19 DECEMBER 2013
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
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Williams – substitute for P W High
Mrs A Moore – North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
Mrs L Walker – Happisburgh Ward
A Yiasimi – Cromer Town Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
T FitzPatrick – observing
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Coleman – Development Control Officer (Highways)
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(152) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor P W High. There was one
substitute Member in attendance.
(153) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21 November 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(154) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A planning application at North Walsham, reference PM/13/1326. The reason
for urgency was to expedite processing of the application by undertaking a
site inspection.
Development Committee
1
19 December 2013
2.
A planning application at Sheringham, reference PF/13/1388. The reason for
urgency was to expedite processing of this application.
(155) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors J Perry-Warnes and P Williams declared interests, the details of which
are given under the minute of the item concerned.
Members had received a number of communications relating to applications on the
agenda.
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.
(156) BLAKENEY - PF/13/1205 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include splay bay window, insertion of dormer
windows and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The Quay for
Mr & Mrs K Bertram
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs H Horabin (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer explained the principal changes from the previous
application which had been refused by the Committee under reference PF/13/0937.
Two further letters of objection had been received from local residents, expressing
similar concerns to those contained in the report and additional concerns relating to
design, materials, loss of privacy, policy issues and lack of clarity of the plans.
In response to comments by English Heritage regarding fenestration, the applicants
had explained that the splay bay was an attempt to improve the appearance of an
existing picture window to the dining room and they would be willing to reduce its
width. They also considered that the proposal was similar to other developments in
Blakeney. They would be happy to accept a condition to require precise details of
the fenestration to be agreed. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
had no objection to the proposals. Works which had been carried out to the garage
were like for like repairs and did not require planning permission.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that loss of view was not a planning consideration
and Officers did not consider that there would be issues with loss of privacy.
Development Committee
2
19 December 2013
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicant would be happy to provide
further detail if Members required it. He advised the Committee to bear in mind other
developments in Blakeney where glazing of the type proposed had been allowed.
The applicants had offered to address the issues raised by English Heritage.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, expressed concern regarding impact
on Blakeney Conservation Area, but she welcomed the amended plan and views of
English Heritage.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that Blakeney was a beautiful village and that
major alterations to old buildings, surrounded by Grade 2 Listed buildings, should not
be allowed. He considered that the proposal would destroy the street scene on The
Quay and in particular, from the coastal path. He proposed refusal on grounds
consistent with the refusal of application reference 13/0937, in that the proposed
extension, by virtue of its scale, massing and overall appearance would not be
compatible with the host building and would fail to preserve or enhance the character
and appearance of the Blakeney Conservation Area or setting of the adjoining listed
building. This was seconded by Councillor B Smith.
Members expressed concern that the extension was raised on a plinth and
considered that it could be lowered to reduce its impact.
Councillor P Williams suggested deferral of the application for negotiations to remove
some of the glazing from the scheme.
The Development Manager suggested that negotiations could also take place to
reduce the height of the two storey element.
It was proposed by Councillor P Williams, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
that this application be deferred.
Councillor R Shepherd and Councillor B Smith withdrew their proposal.
Members indicated that they were minded to refuse the application if negotiations
were not successful.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow negotiations
to take place with regard to fenestration and a reduction in height of the
two storey element. The Committee is minded to refuse this application
if satisfactory amendments cannot be negotiated.
(157) CROMER - PF/13/1222 - Demolition of former police station and court house
and erection of 34 retirement apartments with communal facilities; Former
Police Station & Magistrates Court, 5 Holt Road for McCarthy & Stone
Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr T Bartlett (Cromer Town Council)
Mrs C Candish (objecting)
Mr M Mence (supporting)
Development Committee
3
19 December 2013
The Senior Planning Officer reported in detail the comments of Cromer Town
Council. English Heritage had objected to the previous application and maintained
its objection in respect of the current application. It had confirmed its objection with
regard to lack of sufficient detail or description of the significance of the existing
heritage asset.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the views of Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a
local Member, who supported this application.
She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report and failure to
significantly assess the heritage asset, contrary to the requirements of the National
Planning Policy Framework.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the application was
more or less the same as the previous proposal which was refused under references
PF/13/0111 and LE/13/0112. Whilst slight changes had been made to the
elevational treatment, the scale and form were the same. It was necessary to assess
whether the public benefits outweighed the harm to the heritage asset. He reminded
the Committee that an informal hearing would take place in January in respect of an
appeal against the previous refusal and that very little had changed since that
decision was made. In his opinion, the proposal detracted from the character and
setting of the Conservation Area and it would make no positive contribution to
Cromer. He considered that the proposed building would be monolithic and the
mediocre design should be resisted.
Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, considered that the geographic location of the
site was of vital importance to Cromer, being the first thing visitors saw as they left
the railway station. He considered that the building should be one of outstanding
beauty.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the current plan was worse than the
previous one and resembled a workhouse. It was not appropriate for the
Conservation Area. There was no affordable housing and the Section 106 Obligation
being offered was derisory. She proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the concerns raised in respect of the previous
application had been addressed. The gables had been removed and replaced with
hips, the front had been stepped forward and the windows were more uniform
design. He considered that the current proposal reflected some of the original police
station and surrounding buildings. He considered that the application complied with
policies EN4 and EN8. The site was located on a good bus route, close to local
shops and there was a safe walk into the town centre and complied with Policies CT5
and CT6.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Highway Authority had no objection in
respect of the shortfall in parking provision given the town centre location and type of
accommodation proposed.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that there was an opportunity for the
construction of an attractive building. Accommodation was needed for people with
mobility problems and elderly people and the site was well placed for access to local
amenities. However, in her opinion the design resembled an old municipal building
and was a step backwards from preserving the appearance of the former courthouse.
She seconded Councillor Mrs Uprichard’s proposal.
Development Committee
4
19 December 2013
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had received a
correspondence from the applicants regarding this application. He
the developer was very good at building good developments for
However, the developer should have discussions with the
Preservation Society and Officers to produce a better scheme.
great deal of
considered that
elderly people.
Town Council,
Councillor M J M Baker considered that a contribution of £260 per unit for affordable
housing was derisory.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that, however designed, the building would be
appear monolithic. He supported Councillor Reynolds’ views that many of the
architectural points had been addressed.
He considered that the Section 106
Obligation was derisory and should be reconsidered. He stated that the single
person units were likely to free up other local housing. He expressed concern that
the site could remain empty for a number of years.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
The Chairman stated that this was the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager’s last meeting and paid tribute to the work he had done on behalf of the
Authority. Other Members added their tributes and thanked him for his work.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager thanked the Members for their
kind comments. He emphasised the importance of continuing to preserve and
improve the area in the future.
(158) DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Mantell-Sayer (supporting)
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member referred to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and the requirement for local authorities to produce an up-to-date
Local Plan.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the Development Plan had been updated
and applied to this development.
Councillor Mrs Walker considered that the site was not in an isolated location.
Development had already taken place in the gardens of nearby properties and she
could see no reason why this proposal should not be allowed. She requested that
the Committee approve this application on grounds of consistency.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that the applicant had telephoned her and she had
discussed the application with her and visited the site.
Councillor Mrs A R Green supported the local Member. Houses had been built either
side of the plot and this was not an isolated case. Two more cars would make little
difference. She proposed approval of this application.
Development Committee
5
19 December 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones seconded the proposal. She considered that this was
similar to a case in Worstead which was approved against the Officer’s
recommendation.
The Development Manager stated that the Core Strategy was broadly compliant with
the NPPF. It had been tested on appeal. He referred to an appeal decision for a
similar proposal which was dismissed by the Inspector as it was contrary to the
NPPF. He advised the Committee that this was the wrong forum for making changes
to the Core Strategy. He explained the differences between the Worstead
application and the current application. He referred Members to the decision made in
2008 on this site which was refused on grounds of lack of policy compliance. He
strongly recommended that the Committee visit the site if it were minded to approve
this application to assess the degree of isolation and the highway network.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew her seconding of the proposal and proposed
that the Committee visit the site. Councillor Mrs A R Green withdrew her proposal
and seconded the new proposal.
As an amendment, Councillor M J M Baker proposed approval of this application on
grounds that it logically followed from other developments and for reasons of
consistency. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney.
The Planning Legal Manager referred the Committee to the its terms of reference as
set out in the Constitution, and in particular, paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. He considered
that the recommendation for a site inspection was sensible, and suggested that a
representative of the Highway Authority be invited to attend.
The Development Manager stated that, in his opinion, approval of this application
would a significant departure from the Development Plan.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost by 3 votes to 9 with 1
abstention.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member, Chairman of the
Parish Council and a representative of the Highway Authority be invited
to attend.
(159) HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest in this application as he
knew Mr and Mrs Purkiss and had visited them in the past.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, proposed approval of this
application.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, supported the comments of the Parish Council and
considered that the applicant had allowed a once-successful business to run down.
She considered that the pub had not been properly marketed.
