19 MARCH 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for M J M Baker
Mrs B McGoun – substitute for Mrs V Uprichard
B Cabbell-Manners – Cabinet Member for Planning and Planning Policy
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Mrs N Turner – Housing Team Leader (Strategy)
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
(213) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and Mrs V
Uprichard. Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Councillor Baker had sent his apologies for
the meeting but was in attendance in his capacity as local Ward Member for Holt.
(214) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
(215) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the planning applications under
consideration at this meeting had been considered on 21 August 2014 and read the
list of interests declared at that meeting and requested that Members confirm if they
were still relevant. The interest declared by Councillor Baker was not relevant as he
would not be speaking as a member of the Committee. He asked if there were any
additional interests to be declared.
Development Committee
1
19 March 2015
The following interests were declared:
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as his
grandson attended the school.
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as he
owned a holiday let in Holt.
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as she
was the co-owner of property in Holt.
Knew many people who were attending
the meeting.
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as she
had attended Gresham’s School
Personal, non-pecuniary interest as her
grandchildren attended the school.
Councillor R Reynolds
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Councillor P W High
Councillor Miss B Palmer
Councillor Mrs A R Green
All Members had received correspondence.
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.
(216) Planning Application ref: PO/14/0283 - Residential development for a maximum
of 126 dwellings; Land South of Cromer Road and East of Grove Lane for
Endurance Estate Strategic Land Ltd and Greshams School (‘Site 1’)
Planning Application ref: PO/14/0284 - Residential development for a maximum
of 19 dwellings; Land South of Cromer Road and West of Grove Lane for
Endurance Estates Strategic Land Ltd and Greshams School (‘Site 2’)
Planning Application ref: PO/14/0274 - Residential development for a maximum
of eight dwellings; Land north of Grove Lane for Endurance Estates Strategic
Land Ltd and Greshams School (‘Site 3’)
The Head of Planning outlined the background to the applications, which had been
considered by the Committee on 21 August 2014 when it was resolved to delegate
authority to the Head of Planning to approve the applications in view of the facilitating
benefits which would accrue to Gresham’s School, and in turn, to the wider economic
benefits to Holt. Following that resolution, issues had been raised in respect of the
Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations 1994, and a pre-action
protocol letter had been received in respect of procedural issues and the applications
had therefore been brought back before the Committee for further consideration.
Development Committee
2
19 March 2015
The Head of Planning stated that no proposals would be sought until all three
applications had been presented and debated. Proposals would then be sought on
each application in turn.
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to the following matters:
 Progress on matters which had been raised at the previous meeting which
was set out in detail in the report, including a proposed Section 106
Agreement which had now been agreed in draft by all parties.
 The challenge in respect of the Appropriate Assessment and the revised
assessment which had been carried out by the Officers.
 The report submitted by the applicants on the economic benefits of the
proposals which expanded on the submission previously put forward.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that all three applications were
recommended for refusal as previously. However, if the Committee resolved to
approve the applications, they would need to be subject to the formal completion of
the Section 106 Agreement, and also subject to the Committee’s agreement, the
suggested conditions contained in Appendix 4 to the Officer’s report. The issue for
consideration was how much weight should be given to the enabling aspects of the
proposals. The proposals represented a departure from the Development Plan in
terms of land use and affordable housing provision. He drew attention to the report
to the previous meeting which set out the applicant’s case, policy issues and the
applicant’s approach to viability.
Site 1 (PO/14/0283)
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the only details at this stage related to
access to the site. He displayed a plan and photographs of the site. He referred to
issues regarding the landscaping buffer and land ownership issues, which were
detailed in the Officer’s report.
He recommended refusal of this application in
accordance with the recommendation contained in the Officer’s report to the meeting
on 21 August 2014. In the event of approval, he recommended the imposition of
conditions as set out in the draft decision notice appended to the current report,
subject to the amendment of condition 3 to relate to the whole extent of the planting
area and to the document submitted by the applicants.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Dr I Shepherd, Mr M Burnham, Mr B Whiffen and Mr G Lynn (objectors)
Mr D Robb, Mr J Stronach, Mr D Jenkins and Mrs Prior (supporting)
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that he would comment on all the
applications later in the meeting.
Councillor M J M Baker, speaking as a local Member, referred to his recollections of
Holt as a small town, with a small shopping centre, which catered for a few local
people and nearby villages. Since then, the town had developed and the population
increased, with many people now living on land he could remember as green field
land. Holt now attracted many people. He considered that the town, and the school,
had to develop. Schools which were in competition with Gresham’s were investing
large sums of money to the detriment of pupil flow into Greshams. The school had
many facilities which people could use. He stated that local people needed
somewhere to work, and this project would create many job years of work. Jobs for
younger people were needed for the town to remain economically viable.
Development Committee
3
19 March 2015
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that Gresham’s School and Holt needed each
other. If the school prospered, Holt would further prosper and the school needed to
keep up with other schools in the region. He referred to a supporting speaker’s
comment that Gresham’s was a charity and did not look to make a large profit. He
stated that the boarding houses could be used outside term time, but needed to be
up to standard. A number of permanent jobs would be created. He supported the
application.
