17 SEPTEMBER 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
R Reynolds (Chairman)
R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman) (in the Chair for minutes 90 and 104-110)
Mrs S Butikofer
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
S Hester
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
Mrs A Green – Wensum Ward
A Yiasimi – Cromer Town Ward
J Rest - observing
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr N Doran – Solicitor
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mrs C Bye – Senior Environmental Protection Officer
Miss S Hinchcliffe – Planning Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
(86)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Ward. One substitute
Member attended the meeting as shown above.
(87)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 17 September 2015 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(88)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
Development Committee
1
17 September 2015
(89)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
90
Councillor:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
90
R Reynolds
93
All
94
95
N Smith
R Reynolds
95
96
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
All
102
P W High
Interest
Has been involved with the TPO since its
early stages
Has been involved with the TPO since its
early stages
Mr Cabbell Manners (applicant) is a former
District Councillor
Knows the neighbours socially
Knows the applicant but has not discussed
this application
Knows the applicant
Mrs Oliver (applicant) is a current District
Councillor
Applicant is his brother
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.
(90)
FAKENHAM – TPO (Fakenham) 2015 No.21 Land at Rudham Stile Lane (Rear of
53 Lee Warner Avenue), Fakenham, NR21 8ER. Ref No. TPO/15/0906
Councillor R Reynolds vacated the Chair for this item to speak as local Member.
Councillor R Shepherd took the Chair for this item.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports concerning the confirmation
of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect an individual Oak tree at the above
site.
The Landscape Officer outlined the history relating to the TPO and the main issues
and objections.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, a local Member, referred to concerns raised
with the local Members regarding the tree by and on behalf of the owner of 53 Lee
Warner Avenue, and the attempts which had been made to establish the owner of
the tree by themselves and on behalf of the property owner. She stated that the
Landscape Officer had advised the local Members that the owner of the property
Development Committee
2
17 September 2015
could trim the tree provided it was carried out to BS 3998. However, the owner was
reluctant to do so because of the cost involved. It had been reported to Fakenham
Town Council in 2013 that the tree was dangerous. However, the Landscape Officer
had reported back that the tree did not have any defects, at which time the ownership
of the tree remained unestablished.
It had now been established that the Highway Authority is the owner of land on which
the tree is located. However, the local Members had not been informed despite their
long involvement with this matter. Councillor Mrs Claussen-Reynolds asked how
long ownership had been known. She proposed that the Tree Preservation Order be
confirmed and requested that the Highway Authority show goodwill in arranging to
have the boughs trimmed in the adjacent garden. She stated that this matter had
caused the owner and his family immense stress.
The Landscape Officer explained that ownership had been established very recently.
He stated that the owner of the tree could be only be required to trim back the tree on
adjacent land on safety grounds. However, a neighbour had a right to trim the tree
provided it complied with British Standards at his own cost.
The Landscape Officer explained that attempts to establish ownership had been
undertaken on behalf of the concerned residents at the Council’s expense, and not in
connection with the TPO. A TPO was served on the land, not on the owner.
Establishing ownership of unregistered land was very difficult. The tree also had
been inspected on many occasions and Officers had done a great deal to help the
family. He stated that the Highway Authority could be requested to carry out work
but it was not obliged to do so.
Councillor R Reynolds, a local Member, stated that he accepted the Landscape
Officer’s comments but Members had a responsibility to members of the public within
their Wards. There had been requests for the TPO to be lifted but he considered that
it would be wrong to do so as the TPO gave some control. He requested that the
Landscape Officer remind the Highway Authority that the tree was their responsibility.
RESOLVED unanimously
That Tree Preservation Order (Fakenham) 2015 No. 21 be confirmed and
that the Highway Authority be requested to trim the boughs in the
neighbouring garden.
(91)
PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH OLD APPLICATIONS
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of a procedure to
be introduced to clear the backlog of old undetermined planning and related
applications.
The Development Manager reported that the relevant legislation was Article 40(13) of
the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England)
Order 2015.
The Chairman stated that both he and Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Portfolio
Holder, had been involved in this matter.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked if applicants would be made aware of
this procedure when submitting applications.
Development Committee
3
17 September 2015
The Development Manager stated that this matter could be publicised through the
Agents’ Forum.
The Solicitor suggested that the procedure be publicised on the Council’s website.
RESOLVED
That the following procedures be introduced from 1 October 2015:
(92)
1.
