18 NOVEMBER 2010
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
S C Mears
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
P J Willcox
R Combe - substitute for P W High
Mrs H P Eales - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - substitute for B Smith
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
R C Price - Waxham Ward
E Seward - North Walsham North Ward
Mrs C M Wilkins - Worstead Ward
Mrs H T Nelson - Cabinet Member for Conservation, Design and Landscape &
Member for Sheringham South Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Mr P Took - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(126) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High, J H Perry-Warnes,
B Smith and Mrs L Walker. There were three substitute Members in attendance as
shown above.
(127) MINUTES
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the copy of minutes of 14 October 2010
which had been circulated to Members had attributed comments in the final
paragraph on page 3 to Councillor B Cabbell Manners, who had stated that these
comments had in fact been made by Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 14 October, as amended above,
and 21 October 2010 were approved as a correct record and signed by the
Chairman.
Development Control Committee
1
18 November 2010
(128) 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 planning application PF/10/1098 at Lower
Bodham. The reason for urgency was to expedite the processing of this application
by undertaking a site inspection.
(129) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared interests, the details of which are given
under the minute of the items concerned.
(130) SHERINGHAM 05/1110 - Land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports concerning alterations to
ground level on land to the rear of 20 Hooks Hill Road, Sheringham.
All Members had received a letter on behalf of the neighbour.
The Development Manager reported in detail a letter which had been received from
the agent acting on behalf of the developer. He also reported in detail the contents of
an additional letter that had been received from Solicitors acting for the neighbour.
He recommended that an Enforcement Notice be served as set out in the report.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, a local Member, supported the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor P J Willcox expressed concern at the impact on the neighbour’s fence and
suggested that the soil at the base of the fence be removed and the land graded
back at 45o with additional planting being carried out.
RESOLVED
That authority the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised
to serve an Enforcement Notice under section 172 of the Town and
Country Planning Act as amended requiring:
1) within one month of the effective date of the notice the block
work wall to be rendered
2) within 2 months of the effective date the one metre fence along
the northwest boundary of plot 1 shall be replaced with a 1.8
metre fence, and the soil at the base of the fence on the
northwest and southwest boundaries be removed and the land
graded back at 45o.
3) Implementation of a landscaping scheme which includes a hedge
along the north west boundary of Plot 2 to be planted within the
first available planting season following the effective date of the
Notice and additional planting carried out on the northwest and
southwest boundaries.
4) The hedge along the northwest boundary of plot 2 shall be
allowed to grow to a height of 1.8 metres and shall thereafter be
retained at the minimum height of 1.8 metres from ground level
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
5) No tree, shrub or hedgerow which is indicated on the
landscaping scheme shall be uprooted, felled or in any way
destroyed. Should the hedgerow, tree or shrub die or in the
Development Control Committee
2
18 November 2010
opinion of the Local Planning Authority become seriously
damaged or defective within ten years of the effective date of the
Notice then another tree, shrub, or hedge shall be planted in its
place in accordance with details which shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reasons
The remodelling of the land represents development for which planning
permission is required. Policy EN4: Design requires development not to
have a significantly detrimental effect on the residential amenities of
nearby occupiers and respect the character and landscape of the
surrounding area.
The imposition of the above conditions will alleviate the injury to
residential amenity and the additional landscaping will reflect the
character and landscape of the immediate area.
(131) LUDHAM - TPO 2 Malthouse Lane Ludham
Councillor S J Partridge vacated the Chair during consideration of this item to allow
him to speak from the floor as local Member.
Councillor J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports in respect of a Tree
Preservation Order at the above site.
Councillor S J Partridge, the local Member, expressed concern with regard to the
notification given to the neighbour. He stated that this was a single tree without
much biodiversity interest and with three trunks which were likely to split off in the
future.
Councillor H C Cordeaux considered that the tree was an outstanding specimen and
in good condition. He proposed confirmation of the Order which was seconded by
Councillor R Combe.
Councillor Mrs A R Green asked if it would be possible to reduce the tree to one
trunk.
The Landscape Officer stated that management of the tree would be considered
under the Tree Preservation Order and it was unlikely that there would be an
objection to appropriate works being carried out to the tree.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by
Councillor Mrs H P Eales not to confirm the Tree Preservation Order. On being put
to the vote, the amendment was declared lost by 4 votes to 6.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 3
That the North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order
(Ludham) 2010 No. 25 be confirmed.