Site 2 (PO/14/0284)
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the only details being sought were
access to the site and footpath provision. An illustrative plan had been provided
indicating how the site could be developed. He recommended refusal of this
application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the Officer’s report
to the meeting on 21 August 2014. In the event of approval, he recommended the
imposition of conditions as set out in the draft decision notice appended to the
current report.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr M Burnham and Mr B Whiffen (objecting)
Mr D Jenkins, Mr D Robb and Mrs Prior (supporting)
Mr P High, a local Member, referred to traffic issues in relation to Grove Lane and
schemes which had been put forward by the Highway Authority. Local residents
were now being consulted as to what they would like to see and until the responses
were received this matter would not be taken further with the Highway Authority.
Councillor M J M Baker, speaking as a local Member, considered that traffic would
naturally leave via the Old Cromer Road instead of Grove Lane if the access were
angled at 45 degrees. A 20mph limit would also help to improve safety for users of
Grove Lane.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes requested that the school provide an alternative football
pitch if the development went ahead. He also considered that traffic should exit the
site towards Old Cromer Road. He stated that his points raised in respect of site 1
applied equally to this site.
The Chairman stated that one of the speakers had stated that the football pitch would
be relocated.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs B McGoun regarding housing density,
the Major Projects Team Leader referred to the NPPF requirement to make efficient
use of land, which had to be balanced with the character of the area. Recent
approved housing schemes had a density of around 30 dwellings per hectare,
whereas the current proposal was approximately 12.5 dwellings per hectare.
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to draft condition 8 which required a
detailed scheme of highway works to be submitted and approved. He stated that this
could include measures to discourage traffic from leaving the site along Grove Lane,
but this would need to be agreed at a later stage.
In respect of a replacement football pitch, the Major Projects Team Leader stated
that the applicants had demonstrated that sufficient land was available for a
replacement pitch on the School’s existing playing fields and it was considered at the
last meeting that an acceptable replacement was available.
Development Committee
4
19 March 2015
Site 3 (PO/14/0274)
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that no details had been applied for at this
stage. Trees on the site were protected by a group Tree Preservation Order but it
was accepted that some trees were more important than others. An illustrative plan
had been submitted indicating how the site could be developed.
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to the Committee’s request for a road link
from Grove Lane to Cromer Road. The Officers had used their best endeavours in
this respect but the applicants were not willing to provide the link and the Highway
Authority did not consider that a link was necessary.
The Major Projects Team Leader recommended refusal of this application in
accordance with the recommendation contained in the Officer’s report to the meeting
on 21 August 2014. In the event of approval, he recommended the imposition of
conditions as set out in the draft decision notice appended to the current report.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr B Whiffen (objecting)
Mr D Jenkins (supporting)
Councillor M J M Baker, speaking as a local Member, in reference to a point made by
one of the speakers, stated that there were 5 acres of employment land on the
opposite side of the Holt Bypass (A148). In his view it was necessary to consider all
three applications as a block application and to approve all three so that the sites
could be disposed of to provide funding for the School. If permission were given for
one or two of the sites it would mean one of the major projects put forward by the
School could not go ahead. He considered that there were positive benefits from the
provision of affordable housing and Section 106 contributions, including a large
contribution towards a new primary school. He considered that the proposals should
not be considered in isolation but as part of the overall development of Holt.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, Cabinet Member for Planning and Planning Policy,
considered that an important point was that Gresham’s School was also of incredible
value and importance to the economy of North Norfolk and of Norfolk as a whole. If
anything happened to Gresham’s, not only would Holt suffer, but so would the
surrounding towns.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Councillor Cabbell Manners had been
allowed to speak with the Chairman’s permission and referred to case law relating to
a Cabinet Member addressing a meeting of the Development Committee.
Decisions on Applications PO/14/0283, PO/14/0284 and PO/14/0274
Site 1 (PO/14/0283)
Councillor P W High referred to comments he had made at the previous meeting and
he had found nothing to encourage him to change his view. There had been no
increase in uplift. He proposed refusal of this application as recommended.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that all three developments were outside the
development boundary and contrary to the Development Plan. She expressed
concern regarding the low percentage of affordable housing to be provided. She did
not consider that the proposals passed the public benefit test. She seconded the
proposal for refusal.
Development Committee
5
19 March 2015
Councillor R Reynolds referred to the importance of Gresham’s School to the local
economy. Holt had grown around the School and would continue to do so if it were
allowed to expand and improve its facilities. He stated that the School was the
largest employer in the Holt area and loss of revenue to the local economy would be
a major concern. He considered that it would be beneficial to Holt and the
surrounding area to allow housing on the site. He referred to the Section 106
benefits which had been negotiated. He proposed approval of this application on
grounds that the material considerations outweighed the policy objections and
requested a recorded vote.
