18 AUGUST 2011
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)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
S J Partridge
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
N Smith - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
J Lee - Suffield Park Ward
R Oliver - Sheringham South Ward
D Young - High Heath Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - observer
K E Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
(74)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor J H Perry-Warnes. There was
one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(75)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 14 July and 21 July 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(76)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(77)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs L M Brettle and B Smith declared interests, the details of which are
given under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
18 August 2011
(78)
SEA PALLING: ENF/09/151 - Request for authorisation of prosecution for noncompliance with Enforcement Notice:
Surfers Shack, The Marrams, Sea Palling
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports seeking authority to
commence prosecution proceedings for non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Planning Legal Manager
explained the relevant permitted development allowances.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
commence prosecution proceedings against Mr Dino Neale for failure to
comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/09/0151 under Section 179 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
(79)
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly
report on planning applications and appeals for the period from April to June 2011,
covering the turnround of applications, workload, appeal outcomes and land charge
searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control circulated an amendment to Table 1A.
The table appended to the report had contained only one month’s figures for Quarter
1 instead of three.
The Chairman stated that Members could assist the Development Management
Team by speaking to the Case Officer for particular applications about which they had
concerns. Members could, of course, exercise their call-in rights if an application
needed to be considered by the Committee.
The Head of Planning and Building Control asked Members to recognise that staff
were busy and to respect their time, keep interruptions to a minimum and if possible,
to let them know in advance if they needed to discuss an application. It would also
assist if Members explained to members of the public that staff resources were
stretched.
The Committee noted the report and amended table.
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.
Development Committee
2
18 August 2011
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.
(80)
CROMER - PO/10/0856 - Erection of single storey rear extension with glazed
corridor link, and proposed re-routing of Public Right of Way FP11; The
Lookout, East Cliff for Hall Property Services Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Nolan - objecting
Mr Brown - supporting
Councillor J Lee, a local Member, stated that people used the area to relax and for
children to play. He requested refusal or a condition to prevent vehicular access to
the site.
In answer to a question by Councillor N Smith in respect of concerns raised by an
objector in respect of the applicant’s company address, the Planning Legal Manager
stated that the application had been submitted, registered and processed in good
faith. The application was valid.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners recollected that in the past the access was used by the
Coastguard vehicles. He considered that there would possibly have been more
vehicle movements in the past than would be the case with a holiday unit. However,
he did accept the local Member’s view that it would be preferable if vehicles were not
taken along the track. He proposed approval of this application as recommended by
the Head of Planning and Building Control, which was seconded by Councillor P W
High.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Planning Legal Manager
stated that no application had been made for diversion of the footpath pending the
outcome of the planning application. However, it was evident from a site inspection
he had recently undertaken that the footpath had not been used for many years as it
was blocked by mature vegetation.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved, subject to conditions in respect of
the physical re-routing of the footpath.
(81)
ITTERINGHAM - PF/11/0730 - Erection of two-storey rear/side extension, singlestorey side extension; Broome Cottage, Itteringham Road, Oulton for Mr N
Slater
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Slater (supporting)
Development Committee
3
18 August 2011
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposed diversion of footpath FP13
had been withdrawn from the application, which now related only to the extensions.
It was proposed by Councillor N Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(82)
KELLING - PF/11/0592 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; 1 & 2 Brookside, The
Street for Kelling Estate
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Cordeaux (Kelling Parish Council)
Mr Cordeaux (also speaking on his own behalf in support)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Kelling Parish Council supported the
application.
The Head of Planning and Building Control read to the Committee a letter from the
applicant’s agent giving further justification for the proposal, details of options that
had been explored with regard to extension of the existing cottages and the reasons
for their rejection.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that there were merits in the
arguments put forward by the agent and he had no concerns with regard to the
enhancement or preservation of the Conservation Area. However, the proposal was
contrary to Core Strategy policies HO2 and HO8 and he therefore had to recommend
refusal of the application. He advised that if the Committee were minded to approve
the application it would be necessary to minute very carefully the reasons as to why
this was considered to be a unique case.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that the proposal was very close to his
home. He stated that the pair of cottages was iconic. He considered that from the
north and west the site was currently an eyesore and the addition of a brick and flint
cottage, flint wall and parking area was welcome. He considered that any extension
would swamp the existing cottages and would be contrary to the objectives of the
previous decision. The site was large enough to accommodate the additional
dwelling and would be in keeping with the density of other dwellings in Kelling. He
referred to a suggestion that two larger dwellings would be less affordable. He
considered that given the amount that would need to be spent on addressing the
damp issue in the existing cottages, they would be unlikely to be affordable in Kelling
in any case. He considered that the likelihood of similar proposals being put forward
was remote and therefore the proposal was unlikely to set a precedent. He stated
that a balance had to be struck between the conflict with policy and other material
considerations.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that if this application were approved, the existing
cottages should be retained as two affordable homes for local families.