To seek formal extensions of time from applicants.
2.
For those applications which are beyond both the statutory time
limit and the 6 month period, where there is no formal extension
of time in place and there are no circumstances that might
suggest the application is still alive, there applications are
treated as “formally disposed of” and are removed from the
register.
BACTON - PF/15/0680 - Erection of extension to existing access ramp;
Rudram's Gap Timber Ramp, Keswick Road for North Norfolk District Council
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
(93)
in
accordance
with
the
CROMER - PF/15/0594 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling; Hall Farm,
Hall Road for Mr B Cabbell-Manners
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr B Cabbell Manners (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported the comments of Councillor
Mrs H Cox, a local Member, who supported this application as it would bring the
building back into use, provide additional housing and restore the building to some of
its former glory.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the main issue related to
the current condition of the barn and the amount of rebuilding which would be
necessary to bring it into use as a dwelling. She recommended refusal of this
application as set out in the report.
Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, considered that preserving a building of
considerable historic interest was extremely important, taking into account its setting,
landscape and history and he supported its restoration.
Councillor P W High referred to a paragraph in the report which stated “… if
appropriately designed, the barn would enhance the existing untidy site and subject
Development Committee
4
17 September 2015
to conditions to control domestic paraphernalia and landscaping, the proposal could
result in visual enhancement to the landscape character of the area.” He considered
that this summed up the situation and proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to the condition of the barn and was unsure as to
whether it was worthy of retention. He considered that the adjacent stable block was
in much better condition.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to Policy EN8. She considered there
was sufficient fabric left and that the policy was outweighed by the historic value of
the building. She considered that it was important to retain as many historic buildings
as possible. She seconded the proposal.
Councillors P Rice and N Pearce spoke in support of the retention of the building.
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to the policy issues.
He stated that the amount of rebuilding would be significant and it was a question of
whether this was outweighed by the desire to restore the historic element of the
building, its setting and historic character of the area. He suggested that Members
visit the site.
The Solicitor advised the Committee that it should assess whether or not the
proposal was policy compliant, and if not, whether material considerations indicated
that a departure was justified.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that if this application were refused, the building
would fall further into disrepair which she considered was not sensible. As an
amendment, she proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs
S Butikofer.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared lost by 4 votes to 10.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reason: The proposal involves the reinstatement of a historically
important building which is considered to be of sufficient historic and
landscape quality to outweigh the policy objections.
(94)
ERPINGHAM - PF/15/0941 - Erection of single-storey extension to side and rear
of dwelling; The Beeches, School Road for Mr and Mrs S Means
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Means (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader referred to the concerns raised
regarding the hedge and impact on the neighbour. He talked Members through
photographs, including from the neighbouring property.
Development Committee
5
17 September 2015
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that he had declared an interest as he
knew the neighbours socially and was a member of a bowls club together with one of
the neighbours and a member of the Parish Council. He had been requested to
view the proposal by a neighbour, who had suggested a hipped roof. He had put the
suggestion to the applicants, who were initially happy with the suggestion. However,
they did not proceed with it because of technical issues and advice from their
architect. Councillor Smith stated that he had mixed feelings about this application
and could understand both points of view.
Councillor P W High considered that there was already loss of light because of the
hedge and could not see any reason to refuse the application on that ground. He
understood from the applicant that the hedge had been trimmed down by the
neighbour and could grow taller than the proposed extension. He proposed approval
of this application as recommended.
Councillor N Smith understood that the neighbours’ concerns related to the view of a
brick wall from their window, rather than loss of light.
Councillor R Shepherd considered there was no reason to refuse the application and
that the degree of separation was sufficient.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
(95)
in
accordance
with
the
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0901 - Erection of two single-storey dwellings; 24a Holt
Road for Mr R Whitby
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Whitby (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader drew attention to the planning history
and the tree which was the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. She reported the
comments of Councillor J Punchard, a local Member, who considered that with more
dialogue the application could proceed as there was already permission for a single
dwelling as accepted previously. Both local Members knew the applicant.
The Development Management Team Leader reported the comments of the
applicant’s Arboricultural Consultant in response to the Landscape Officer’s concerns
regarding the protected tree. The Landscape Officer’s views had not changed as a
result of these comments. With regard to visibility splays, the plans indicated the
visibility splay for a single dwelling as accepted previously. The parking area was not
in the applicant’s control.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the proposal was not
considered to be acceptable or in accordance with Development Plan policies and
was therefore recommended for refusal as set out in the report and on grounds that
the layout of the dwellings and proposed boundary treatment would result in an
unacceptable relationship between the dwellings.
