17 MARCH 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)
H C Cordeaux
Mrs A R Green
P W High
S C Mears
J H Perry-Warnes
J D Savory
Mrs M Seward
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
P J Willcox
Mrs L Brettle - Glaven Valley Ward
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
Mrs A M Moore - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss T Lincoln - Planning Officer
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
(220) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
There were no apologies for absence or substitute Members in attendance.
(221) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 17 February 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(222) 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/11/0085. The reason for urgency was to expedite processing of the
application by undertaking a site inspection.
(223) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors H C Cordeaux, P W High, P J Willcox and the Planning Legal Manager
declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item
concerned.
Development Control Committee
1
17 March 2011
(224) Weybourne Holiday Park – Application for a Licence to Fell Growing Trees
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of an application
for a Felling Licence submitted to the Forestry Commission regarding the felling of
trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order at Weybourne Holiday Park.
Councillor H C Cordeaux, the local Member, referred to the decision to refuse an
application for an extension to the holiday park in July 2010 because of the adverse
impact of the loss of the trees on the Conservation Area and wider landscape. He
stated that the woodland was very important to local residents, who were outraged at
the lack of consultation on this matter. He stated that the Chairman of the Parish
Council had attended the meeting to speak on this matter but was prevented from
doing so. He read to the Committee a statement by the Parish Council opposing the
felling licence.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that this was not a matter on
which public speaking was allowed under the Council’s Standing Orders.
It was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Forestry Commission be informed that this Council objects
strongly to the application for a felling licence on grounds that it relates
to trees which the Council has recently sought to protect, the
management plan is inappropriate as it is linked to additional caravans
on the site and on grounds of adverse impact on landscape and
amenity.
(225) HOVETON - NNDC TPO (HOVETON) 2010 No. 29
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the
confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
It was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, seconded by Councillor S C Mears and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order
(Hoveton) 2010 No. 29 be confirmed.
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.
Development Control Committee
2
17 March 2011
(226) CROMER - PF/10/1376 - Erection of replacement rear extension, installation of
dormer window and introduction of gable end; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr
R Price
The Chairman stated that all Members knew the applicant.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Councillor Price was speaking at the
meeting in his private capacity.
Public Speakers (also speaking on LA/10/1377 below)
Mrs Candish (objecting)
Mr Price (supporting)
In respect of this application and application LA/10/1377 below, the Senior Planning
Officer reported that the description of the door in the reports was incorrect. It was in
fact intended to leave the existing sash window in place and create a ‘jib’ door below.
The applicant had also carried out further investigations and considered that the
brickwork below the window was a later infill and there was clear evidence that there
had been a door in place at some time in the building’s history. However, this did not
appear to be reflected on the exterior of the building.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Cromer Preservation Society considered
that there were inaccuracies in the Heritage Statement. The Society had a strong
objection to the creation of a gable end and the loss of historic fabric. It considered
that the Heritage Statement did not justify the proposed alterations.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the further comments of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager contained in the appendix to the report, who
considered that there were advantages in some of the alterations, but he remained of
the opinion that the proposals would significantly harm the appearance of the Listed
Building and harm the historic fabric and have an adverse impact on the townscape
and the Conservation Area.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that when the building was listed, it was listed as
it is now and not because of what had happened in the past. The recommendations
in respect of both application PF/10/1376 and LA/10/1377 remained as set out in the
report.
No further comments had been received from Cromer Town Council, The Georgian
Group or SAVE Britain’s Heritage.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the building was
listed in 1977. He stated that the character and development of historic buildings
should be respected. Whilst there may have been a door in the past, it did not mean
that there should be a door in the future. He considered that the building may have
been re-faced in the past after the window had been installed. He considered that
the key issue was the roof structure. He stated that a hipped roof was a common
way to turn a corner. He stated that not only was the issue the loss of fabric and
whether it was appropriate, but the prominence of the building in the Conservation
Area and The Gangway. He considered that the changes were inappropriate and
would affect the character of the listed building.
Development Control Committee
3
17 March 2011
The Chairman read the comments of Councillor K E Johnson, who had had to leave
the meeting prior to consideration of these applications. He did not support these
applications.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that buildings evolved and the top floor was at
present totally unsuitable for use as a bedroom according to modern standards. He
stated that there were gables elsewhere in Cromer. He considered that the applicant
should be commended for improving the property and proposed approval of both
applications.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that the dormer window as originally proposed was
preferable to the gable, structurally as well as aesthetically. He considered that a
dormer on the hipped roof would be hardly noticeable. He considered that the
proposals prior to the latest amendment were acceptable.
Councillor P W High considered that both the previous proposal and the current
amendment were acceptable. However, he seconded Councillor Perry-Warnes’
proposal to approve both applications.
In answer to a question by Councillor H C Cordeaux, the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager stated that the dormer as previously proposed was too large
and out of scale and context. He accepted that historic buildings did evolve and
change, but consideration had to be given as to whether alterations were
appropriate. He considered that if it were altered too much, the attic would be lost
and listed building status affected.
