20 AUGUST 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
R Reynolds (Chairman)
R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S Butikofer
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Hester
Ms M Prior – substitute for S Ward
D Smith – Sheringham North Ward
G Williams – Worstead Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mrs N Turner – Housing Strategy & Community Development Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Higgins – Principal Highway Engineer (NCC Highways)
Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
(66)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S Hester and S Ward. Two
substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
(67)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 23 July 2015 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(68)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
(69)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
74
Councillor:
R Shepherd
Development Committee
Interest
Previous involvement with the developer
1
20 August 2015
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.
(70)
BLAKENEY - PF/15/0762 - Demolition of bungalow and outbuildings and
erection of a two-storey dwelling and detached three car garage; Three Owls
Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mrs Cargill
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Hewitt (objecting)
Mr T Schofield (supporting)
The Major Projects Manager presented the report and drew Members’ attention to
planning history, representations received and the main issues for consideration. He
stated that page 3 of a letter attached at Appendix 1 to the report from a Solicitor
acting on behalf of the Glaven Valley Protection Group and the Friends of North
Norfolk had been omitted from the agenda, but had been forwarded to Members in a
further email.
A further letter had been received from the Glaven Valley Protection Group and
Friends of North Norfolk querying the need for screening under Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Regulations. The Major Projects Manager stated that, although
within the AONB, and irrespective of whether the proposed development falls within
the descriptions of development contained in either Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the
EIA Regulations, the characteristics of development were not considered to be of the
magnitude which would result in likely significant effects on the receiving
environmentand Officers therefore were of the opinion that an EIA was not required.
The Major Projects Manager displayed an aerial photograph and photographs
indicating a number of viewpoints. He stated that the Landscape Officer considered
that a visual impact assessment was not required and that, subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions in respect of landscaping, which should include the
retention of the frontage hedgerow to the Saxlingham Road, Officers considered that
the proposed dwelling would not have an adverse impact on the landscape character
of the area or AONB
Development Committee
2
20 August 2015
In respect of representations received requesting legal agreements to control future
development on the site, the Major Projects Manager considered that development
could be adequately controlled by conditions and that a legal obligation was
unnecessary. He drew attention to proposed condition 3 set out in the report. He
recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions set out in the
report.
Councillor P W High considered that the height and scale of the current proposal was
far more compatible than the previous applications and would have no visual impact.
He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the height of the building, which was still
considerably taller than the existing bungalow. She asked if approval of this
application would affect the current appeal against the previous application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst the decision would be a relevant
material consideration, it did not follow that the appeal would be allowed. The
Council would defend its previous decision at the appeal.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal.
Councillor Ms M Prior referred to a request by Mr Hewitt to defer the application. She
stated that the Parish Council had no objection and all necessary consultations had
been carried out, therefore she considered that deferral was unnecessary.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of
Planning.
(71)
CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0467 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling;
Green Farm, Holt Road for Executors of Estates of E W J Watts and Y U Watts
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr T Schofield (objecting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the applicant was willing
to widen the access, subject to third party approval. He outlined the highway safety
issues relating to this application. The Highway Authority maintained its objection to
this application. However, Officers considered that provided that improvements to
the access could be achieved, on balance, the proposal was acceptable given the
need to secure the future of the barn.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, considered that residential use was the best
way to secure the future of the building. However, access was the key issue. He
considered that installation of kerbing was unlikely to slow traffic speeds. However,
he had no objection to kerbing if it satisfied the Highway Authority. He considered
that traffic mirrors would help drivers exiting the site. He considered that with only six
traffic movements a day it would be relatively rare that drivers would need to slow
down for vehicles leaving the site. He considered that widening the access would
largely resolve the issues but understood that the owners would not give their
permission. He asked if the application would be refused if it was not possible to
widen the access.
