20 FEBRUARY 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – Lancaster North Ward
T Ivory – Scottow Ward
J Lee – Suffield Park Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
Mrs L Walker – Happisburgh Ward
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr D Johnson – Monitoring Officer
(199) CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENT
The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council had won an extremely
important legal challenge in the High Court against the Planning Inspector’s decision
to allow an appeal against the refusal of planning application PF/11/0983 for the
proposed erection of a wind turbine at Bodham. On behalf of the Committee she
expressed gratitude to the Planning Legal Manager and the Planning and Legal
teams for their excellent work in this matter.
The Planning Legal Manager thanked the Chairman for her kind words. He
emphasised that it was a team effort which brought about the result, and that the
case had been ably presented by Estelle Dehon, the Barrister who had acted on the
Council’s behalf. A costs award had been made in favour of the Council.
The Secretary of State could seek leave to appeal against the High Court decision.
(200) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were in attendance.
Development Committee
1
20 February 2014
(201) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 23 January 2014 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(202) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(203) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
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.
(204) BRISTON - PF/13/1529 - Erection of eighteen dwellings; Land at Church Street
for Victory Housing Trust
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs H Simmons (Briston Parish Council)
Mr P Pitcher (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Historic Environment Service had no
objection subject to an archaeological programme. The Landscape Officer had no
objection. Comments were awaited from Environmental Health regarding drainage
issues. She requested delegated authority to approve this application in accordance
with the recommendation contained in the report, subject to no objections from
outstanding consultees.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, expressed concerns regarding
overdevelopment, the location of the access close to the proposed flats and drainage
issues. He stated that the site had originally been proposed for 10 dwellings. He
considered that the access should remain in its present location. He proposed
deferral of this application for further negotiations regarding the access and a
reduction in the number of dwellings.
Development Committee
2
20 February 2014
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to Victory Housing developments in his Ward
which he considered were very good. He expressed concerns regarding the design
of the proposed scheme. He considered that close attention should be paid to
materials. He referred to the Officer’s appraisal of the layout, design and scale of the
development. He stated that drainage was an important issue.
Councillor R Shepherd largely supported the views of the local Member. He referred
to the attenuation pond adjacent to this site and considered that further attenuation
may be needed.
He considered that the access should remain in its present
position.
Councillor P W High seconded deferral of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds supported deferral and stated that Briston could not afford to
lose the development of 100% affordable dwellings.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green regarding boundary
treatment, the Senior Planning Officer stated that a close-boarded fence around the
site would be unacceptable and Officers were seeking softer landscaping around the
field.
The Chairman stated that drainage reports should be available when considering
applications.
In response to a suggestion by the Planning Legal Manager to address viability
issues by a slight extension of the site, Councillor J A Wyatt stated that he did not
wish to see any expansion of the boundary of the site and considered that this was a
case where the developer had paid too much for the land.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred for negotiations in
respect of the number of dwellings proposed and location of the access.
(205) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/1226 - Conversion of barn to two holiday
units; Barn at Saxthorpe Hall, Aylsham Road, Saxthorpe for Mr W Alefounder
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor B Smith was not present during the consideration of this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, considered that the amended design
was a considerable improvement on the previous design.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no material issues being raised following readvertisement
and reconsultation with the Parish Council on the amended plans and
subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Development Committee
3
20 February 2014
(206) CROMER - PF/13/0979 - Erection of two three-storey dwellings and one twostorey dwelling; Land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for PP3
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Walker (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been
received from a local resident which raised similar concerns to those set out in the
report. He recommended approval as stated in the report, subject to confirmation
that the levels were correct and that the development could be accommodated on the
site.
Councillor J Lee, a local Member, referred to local concerns regarding this
development. He stated that there was no other three-storey development in the
area and considered that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policies EN1
and EN4. He expressed concern regarding the safety of the access which would be
close to the railway bridge. He considered that the proposal was an attempt to
maximise financial gain from an unsuitable piece of land. He considered that two
bungalows would be much more in keeping with the area. He requested that the
Committee refuse this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to the number of objections received to the
original plan. He stated that careful attention would need to be paid to calculations
by Building Control given the difficult site. He considered that it was unfortunate that
the existing walls would be removed.
In response to questions by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney regarding possible
reversing of vehicles onto the road and lack of amenity space, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that there was a communal turning area provided on the site and small
terraced garden areas.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the local Member’s views and considered that the
proposal would destroy the rural street scene.