Development Control Committee
3
18 November 2010
(132) METTON - TPO St Andrews Church, Cromer Road
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared a personal interest in this matter as her
parents were buried in the churchyard.
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports in respect of a Tree
Preservation Order at the above site.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney reported that the Parish Council objected to the Tree
Preservation Order. However, she expressed a contrary view and proposed that the
Tree Preservation Order be confirmed. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that the church was very dark because of the trees.
As an amendment, he proposed a site inspection which was seconded by Councillor
Mrs A R Green. On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost by 4
votes to 6.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order
(Sustead) 2010 No. 20 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.
(133) BEESTON REGIS - PF/10/1055 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr & Mrs Barnes
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Beckley (Beeston Regis Parish Council)
Mrs McCormack (objecting)
In response to concerns raised by the Parish Council spokesman, the Senior
Planning Officer explained that previous applications had involved development
beyond the development boundary, whereas in this case the proposed dwelling was
within it. The uncultivated ground referred to was outside the application site. The
Highway Authority had no objection in respect of the increase in traffic. Conditions
would be imposed in respect of levels and the height of the building.
Development Control Committee
4
18 November 2010
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, considered that the proposed
dwelling would be out of keeping with the area. She was concerned at the impact on
neighbouring residents and traffic.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett asked if this application was covered by the
Government’s recent announcement regarding development in gardens.
The Development Manager explained that the Council had always taken the view
when considering development of garden sites that the impact on neighbours and the
character of the area should be taken into account. The changes to PPS3 generally
formalised this position. It did not rule out all garden development.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M
Fitch-Tillett 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.
(134) BLAKENEY - PF/10/0752 - Erection of four dwellings; Arterial Engineering,
Morston Road for Mrs V Smith
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss Hunting (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local
Member, had sent her apologies and commented that only part of the site was in
commercial use and the loss of the commercial land could inhibit further
development.
It was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, duly seconded and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation in respect of the affordable housing provision, as requested
by the Strategic Housing Manager, and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(135) BRUMSTEAD - PF/09/1060 - Erection of Two 130m Wind Turbines with
Associated Hardstandings, Access Tracks and Substation Compound; Grove
Farm Ingham for Meridian Wind Power Limited
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Edwards (Brumstead Parish Council)
Development Control Committee
5
18 November 2010
Mrs Bennett (Ingham Parish Council)
Mr Ross-Benham (Stalham Town Council)
Mr Falcon (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that there had been approximately 374
representations objecting to this application and over 50 in support. He thanked the
objectors and applicants for their courtesy in dealing with this application. He stated
that this was an emotive and important application, but it had to be considered on its
planning merits. He displayed a series of photomontages to demonstrate the impact
of the proposal from a number of viewpoints.
The Senior Planning Officer addressed the concerns raised in a letter from Solicitors
in respect of statements in the report and readvertisement of further information
submitted in respect of the Environmental Impact Assessment.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that data had recently been received from
additional noise monitoring stations which had been set up in response to the
concerns raised by the Council’s noise consultant. However, the noise consultant
considered that there were still gaps in the data. The Senior Planning Officer
considered that this was a further ground for refusal of the application.
The Senior Planning Officer reported a request from Ingham Parish Council to
consider objections raised by Perenco in respect of interference with its
communication system. He stated that Perenco had requested a condition requiring
mitigation measures.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was necessary to balance the impact on the
historic landscape against policies in the Council’s Core Strategy and Government
and national policies which were very supportive of renewable energy, including wind
turbines. Guidelines required other environmental factors to be taken into account,
such as global warming, coastal erosion and flooding. However, protection of the
historic landscape was also important. The Senior Planning Officer stated that given
the concerns raised by English Heritage, the Highway Authority and the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager, the application could not be
supported and refusal was recommended on the grounds stated in the report and on
the grounds that insufficient data had been supplied in respect of noise pollution.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, referred to concerns over access, wildlife
and landscape impacts and the effect on the quality of life for local residents. He
stated that the turbines had an expected lifespan on 25 years and would leave a
legacy of large concrete bases.