Development Committee
6
17 September 2015
In response to a question by Councillor P Rice, the Development Management
Officer (NCC Highways) referred to the previous approval for a single dwelling. The
Highway Authority was not satisfied that the required visibility splay was achievable.
He referred to the speed limit in the area and the requirements set out in the Manual
for Streets. The Highway Authority did not support intensification of the use of the
site.
Councillor N Smith referred to the Council’s duty of care and as the situation currently
stood it appeared that there could be a serious accident.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Development Management
Team Leader stated that there were other buildings around the site which were of a
conventional design. The proposed dwellings were not on the road frontage. She
considered that the existing buildings would screen the proposed buildings to some
extent.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
In response to a question by Councillor P Rice, the Landscape Officer explained the
issues relating to recovery of the tree from damage and the importance of not
disturbing it. If the application were approved, the tree would be monitored closely.
He considered that two families would increase pressure on the tree and stated that
residents could be prosecuted for damaging it. He considered that complaints could
arise through lack of daylight.
The Development Manager suggested that in the event of a site inspection the
Landscape Officer and Highway Authority representative be invited to attend.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
(96)
FELBRIGG - PF/15/1140 - Erection of single-storey side/rear extension (revised
design) and creation of balcony; Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs Oliver
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Management Team Leader displayed photographs of the site
taken from the neighbour’s property. She recommended approval subject to the
imposition of conditions as stated subject to the inclusion of the relevant drawing
numbers and amendment to require the balcony not to be used until the obscured
glazing is installed, that glazing thereafter to be retained.
Councillor R Shepherd declared that the applicant was a political partner, and stated
that he would speak but not vote on this application. He considered that there would
be no impact on the neighbour provided obscured glazing were installed.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs A ClaussenReynolds and
Development Committee
7
17 September 2015
RESOLVED
That this application be approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning, subject to the amendments to
the conditions to include the relevant drawing numbers and to require
the balcony not to be used until the obscured glazing is installed, with
the glazing to be retained.
(97)
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr B Cottam (supporting)
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the local Member, stated that the proposed development
would overlook the garden of “Glenroy”, which was well-used by the owners of that
property. However, the dwelling was currently unfit for human habitation and she
considered that development of the site was a good idea, although she was torn on
this particular application.
Councillor P Rice expressed reservations regarding the design and materials.
However, he considered that it would fit well with the adjacent contemporary dwelling
and proposed approval of this application.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Development
Management Team Leader explained that the conditions would relate, for example,
to the carrying out of development in accordance with approved plans and materials.
The Development Manager suggested that it would be appropriate to remove
permitted development rights in this case.
Councillor B Smith considered that the site was cramped and the balcony would
overlook the neighbouring garden. However, he considered that the development
fitted in well considering the space available and on balance he supported the
application and seconded the proposal
Councillor N Pearce referred to the mix of buildings in the area and considered that
this proposal would fit in with the surrounding area. He noted the concerns of the
neighbour.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
8
17 September 2015
(98)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0837 - Construction of a Speciality Malt Plant, Steep House,
Warehouse Extension with associated external lighting, Product Bins, Out
Loading Bins, Gantry and associated surface water attenuation works
following demolition of existing single-storey engineering store; Crisp
Maltings, Fakenham Road, Great Ryburgh for Crisp Malting Group Limited
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Officer outlined the main issues in detail relating to this application,
including issues relating to drainage. Further clarification had been received in
response to the Environmental Health concerns regarding noise. Day and night
noise levels would be equal to or below background noise levels and there would
therefore be low noise impacts. Noise mitigation would be required to control noise
from the warehouse between 6am and 7am, precise details of which were to be
discussed and agreed prior to the decision being issued. The Planning Officer
requested delegated authority to approve this application subject to the imposition of
the conditions listed in the report and the securing of noise mitigation by condition or
legal obligation.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council’s
concerns regarding the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment had been
addressed. She had no objection to this application provided the output was
monitored and did not exceed the stated amount.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that conveyors made noise when they
were empty and understood that it was possible to fit a device to prevent noise. She
requested a condition to require measures to be put in place to prevent noise when
the conveyors were empty.