Councillor J A Wyatt proposed refusal of this application on grounds that the proposal
would overdevelop the site and be out of character with the street scene.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the local Member. He had concerns regarding the
elevations and height of the proposed dwellings. He was also concerned with regard
to highway safety. Whilst there was a 30mph speed limit in force, it was not always
adhered to. He was also concerned regarding the turning area and bin storage.
The Development Manager stated that it appeared that Members’ concerns related to
overdevelopment of the site, with a scale and massing out of keeping with the form
and character of the area. With regard to highway safety concerns, the Highway
Authority had not objected to the application and he therefore advised against refusal
on highway safety grounds.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
Development Committee
4
20 February 2014
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would be
an overdevelopment of the site and the scale and massing of the
development would be out of keeping with the form and character of the
area.
(207) DILHAM - PO/13/1170 - Erection of detached dwelling; Land adjacent Cleavers,
Broadfen Lane for Mr & Mrs D Cowburn
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Mantell-Sayer (supporting)
The Planning Legal Manager reminded the Committee that it had previously resolved
to undertake a site inspection and had not made a decision in principle and therefore
the Monitoring Officer had not been engaged. However, he stated that there may be
some parallels with application PO/13/1113 which had been considered earlier in the
meeting.
The Monitoring Officer stated that there may be issues similar to PO/13/1113 but it
was his personal duty to decide if it merited observations. The Committee should
consider the application in the normal way.
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member, considered that the development would
fit comfortably on the land. She referred to the highway objections and stated that
there had been no accidents on the lane in 40 years. The site was a two minute
drive or 10 minute walk from Dilham and she referred to two other properties which
had received planning permission. She considered that any appeal against refusal of
this application would be successful, with the risk of costs being awarded against the
Authority.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the previous approvals were given in 1993
under a different policy regime and did not set a precedent for the current application.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that he would be prepared to
defend an appeal against refusal of this application on policy grounds and costs
would only be awarded if it could be demonstrated that the Authority had acted
unreasonably.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that it was a good site but it would be difficult to
prove sustainability. He proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning. This was seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd.
The Head of Planning stated that she considered there was a clear difference
between this application and PO/13/1113 as the latter related to the removal of an
existing building, which this application did not.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
5
20 February 2014
(208) FAKENHAM - PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House, 1 Hayes
Lane for Mr & Mrs R Gordon
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Plummer (objecting)
Mr K Cole (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received in
response to the arboricultural report. An amended arboricultural report had been
received and the Landscape Officer had been reconsulted. An emergency Tree
Preservation Order had been served to protect the trees on the site. The amended
arboricultural report did not address the Landscape Officer’s concerns and the
applicant had failed to demonstrate that the site could be developed satisfactorily
with regard to the impact on important trees.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the recommendation remained one of
delegated refusal but that there were issues to consider with regard to the proposed
demolition works which would require further legal advice.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, a local Member, stated that she objected
strongly to this application. She considered that the loss of the lawn would destroy
the character of the house. The development would be accessed via a narrow track
with poor visibility at its exit onto a busy road which was congested with parked
vehicles. She considered that the proposed development would overshadow existing
bungalows. She expressed concern at the impact on well-established trees and
wildlife. She requested refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds, a local Member, expressed concern with regard to the narrow
access lane. He was very concerned at the loss of trees, possible root damage and
overshadowing of the proposed dwellings which may lead to further loss of trees in
the future. He referred to existing congestion on Hayes Lane and visibility issues.
He considered that widening the access would not improve visibility because of onstreet parking. He stated that Beech House was one of the few remaining Georgian
houses in the town and he considered that the proposed works to the wall would
mutilate the area.
Councillor M J M Baker reiterated the local Member’s concerns regarding the impact
on Beech House.
The Development Manager explained that the removal of part of the house wall did
not require planning permission.
Councillor B Smith supported the local Members’ views.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that Beech House was in perfect balance with its
grounds.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
Development Committee
6
20 February 2014
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse this application on
the basis that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
development will not have a significant adverse impact on important
amenity trees and subject to further legal advice with regard to
demolition.
(209) FAKENHAM - PF/13/1463 - Erection of attached two-storey dwelling; Site
adjacent 11 Greenway Lane for Mr J Ward
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor R Reynolds and Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the local Members,
had no objection to this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that this application was a continuation of a row of
houses which had been rebuilt over the last few years. He was aware of problems
regarding stability of the land along the edge of the properties but realised that this
was not a planning issue.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that if the Committee were minded to approve this
application a note would be attached to the decision notice to draw attention to this
issue.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Development Manager
confirmed that the stabilisation of the bank was a civil matter.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report and that a note be attached to the permission regarding the
stabilisation of the bank.
