20 JANUARY 2011
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held in the Council
Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
S J Partridge (Chairman)
J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs A R Green
P W High
S C Mears
J D Savory
Mrs M Seward
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs L Walker
Mrs H P Eales - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - substitute for P J Willcox
Mrs G M D Lisher - substitute for H C Cordeaux
Mrs C M Wilkins - Worstead Ward
J Lisher - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer (Arboriculture)
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Mrs C Bye - Environmental Protection Officer
(175) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H C Cordeaux, J H PerryWarnes and P J Willcox. There were three substitute Members in attendance as
shown above.
(176) MINUTES
Councillor S C Mears requested that his comments in minute 163 be amended to
read “He stated that people with dementia often lost their road sense …”.
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 16 December 2010 were
approved as a correct record, subject to the above amendment, and signed by the
Chairman.
(177) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at Briston, reference
PO/10/1216. The reason for urgency was to expedite processing of the application
by undertaking a site inspection.
Development Control Committee
1
20 January 2011
(178) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor J D Savory declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the item concerned.
(179) SIDESTRAND – TPO 12 Starling Rise
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of a Tree
Preservation Order at the above site.
Public Speaker
Mr Lumb (objecting)
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that this part of the coast
was the most dynamic in the UK and she welcomed the retention of any tree within
200-300 metres of the cliff edge. Although the tree was shallow rooting, it would
take up water and help to reduce the risk of cliff slump.
The Landscape Officer answered Members’ questions in respect of branch failure
and susceptibility to lightning damage. He confirmed that whether a tree was native
or non-native was irrelevant to the service of a Tree Preservation Order.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, seconded by Councillor Mrs J
Trett and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order
(Sidestrand) 2010 No. 24 be confirmed.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(180) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1305 - Removal of condition 1 of
planning permission reference PF/09/0907 to permit permanent erection of
agricultural/horticultural buildings, wind turbine and bund; Woodfruits, Locks
Farm Road, Corpusty for Mr A Den Engelse
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr den Engelse (supporting)
Development Control Committee
2
20 January 2011
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority and National Air
Traffic Services had raised no objection to this application. The Sustainability Coordinator supported this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions. Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, had commented that the
Parish Council had requested a further site inspection. The Senior Planning Officer
requested delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the
recommendation in the report.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales read a statement from Councillor J H Perry-Warnes in
support of this application.
Councillor S C Mears stated that he understood the concerns that had been raised
previously but the applicant had carried out a lot of work on the site. He supported
the application.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, Mr den Engelse stated that
the turbine height had been reduced from 20m to 15m at the hub.
It was proposed by Councillor S C Mears, seconded by Councillor J D Savory and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(181) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/10/1137 - Use of land for the stationing of
temporary agricultural workers dwelling; Woodfruits, Locks Farm Road,
Corpusty for Mr A den Engelse
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr den Engelse (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Building Control Manager had no
comments to make following the receipt of an application under the Building
Regulations in respect of the drainage. The applicant had agreed not to commence
works to the dwelling until such time as mushroom production had commenced. The
applicant envisaged the buildings to be completed by the end of May, with production
commencing by June.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from the
Parish Council requesting a further site inspection in order to verify production and
assess the need for someone to live on the site. She referred to Policy HO5 and
PPS 7 which were applicable in this case, and stated that the applicant had
submitted a supporting statement on which an independent expert opinion had been
sought by the Authority. Whilst the objections raised by the Parish Council and local
residents had been taken into account, in view of the expert opinion, the undertaking
by the applicant, the proposal was considered to comply with Policy HO5 and PPS7.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
for a temporary period of three years subject to no objections from outstanding
consultees and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
3
20 January 2011
Councillor Mrs H P Eales stated that she noted the Parish Council’s objections, but
considered that the applicant had demonstrated that the development was justified.