Development Committee
3
20 August 2015
The Development Management Officer (NCC Highways) explained that the shortfall
in visibility was in the traffic direction and kerbing would narrow the road and provide
a pedestrian refuge. Mirrors were not acceptable as they could give a distorted view
and reflect headlights, and could be knocked out of alignment. If the access could
not be widened it would lead to traffic waiting in the road. There were other buildings
on the site which could possibly come forward for development.
The Chairman reminded the Committee that it was dealing with this application only.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there was a need to preserve the barn and
storage use would not do so. The entrance wall had a large crack in it and would
need to be repaired in any case. He considered that the access in its present form
was acceptable.
He proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended. He considered that it would be of benefit if the improvements could
be secured but if not, the application was acceptable as it stood.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that if this application were
approved, it should be subject to an accurate protected species survey being carried
out prior to commencement of development.
Councillor Ms M Prior stated that she travelled this road regularly and considered that
it did not need any further narrowing. She referred to ownership of the listed wall and
considered that the entrance would not be widened and that it would be difficult to
achieve 4.5m width in any case. She questioned why the barn could not be restored
and used for storage. She could not support this application unless it met the
Highway Authority’s requirements.
The Officers advised the Committee with regard to conditions which would be
required to secure the access improvements prior to work commencing on the barn.
With regard to the kerb, the Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
stated that he understood the Conservation and Design Officer’s concerns regarding
provision of a footpath. He explained that The Green was a destination for
pedestrians and securing a refuge on the verge would mitigate concerns to a degree.
Councillor N Smith considered that storage use could generate a number of traffic
movements without issues being raised regarding the access. In his opinion there
would little difference between storage and domestic use. If the building were used
for livestock the number of movements could be considerable.
Councillor P W High considered that further clarification was needed in respect of the
access. He proposed deferral of this application to explore the possibility of
agreement being reached with the owner of the wall with regard to widening of the
access.
Councillor P Rice supported Councillor Mrs Claussen-Reynolds’ view regarding the
protected species survey. He seconded deferral of this application.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that it would be in order to defer
this application.
Councillor B Smith considered that the wall should be retained as widening would
detract from the attractiveness of the site. He stated that permission had been given
elsewhere where access was worse than the current application. He stated that
there was a “slow” sign on the road surface. He considered that a sign to draw
attention to the concealed entrance would be helpful.
Development Committee
4
20 August 2015
Councillor R Shepherd withdrew his proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor P Rice and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to clarify issues
regarding the possible alteration of the wall and whether kerbing would
alleviate the highway safety issues.
With regard to protected species, the Development Management Team Leader
explained that the Landscape Officer was satisfied on this issue and that detailed
conditions would be submitted when the application was further considered by the
Committee.
(72)
FAKENHAM - PO/14/1212 - Residential development for a maximum of 78
dwellings, extension to existing allotments, public open space, surface water
attenuation pond and foul sewage pumping station; Brick Kiln Farm, Rudham
Stile Lane for Mr Picken
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Major Projects Manager stated that this application formed part of a wider
allocation. A development brief had been agreed by Cabinet and, on the basis of the
allocation, the principle of development had already been established. An indicative
layout had been submitted. Officers considered that it would be possible to
satisfactorily accommodate 78 dwellings on the site, although improvements to the
layout would be sought at reserved matters stage.
The Major Projects Manager presented the report and drew attention to the
representations, consultation responses and main issues for consideration including
the advice of the Highway Authority. Updated comments had been received from
Environmental Health, Environment Agency and Natural England. The comments of
Anglian Water were awaited. He requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to (i) prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance
with the terms set out in the Development Viability Implications and S.106 Planning
Obligations section of the report and including an uplift clause; (ii) no new material
issues being raised by Anglian Water following reconsultation on the ASD
Engineering report submitted on behalf of Trinity College Cambridge; (iii) the specific
conditions set out in the report; and (iv) any other conditions considered to be
appropriate by the Head of Planning , possibly including a condition requiring details
of sewage disposal from the development to be submitted as part of any reserved
matters application.