He added that wind turbines were being
decommissioned in Germany. He considered that the proposal was inappropriate for
Brumstead and would impact on other villages as well. He considered that there
could be an adverse impact on the tourism industry which was important in the
Broads area. He urged the Committee to refuse this application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Combe, seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse
this application in accordance with his recommendation and on the
ground that insufficient data had been supplied in respect of potential
noise pollution.
Development Control Committee
6
18 November 2010
(136) ERPINGHAM - PF/10/0822 - Erection of single-storey extension; Town House
Bungalow, The Street, Calthorpe for Mrs L Bird
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Allen (objecting)
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, considered that the proposed extension
was overdevelopment and moving the entrance to the house from the east to the
west would have an adverse impact on the neighbour. He considered that vehicles
would park on the road which would make visibility difficult for the neighbour. He
considered that there would be overlooking and that there should be provision for a
boundary fence.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M FitchTillett and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the scale of the
development would result in overdevelopment of the site, would be
likely to lead to parking on the highway to the detriment of highway
safety and the proposed extension would be detrimental to the
amenities of the neighbours on grounds of overlooking and loss of
privacy.
(137) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0799 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 13
Debenne Road for Mrs J Potter
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Coe (objecting)
Councillor E Seward, a local Member, referred to concerns that the proposed
extension would be out of character and have an overbearing impact on the
neighbouring residents. He requested refusal of this application or a site inspection.
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.
(138) NORTH WALSHAM - LD/10/0916 - Demolition of building; Rear of 25 Market
Place for Stonefield Estates Ltd
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Morgan (objecting)
Development Control Committee
7
18 November 2010
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, did not support demolition in the
Conservation Area. She stated that there were no plans to preserve or enhance the
area or the building. She considered that the building could be repaired. She
considered that Policy HE10 of PPS5 and Policy EN8 of the Core Strategy were
relevant. She referred to the recent Conservation Area Appraisal for North Walsham,
which stated that the greatest threat was the erosion of character from inappropriate
development.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, Cabinet Member for Conservation, Design and
Landscape, supported the views of the local Member. She considered that the
building should be preserved.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett proposed refusal of this application which was
seconded.
Councillor Mrs J Trett asked if was possible to ensure that the building was
preserved and repaired.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that allowing demolition
and redevelopment in any Conservation Area was a key issue and he was conscious
of the sensitivity about demolition in North Walsham in recent years. Every
application had to be treated on its own merits. In his opinion, the building was not
an outstanding example of local vernacular. It was possible to serve Notices to
require the tidying up of the area or the repair of the building, but it was not a
particularly prominent site. Safety of the site was an issue for Environmental Health.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the demolition of this
building, which is listed by association, would be detrimental to the
character and setting of the Conservation Area.
(139) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0942 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; Land rear of
25 Market Place, North Walsham for Stonefield Estates Ltd
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Morgan (objecting)
It was proposed by Councillor S C Mears, duly seconded and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on design grounds as the proposal is
considered to be detrimental to the setting of nearby listed buildings
and the character and setting of the Conservation Area, and contrary to
related Development Plan policies. In addition the development would
necessitate the demolition of a vernacular building, which is listed by
association, which would also be detrimental to the character and
setting of the Conservation Area.
Development Control Committee
8
18 November 2010
(140) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/10/0957 - Erection of one and a half storey side
extension and car port; 18 Litester Close for Mr S Fairweather
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss Bell (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the
objector who had stated that she had not been visited in connection with this
application although the impact of the extension on her property could not be seen
anywhere else but from her dwelling.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor Miss P E Ford, a local Member,
had concerns as to whether there was sufficient room to take a wheelchair down the
side of the property.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, supported the principle of the development
but expressed concerns at the impact of the extension on the neighbours. He was
also concerned at the effect of the development on the neighbour’s tree and
questioned the way in which this matter had been dealt with. He expressed concerns
regarding the use of the workshop. He considered that the proposed extension could
be redesigned and repositioned to reduce the impact on the neighbours. He
requested a site inspector or deferral to address the issues of concern.