As an amendment, Councillor Mrs M Seward proposed the Officers’
recommendations for refusal of both applications. This was seconded by Councillor
Mrs J Trett.
On being put to the vote, the amendment in respect of application PF/10/1376 was
put to the vote and declared carried by 7 votes to 4 with 1 abstention. On being put
as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on the basis of the harm caused to the
historic fabric of the building from the introduction of the gable feature
and the egress fronting The Gangway and conflict with national and
adopted Development Plan policy in relation to listed buildings and
Conservation Areas.
(227) CROMER - LA/10/1377 - Internal alterations, door and window alterations,
erection of replacement rear extension, installation of dormer window and
introduction of gable end; Cliffside, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
See PF/10/1376 above.
On being put to the vote, the amendment in respect of application PF/10/1376 was
put to the vote and declared carried by 7 votes to 4 with 1 abstention. On being put
as the substantive proposition it was
Development Control Committee
4
17 March 2011
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on the basis of the harm caused to the
historic fabric of the building from the introduction of the gable feature
and the egress fronting The Gangway and conflict with national and
adopted Development Plan policy in relation to listed buildings and
Conservation Areas.
(228) KELLING - PF/10/1211 - Erection of two semi-detached replacement dwellings;
1 & 2 Brookside, The Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Councillor H C Cordeaux declared a personal interest in this application as he lived in
Kelling.
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest in this application as a relation had
lived in one of the dwellings.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Officer reported that further information had been received from the
agent in respect of justification for the replacement dwellings. She recommended
approval of applications PF/10/1211 and LE/10/1284 as set out in the report.
Councillor H C Cordeaux, the local Member, referred to the history of these cottages.
He stated that Kelling was in a time-warp and no cottages had been demolished in
living memory. He did not support the demolition of these cottages. He considered
that any problems with cold and damp in the winter could be remedied and a welldesigned extension would be in character with the rest of the village.
Councillor J D Savory proposed refusal of both applications which was seconded by
Councillor S C Mears.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the Council’s adopted
policy and national planning policy required consideration of schemes in
Conservation Areas which would enhance them. It did not mean that sites could not
be redeveloped or that new development could not take place.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
proposed dwellings is inappropriate in the context of the Kelling
Conservation Area and represents a disproportionately large increase in
the scale of the dwellings. The scheme fails to preserve or enhance the
Conservation Area and is contrary to adopted Core Strategy policies
EN4, EN8 and HO8.
(229) KELLING - LE/10/1284 - Demolition of two dwellings; 1 & 2 Brookside, The
Street for Kelling Estate LLP
Councillor H C Cordeaux declared a personal interest in this application as he lived in
Kelling.
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest in this application as a relation had
lived in one of the dwellings.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee
5
17 March 2011
See PF/10/1211 above.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the existing buildings
make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area and should therefore be preserved. The demolition
of these buildings would have a negative impact on the Conservation
Area, contrary to adopted Core Strategy policy EN8.
(230) LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/10/1428 - Erection of two-storey
extension; The Glebe, Church Lane for Mr & Mrs Markham
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Jones (objecting)
The Chairman stated that some Members had been lobbied by email and telephone
and had been given copies of the speaker’s comments.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she lived in Letheringsett.
She stated that she had reservations in respect of the impact of the proposed
development on the Glaven Valley and considered that its modern design would be
out of character in the Conservation Area. She considered that glazed panels would
be preferable to the proposed large panes.
Councillor H C Cordeaux considered that the site was attractive and that the unusual
extension did not enhance the rather plain bungalow.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the existing bungalow
was a mundane brick building, set in substantial grounds. He stated that Members
should consider whether the proposal was an enhancement of the bungalow and of
the Conservation Area in general.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposal would not enhance the area as it
was too high and would impinge on views across the Glaven Valley.
Councillor P J Willcox expressed concern in respect of light pollution. He referred to
the refusal of velux rooflights in a nearby dwelling. He referred to the previous
extension of the bungalow and questioned whether increasing the size further would
enhance it.
The Planning Officer stated that the existing conservatory would be removed,
therefore there was only a small increase in floor area. However, there was a
question as to whether the height would be appropriate and its effect on the
surrounding countryside.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the proposed extension could enhance the
existing bungalow if it were elsewhere. However, she considered that the design
would be incongruous in this location and would not enhance the special qualities
and local distinctiveness of the area.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor H C Cordeaux
and
Development Control Committee
6
17 March 2011
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
extension would be incongruous in this location and would not enhance
the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area, and would not
preserve or enhance the character of the Glaven Valley Conservation
Area, contrary to adopted Core Strategy policies EN2 and EN8.