The Chairman stated that this application was in his Ward but he did not intend to
speak on it.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds declared that this application was in her Ward.
She stated that the principle of development had already been established. The
proposed allocation was on a privately owned site, and not part of the future 800-900
dwellings on land owned by Trinity College. As a consequence it would be accessed
from the existing entrance onto Rudham Stile Lane. She was pleased with the range
of dwellings, although it was unfortunate that only 2 affordable homes would be
provided and that further negotiations were not possible given the initial outlay for
services and financial contributions. However, an excellent Section 106 agreement
Development Committee
5
20 August 2015
and uplift clause had been negotiated, including funding towards a new primary
school. She hoped that the site would move forward quickly and considered that if
the site were tidied up it would be beneficial and possibly encourage movement on
the larger site and further affordable housing provision. She stated that the upgrade
to Rudham Stile Lane was of utmost importance and that conditions should include
access by contractors’ vehicles from the A148 using Water Moor Lane, upgrading of
the bridge junction and connection to Rudham Stile Lane, an on-site parking area
and unloading area for supply vehicles on site. She was pleased that on-site wheel
washing and a scheme for off-site highway improvements in Rudham Stile Lane were
included in the conditions. She proposed delegated approval of this application in
accordance with the recommendation.
The County Council Principal Highway Engineer referred to the anticipated additional
traffic movements from the site. In relation to works to Rudham Stile Lane, he stated
that it was important to provide safe walking routes to school for children. The
Highway Authority’s holding objection related to the principle of the proposal as it
could take value away from the site as a whole. However, as a stand-alone site the
Highway Authority would not recommend refusal.
The Housing Strategy & Community Development Manager explained the viability
issues and assessment method. On the evidence available, any more than two
affordable dwellings would fail the viability test for this site.
In answer to questions by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Major Projects
Manager stated that Trinity College had not submitted an application at the present
time, but there were indications that it would do so. Trinity College would be
responsible for the drainage on its own site.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that there was a downward spiral in
terms of provision of affordable housing. She considered that the Housing Strategy
& Community Development Manager had done very well to achieve 2 affordable
dwellings in the current proposal of 78 dwellings. She referred to other sites where
there was little or no affordable housing. She stated that she would be contacting the
Portfolio Holder and Leader of the Council to request a meeting of Development
Committee to discuss this matter with a view to reversing the trend.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds’ proposal.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern at the lack of affordable housing but
understood the situation. He was also concerned with regard to employment issues.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with
the terms set out in the Development Viability Implications and
S.106 Planning Obligations section of the report and including an
uplift clause;
(ii)
No new material issues being raised by Anglian Water following
reconsultation on the ASD Engineering report submitted on behalf
of Trinity College Cambridge;
Development Committee
6
20 August 2015
(iii) The specific conditions set out in the report; and
(iv) Any other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning, possibly including a condition requiring details of
sewage disposal from the development to be submitted as part of
any reserved matters application.
(73)
RUNTON - PF/15/0315 - Erection of one and a half-storey rear extension and
raise roof to provide habitable accommodation, insertion of first floor balcony
and installation of cladding; Apple Tree Cottage, Rosebery Road, West Runton
for Mr B Cottam
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Cottam (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader explained the impact issues and
displayed photographs of the site and neighbouring dwellings.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the local Member, considered that the design would be an
improvement on the existing and would be in keeping with the neighbouring dwelling.
However, she had concerns regarding impact on the neighbour.
In response to a question by Councillor P Rice the Development Management Team
Leader explained the proposed materials to be used for the balcony.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
(74)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0721 - Erection of a detached single-storey building to
provide 2 self-contained annexes; Dalmeny House, 2 The Boulevard for
Dalmeny House Limited
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs A Smith (Sheringham Town Council)
Councillor D Smith, a local Member, explained the nature of the premises and
referred to the strict supervision of the patients currently in residence. He expressed
concern that the new building was noticeably larger than the shed it replaced, and
that the applicants could relocate the existing shed without the need for planning
permission. He stated that the mental health patients required space and tranquillity
to help with their condition and that the two buildings would result in cramming, to the
detriment of their wellbeing. He considered that in the circumstances the proposal
would result in overdevelopment and detrimental loss of amenity space.