Development Committee
4
18 August 2011
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that this suggestion had been
explored with the Strategic Housing Team. However, this would prevent the bringing
forward of a more comprehensive scheme which might be brought forward for Kelling
and had therefore not been pursued further.
Councillor Mrs A R Green asked if connecting the two buildings by a link would be
acceptable as an extension.
The Head of Planning and Building Control urged caution over this approach and did
not consider that it would make much difference in terms of the issues raised by this
application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that there were two dwellings on the site at the
moment. If the application were approved, there would still be two dwellings on the
site. He proposed approval of this application on grounds that the site would
continue to support two dwellings, the proposal would enhance the Conservation
Area and would improve the local housing stock.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the scheme overcame the difficulties
associated with the previous application (PF/10/1428) provided that there were
sufficient reasons to overcome the policy objections. He advised the Committee to
consider additionally the sympathetic design, materials, extension of the boundary
wall and screening of the car parking area. With regard to the setting of a precedent,
he considered that it was unusual to find a situation such as this. However, the
existing dwellings could be converted back to two dwellings in the future and he
advised that a condition be imposed to require planning permission to be sought for
this.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, to include a condition to require planning
permission to be sought to convert Brookside back to two dwellings.
Reason: The Committee considers that a departure from Core Strategy
policies HO2 and HO8 is justified in this case as the site would continue
to support two dwellings, the proposal would enhance the Kelling
Conservation Area by reason of its sympathetic design and materials,
extension of the boundary wall and screening of the parking area, and
would improve the local housing stock.
One Member abstained from voting.
(83)
LETHERINGSETT WITH GLANDFORD - PF/11/0812 - Erection of two-storey
extension; The Glebe, Church Lane for Mr & Mrs Markham
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle declared a personal interest in this application as she was
personally involved with the village.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Jones (objecting)
Development Committee
5
18 August 2011
The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection had been
received, one of which requested a site inspection by the new Committee.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the concerns raised by the previous
Committee had not been addressed by this application.
However, Officers
considered that the proposal was acceptable.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that this application had not
addressed previous concerns under application PF/10/1428 and proposed refusal of
this application on the same grounds as the previous refusal. This was seconded by
Councillor B Cabbell Manners.
In response to comments by Councillor M J M Baker, the Head of Planning and
Building Control explained that the Officer’s view was consistent with that expressed
under the previous application.
RESOLVED unanimously
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.
(84)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/11/0047 - Removal of condition 4 of planning ref:
01/1604 to allow full residential occupancy; Meadow House, Craymere Beck for
Mr Daniels
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor J A Wyatt reported that Councillor R J Wright, the local Member,
supported the Officer’s recommendation.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed removal
of the occupancy condition fails to comply with Development Plan
policy as the dwelling has not been occupied in accordance with the
occupancy condition imposed on planning permission 20011604 for a
minimum period of 12 years.
(85)
MORSTON - PF/11/0583 - Demolition of existing outbuilding and erection of
replacement ancillary accommodation; Scaldbeck House, Stiffkey Road for Mr
J Keith
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council objected
strongly to the flat roof and roof terrace. She considered that the proposal would be
intrusive in the Undeveloped Coast area, would cause light pollution and set a
precedent. She proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
6
18 August 2011
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that he was familiar with this building as he
knew the neighbours. He stated that the building had been in poor repair for many
years and was now being restored. He proposed approval of this application as
recommended by the Head of Planning and Building Control. This was seconded by
Councillor B Smith.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposed flat roof would be out of
character and intrude on the landscape. He expressed concern regarding the setting
of a precedent for other flat roofed development.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that the proposal would not be visible from the
coast road, village or the coast.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that it may be appropriate for
the Committee to visit the site given the concerns regarding design and landscape
impact.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by
Councillor R Shepherd
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.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 8 votes to 4 and,
on being put as the substantive motion, it was RESOLVED accordingly.