(210) RUNTON - PF/13/1177 - Continued use of land as garden/storage and retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing and the excavation of soil; Land
adjacent Sunray, Thains Lane, East Runton for Mr S Withers
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor J A Wyatt was not present during consideration of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had already attempted to
address the issues by covering the sandbags with soil and carrying out planting on
the bank to restore the appearance of the lane. A small area of fencing remained
above the gate.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs
H P Eales, the local Member, was unable to attend the meeting. She had apologised
for her comments at the previous meeting, which were not intended to cause offence.
She was pleased that the applicant had taken steps to mitigate the damage and
comply with some of the conditions which would be applied in the event of approval
of this application. She now supported the application.
Development Committee
7
20 February 2014
The Chairman stated that Councillor Mrs Eales had written to the applicant following
the meeting to apologise for her remarks and she understood that the apology had
been accepted.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(211) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1101 - Erection of first and second floor side extension
with rear balcony above first floor extension and installation of two dormer
windows; Westcliffe House, 17 Victoria Street for Mr & Mrs Kirkham
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor R
Smith, a local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. He considered that
the amended proposals had gone some way to address his concerns, but remained
concerned that the proposals would overdevelop the site and the design would be
out of keeping with other properties in the Conservation Area. He requested that the
conditions recommended by the Officers be imposed if the Committee were minded
to approve this application.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended that an additional condition be imposed to
require precise details of windows to be submitted and agreed.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that Councillor Smith’s had until recently lived in
Victoria Street and his parents continued to do so, and therefore he had an interest in
this application. He stated that his only concern related to the balcony at the rear.
However, as many properties in the area were overlooked he proposed approval of
this application which was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include an unopenable window on the west
elevation and precise details of the windows, render colour and bricks
and tiles to be submitted and agreed.`
(212) SLOLEY - PF/13/1481 - Conversion of workshop and store to two residential
dwellings; Woodstock, Low Street for Mr F Reader
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr F Reader (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was nothing to commend this proposal
and the site was in an unsustainable location.
Development Committee
8
20 February 2014
Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, stated that the site sat between Sloley and
Tunstead and he considered that it was no less sustainable than either of those
villages. The site was a five-minute drive from Hoveton. He considered that in
environmental, social and economic terms the proposal was sustainable. He
considered that the appearance of the proposed dwellings meant they were less
likely to be bought as second homes and given their size and location, were likely to
be affordable to local people. He considered that the lack of objection was a material
consideration. He did not support the Officer’s view that the architectural merit of the
building was a key issue. He considered that the Council’s policy was out of date as
a five year supply of housing land could not be demonstrated. There was a clear
presumption under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in favour of
sustainable development. He considered that in this case there was nothing to
outweigh the benefits of this proposal which would provide much needed housing in
Sloley.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that under the adopted Core Strategy Policy the
buildings should be worthy of retention and that high quality design be sought, which
was reiterated in the NPPF. In his opinion, the proposal did not comply with these
requirements.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the building was not attractive, but if
minded to approve, the Committee could seek design improvements.
She
considered that the building was plain and attention should be paid to the
fenestration. She stated that there was a need for developments which could be
affordable to local families.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that it would be beneficial if the building were
tidied up.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 2
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(213) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/1393 - Erection of replacement detached
garage with storage above; Stonipatch, Jolly Sailor Yard for Dr S Alexander
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Fulford (objecting)
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, referred to the ’25 degree’ rule in respect
of daylight and sunlight which had been raised by the objector. He considered that
further tests were required in this case and requested deferral of this application to
allow this to be done.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker regarding the possibility of the
garage being converted to holiday accommodation, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the building was in a sustainable location with sufficient land for parking
and he could see no reason why such use would not be acceptable. However, this
would make no difference to the scale and massing of the building.
Development Committee
9
20 February 2014
Members suggested erecting the new garage on the existing footprint or reducing the
height of the building, In response to a question as to whether moving the building
would overcome his objections, Mr Fulford stated that even if the building were
moved the height would remain as proposed.
The Development Manager stated that the 25 degree test did not form part of this
Council’s approach to such applications; each application is considered on its
specific merits. However, whilst he appreciated that there would be an impact on the
neighbour, he did not consider that it would be sufficient to warrant refusal of this
application.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the building would not require planning
permission if it were less than 2.5 metres in height.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds that
consideration of this application be deferred.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by
Councillor R Shepherd that this application be refused.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in
favour and 9 against.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to investigate further
the impact on the neighbour and if necessary seek an amendment to the
height of the proposed building.
