)
Councillor P W High, a local Member, referred to the number of cafés in Holt. He
stated that this was a difficult application and he could not ignore the number of
objections received by the Town Council which had made it reconsider its views. His
main concern was the impact of the proposal on the residential bungalow adjacent to
Chapel Yard. He also considered that approval would give rise to unfair competition.
Development Committee
3
17 January 2013
Councillor P Terrington stated that he was speaking on behalf of Councillor M J M
Baker, a local Member. He referred to a letter received from the neighbour.
He
questioned the Human Rights statement in the report.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Human Rights statement was based on
consultee responses. He referred to the Environmental Health Officer‟s response
which concluded that the relationship between the premises and neighbouring
bungalow was acceptable.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that no details had been received in respect of
refuse disposal. She was concerned that the neighbour could be affected.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that a condition would be imposed to require
information to be provided to satisfy Environmental Health requirements.
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that it was important to retain A1 retail shops in Holt.
He was opposed to this application.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that the Council‟s policies did not support
refusal. Competition between existing and proposed businesses was not material in
planning decisions and could not be used as a reason for refusal.
The Development Manager stated that in the opinion of Officers there was no policy
objection to this application. He referred to comments that had been made regarding
local connections and stated that the length of time someone had lived in the town
was not relevant.
Councillor J A Wyatt proposed that the application be refused on grounds of the
impact of noise and smell on the neighbouring bungalow and loss of A1 retail unit.
Councillor N Smith referred to the closure of existing shops and asked if it was likely
that, in the event of refusal, the existing shop would close and be boarded up or
continue to operate.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that the proposal was for a tea room and not a
restaurant. She asked if it would be possible to control the type of food served. She
considered that a tea room would not create much disturbance.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed use was as an A3 café, but it
could become a restaurant. If approved, the premises could revert back to A1 retail
without the need for permission.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern as to whether anything could be
done to prevent overdevelopment of one particular type of business.
The Development Manager stated that this issue had been addressed in the Core
Strategy by the designation of Primary Retail Frontages within town centres, where
the type of use was restricted.
Councillor B Smith considered that small businesses had to diversify in order to
survive in the current economic climate. He referred to Sheringham where there
were many restaurants and cafés, which all appeared to be thriving. The NPPF
indicated that competitive town centres should be supported and promoted to make
them viable and sustainable. He considered that if this application were refused, the
shop was likely to close, with others likely to follow. He proposed approval of this
application in accordance with the recommendation.
Development Committee
4
17 January 2013
In answer to a question by Councillor P W High, the Development Manager stated
that the percentage of non-retail uses was the determining factor when considering
applications within a Primary Retail Frontage.
Councillor High considered that this was unfair when considering the situation in
Chapel Yard.
The Development Manager stated that Chapel Yard was not designated as Primary
Retail Frontage.
Councillor P Terrington stated that he supported refusal but only on grounds of
impact on the neighbour.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal to approve this application.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 5
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including those required by the Environmental Health Officer
and restricting hours of use from 8am to 8pm daily.
(188) LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest in this application as he knew Mr
Milton as a consequence of being a trustee of Holt Lowes. He had not discussed this
matter with Mr Milton.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Hewitt (objecting)
Mr J Milton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the
Solicitor acting for the freehold owner, which reiterated previous concerns and
suggested that Bretts Wood was, in planning terms, in agricultural and forestry use
and therefore an application for change of use would be required for recreational
uses. It suggested that the proposed car park was to serve an unauthorised use and
the free-roaming of visitors could impinge on the residential amenity of the
neighbouring property.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that it was in danger of being
drawn into an argument between the landowner and applicant, which was not
relevant to this application. He referred to the nature and purpose of this application.
He advised that if the Committee were minded to refuse this application,
notwithstanding the lack of objection from the Highway Authority, it should be refused
on the basis of highway safety concerns and not disputes occurring elsewhere.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) advised the Committee that the „fallback‟ position of parking on a relatively small access was of greater concern than the
proposal, which would create a highway facility and improve the access
arrangements.
