18 DECEMBER 2014
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)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for R Shepherd
P Williams - substitute for P W High
Mrs B McGoun – St Benet Ward
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs M Moore – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer (Arboriculture)
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
(157) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and R Shepherd.
Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
(158) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 27 November 2014 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(159) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
(160) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, B Smith and P Williams 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.
Development Committee
1
18 December 2014
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.
(161) BACTON - PF/14/1181 - Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref:
SM5180 to permit revised road layout, and changes to design, including
elevations, to units 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Spruce (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant proposed to relocate the
reception building and this would be the subject of a separate planning application.
Amended plans had been received which addressed the concerns regarding the
proximity of units 59 and 60 to the adjacent residential dwelling and indicating the
proposed car parking layout. He stated that the condition of the access road could
not be addressed as part of this application. A condition would be needed to ensure
that only one scheme could be implemented.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, considered that the design of the proposed
chalets was compatible with the existing chalets. He was concerned at the close
proximity of the chalets to the 100 year erosion zone. He considered that the
condition of the roadway was diabolical and additional traffic would cause further
damage. He requested that efforts should be made to resolve this matter. He
expressed concern regarding highway safety at the access to the site.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed approval of this application provided the
roadway issue could be resolved.
In response to comments regarding the roadway, the Planning Legal Manager stated
that Mill Lane was a private road. The Council could request and coerce the owners
to make improvements but it could not force them to do so. He suggested that the
concerns be formally minuted. He stated that the developers were willing to put
money into improvements, but it was understood that other owners did not want the
road to be improved.
Councillor R Reynolds requested that the applicants be asked if they were willing to
look legally into upgrading the road.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the application could not be refused on the
basis of the need to improve the road.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker regarding compliance with
holiday restrictions, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was a holiday
Development Committee
2
18 December 2014
restriction but this did not necessarily prevent the properties being occupied virtually
365 days of the year, but meant that the residents were not allowed to occupy the
property as their sole or main residence. The Enforcement Team had not been
asked to investigate this matter.
In response to a question the Senior Planning Officer stated that a small number of
the existing units were inside the 100 year erosion zone, but all of the proposed units
were outside that zone and as such this was not a reason to refuse this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the site was well looked after and
thought had been given to the layout. The unadopted road had to be considered but
it was up to the owners of the park to negotiate with the other residents and in their
interests to make the road look attractive.
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones that the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application as
recommended.
The Chairman requested that it be formally minuted that the applicant had stated that
he was prepared to put money into improving the roadway and to negotiate with the
other landowners.
Councillor B Smith stated that he would vote against this proposal because of the
coastal erosion issues. He would have been prepared to support the application if
development could be prohibited within the coastal erosion zone.
RESOLVED by 13 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including
agreement to ensure that only one approved scheme is implemented.
(162) HORNING - PO/14/1297 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 2 Clover Hill,
Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Kalynuk (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was an embargo on development in
Horning due to the overcapacity at the Waste Water Recycling Centre and resulting
impact on biodiversity. He referred to the applicant’s justification for the proposal.
He recommended refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, expressed her disappointment that her
comprehensive reasons for calling in the application were not included in the report,
and that letters from medical experts and Norman Lamb MP explaining the medical
and financial reasons for this application had not been appended. She stated that
Horning was a sustainable location with many businesses and facilities within walking
distance of the site. She stated that the site was part of an original proposal for three
dwellings. She referred to three recent and relevant appeal decisions which
demonstrated that this application accorded with the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and how local circumstances could outweigh policy. She
Development Committee
3
18 December 2014
referred to paragraphs 12, 14, 55 and 187 of the NPPF, the Disability Discrimination
Act and Human Rights issues, and the benefits of the proposal to the quality of life of
the applicant and his wife. She stated that Anglian Water was due to commence
works to address the waste water issues in January 2015, with completion in March.
Given the concerns raised by the local Member, the Head of Planning recommended
deferral of this application to allow the additional information to be circulated and to
allow the Committee to undertake a site inspection. With regard to the Anglian Water
works, she understood that once the works were completed they would be subject to
12 months’ monitoring before consideration could be given to lifting the embargo on
development. If this application were to be approved, an Appropriate Assessment
would be required.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the comments made regarding the original
proposal for a row of three dwellings and stated that if this were the case then the
third dwelling could be built as part of an implemented scheme. He referred to the
previous refusals on this site and stated that a strong case would need to be made to
justify approval of this application.