(214) 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 referred to the shortfall in the five-year housing land
supply. He stated that the NPPF introduced a presumption in favour of development
where there was a shortfall. However, development should be in sustainable
locations. Officers considered that the site was remote from services and therefore
not sustainable. He referred to the Monitoring Officer’s report which was appended
to the report. He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.
The Monitoring Officer outlined his role and responsibilities and the reasons for his
conclusions as outlined in his report. There was a formal route by which Members
could review their policies. If the application were refused, the applicant could appeal
the decision and the appeal would test the issues being debated.
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member, was unhappy at the way the application
had been dealt with. She referred to a meeting which she understood had been held
with group members to which she had not been invited, and expressed the view that
training on the NPPF should have been independently facilitated. She referred to the
shortfall in the five-year supply of land and stated that the Council’s policies were
therefore out of date and the application should be approved.
Development Committee
10
20 February 2014
The Monitoring Officer stated that he had not attended a meeting with party group
members.
The Head of Planning explained that the Monitoring Officer had not been involved in
discussion. She had been requested by Group Leaders to explain matters of
procedure and why the application had been referred to the Monitoring Officer. The
training referred to by the local Member had been requested some time ago.
The Planning Policy Manager explained that the Council could not demonstrate a five
year supply of land and was unlikely to do so next year. In such circumstances the
NPPF stated that the policy with regard to housing was out of date and there was a
presumption in favour of sustainable development. It had been stated from the
outset that the proposal was not sustainable development and the NPPF gave no
grounds to approve it.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that as a Group Leader he had attended the meeting
referred to and he confirmed the Head of Planning’s comments. He considered that
the Committee should not rely on the fact that the refusal of application PO/11/0863
had been upheld on appeal. With regard to sustainability, he considered that there
was no problem with access, there were seven other dwellings nearby and the
existing commercial use of the building was causing problems for its neighbours. He
considered that the replacement of the existing engineering business by two
dwellings would assist with the housing supply and alleviate the nuisance to the
neighbours. Services were already on site and the emergency services were aware
of the location of the site. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that it would be very difficult to prove sustainability and
policy should not be made at Development Committee. He proposed refusal of this
application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.
Councillor Mrs A R Green seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal to approve this
application. She considered that the existing engineering premises was far worse in
the Countryside area than two desperately needed dwellings.
Councillor Reynolds stated that there were other avenues to review policy. The
applicant could appeal against refusal and if she were successful it would inform the
Council in its policy review.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle seconded Councillor Reynolds’ proposal.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there were many issues, some of which
went to the heart of the decision making process. The appeal decision was
comparatively recent and had been made in favour of the Authority. He suggested
that nothing had changed except that the current application proposed two dwellings,
whereas the previous application had been for one. With regard to fairness, he
stated that the Committee had refused similar and equally deserving applications for
small developments in unsustainable locations.
He stated that the NPPF
presumption in favour of development related only to sustainable locations. He
advised that the application should be refused. There was concern that the relevant
policies should be reviewed but it should not be at this meeting.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard regarding the definition of
sustainability, the Head of Planning referred to the three key strands in the NPPF
relating to economic, social and environmental benefits which needed to be taken
into account when defining sustainability.
Development Committee
11
20 February 2014
Councillor M J M Baker considered that there would be social benefit given the antisocial nature of the current use, economic benefit as it was not economic to have an
industrial building in that location, whereas two dwellings would count towards
meeting the target, and environmental benefit as the industrial building would be
removed. There would be additional social benefit as there would be more
neighbours to help out as residents aged.
Councillor R Shepherd supported Councillor Reynolds and considered that there
were good reasons for refusing this application.
The first proposal for approval of this application was put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
The Officers advised the Committee with regard to its reasons for approving this
application.
Reasons: The replacement of the industrial building, associated social
benefits and the shortfall in the Council’s five year supply of housing
land.
(215) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that
the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Councils be invited to
attend:
HOLKHAM – PF/13/1294 – Erection of two-storey learning centre, site
access and associated landscaping/earthworks; land at Lady Anne’s
Drive for Coke Estates Limited
CROMER – PF/13/1521 - Erection of crematorium with access roads, car
park and ancillary works; land north of Cromer Cemetery, Holt Road for
Crematoria Management Ltd
(216) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(217) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(218) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
12
20 February 2014
(219) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(220) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(221) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
(222) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 19 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 1.10 pm.
Development Committee
13
20 February 2014