Development Committee
5
17 January 2013
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, considered that the proposal would
create an unnecessary access on a Principal Route and encourage more traffic. She
considered that enhancement of the existing arrangements would allow visitors to
park safely. She stated that there was no comparison with Thursford Wood, which
was an ancient woodland full of interest. She considered that visitors would not stay
in the area managed by the applicant but would wander into adjacent woodland. She
proposed that this application be refused because it would create traffic problems.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to grounds for
refusal, which could be based on additional stopping and turning movements on the
Principal Route.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the local Member. He stated that he passed the
site regularly and had not witnessed many visitors, although the entrance was used
as a pull-in. He considered that the area would be ruined by the formation of a car
park, which would result in additional traffic on a dangerous road. He seconded the
proposal to refuse this application.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposal would be safer than the current
arrangements and he supported the Officer‟s recommendation.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to his experience as a Police Officer in dealing with
speeding along the road. He expressed concern regarding conflict between people
visiting the site and those exercising their shooting rights on the land.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that shoots took place across public footpaths
and in close proximity to other Norfolk Wildlife Trust sites. He had insufficient
knowledge of this matter to advise.
The Development Manager stated that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer had no
objection to this application. The conflict between those with shooting rights and
other users seemed to him to be a civil matter and this conflict was already in
existence as the public currently had access to the site.
A number of Members expressed opinions both in favour and against this application.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Milton confirmed that there was no
link between Bretts (Lings) Wood and Thursford Wood for public access.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in increased traffic generation which would be likely to increase
slowing, stopping and turning movements on an unrestricted section of
the A148 Principal Route to the overall detriment of highway safety.
Development Committee
6
17 January 2013
(189) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1202 - Conversion of coastguard station to holiday
accommodation, insertion of dormer window and erection of side extension;
Coastguards, Beach Road for Mr M Lucas
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers‟ reports.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, stated that this was an iconic building and
currently used for storage purposes. The proposal would result in a considerable
increase in the size of the building. He referred to previous applications for dwellings
in the 100 year Coastal Erosion Zone. He stated that this application fell within the
50 year zone. He considered that there should be no increase in risk to life. He
requested clarification as to the proposed condition to restrict any occupation to two
months, which the Senior Planning Officer explained. He expressed concern that a
future application could be submitted for permanent occupation. He referred to the
lack of parking and amenity space, and stated that the nearest public car park was
some distance from the building.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that it was preferable for the building to be
enhanced and cared for rather than allow it to deteriorate. She proposed approval of
the application as recommended. This was seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
Councillor P W High stated that there were many holiday homes which had no
parking spaces nearby.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that lack of parking would not be a
problem as people with mobility problems would not rent the cottage.
In response to questions by Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the age of the building was not known. He explained that the proposal
involved removing and raising the roof, and suggested that a condition could be
imposed to require the re-use of the roof slates where possible.
Councillor Mrs Brettle agreed to incorporate the suggested condition within her
proposal.
The Development Manager explained what he considered was the difference
between the applications referred to by Councillor B Smith and the current
application in terms of coastal erosion issues. The current application was limited in
its scale and for holiday use only. Any future application for permanent occupation
would have to be considered on its merits but the development lacked parking and
amenity space.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including materials, the reuse of existing roof
slates where possible, restricting the occupancy to holiday
accommodation only with any one occupancy limited to two months,
and closure of the access as requested by the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
7
17 January 2013
(190) WALSINGHAM - PF/12/1256 - Construction of biomass renewable energy
facility with associated landscaping and vehicular access; North Creake
Airfield, Holkham Estate, Egmere for Egmere Energy Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest as two of his customers were
adjacent to the site. He stated that he had had no dialogue with them regarding this
matter.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Lukas (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the access
arrangements had been amended. The Highway Authority had no objection in
principle subject to the applicant demonstrating that access into the site would be
safe.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a petition had
been received which had been organised by the owners of the control tower and
signed by 142 people, some of which were from overseas, stating “North Creake
Airfield was of major strategic importance during WWII as a Bomber Support station
for RAF 100 Group. It remains today a monument to the 17 aircraft and crews who
gave up their lives to help defeat Fascism. There are plans to develop the airfield by
building a 100 acre solar power plant and an anaerobic digester plant on the
north/south runway. These will destroy its historical character of the airfield and
desecrate the memory of those who served and died from North Creake. Help us
save North Creake Airfield so future generations will know what happened here.”
