20 MARCH 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)
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
R Oliver – Sheringham South Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
(223) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor M J M Baker. There were no
substitute Members in attendance.
(224) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 February 2014 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(225) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(226) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the
item concerned.
(227) BRISTON Tree Preservation Order 2013 No.8 Rear of 33 – 48 Chequers Close
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officer’s reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several individual trees at the above site.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, stated that he had received many complaints
in a short period of time following removal of four of the trees and had requested the
service of a Tree Preservation Order to protect the remaining trees. The Order would
not prevent necessary maintenance work being undertaken. He proposed that the
Order be confirmed, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard.
Development Committee
1
20 March 2014
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs Uprichard, the Landscape Officer stated
that the Council could not insist on the replacement of the trees which had been
removed as they had not been protected.
The Chairman asked if a Tree Preservation Order could have been served at the
time the objector had made initial enquiries as to whether they were protected. The
Landscape Officer explained that the serving of a TPO was a reactionary process
and dependent on the Council having sufficient resources to investigate the amenity
value of the trees.
The Chairman stated that trees were a precious resource.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she had some sympathy for the objector’s
view as he had contacted the Council beforehand and been told the trees were not
protected. However, she fully supported the Tree Preservation Order.
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Briston)
2013 No.8 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 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.
(228) BRISTON - PF/13/1529 - Erection of seventeen dwellings; Land at Church Street
for Victory Housing Trust
All Members had received communications in respect of this application.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs H Simmons (Briston Parish Council)
Mr P Pitcher (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that the Parish Council supported
the amended proposal and had requested that the dwellings be allocated to residents
of Briston. The Landscape Officer and Conservation & Design Officer had no
objection subject to conditions. In response to a suggestion by the Conservation &
Development Committee
2
20 March 2014
Design Officer the applicant had agreed to replace the close-boarded fence at the
front of the site with a brick wall. The Highway Authority had no objection to the
amended access subject to the imposition of conditions as previously requested.
The amended plan had been readvertised and the closing date for comments was 26
March.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) requested delegated authority to approve
this application subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Obligation in
accordance with the terms set out in the report, no new material grounds of objection
being received following expiry of the readvertisement period and the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, stated that he was pleased that the entrance
had been amended. However, he considered that the location of the semi-detached
houses close to the existing flats was unacceptable and suggested that they should
be replaced by a bungalow to lessen the impact on the flats. He considered that the
proposal would overdevelop the site and stated that the density would be higher than
anywhere else in Briston. He had no objection to affordable housing but could not
support this scheme in its present form.
Councillor P W High considered that the scheme as now submitted was good. He
requested clarification as to whether the site was an exceptions or allocated site.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) confirmed that the site was an allocated site
and, unlike an exceptions site, the Local Lettings Policy did not apply. Whilst there
was a desire locally to allocate the dwellings to local people, this was outside the
remit of the Development Committee.
Councillor P W High proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that it was regrettable that the dwellings could not
be restricted to local people. He considered that the access was good and there was
no scope for further amendment to the scheme and seconded the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the developer had addressed the Committee’s
concerns. With regard to drainage concerns, he understood that permeable paving
was to be used throughout the scheme. He commented that it was rare to be offered
100% affordable housing. He supported the proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard supported the proposal. She referred to a request by the
Parish Council for double yellow lines along a section of Church Street.
The Development Manager stated that the Highway Authority had not requested
yellow lines and he considered that it should not be incorporated as a condition. He
advised the Parish Council to contact the Highway Authority direct.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 Obligation in
accordance with the terms set out in the report, no new material
grounds of objection being received following expiry of the
readvertisement period and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
3
20 March 2014
(229) GIMINGHAM - PF/14/0005 - Use of land for siting 26 relocated caravans;
Trimingham House Caravan Park, Trimingham House, Beacon Road for
Spreyer Brothers Leisure Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that he had attended a meeting with
representatives of the Parish Council to explain the application in more detail. As a
result of this meeting, the Parish Council had now withdrawn their objection to the
application, subject to erection of the proposed bund prior to any caravans being
brought onto the site. The Parish Council accepted that no planting could be carried
out until the next planting season.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor G R Jones, the local Member,
was unable to attend the Committee meeting but had confirmed that he now had no
objection to the proposal.