A number of Members expressed concern regarding the marketing exercise.
Development Committee
6
19 December 2013
The Chairman requested clarification and confirmation of the cost of foul drainage,
which had not yet been validated.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the cost of drainage would be very expensive.
However, he supported the Chairman’s suggestion.
The Development Manager stated the Officers considered there was a lack of
marketing, but the policy required either a marketing exercise or demonstration that
the business was no longer viable. In this case, there was a viability issue.
However, he considered that there should be more investigation around whether it
could be made viable and that independent advice should be sought.
It was proposed by Councillor P Williams, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek further
independent information on viability, in relation to the cost of a drainage
system.
(160) HOVETON - PF/13/0814 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling with
attached garage, erection of detached double garage and the creation of an
access for existing dwelling; 72 Stalham Road for Mrs S Meacock
Councillor P Williams declared a personal interest in this application as a family
member served on Hoveton Parish Council.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr G Blyth (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of Councillor N D Dixon, the
local Member, who had expressed concerns regarding highway issues.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) reported on discussions which had
taken place regarding the access point. However, there was no personal injury
record and this was only one more access onto a road with many residential
accesses. Whilst it was not ideal and there was a degree of highway safety risk, it
was not considered sufficient to substantiate a highway objection.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Development Control Officer
(Highways) stated that the proposal would take away the parking for the applicant’s
existing bed and breakfast business which he understood she was giving up.
Councillor P Williams stated that it would be dangerous to use the existing access
and that the proposed access onto Stalham Road was the only sensible one. Traffic
had been slowed because of a new roundabout and there was a 30mph limit.
It was proposed by Councillor P Williams, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
7
in
accordance
with
the
19 December 2013
(161) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1274 - Erection of extensions to house storage,
office, preparation and freezer facilities with related increase in net sales area
from 807m² to 1056m², provision of additional parking area and re-cladding of
existing store; Lidl Food Store, 7-9 Yarmouth Road for Lidl
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr E Joyce (objecting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that North Walsham
Town Council supported the application subject to stringent conditions to prevent
noise nuisance from the freezers. In response to concerns raised regarding the use
of render, the applicants had requested that the application be determined as
submitted. Officers considered that whilst it was not ideal, the harm to the
Conservation Area was not significant enough to warrant refusal. In assessing the
heritage issues, the benefits in supporting the vitality and viability of the town centre
were considered to outweigh the harm in this case.
The Highway Authority had been requested to consider the concerns of local
residents regarding parking on Farman Avenue.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) considered there was benefit in the
proposals. Parking had been arranged to allow the site to be serviced better but
would result in the loss of three or four car parking spaces. The Highway Authority
was not insisting on full car parking provision as the site was in the town centre.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, did not support the proposal to render the
building as it was opposite the Conservation Area. There appeared to be a wish
among retailers to stamp their corporate identity on every store. Local character was
important. He considered that fencing between the site and local residents was
important, not only to screen the site but also to reduce noise. He considered that
Lidl’s car park was always cramped as it offered 1.5 hours free parking. He
supported the principle of development but requested that further consideration be
given to the detail.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, supported Councillor Moore’s
comments. She supported the application subject to additional conditions in respect
of extractor fans, freezers and materials.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the building as existing was fairly
attractive and in keeping with most buildings in North Walsham. She considered that
if it was necessary for the building to be rendered, it should be a more recessive
colour.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that concerns had been
raised with the agent, who had indicated that the applicants would prefer the
proposed render. He suggested that delegated approval would allow Officers to
negotiate further with the applicants with regard to the external finish.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that the proposed render appeared to
be an open invitation to graffiti artists.
Councillor P W Moore requested planting along the proposed fence to further screen
the noise.
Development Committee
8
19 December 2013
In answer to a question by Councillor P Williams, the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) stated that planting schemes could only be controlled for a maximum
of 10 years.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that landscaping could be left to the discretion
of Officers. She proposed delegated approval of this application subject to the
conditions set out in the report, deletion of the rendering and fencing to be closeboarded.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the deletion of the proposed rendering and the imposition of
conditions relating to:
Submission of details of any further mechanical extraction or
refrigeration to be installed
Time limits for deliveries, store openings etc to be the same as those
imposed on ref 01 20010060 PF
Provision of 2.4m high close-boarded fencing
Retention of existing laurel hedge
Provision of replacement planting
Provision of cycle parking
and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
(162) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/1297 - Continued use of former B1 (light industrial)
building and land for the sale of motor vehicles/trailer hire; 3 Laundry Loke for
Mr P Hurman
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of Councillor Ms V R Gay, a
local Member, who supported this application on employment grounds.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) outlined the Highway Authority’s
objection to this application.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, stated that she was a former employee
at the site. Contrary to the views of the Highway Authority, she considered that traffic
coming into Laundry Loke from the bypass was quite slow. It was a very small site,
however there was an issue regarding jobs.