Councillor P Williams stated that there was a fairly large tourist attraction at the rear
of the site and that two or three extra car movements would be irrelevant. He
referred to the high cost of adaptation of the existing bungalow which would not add
any value to the property. He supported deferral of this application and requested a
more comprehensive report.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that this matter had been debated in depth on previous
occasions and he considered that little had changed. He referred to the policy
issues. He supported deferral of this application. He asked if the applicants had
appealed against previous decisions.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that this was an outline application and there were
no details in terms the proposed dwelling of being suitable for a disabled person.
The application was for a market dwelling which could be sold on, with no guarantee
that it would be occupied by the applicant. The Highway Authority had raised no
objection. If refused, the applicant would have the right to test the proposal at
appeal.
The Planning Legal Manager endorsed the recommendation of the Head of Planning.
He advised that the documentation regarding medical and financial issues be put
before Members as an exempt appendix to a further report.
In response to points made by Members, the Senior Planning Officer stated that the
site was within the Countryside policy area. There had never been an application for
three dwellings and the plot had always been part of the garden of the existing
dwelling.
It was proposed by Councillor P Williams, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred:
1.
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.
Development Committee
4
18 December 2014
2.
To enable the Committee to consider a more comprehensive report
to include copies of the full representations made by the local
Member, medical experts and Norman Lamb MP.
(163) OVERSTRAND - PM/14/0854 - Erection of ten dwellings; Land at Hillingdon
Park for A G Brown Ltd
Councillor M J M Baker declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application as he
knew one of the people involved with the development.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Haynes (Overstrand Parish Council)
Mr Harding and Mrs Beasley (objecting)
Mr Woodrow (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Anglian Water had no additional comments
to make regarding the amended plans. One additional representation had been
received which raised no additional grounds of objection. The Parish Council had
made no representations in respect of the amended plans. With regard to the
proposed surface water harvesting tanks, the agent had indicated verbally that there
would be a tank for each new plot.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
in accordance with the recommendation in the report.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, expressed concern at the
proximity of the proposed dwellings on plots 7, 8 and 9 to the roadway. She
requested that replacement trees should be mature and not saplings to take up the
groundwater. She also requested that trees were removed on a plot by plot basis as
removing all the trees would allow groundwater to seep into the vulnerable cliffs. She
requested that drainage issues be resolved prior to approval of the application. She
considered that the shortfall in the basic amenity criteria would set a dangerous
precedent.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the site inspection and commented that the
general consensus was that a very good arboricultural survey had been carried out.
She stated that there was concern regarding the number of trees to be removed and
asked if the impact would not be as significant as was feared.
The Landscape Officer (Arboriculture) stated that the applicant’s arborist had carried
out a comprehensive survey of all the trees and had assessed each one individually
in order to work out where to site buildings without damaging the important trees.
Some of the trees were not large. He stated that an objecting speaker had quoted
water take up for an isolated large oak tree, and that trees in a group would not take
up so much water. He referred to the soil structure and stated that Building Control
would require footings to be adjusted if clay were found to be present. With regard to
the replanting scheme, the majority of trees would be smaller bare rooted trees as
they took up water better than more mature trees which took longer to establish.
There would be a mix of larger and smaller trees within the scheme.
In answer to a question by the Chairman regarding positioning of the garages, the
Senior Planning Officer stated that there had to be a careful balance between the
layout and saving as many trees as possible.
Development Committee
5
18 December 2014
In answer to a question by Councillor P Williams, the Landscape Officer stated that
the existing trees were mainly birch and oak. However, as they had not been
managed, many had faults and they were not prime trees. It would be difficult to
serve a Tree Preservation Order on each tree as many would not have individual
amenity value.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the enforcement of covenants mentioned by
an objecting speaker was a civil matter.
At the invitation of the Chairman and in response to concerns raised by Councillor
Mrs V Uprichard, Mr Woodrow explained that materials would be brick, cladding and
render. The cladding would be very light.