The Senior Environmental Protection Officer explained that equipment including
various conveyors were considered as part of the Noise Impact Assessment.
Subject to night time hours restrictions for some conveyors, modelling indicated
acceptable noise levels. It was possible to explore this issue further with the
applicant, but it was considered that the proposed measures were acceptable.
The Chairman confirmed that conveyors were mostly only noisy when empty and that
it was possible to fit a device to switch them off.
The Planning Officer explained that night time noise had been measured between
11pm and 7am. Operations in the warehouse would commence at 6am. Officers
had considered the equipment which would be running between 6am and 7am and
measures which could be taken to keep noise at an acceptable level. The
recommendation to Committee would allow this matter to be progressed further.
In response to a question by Councillor N Smith, the Planning Officer confirmed that
there were no foul water implications and no additional discharge into the public
sewer.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that drainage issues appeared to have been dealt with,
buildings were well contained within the site with only part of the gantry being visible
from the entrance.
He proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended, which was seconded by Councillor P Rice.
RESOLVED unanimously
Development Committee
9
17 September 2015
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the conditions listed in the report and subject to conditions
or a legal obligation to secure noise mitigation measures.
(99)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0189 - Erection of 5 two-storey dwellings, 1 detached
garage and new access road; Woodhouse Close, Greenlands, Sheringham for
Metfield Estates
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr L Harvey (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader outlined the issues relating to this
application and drew attention to the objections relating to the unofficial footpath.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, stated that he had asked the developers to
include the informal footpath in the scheme but they did not wish to do so because of
security issues and noise nuisance. However, this was a civil matter. Referring to
concerns regarding traffic on Woodhouse Close, he stated that there was very little
traffic at present.
In response to a question by Councillor N Smith, the Development Management
Team Leader explained the ownership of land required for the development. She
stated that land ownership was a civil matter and that planning permission could be
granted on land which was not in the applicant’s ownership. The applicants had
served the required notice on the landowners.
In response to a question by Councillor P W High, Mr Harvey explained that the
dwellings would be privately rented. As a social landlord, the applicants took people
who could not get onto the Council list.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor N Coppack and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including time limit for commencement, in
accordance with submitted plans, materials, Arboricultural Method
Statement, landscaping, planting maintenance, access, car parking and
turning, no obstruction at access, removal of permitted development
rights for first floor windows in southern elevations of plots 1 and 5.
(100) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0681 - Erection of extension to beach access ramp;
Sheringham Ramp, Beach Road for North Norfolk District Council
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
10
in
accordance
with
the
17 September 2015
(101) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the Care Quality
Commission had advised that it would normally refer to the Council’s own standards
in terms of size of the units. ‘Regulation 15’ as applied by the Care Quality
Commission had no size standard, but providers of services should have regard to a
number of criteria relating to cleanliness, location, suitability and maintenance. Any
changes had to be registered with the CQC and assessed against their standards.
The Council’s standards related to independent dwellings; the proposed units were
ancillary to the main premises to which the standards did not apply. The location
was acceptable in terms of relationship with neighbouring dwellings. No objection
had been received from the Highway Authority subject to a condition to ensure the
accommodation was ancillary.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval subject to the
conditions listed in the report.
Councillor R Shepherd considered there were no planning reasons to refuse this
application.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor N
Coppack and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report.
(102) THORNAGE - PF/15/1042 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 3 The
Pyghtle, The Street, Thornage for Mr & Mrs R High
Councillor P W High took no part in the meeting during consideration of this
application.
The Committee considered item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor P Rice, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report.
(103) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection:
Development Committee
11
17 September 2015
SCULTHORPE PF/15/0907 – Erection of 71 dwellings, new access road,
side roads, water attenuation ponds, drainage works, play areas,
landscaping and associated works (Phase 1- full planning) and Phase 2
of up to 129 dwellings, side roads, primary school, land and community
resource centre, play areas, water attenuation ponds and drainage
works (outline permission with all matters reserved); Grove Farm Land
for Amstel Group Corporation Ltd
Councillor R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman) chaired the meeting for the remaining items
of business. Members noted that the site inspection could take place in October or
November.
(104) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(105) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(106) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(107) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
(108) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 19 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager and Solicitor updated the Committee on current appeal
cases.
(109) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 20 of the Officers’ reports.
(110) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 21 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.45 pm.
CHAIRMAN
15 October 2015
Development Committee
12
17 September 2015