She requested that the conditions be monitored.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor S C Mears and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application for a temporary period of three years subject to
no objections from outstanding consultees and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions to include an agricultural
occupancy restriction, the dwelling not to be occupied until full
mushroom production has commenced and removal of the existing
mobile home either by condition or legal agreement.
(182) FELMINGHAM - PF/10/1379 - Erection of 8 dwellings (extension of period for
commencement of planning ref: 07/1437); Land at Goulders Lane off North
Walsham Road for Circle Anglia
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Mumford-Smith (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been
received in respect of highway safety, access, parking and loss of allotment land.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer stated that
there were seven allotments in total, two or three of which were very large and
cultivated on an agricultural basis. The larger plots would be affected by the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member, referred to the Parish Council’s
comments. She stated that a petition had been raised in the village. However, the
Development Manager stated that no petition had been received. Councillor Mrs
Wilkins did not support this application on grounds of the loss of allotment land. She
considered that housing need had changed since the previous application as
affordable housing had been built in two adjacent parishes. She understood that the
National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners did not support this application.
She considered that a better site should be chosen. She suggested that a sum of
£8,000 be sought for replacement allotments in the event of approval of this
application, representing the sale price of the land. She considered that there was
no pressing need to build the dwellings as the previous permission had expired.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that there was a need for social housing in the
locality and the benefits of this application outweighed the loss of the allotments.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor S C Mears and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee
4
20 January 2011
(183) HOLT - PF/10/1333 - Erection of single-storey extension; Budgens Store,
Kerridge Way for C T Baker Ltd
It was noted that the Managing Director of the applicant Company was a Member of
the Council.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee a further
email that had been received from the objector correcting point 4 of the summarised
representations in the report in respect of parking. The Team Leader stated that this
issue had been considered carefully and there was no justifiable reason for refusing
the application on this basis.
The Team Leader recommended that a condition be imposed to limit the sale of
comparison goods to 15% of the total goods for sale to ensure that there would be no
adverse impact on the town and this condition had been accepted by the applicant.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include limiting the sale of comparison goods
to 15% of the total goods for sale.
(184) OVERSTRAND - PF/10/1045 - Retention of rear extension; White Horse Public
House, 34 High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Presslee (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager remained concerned at the impact of the extension on the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. He would be prepared to withdraw his
objection if the roof tiles were replaced with clay pantiles to compliment or match the
adjacent barn. However, the only change that had been agreed was the painting of
the bargeboards to match the main building and to paint the structure a more natural
colour.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal as stated in the report and
requested authority to commence enforcement action in respect of the roof tiles only.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that the fenestration was
painted timber and not upvc as stated in the report. She stated that the extension
could only be seen for a very short distance and was only overlooked from two
bedrooms and empty gardens. With regard to the impact on the Overstrand
Conservation Area, she stated that the extension was situated to the rear of the
building. She stated that the public house was a mixture of architectural styles. She
considered that the tiles would weather and referred to the clifftop location facing the
prevailing wind. She requested an example of a weathered tile. She considered that
replacing the tiles would have severe economic consequences for the applicant.
Development Control Committee
5
20 January 2011
The Development Manager stated that the only issue was the use of materials, and
not the principle or scale of the extension. He displayed an example of the current
roof tile in both a new and weathered condition. He stated that bearing in mind the
commercial premises there would need to be discussion around the timing of any
works to avoid busy periods.
Councillor Mrs L Walker proposed the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor B Smith expressed concern at the lack of control over the development by
the Authority.
The Development Manager explained that the applicant had tiled the building without
the Council’s knowledge. The Authority did not have the resources to monitor
development in progress and only did so proactively if Members requested it.
Councillor Mrs M Seward seconded the proposal. She requested a regular update
on the progress of negotiations. She stated that the Council had a duty to maintain
its Conservation Areas.
Members expressed concern that the render was rather pale in colour.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that whilst the extension
had not been built in accordance with the planning permission, it was not desirable to
enforce back to that permission. He suggested that the Committee give delegated
authority to approve this application subject to the applicant amending the materials.