The proposal for refusal of this application, proposed by Councillor P W High and
seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, was put to the vote and voting was recorded
as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs B McGoun
J A Wyatt
(5)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
(9)
The proposal was declared lost.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
that this application be approved subject to the formal completion of the Section 106
Agreement and the imposition of conditions set out in Appendix 4 to the Officers’
report, subject to the amendment of condition 3 to relate to the whole extent of the
planting area and to the document submitted by the applicants.
Voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
(9)
Development Committee
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs B McGoun
J A Wyatt
(5)
6
19 March 2015
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the formal completion of
the Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of conditions set out in
Appendix 4 to the Officers’ report, subject to the amendment of
condition 3 to relate to the whole extent of the planting area and to the
document submitted by the applicants.
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
assessment of economic benefits as listed in Appendix 6 to the report.
Site 2 (PO/14/0284)
Councillor P W High supported Councillor Baker’s suggestion regarding the access
layout in the event of approval. However, he proposed refusal of this application on
planning grounds. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
Councillor R Reynolds requested a recorded vote.
Voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs B McGoun
J A Wyatt
(5)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
(9)
The proposal was declared lost.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes
that this application be approved.
Councillor R Reynolds requested a recorded vote.
Development Committee
7
19 March 2015
Voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
(9)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs B McGoun
J A Wyatt
(5)
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the formal completion of
the Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of conditions set out in
Appendix 4 to the Officers’ report, subject to possible amendment of
condition 3 with regard to the access.
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
assessment of economic benefits as listed in Appendix 6 to the report.
Site 3 (PO/14/0274)
Councillor P W High considered that there was no problem with development on this
site and proposed approval, which was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that an exit onto Cromer Road had not been
properly considered.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the applicants would not accept it and
the Highway Authority had not objected to the application. If the Committee were to
insist on a road link it would require significant amendment to the application which
would require readvertisement and reconsultation.
Councillor P W High stated that no decision had been made on road improvements
and the suggested link could not be considered at this stage.
Councillor R Reynolds requested a recorded vote.
Development Committee
8
19 March 2015
Voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
(11)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
(1)
(2)
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the formal completion of
the Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of conditions set out in
Appendix 4 to the Officers’ report.
Reasons:
The facilitating development through a S106 obligation will secure the
delivery of the 6th form block and refurbishment of accommodation,
which will enable continuation of Greshams School with the wider
economic benefits to Holt of 375 jobs and additional jobs which will be
created through the additional facilities which are going to be built,
£11m salaries bill, the majority of which would be spent in Holt, with the
assessment of economic benefits as listed in Appendix 6 to the report.
(217) CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION AND SCHEME OF DELEGATION
The Committee considered a report outlining the proposed changes to the
Constitution with regard to the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference and
Scheme of Delegation with regard to matters delegated to the Head of Planning.
The Head of Planning explained that the changes to the terms of reference were
relatively minor, with the exception of the changes proposed in respect of
applications which the Committee was minded to determine contrary to Officer
recommendation, where in the view of the Head of Planning or senior representative
present at the meeting, the decision would have major implications for planning
policy or be a significant departure from the Development Plan.
The Head of Planning outlined the changes which were proposed in respect of the
default delegation and the reasons behind the proposed changes. With regard to
wind turbines, she considered that the wording of the delegation ran contrary to the
Committee’s view that they should all be considered by the Committee.
Members expressed concern at the cumulative effect of wind turbine proposals and
that they did not always know what was happening in other Wards.
The Committee discussed solar energy proposals and what constituted a solar farm.
Development Committee
9
19 March 2015
It was agreed that all proposals for wind turbines and ground mounted panels should
be considered by the Committee.
The Head of Planning suggested that the list of Proper Officer functions be amended
as set out in the report.
The Chairman invited Dr Ian Shepherd to give his views. He raised a number of
issues related to policy drift, replacement buildings in the Countryside, and the
treatment of wind turbines and solar energy proposals. The Chairman advised Dr
Shepherd to put his concerns in writing.
In response to Dr Shepherd’s comments, the Planning Legal Manager considered
that the policy in relation to replacement buildings in the Countryside needed
consideration with regard to the relationship of the replacement building and the
footprint of the original building.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney regarding Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty designations, the Planning Legal Manager explained that
the AONB was one of the most important protective designations, of which there
were 30 in the UK. They were given protection by the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act. There was a requirement to keep boundaries under review and to have
plans for enhancement and improvement. Central Government was responsible for
designating them.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that proposals such as wind farms could be well
outside the AONB but still affect it because of the open nature of the landscape.
In response to a question by Councillor B Smith, the Head of Planning stated that the
Council’s policy required buildings to be of architectural merit. However, the number
of conversions of buildings in the Countryside had increased because new permitted
development rights allowed the conversion of buildings of a lower standard. The
Local Plan Review would give an opportunity to consider issues and criteria in detail.
RESOLVED
That the Constitution Working Party be recommended to approve the
changes to the Constitution in relation to the terms of reference of the
Development Committee and conditional and default delegation to the
Head of Planning.
The meeting closed at 12.44 pm.
Development Committee
10
19 March 2015