The Head of Planning added that a condition would require samples of the materials
to be submitted which would enable the colour to be controlled.
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(164) SCOTTOW - PF/14/1334 - Installation and operation of a ground mounted solar
photo voltaic array to generate electricity of up to 50MW capacity comprising
photo voltaic panels, inverters, security fencing, cameras and other
association infrastructure; Former RAF Coltishall, Lamas Road for Scottow
Moor Solar Limited
Councillor B Smith declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application as he was a
former member of the Royal Air Force and had been stationed at Trimingham, for
which Coltishall was the parent station.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr S Riley (supporting)
The Major Projects Manager presented photographs of the existing landscape and
visualisations of the proposed development. He presented a plan showing areas of
landscape mitigation.
The Major Projects Manager stated that the applicant had been in discussion
regarding mitigation for skylarks. Norfolk County Council (NCC), the landowner, had
committed to ensuring that the areas of the blast walls would be managed to
continue to provide breeding areas. The applicant was in discussion with an
adjacent landowner with regard to short term mitigation measures, and in the longer
term there was a commitment to provide off site mitigation. There could be a loss of
habitat for one year until mitigation was in place but this was considered to be
acceptable in principle.
The Major Projects Manager stated that the proposal was not expected to have any
adverse impact on residential amenity. There would be no light pollution arising from
the proposed development.
Development Committee
6
18 December 2014
The Major Projects Manager reported that as a result of further discussions between
the applicant and the Environment Agency with regard to contamination issues, the
Environment Agency had stated that it did not require all the conditions it had
previously requested. One condition was now required to ensure that if unsuspected
contamination were found, work would stop for an assessment to be carried out.
English Heritage remained concerned regarding the impact on the heritage assets. It
was considered that the proposal would have an impact on the setting of the
Conservation Area and impacts on the setting of Scheduled Ancient Monuments but
that it would not cause significant harm. It was necessary to weigh the public
benefits of the proposal against the impact on heritage assets (having regard for
statutory responsibilities).
The Major Projects Manager stated that the benefits of renewable energy were
considerable. The applicant had stated that enough energy would be generated to
power 15,000 homes, although Officers assumed a lower figure of 10,000 to 11,000
for assessment purposes. The proposed solar farm would be one of the largest in
the country.
With regard to the runway, NCC did not see aviation as part of the future strategy for
the site. Interest in future aviation use had been shown by a lessee of one of the
hangars but this was a commercial decision for the landowner. The runway would
remain while the solar farm was in place.
The Major Projects Manager recommended a 25 year permission rather than 30
years as stated in the report, as the applicant had entered into a 25 year lease.
Subject to this amendment, the Major Projects Manager requested delegated
authority to approve this application as recommended in the report.
In response to comments by the supporting speaker, the Major Projects Manager
confirmed that Broadland Council had approved the application. He understood that
there was no intention to site equipment on the runway but this could be secured by
condition.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the impact on skylarks had almost
been dismissed. He also considered that serious thought had not been given to
protecting the runway. He referred to the premium paid by householders for green
energy.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, was
unable to attend but had commented that the proposal had widespread local support
and that he also supported the Officer’s recommendation as it would generate funds
to support investment in the base, provide significant amounts of clean energy and
keep open the option of future aviation uses on the site.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard was pleased that CCTV and the impact on residents had
been taken into account. She asked if security lighting would have an impact on
drivers.
The Major Projects Manager stated that there were no proposals for lighting on the
site, except for small low level lights for the equipment cabins.
In response to Members’ concerns regarding skylarks, the Landscape Officer stated
that there was a significant density of the birds on the site, which was quite unusual.
She stated that it was unlikely that harm to the population would be avoided. She
explained that mitigation within the site was not a real option but managing the area
Development Committee
7
18 December 2014
around the blast walls would maintain some of the population within the overall site.
Compensatory habitat within the surrounding farmland was the only option. The
population would not be as concentrated as at present but would be more widely
spread. She considered that there would be no net loss but the skylarks would be
dispersed from the airfield.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Major Projects
Manager stated that the developer would be responsible for compensating the
adjacent landowner for providing the compensatory habitat.