Development Committee
7
20 August 2015
Councillor R Shepherd supported Councillor D Smith’s comments. He stated that
amenity space was desperately needed by the patients. He considered that the
proposed building was inadequate and would considerably reduce the amount of
amenity space.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern that it was proposed to house the
patients in a building which was separated from the main house without supervision.
She proposed refusal of this application, which was seconded by Councillor N Smith.
Councillor P Rice considered that there was an issue for Social Services to consider.
In answer to a question by Councillor Ms M Prior, the Development Management
Team Leader explained that this proposal related to annexe accommodation and the
floor space requirements were less than an independent dwelling. A condition would
be imposed to prevent separate occupation.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds suggested deferral of this application.
The Major Projects Manager stated that he understood the units would be required to
operate under the Care Quality Commission requirements. He suggested that advice
be sought from the Commission.
Following further advice from the Officers, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs A
Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek the views of
the Care Quality Commission.
(75)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0114 - Erection of 52 dwellings, access, roads,
open space, parking areas and associated works; Land off Holway Road/Butts
Lane for Norfolk Homes Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Horne (Upper Sheringham Parish Council)
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader explained that this application was in the parish of
Upper Sheringham, although it was geographically located close to the town of
Sheringham. He presented the report and displayed photographs and plans of the
site and a fly-through presentation of the proposed development. He stated that
most of the outstanding issues relating to affordable housing had now been resolved,
with the exception of the methodology for calculating the price of the shared
ownership dwellings. There was a willingness to resolve this issue and he requested
that this matter be delegated to Officers if the Committee was minded to approve the
application.
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that a further letter had been received
from Upper Sheringham Parish Council in relation to the amended plans. The Parish
Council strongly objected to the application on grounds relating to the need to protect
Development Committee
8
20 August 2015
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, covenants on the site, loss of valuable open
space, effect on infrastructure and highway safety on Holway Road. The Parish
Council also considered that Section 106 monies should be used in the parish.
In response to the Parish Council’s concerns, the Major Projects Team Leader stated
that the AONB issues had been addressed by the Inspector on examination of the
Core Strategy. Covenants were not relevant to the consideration of the planning
application. Anglian Water and the Environment Agency had no objections, schools
had sufficient capacity and no response had been received from the NHS regarding
health services. He explained the tests which were required for Section 106
contributions and the proposed contributions which related to this development.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to (i) agreement on details in relation to affordable housing
provision; (ii) expiry of the period of re-advertisement (revised plans) and no new
grounds of objection received; (iii) final approval of the Highway Authority on the
technical specifications of the adopted road; (iv) completion of a Section 106
Planning Obligation (to include details relating to the provision of affordable housing,
securing early delivery in accordance with the Council’s Housing Delivery Scheme,
financial contributions towards libraries and SAC/SPA visitor pressure mitigation and
£18,000 towards play equipment); and (v) the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The Housing Strategy & Community Development Manager explained that the only
outstanding issue relating to the proposed shared equity dwellings was the
mechanism by which the Section 106 agreement could ensure that they were
affordable. She was confident that agreement could be reached.
The Principal Highway Engineer explained that there would be adequate visibility
from the proposed access. The creation of a street scene by access onto the road
would encourage drivers to respect the speed limit.