A letter had been received from the occupier of the control tower who had concerns
regarding turning traffic, the impact of the digester on the public footpath, the
cumulative effect of this application and the solar farm and impact on the historic
airfield. She had requested that the proposed development be relocated.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to the comments of the
Norfolk Historic Environment Services regarding the airfield. Officers considered that
the benefits of relocating the biodigester to protect the historic environment would be
outweighed by impact on the landscape.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) had no objection
subject to additional planting to the north of the site.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that impact on the
historic asset was not sufficient to justify refusal. There were considerable benefits in
terms of provision of energy for the area. He requested delegated authority to
approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised by
the Highway Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Landscape Officer stated that the
landscape proposals were fairly robust and in proportion to the scale of the
development. The planting specification had taken into account the need to establish
the landscaping in a short timescale.
Development Committee
8
17 January 2013
Councillor Miss B Palmer reported that Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member,
had concerns regarding noise, smell, traffic, contamination risk and historic aspect of
North Creake Airfield.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the construction of this facility would provide jobs
in the short term and would maintain jobs in local firms. He supported this
application.
Councillor P Terrington stated that he had difficulty in considering this application in
isolation, and considered that the development of the renewables corridor should be
considered as a whole. He considered that these proposals would require upgrading
of the infrastructure, which did not form part of the current proposal. He referred to
the Environment Agency‟s concerns regarding pollution. He expressed concern at
the use of crops grown specifically to feed the digester which would divert production
away from food production.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern that agricultural land would be taken out of
production. He had no objection to the construction of the facility, but considered that
an alternative to the use of crops should be found.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the land was only grade 3 agricultural land on
which only a limited variety of crops could be grown. He considered that the
application had been well researched. He proposed delegated approval of this
application as recommended.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Team Leader (Enforcement
and Special Cases) explained that there would be odour associated with the digester
but this would be controlled. Environmental Health had a statutory duty to consider
this matter and had raised no objections.
Councillor J A Wyatt seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) confirmed that this application was separate from
the solar farm proposal and planning permission would be unrelated to any other
case.
Councillor R Reynolds referred to the worldwide problem of food waste and stated
that such applications had to be taken in context.
In response to comments from Councillor B Smith regarding traffic movements, the
Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that many of the traffic movements,
including those at harvest time, would be on the network regardless of this proposal.
The Highway Authority was considering an access into the site which may be
acceptable and it was hoped that a solution could be found in respect of the exit.
Councillor B Smith considered that this was an ideal location for the proposal. He
considered that odours from the digester would not disturb anybody.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the setting of the memorial stone would
not be affected by this proposal.
Development Committee
9
17 January 2013
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised
by the Highway Authority and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(191) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers‟ reports and an item of urgent
business which the Chairman had determined should be considered pursuant to the
powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act
1972.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairman of the Town Council/Town Mayor
be invited to attend:
STALHAM – PF/12/1427 – Mixed use development comprising 150
dwellings, B1 (a - c) employment buildings (3150sqm), public open
space, landscaping and associated highways and drainage
infrastructure; land off Yarmouth Road for Hopkins Homes
SHERINGHAM – PF/12/0568 – Erection of two detached two-storey
dwellings with garages; land adjacent 25 Cremers Drift for Mr S Pigott
(192) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers‟ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from October to December 2012,
covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes.
(193) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
(194) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
(195) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers‟ reports.
(196) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers‟ reports.
(197) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers‟ reports.
(198) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers‟ reports.
Development Committee
10
17 January 2013
(199) CROMER – NP/13/0041 – Prior notification of intention to erect re-located
agricultural storage building; Home Farm, Hall Road for Cromer Hall Estate
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Development Manager outlined this proposal which involved the erection of a
relocated agricultural storage building within the Countryside Policy Area, Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty and Undeveloped Coast. It would also be within the
vicinity of a listed building and the Cromer Hall Historic Park and Garden. However,
the building would be located close to existing buildings and storage yard. No
objections had been received from Environmental Health, the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager or Highway Authority. A response was awaited from
Cromer Town Council. The consultation period was due to expire today.
The Development Manager stated that the proposal was considered to preserve the
heritage asset, have no detrimental impact on residential amenity and to comply with
Development Plan Policy. He requested delegated authority not to require a
reserved matters application, subject to no objection from Cromer Town Council
following expiry of the consultation period.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to not require
a reserved matters application subject to no objection being received
from Cromer Town Council following expiry of the consultation period.
(200) 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.
(201) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 14 of the Officer‟s exempt report updating the
situation previously reported concerning the Schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 December
2012.
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
The meeting closed at 12.30 pm.
Development Committee
11
17 January 2013