In the event that the applicant would not agree, the Authority could enforce or the
applicant could appeal against the condition. The proposer and seconder accepted
this suggestion.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of conditions
requiring repainting of the render and bargeboard/eaves, the
replacement of the slates within a time period to be agreed; the details
of the materials to be submitted and agreed.
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
instigate enforcement action, if necessary, for the tiles only with a
period for compliance of six months.
Reason: Inappropriate design and adverse impact on the Conservation
Area.
(185) RYBURGH - PF/09/0966 - Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping;
Land at Crisp Maltings, Fakenham Road for Crisp Malting Group Ltd
Councillor J D Savory declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he supplied
malt and barley to the business. He vacated the Council Chamber during
consideration of this application.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee
6
20 January 2011
Public Speakers
Mrs Smith, Mr Smith, Mrs Savory, Mr Lanham (objecting)
Mr Irvine (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that, in respect of
previous planning history, permission had been granted in 1987 for a large building
on the field. He stated that whilst this permission had expired and was of limited
weight, the Committee should bear in mind that the building could have been
erected. He reported that a further letter of objection had been received from an
objector whose previous comments had been included in the report, relating to noise
and traffic. This objector had written to the Chief Executive making unfounded
allegations about the Officers, and whilst an apology was awaited it had been agreed
to report his views to the Committee.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, expressed concerns regarding possible
overflow from the lagoon into the River Wensum, wildlife impacts, banging of vehicle
doors and warming up of lorry engines, lighting and security. She considered that
the proposal was contrary to policy as it was overdevelopment in the Countryside.
She proposed refusal of this application.
At the request of the Chairman, the Landscape Officer explained that the applicants
had carried out an ecological survey and mitigation proposals had been submitted in
respect of the re-creation of habitats elsewhere on the site. She considered that the
proposals in respect of pollution prevention should mean there would be no impact
on the River Wensum.
Councillor Mrs G M D Lisher stated that she lived in the adjacent village of Stibbard.
She stated that the business was very important and referred to its history. She
stated that the Environment Agency was investing a large sum of money to improve
the quality of flow to the Wensum. She asked how vehicle movements would be
monitored.
The Development Manager explained that the proposal was a complimentary
development to a significant business. He explained the policy context and advised
that Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of its scale.
Whilst there had been significant concerns with regard to surface water and impact
on the Site of Special Scientific Interest when the application was originally
submitted, work had been done to address these concerns and the relevant agencies
were satisfied that there would be sufficient mitigation. Environmental Health was
satisfied in respect of noise and lighting issues, subject to the imposition of
conditions. He advised Members to consider whether there would be any support
from technical or expert consultees in the event of refusal, given that these
consultees did not raise concerns.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs M Seward regarding the likelihood of barn
owls relocating, the Landscape Officer explained that lighting was a concern. The
lighting scheme had not been finalised, although modern lighting was designed to
reduce light spill. The bund and additional proposals should hopefully re-create the
habitat which would be lost through the creation of the lorry park.
Councillor Mrs L Walker referred to security issues and expressed concern at the
impact of the security lighting on the surrounding area and local people. She asked
whether property owners had any rights if they considered their properties had been
blighted.
Development Control Committee
7
20 January 2011
The Planning Legal Manager explained the possible challenges to planning decisions
through judicial review or the Local Government Ombudsman.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) referred to the detailed comments of the Highway Authority contained
in the report. He stated that, in the event of approval of this application, there was an
opportunity to place a limit on the output tonnage of the site, although the applicant
was likely to oppose such a condition. The Highway Authority had raised no
objection and considered that there would be a reduction in the number of lorry
movements as a result of the proposed development.