Councillor P W Moore considered that some of the cars which parked outside the site
could belong to staff from other businesses on the industrial site.
Councillor R Reynolds proposed approval subject to restricting the site to ten cars.
The Development Manager suggested that if the Committee were minded to approve
this application, it could give temporary approval with a restriction to 10 vehicles.
The Highway Authority could monitor the situation and to see if a problem occurred.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) requested that in the event of approval
the site be restricted to either cars or trailers.
Development Committee
9
19 December 2013
The Development Manager suggested that the applicants be requested to indicate
how they would lay out the site and the maximum number of vehicles which could be
accommodated. He suggested a two year temporary period to monitor the operation.
Councillor P Williams considered that the business should be restricted to the
boundaries of the site, including the customers. There was insufficient parking for
the industrial units and the applicant could not be blamed entirely for parking on the
road.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones that this application be approved for a temporary period of two years subject to
restricting the site to 10 vehicles.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor P Williams that the Head of
Planning be authorised to approve this application for a temporary period of two
years subject to the applicant submitting a plan indicating how the site would be laid
out. There was no seconder.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved for a temporary period of two years
subject to a maximum of 10 vehicles being kept on the site.
(163) RAYNHAM - PF/13/1166 - Installation of 49.9MW solar farm with plant housing
and perimeter fence; Former Airfield, West Raynham for Good Energy West
Raynham Airfield Solar Park (030) Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Palmer (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) confirmed that a copse of trees
was to be removed because of shadowing on the panels. He presented photographs
showing views of the site from the surrounding area.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Highway
Authority would prefer access for construction traffic to be gained from East Rudham
but this would require access over third party land. The Highway Authority had
raised no objection subject to a routing agreement.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended approval of this
application as stated in the report.
Councillor Miss B Palmer, the local Member, considered that a solar farm of the size
proposed would have an impact on the landscape as well as the control tower.
There was a belt of trees and recently planted hedge which would help to prevent
disturbance to nearby residents. A mechanism had been agreed to secure funding
for the maintenance of the control tower. She proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the copse would not cause significant
shadowing and requested that the developer reconsider this matter in consultation
with the Landscape Officer.
Development Committee
10
19 December 2013
Councillor M J M Baker commented that up to this point all solar farm applications
referred to a 25 year life. He requested an explanation as to why this proposal had a
30 year life and expressed concern that the lifespan of these developments would
continue to extend in the future.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that 30 years had been
requested by the applicant. He questioned whether granting a 30 year permission as
opposed to 25 years would cause significant harm.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed that this application be approved for a period of 25
years.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Palmer explained that calculations had been
carried out to work out the efficiency of the site and 30 years would be needed to
achieve a return.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor Miss Palmer’s proposal. However, he
had concerns regarding the narrowness of the road leading to the former airbase and
requested a condition to require passing places to be created. He also requested
that new planting takes place immediately.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney seconded Councillor Baker’s amendment.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the proposal was a good use of the
land. He also expressed concerns regarding the narrowness of the road.
Councillor B Smith considered that the road network was not a problem as there
would have been the same issues when the site was a working air base.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that solar panels were compatible with the
control tower, which was an industrial building.
In response to a question regarding security, the Chairman stated that the applicant
could apply for CCTV at a later date if necessary.
In response to a question, Mr Palmer stated that the copse would cast a fan-shaped
shadow which would make the area to the north of the trees fairly inert. However, he
agreed to reconsider this matter.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) stated that any new trees planted would be standards.
The amendment for approval for a period of 25 years was put to the vote and
declared lost with 5 Members voting in favour and 8 against.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 3
That this application be approved subject to the completion of a
Unilateral Undertaking or Section 106 Obligation to secure at least
£25,000 for the repair of the adjacent Grade II listed Control Tower and
to secure monitoring of the effectiveness of required landscape and
biodiversity mitigation and subject to the imposition of the following
specific conditions:
Development Committee
11
19 December 2013
30 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,
to include possible retention of the copse.
(164) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs J Comper (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member,
had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of this application. He was
opposed to this application because of the lack of parking.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he had spoken to the objector regarding civil
matters which she had raised. He referred to the inadequacy of on street parking.