The Development Manager stated that the garage could be used as a domestic
workshop or gym without the need for permission. It would require permission for
change of use to a commercial workshop or gym. He had visited the objecting
spokesperson’s property, and understood that the Landscape Officer had also visited
and had discussions with her regarding the tree. The Landscape Officer considered
that development was possible provided precautions were taken with regard to the
tree. With regard to the position of the extension, officers were of the view that the
impact was not sufficiently significant to warrant amendment.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M FitchTillett and
RESOLVED unanimously
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.
(141) OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1045 - Retention of rear extension; White Horse Public
House, 34 High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared a personal interest as she was a resident of
Overstrand and an occasional customer of the business. She had been lobbied but
had always passed the comments to the Planning Officer without comment.
The Committee considered item 12 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr B Walsgrove (supporting)
Development Control Committee
9
18 November 2010
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the fenestration was white painted timber
and not upvc as stated in the report. He reported that an email had been received
from the applicant apologising for not building the extension in accordance with the
approved plans. A memorandum had been received from the Council’s Economic
and Tourism Development Manager suggesting that consideration of this application
be deferred to allow the applicant to consider his position further. The Senior
Planning Officer reported the contents of an email that had been received from the
applicant’s agent which included a request for deferral of this matter.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that this was an important
building within the Overstrand Conservation Area which had been identified for
possible local listing. Whilst he did not object to the overall shape of the extension as
built, he considered that the materials were not in keeping with the existing building.
He considered that a compromise should be sought to reduce the impact on the
building.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that she sympathised with
the applicant in this matter as he had worked extremely hard to improve the public
house and had used good quality materials and the best local tradesmen to carry out
the work. She stated that the business employed many people and should be
supported. She considered that a site inspection would be appropriate.
The Chairman considered that a site visit would not be worthwhile in this case. He
suggested deferral to negotiate with the applicant regarding the materials.
Councillor R Combe supported deferral, but considered that it should be made clear
that the application would be refused in its current form.
It was proposed by Councillor S C Mears, seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow negotiations
in respect of materials as the Committee considers that the extension,
as built, is not acceptable in terms of the materials that have been used.
(142) SHERINGHAM - PF/10/0291 - Erection of one and a half-storey extension to
provide two additional flats; 7 Holt Road for Messrs P and T Jenkins
The Committee considered item 13 of the officers’ reports.
The Development Manager suggested that the inclusion of flint would enhance the
appearance of the extension.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, a local Member, stated that the Town Council maintained
its objection to this application. She expressed concern that the additional traffic
would increase the congestion on Holt Road and added that caravan rallies took
place during school holidays.
Councillor H C Cordeaux considered that the proposed extension would overdevelop
the site.
The Development Manager stated that whilst there was amenity space surrounding
the building, the development did not allow for sufficient car parking provision to meet
the Council’s standards for the existing and proposed development.
Development Control Committee
10
18 November 2010
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused on grounds of overdevelopment in that
the proposed development would not allow for sufficient on site car
parking to meet the Council’s adopted standards in connection with the
existing and proposed development and would be likely to result in on
street parking to the detriment of road safety and the free flow of traffic
along Holt Road.
(143) STALHAM - PF/10/0966 - Erection of two two-storey dwellings; 142 High Street
for Stalham Radio
The Committee considered item 14 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer considered that the rear wall should be raised to avoid
overlooking.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of the Town
Council representative, who had had to leave the meeting before the application was
considered.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that it might be possible to lower the roof height by approximately 1 metre. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that there was no objection in
design terms to the proposed roof height as roof heights in Stalham tended to be
quite high with steep pitches.
The Committee considered that the integral garages were impractical as they could
not be accessed if a vehicle was parked in the space in front of them. The
Development Manager explained that he understood that the garages had been
included as a response to the Highway Authority requiring facilities for parking and
turning within the site. Members, however, considered that this was not necessary
as this section of High Street was one-way only and subject to a 20 mph speed limit.
The removal of the garages would have an impact on the overall design of the
scheme.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject the removal of the integral garages,
increasing the height of the rear boundary wall to 2.4 metres and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(144) STALHAM - LE/10/0967 - Demolition of retail unit; 142 High Street for Stalham
Radio
The Committee considered item 15 of the officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of a
condition to prevent any demolition taking place until such time as a
contract has been let for an approved replacement.