(86)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0713 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling and
increase in fence height along northern boundary; The Low House, Campion
Way for Mr & Mrs Mash
Councillor B Smith declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was a friend
of two of the objectors. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated as a resident of Sheringham he
knew the applicants and although they had not discussed the proposal with him he
would prefer not to be present during consideration of this application. He vacated
the Council Chamber during consideration of this application.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Bond (supporting)
Mr Hobbs (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that details of the garage doors had been
submitted and approved by the Highway Authority. The vehicular access had not yet
been completed.
Councillor R Oliver, a local Member, expressed concern at the notification process
and planning procedures. He requested that consideration be given to providing
copies of planning applications to neighbours. He considered that neighbours had
been misled by the previous application (20081678) as the site notice had indicated a
Development Committee
7
18 August 2011
chalet bungalow and therefore there had been no objections until the dwelling was
being erected. He stated that the dwelling as built had had an impact on the lives of
the neighbouring residents, affected property values and damaged relationships
within the community. He referred to the number of objections received in response
to the current application. He expressed concerns regarding reputational damage
and the cost of resolving the issues. He requested a review of procedure in the light
of this case.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, also expressed concern regarding
neighbour notification and considered that the site notice under application 20081678
had been unclear. Local residents had expected the development to be similar to
existing development in Campion Way and had therefore not objected to the
application. He stated that the building was clearly contentious and considered that
no thought had been given to the neighbour’s feelings. He questioned the building’s
sustainability given the materials used, particularly in the construction of the plinth on
which the building stood. He considered that the Human Rights of the objecting
spokesman and other neighbours had been ignored. He stated that some of the
planning conditions were yet to be met and the house was unfinished. He proposed
that the building be demolished. If not, he considered that more stringent planning
conditions should be applied to the development.
Councillor S J Partridge referred to the site inspection that had been undertaken,
which included not only the Low House but also the neighbouring dwelling. He
considered there was no evidence of overlooking or floodlighting of the neighbour’s
property and garden. The building had been granted planning permission, although it
had been built 440mm higher than the approved plans. Whilst he had taken account
of the views of the neighbour and local Members, he supported the Officer’s
recommendation and proposed that this application be approved as recommended.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the changing levels on the site and
the discrepancies had not been picked up when the works were inspected by the
Building Control Officer. He considered that further information on this aspect should
be sought prior to a decision being made on this application. He referred to a
drawing which had been displayed to indicate the height of the dwelling in relation to
the neighbouring chalet bungalow and stated that this plan excluded the atrium. He
proposed deferral of this application to seek further information and an amended
drawing.
Councillor Mrs A R Green supported the views of the local Members. However, she
did not support demolition of the building and suggested that it should be used as an
example of ‘bad planning’ on the forthcoming ‘good and bad planning’ tour. She
supported approval of this application given the increased height of the fence.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 0 with 7 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the erection of a fence to 1.8m above
the internal finished floor level of the dwelling in accordance with the
submitted plans and details, and the re-imposition of conditions relating
to the construction of an access from the highway and provision of
visibility splays.
Development Committee
8
18 August 2011
(87)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett stated that she would be unable to attend the site visit
at Northrepps. She requested that the developer be asked to mark the line of the
dwellings which would face The Avenue and indicate the height of one of the tall
buildings adjacent to the railway line.
RESOLVED
That a site inspection be arranged in respect of the following
applications and that the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish
Councils be invited to attend:
HOVETON - PF/11/0762 - Erection of 120 dwellings, new vehicular
access and creation of public open space; land off Stalham Road for
Persimmon Homes (Anglia) Ltd
NORTHREPPS - PF/10/1453 - Erection of 50 dwellings; The Railway
Triangle Site, Norwich Road, Cromer for Hopkins Homes
RUNTON - PF/11/0770 - Siting of portable building for use as coastal
surveillance station; land at Car Park, Beach Road, East Runton for
National Coastwatch Institution
(88)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(89)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(90)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(91)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(92)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(93)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.
Development Committee
9
18 August 2011