(231) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0078 - Erection of 24 bed ward; North Walsham
Cottage Hospital, 62 Yarmouth Road for Norlife
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Langley (objecting)
Mr Smith (objecting)
Mrs Moore (supporting)
Mr Nolan (supporting)
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that she sympathised with the
neighbours’ concerns. She requested that conditions be imposed in respect of
materials, the ridge height to be no higher than Rebecca House, low level lighting
and improved landscaping or more trees. She stated that she would pursue the
possibility of a 20mph zone through the Town Council.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the overall ridge height was shown on the
plan to be identical to Rebecca House.
Councillor Mrs M Seward, a local Member, requested that a condition be imposed to
require land to be earmarked for future additional car parking if it became necessary.
She supported the need for a 20mph zone.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Nolan confirmed that there would be space
available for additional car parking if necessary.
Councillor B Smith considered that improved facilities were desperately needed. Car
parking needed careful consideration as Government cutbacks could lead to a
reduction in public transport to the site.
Councillor S C Mears suggested that an area of Grasscrete be provided for an
overflow car park.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that 52 spaces should be provided as a
minimum. A ‘prior to first use’ condition could be imposed in respect of additional car
parking.
It was proposed by Councillor S C Mears, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include materials, ridge height to be no higher
than Rebecca House, low level lighting, landscaping and an area of land
to be earmarked for future additional car parking.
Development Control Committee
7
17 March 2011
(232) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0144 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling with
habitable accommodation in roofspace; 24 Happisburgh Road for Gaviant
Developments Limited
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs Dunk (objecting)
Mr Sexton (supporting)
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, referred to the amount of comment this
application had generated. He considered that any overlooking issues could be
overcome by obscured glazing. However, the main issue was the car parking area at
the bottom of the plot, which he considered would cause detriment to the residential
amenities of neighbouring dwellings. He considered that this could be overcome by
relocating the parking area. He requested a site inspection.
The Senior Planning Officer considered that it would be possible to relocate the car
parking area which would address the concerns of residents in Randell Close.
Councillor Mrs M Seward proposed a site inspection which was seconded by
Councillor H C Cordeaux.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor J D Savory, seconded by
Councillor Mrs J Trett
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve this
application subject to relocating the car parking area closer to 24A
Happisburgh Road and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with 4 Members voting in
favour and 8 against.
RESOLVED
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, and to allow the possibility of relocation of
the car parking area to be explored with the applicant.
(233) SEA PALLING - PF/10/1450 - Change of use of land from storage to car park;
Land at Clink Lane for Sea Palling with Waxham Community Trust
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, supported this application.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
Development Control Committee
8
the
17 March 2011
(234) 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.
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Witham (supporting)
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, stated that she had viewed the site
from neighbouring land. She had been concerned that the building would obscure
views from barns which the owner of that land was seeking to convert. However, she
was now satisfied that this would not be the case.
In answer to a question, Mr Witham explained that an electricity cable would be
affected if the proposed barn were resited.
It was proposed by Councillor S C Mears, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including the submission of samples of facing materials,
details of any ventilation or extraction prior to its installation, a soft
landscaping scheme, tree protection of all trees within 30m of the
proposed building, and subject to a S106 Obligation to ensure that only
this building or that allowed at appeal is erected, but not both.
(235) THORPE MARKET - PF/10/1439 - Erection of two detached one and a half
storey dwellings; Land to the rear Green Farm Cromer Road for Mr & Mrs Perry
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Perowne (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that whilst the Parish Council raised no
objection, two Parish Councillors had been concerned as to why there were two
detached dwellings now proposed whereas the originally approved scheme had been
designed to look like farm buildings.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection had been
received in respect of a close boarded fence which had been erected between the
applicants’ site and the objectors’ properties which they considered to be visually
intrusive in the Conservation Area and in relation to the listed building. He stated that
boundary treatment had not been agreed with the Local Planning Authority as
required by a condition imposed on the original approval.
Development Control Committee
9
17 March 2011
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, considered that the proposal was an
improvement on the approved scheme. She supported this application.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor H C Cordeaux 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.
(236) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that the applications at Bodham,
references PF/10/1469 and PF/11/0190 would not now be brought before the
Committee prior to the election as further information was awaited. It was therefore
not recommended that the Committee visit the site at this time.
The Committee also gave consideration to an item of urgent business which the
Chairman had determined should 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 Head of Planning and Building Control reported that application PF/11/0085 had
been called in by a local Member and recommended that the Committee visit the site
to expedite the processing of the application.
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:
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0085 - Change of use of existing butchers
shop (A1) to a day centre (D1); 3 St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for
Elizabeth Fitzroy Support
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0061 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 1A
Havelock Road for Mr Carter
(237) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(238) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(239) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(240) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee
10
17 March 2011
(241) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
(242) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 19 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager briefly explained the Inspector’s decision in respect of
the appeal against refusal of application Bodham PF/10/0206.
He thanked
Councillors Partridge and Perry-Warnes for their assistance.
The meeting closed at 12.40 pm.
Development Control Committee
11
17 March 2011