He considered that the fire escape would lead to even more overlooking of the
objector’s property and that her Human Rights would be violated. He proposed
refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the site inspection had been useful and
questioned how the emergency services would access the proposed unit. She also
referred to the lack of parking.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to reasons for
refusal.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds of overdevelopment and
unneighbourly, detrimental and overbearing impact on the neighbouring
dwelling.
(165) WEYBOURNE - PF/13/1067 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and attached
double garage to 25 Pine Walk; 25 Pine Walk for Mr T McCarthy
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Hawkins (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Landscape Officer considered that the
tree was not worthy of a Tree Preservation Order as it was not directly threatened by
the proposal.
Development Committee
12
19 December 2013
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council was strongly
opposed to this application.
He considered that the plot was too small for the
development and it would be too close to the neighbour.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposal was overdevelopment in
a quiet residential area. She proposed refusal of this application.
At the request of a Member, the Senior Planning Officer clarified the extent of the
site.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that with the removal of the garage, the plot would
be larger than the adjacent plot. The roof line had been lowered and he could find no
reason to refuse it.
Having received clarification of the size of the plot, Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones
withdrew her proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(166) WITTON - PO/13/1113 - Demolition of industrial building and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; Workshop at Ash Tree Farm, Well Street for
Mrs C Leggett
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs C Leggett (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from a
local resident confirming that there was no objection provided no precedent was set
for the future. An email had been received from the applicant regarding a matter she
considered was factually incorrect and damaging to the case. The Senior Planning
Officer recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member, quoted paragraph 187 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and referred to the Minister’s foreword. She
considered that the current industrial building was an eyesore and should not be
there. She considered that the Committee had an opportunity to improve the lives of
local residents. She stated that saleability of the site was not an issue for the
Committee. She requested that the Committee approve this application.
Councillor P Williams stated that there were problems with traffic when the site was
used for boat building. He considered that the building was of no merit and needed
to be removed. It should be replaced with a building of merit which would improve
the local economy. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded
by Councillor M J M Baker.
Councillor Mrs A R Green supported this application. She referred to a similar case
in her Ward.
Development Committee
13
19 December 2013
Councillor B Smith stated that he had spoken to residents who were supportive of
this application. He considered that it would be preferable to replace the existing
eyesore building with two dwellings.
The Development Manager stated that the Core Strategy was broadly in compliance
with the NPPF. He stated that there were no special circumstances applicable to this
case to override the policy objections. He referred to the appeal decision appended
to the report. The Inspector had been clear that the Council’s policies conformed
with the NPPF, had taken into consideration the issues which Members had
discussed and dismissed the appeal against refusal of application PO/11/0863.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the case raised the same issues as the
appeal decision. There were clear policy objections. He advised the Committee to
defer this application to seek the view of the Monitoring Officer and Section 151
Officer. The site had been the subject of lengthy and difficult enforcement issues.
The Development Manager stated that the only difference between the two
applications was the number of dwellings proposed. In response to a comment, he
stated that he understood that the Council had a five-year supply of housing land.
As an amendment, Councillor R Reynolds proposed deferral of this application to
consult the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that there could be difficulty for local residents
if the existing building were used for woodworking, car repairs or a similar activity.
Instead, the site could be a peaceful site which would provide homes.
Councillor B Smith seconded the amendment.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 7 votes to 5, and
on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek the views of
the Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer.
(167) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(168) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(169) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(170) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(171) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
14
19 December 2013
(172) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(173) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Court of Appeal case in respect of
Crisp Maltings, Great Ryburgh, had been determined in the Authority’s favour. The
Chairman thanked the Planning Legal Manager on behalf of the Authority.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that the following items be considered
as matters of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of
the Local Government Act 1972.
(174) NORTH WALSHAM - PM/13/1326 - Erection of dwelling; 45 Happisburgh Road
for Mrs Y Bullimore
The Development Manager reported that Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local
Member, had requested 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.
(175) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1388 - Erection of conservatory (revised design
incorporating veranda); 16 South Street for Mr B Farrow
The Development Manager reported that the applicant was a member of staff and
therefore the application had been brought before the Committee for determination.
The original application had been approved by the Committee. The current
application proposed the addition of a veranda.
No objections had been received. It was acceptable in terms of its relationship with
neighbouring properties and in design terms. The Development Manager requested
delegated authority to approve this application subject to no objection from the local
Members and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss B Palmer, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objection from the local Members and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
The meeting closed at 2.15 pm.
Development Committee
15
19 December 2013