In response to a comment made by a speaker, the Chairman stated that any further
extension to the site was not for consideration at this meeting.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the design of the development was good
and she was pleased that affordable housing would be provided. However, she
considered that if this development was proposed elsewhere in Upper Sheringham it
would have been recommended for refusal on policy grounds. She therefore
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor N Coppack stated that it had been made clear on the site inspection that
the site was within Upper Sheringham. He considered that the design of the
development was good and proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that Butts Lane was within his Ward, but not the
application site. He was pleased that Butts Lane would not be altered, but expressed
concern that the fence could be damaged to create a shortcut to the school. He
asked where the contribution towards play equipment would be used.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the Parks and Recreation Manager
would normally decide how the contribution towards play equipment would be used
but accepted that there was an argument that it should be used in Upper
Sheringham rather than Sheringham. The contribution was being sought as there
would be children living on the site and it should be used in areas which would
Development Committee
9
20 August 2015
benefit the residents, possibly to provide additional equipment on a nearby
playground.
Councillor Shepherd referred to Sheringham Town Council’s concerns regarding loss
of open space and building up to the adjacent woodland. However, this had also
happened on the opposite side of Holway Road. He expressed concern regarding
drainage but Anglian Water had raised no concerns. He seconded Councillor
Coppack’s proposal for delegated approval.
In response to a question by Councillor P Rice, the Planning Legal Manager
explained that approval of this application would not breach the Council’s policies.
Councillor Ms M Prior expressed concern at the distribution of affordable housing on
the site.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that the layout of the site was good.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at possible future extension of the
site given its location. She referred to allocated site SH06 which was closer to the
town and its services.
Councillor P W High suggested that the Section 106 contribution for play equipment
should be directed at the parish of Upper Sheringham. This was supported by
Councillors Mrs S Butikofer and P Rice.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer expressed concern that there was already pressure on the
doctors’ surgery and this issue needed to be addressed if further development were
to take place.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that it was in order to resolve
that the Section 106 contribution be used to benefit Upper Sheringham.
It was proposed by Councillor N Coppack, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
Agreement on details in relation to affordable housing provision;
(ii)
Expiry of the period of re-advertisement (revised plans) and no
new grounds of objection received;
(iii) Final approval of the Highway Authority on the technical
specifications of the adopted road;
(iv) Completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation (to include details
relating to the provision of affordable housing, securing early
delivery in accordance with the Council’s Housing Delivery
Scheme, financial contributions towards libraries and SAC/SPA
visitor pressure mitigation and £18,000 towards play equipment to
benefit Upper Sheringham); and
(v)
The imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
10
20 August 2015
(76)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0936 - Development of ground mounted solar voltaic
panels and associated works; Land at Bunn's Hill, North Walsham for
Solarcentury
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Major Projects Manager stated that the site was on grade 3b and 4 agricultural
land. The applicant was keen to remove as many pre-commencement conditions as
possible. The applicant proposed to use metal poles for the mounting of CCTV
cameras but Officers considered that timber poles would sit better in the landscape
but acknowledged that this may require additional cameras and poles. There were a
number of landscaping issues still to be considered and he requested delegated
authority to approve this application subject to no new grounds of objection from
outstanding consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor G Williams, the local Member, stated that his comments related to both
this application and PF/15/0938 below. He had attending meetings with regard to
these applications. He considered that lessons had been learned from the adjacent
scheme which had been the first one in the District. He referred to discussions held
on site and subsequent confirmation by the applicants which had satisfied most of his
concerns. He considered that local residents would be satisfied provided the
conditions were imposed and adhered to.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new grounds of objection from outstanding consultees
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(77)
WORSTEAD - PF/15/0938 - Proposed development of ground mounted solar
photovoltaic panels and associated works; Land at Frog's Loke, North
Walsham for Frog's Loke Solar Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new grounds of objection from outstanding consultees
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include those
listed in the report.
(78)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection:
ALBY – PF/15/0849 – Conversion of former reading rooms to wedding
venue; car park for 30 cars with new access off Church Road; The Old
Rectory, Church Road for Mr S Williams
Development Committee
11
20 August 2015
(79)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(80)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(81)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(82)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(83)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on current appeal cases.
(84)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee in respect of Cromer
PF/13/1521, erection of crematorium.
(85)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 1.38 pm.
CHAIRMAN
17 September 2015
Development Committee
12
20 August 2015