The Chairman stated that as the applicant had been unable to register to speak, he
would be given the opportunity to answer questions.
Councillor R Reynolds agreed that solar panels were needed but stated that green
energy was a stop gap until a better way could be found to generate energy without
fossil contamination.
With regard to the runway, he referred to the legal
requirements for a commercial runway and the need for licensing. As a former RAF
runway, it was not licenced. Commercial use would not be possible with the solar
panels up to the edge of it. If it were to be used in the future it would need to be
maintained in a condition acceptable for commercial use.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes asked if sheep would be grazed under the panels.
The Major Projects Manager stated that there was enough space and grazing would
be a possibility.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
In response to a question by Councillor P Williams, the Major Projects Manager
indicated the location of the nearest dwelling in the North Norfolk district. He stated
that the proposed development would not have an overbearing impact on residential
amenity.
Councillor P Williams asked if the national grid was up to sufficient standard for the
amount of power being put into it. The Major Projects Manager stated that the
application would not have been submitted unless this issue had been resolved. An
agreement was in place with UK Power Networks.
Councillor Mrs A R Green referred to the comments of English Heritage regarding
fencing and the height of the panels.
The Major Projects Manager explained that English Heritage had thought the solar
panels were 3m high, whereas they were 2.5m high. He did not think it was possible
to lower them and to do so would require a wider area. Deer fencing had been
requested, rather than industrial-type fencing.
Councillor B Smith referred to the original landscaping scheme for the RAF base. He
requested that planting be designed to reflect the original scheme in order to replace
the landscape which had been lost. He expressed concern at the impact on skylarks.
He stated that the runway would require maintenance otherwise it would break up.
He seconded the proposal.
The Major Projects Manager stated that some of the issues raised were outside the
site. Much of the planting had been removed prior to NCC’s ownership. He referred
to the condition of the site prior to NCC’s ownership and stated part of the reason for
this application was to generate funding for maintenance of the site.
Development Committee
8
18 December 2014
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that there were too many panels and that this
application should be refused. He suggested that it would be preferable to site solar
panels on the roofs of existing buildings.
As an amendment, Councillor M J M Baker proposed deferral of this application
pending a full report on proposed mitigation measures for skylarks. He referred to
the requirements for surveys for bats and owls etc over a year or more. Councillor J
A Wyatt seconded the proposal.
The Major Projects Manager stated that surveys had been carried out and there
would be long term monitoring as part of the mitigation proposals.
Councillor Baker expressed concern that this information had not been put before the
Committee.
On being put to the vote, 7 Members voted in favour of the amendment and 7
against, and on the casting vote of the Chairman the amendment was declared lost.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 6
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to confirmation that appropriate landscape and breeding skylark
habitat improvements can be secured and subject to the completion of a
Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Obligation to secure at least £25,000 for
the maintenance of heritage assets on site and to secure monitoring of
the effectiveness of required landscape and biodiversity mitigation and
subject to the imposition of specific conditions listed below:
 25 Year permission (including removal of equipment after this time);

Landscape and Biodiversity Enhancements (including a Landscape
and Ecological Management Plan);

Agreement of Construction Traffic Management Plan and Access
Route;

No loudspeakers or CCTV systems to be installed unless permission
granted;

No lighting to be installed unless permission granted
And all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
(165) SUTTON - PF/14/1382 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling; The
Horseshoe, The Street for Mr Cutting
Councillor P Williams declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application as he was
known to the applicant and used to work with him many years ago.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst the site was an obvious infill plot, it was
within the Countryside policy area and therefore recommended for refusal.
Development Committee
9
18 December 2014
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, stated that she had not called in this
application. This application was contrary to policy, and she considered that policy
should not be made at this meeting.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that if this application had not been called in it would
have been refused under delegated powers. He requested that Councillor Stevens’
group leader be asked to remind him that he is required to attend the meeting if an
application is called in.
It was agreed that a reminder be published in the Members’ Bulletin for the benefit of
all Members.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
(166) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(167) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(168) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(169) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(170) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(171) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(172) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.37 pm.
Development Committee
10
18 December 2014