In answer to a question by the Chairman regarding the use of motion sensors to
control the lighting, the applicant’s representative explained that the proposed lighting
was a special type which emitted a low amount of infra-red radiation and could not be
triggered by a PIR sensor. There was a balance between these lights and those
which would work on a sensor but which were not as good. The lights would be
timed and would only operate at 25% brightness during the night.
In answer to further questions, the applicant’s representative stated that the
application in itself would not increase employment. If the application were refused,
the applicant would consider it an important signal that the continued development of
the Maltings was no longer welcome. However, it would be perverse to suggest any
reduction in employment on the basis of the decision, but it would be necessary to
reflect on the future of the business.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales stated that the business was very important to local
farmers, to agriculture and to the country in terms of export business. However, she
was very concerned at the impact on the village. She considered that the wildlife
would diminish because of the amount of concrete.
Councillor P W High expressed concern at the proximity of the site to Pensthorpe
and considered that there was no guarantee that there would be no seepage into the
land from the site. He was concerned at possible future development. He seconded
the proposal for refusal.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the applicants had
done all they could to ensure that there would be no impact on the River Wensum,
although this could never be 100% guaranteed. The lighting would need to be
agreed as a condition. He considered that the proposal was an efficient solution
which would reduce the amount of CO2 being produced. He considered that the
proposed conditions negated the concerns.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that if it were minded to refuse
this application, on the basis of the concerns raised, in his view the reason would
have to be that the scale of commercial development in the Countryside would be
detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area, contrary to Core
Strategy policies EN2 and EN4. However, it would be difficult to refuse on the basis
of concerns regarding drainage and pollution control in the light of the advice from
technical consultees.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that in the event of an appeal it would be
necessary to justify every reason advanced for refusal and cautioned against
reasons which it may not be possible to substantiate. The potential reason
suggested by the Development Manager did not conflict with his advice.
Development Control Committee
8
20 January 2011
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that there were no planning reasons to refuse
the application and proposed delegated approval of this application in accordance
with the recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett.
In answer to a question the Planning Legal Manager explained that Human Rights
were a matter of balance and an individual’s Human Rights were not breached just
because they opposed a development.
The Environmental Protection Officer answered Members’ questions regarding noise.
The Company had invested in a large project to address noise complaints in the late
1990s. There had been no complaints in recent years. Officers were satisfied that
noise control issues had been addressed.
In answer to a question regarding the impact on the Great Ryburgh site in the event
that the Hempton lorry park site was lost, the applicant’s representative stated that if
another site could not be found, or was too far away, the Company would have to
contract out to another haulier, whereas at present it had its own fleet and drivers.
The original proposal for refusal was put to the vote and declared lost with 5
Members voting in favour and 7 against.
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 5 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a limit on the tonnage output of malt per annum
and subject to the applicant signing a Unilateral Obligation in relation to
the use of the site, as requested by the Highway Authority.
(186) SALTHOUSE - PF/10/1276 - Erection of extension and raising the height of
boatstore and conversion to annexe; Drift Cottage, Coast Road for Mr & Mrs D
McDonald
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs G M D Lisher reported that Councillor H C Cordeaux, the local
Member, had suggested that the large window would benefit from two mullions and
reduction in its size to reduce light pollution. He also considered that the external
surfaces should be flint where possible and the trees adjacent to the site should be
protected.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new grounds of objection
following readvertisement and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including the prior approval of bricks and tiles, the
submission of an adequate Arboricultural Method Statement and
restriction of the annexe to ancillary residential use.
Development Control Committee
9
20 January 2011
(187) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/1235 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/10/1236 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
These applications had been withdrawn.
(188) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(189) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(190) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(191) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(192) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(193) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(194) BRISTON - PO/10/1216 - Erection of dwelling; land adjoining Carefree,
Providence Place for Mr L Watts
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter
of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
The Development Manager recommended that the Committee visit the site prior to
the consideration of a full report given the planning history of the site and the
Highway Authority’s objection to this application.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
The meeting closed at 12.40 pm.
Development Control Committee
10
20 January 2011