Development Control Committee
11
18 November 2010
(145) SUFFIELD - PF/10/0618 - Restoration and upgrading of building, erection of
replacement workshop and engineering unit and removal of temporary
containers; Blacksmith Shop, The Street for North Norfolk Accident Repair
Centre
The Committee considered item 16 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Anderson-Dungar (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the Highway Authority’s concerns regarding
possible encroachment onto highway land. He suggested that this issue be clarified
and, if necessary, an amended scheme be invited if the Committee were minded to
approve this application.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member, stated that her request for an update
on the use of the site had not been addressed. She considered that the proposal
would overdevelop the site and that those units which did not have the benefit of
planning permission and which were the subject of enforcement action should not be
included within the footprint. She referred to the use of the highway network by
caravans accessing the Deer’s Glade Caravan Park in the summer, proximity to
dwellings and inadequate parking. She considered that this business would more
appropriately located on an industrial estate. She stated that the condition of the site
was not a good reason to approve this application. She requested refusal of this
application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor P J Willcox stated that the site was an old forge which had become
modernised. Whilst the site was untidy, it appeared that the small business was
successful and the application needed careful consideration. The site was on the
edge of the Gunton Park Conservation Area, not within it. He stated that
encroachment on highway land was a civil matter. The operation of the site would be
scrutinised by Environmental Health. He stated that the site could be accessed from
a number of directions given the surrounding highway network. He considered that
the proposal was compliant with a number of Core Strategy policies. He stated that
local residents supported this application, including those neighbouring the site. He
proposed approval of this application.
The Development Control Officer (NCC Highways) reiterated the objection raised by
the Highway Authority.
The Landscape Officer stated that, in terms of landscape character, the site was
located in an area of greater sensitivity. She expressed concern that the proposed
screening could not be implemented because of the proximity of the adjacent
highway. She stated that the proposal would increase the bulk of the buildings.
Councillor R Combe stated that the road was not busy, the site had always been an
eyesore and the site provided employment. He seconded the proposal to approve
this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that small businesses should be encouraged.
She expressed concern at the use of profiled metal and suggested that the roadside
elevation should be brick.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that the site had always been an employment site
and could only be improved by the proposed modernisation.
Development Control Committee
12
18 November 2010
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett supported the proposal but requested further
negotiations to ensure that the impact was minimised.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the landscape impact
was substantial. He requested negotiations in respect of the colour finish of the
external elevations and further consideration of landscaping.
The Development Manager expressed concern as to whether the scale of the
development was appropriate in terms of Policy EC3: Extensions to Existing
Businesses in the Countryside. Whilst the proposed use of the site was specialised
and was likely to generate a limited amount of traffic, the buildings would remain for
many years and could be subject to unrestricted industrial uses. A plan had been
supplied indicating the highway boundary and, if the boundary was shown correctly,
there would be a significant effect on the development. However, this was an issue
to be resolved between the applicant and the Highway Authority and it may require
an amended scheme to be submitted. The granting of planning permission would
not prejudice discussions between the parties.
In considering approving this proposal Members were mindful of the site being
brownfield, they were supportive of a small business and the specialist use proposed
would generate a limited amount of traffic in this lightly trafficked area.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to further negotiations on materials,
colour and finish of external elevations, landscaping and use of the site,
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include any
required by the Highway Authority and Environmental Health and to be
personal to the applicant and to be restricted to the specific use
proposed by the applicant.
(146) WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm; Land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
The Senior Planning Officer requested deferral of this application as there had been
a number of further representations in the days leading up to the meeting which had
raised a number of new issues upon which it was necessary to seek expert and legal
advice and a response from the applicant.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow consideration
of additional issues.
(147) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 18 of the officers’ reports.
(148) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 19 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee
13
18 November 2010
(149) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 20 of the officers’ reports.
(150) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 21 of the officers’ reports.
(151) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 22 of the officers’ reports.
(152) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 23 of the officers’ reports.
(153) BODHAM - PF/10/1098 - Erection of domestic wind turbine; Stone Lodge,
Kelling Road, Lower Bodham for Mr Barron
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item 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 Development Manager stated that this application was locally controversial and
he recommended that the Committee visit the site to expedite processing of this
application.
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.
The meeting closed at 2.40 pm.
Development Control Committee
14
18 November 2010