Environmental Health had no objection to the scheme.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions to include removal of the caravans on the
existing sites within 2 months of the commencement of the use of this site, the
submission of a detailed landscaping scheme, requirements to provide visibility
splays to either side of the entrance and construction of the bund prior to any
caravans being relocated to the site.
The Development Manager explained that a further condition or Section 106
Obligation would be required to secure the permanent removal of caravans from East
Runton. He requested delegated authority to approve the application. The Planning
Legal Manager added that a Section 106 Obligation might be necessary as the
proposal related to the removal of caravans from a site remote from the application
site.
The Development Manager stated that there was a question over whether the
concrete bases were best removed from the cliff top or left in place to provide more
stability.
Councillor B Smith considered that Trimingham House was a good, well-run site.
There was an existing bund which would help to screen some of the proposed site.
He stated that the road was subject to a 40 mph limit and not 60 mph as stated in the
report. There had never been a problem at the junction as far as he was aware. He
proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the East Runton site needed to be resolved
quickly as the cliff was very unstable. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle requested that the concrete bases be landscaped or
disguised in some way if they were left in situ. She suggested covering them with
topsoil.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the removal of the concrete bases was not
within the Council’s remit.
Development Committee
4
20 March 2014
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include removal
of the caravans on the existing sites within 2 months of the
commencement of the use of this site, the submission of a detailed
landscaping scheme, requirements to provide visibility splays to either
side of the entrance and construction of the bund prior to any caravans
being relocated to the site, and a possible condition or Section 106
Obligation to secure the permanent removal of caravans from the cliff
top at East Runton.
(230) HOLT - PF/13/0886 - Erection of trolley/plant store (retrospective); Budgens
Store, Kerridge Way, Holt, NR25 6DN for C T Baker Limited
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as the Managing Director
of the applicant Company was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes that
this application be approved subject to the imposition of a condition to require the
aluminium frame and all external joinery of the building to be painted/stained black
within 3 months of the date of the permission.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the existing green colour fitted in with
Budgens’ colour scheme and looked smart. As an amendment, she proposed
approval of this application as submitted, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried with 10 Members voting in
favour with two abstentions, and on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(231) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0026 - Continued use of dwelling for a mixed use of
residential and child-minding facility; 8 Seaview Crescent for Mrs R L Garratt
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Price (objecting)
Mrs R Garratt (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the contents of a letter of support and an email
objecting to this application. He stated that Officers recognised local residents’
concerns but these were not considered sufficient to justify refusal of this application.
Environmental Health had no objection subject to restrictions on operating hours and
a limit on the number of children on the site at any one time. He recommended a
temporary approval for two years to allow the use to be monitored. He requested
that condition 4 set out in the report be amended to read “No more than one nonresident employee shall be employed in conjunction with the child-minding business
at 8 Seaview Crescent, Sheringham unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.”
Development Committee
5
20 March 2014
Councillor R Oliver, a local Member, stated that he had visited both the applicant and
one of the objectors and advised them of the quasi-judicial nature of the planning
process and that emotional issues could not be taken into account. He considered
that there was a question of balance. Whilst local business was supported, there
was potential for neighbours to be affected by noise and disturbance. He had been
asked to raise a concern regarding neighbours being woken early by people bringing
children to the site. However, the road was a public highway and the Council could
not control activity such as slamming of car doors. He considered that on balance a
good compromise was being offered in terms of the number of children and the
conditions being placed on the business.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, referred to new development which was
taking place further along Seaview Crescent.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the proposal was very enterprising but there
was potential for noise disturbance. He considered that a temporary approval would
be sensible and that a limit of 8 children would be a fair test. He proposed temporary
approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported Councillor Reynolds’ views.
She
considered that there was a need for this business. She requested that some leeway
be given on timing as parents could be held up. She seconded the proposal.
In answer to Members’ questions, the Senior Planning Officer stated that 8 children
would be the maximum number permitted at any one time. This figure did not include
the applicant’s own children. He understood that some children were dropped off to
be taken to school so they were not on site all day, and other children arrived during
the day.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved for a temporary period of two years
subject to the imposition of conditions 1 to 3 as listed in the report and
condition 4 as amended to read “No more than one non-resident
employee shall be employed in conjunction with the child-minding
business at 8 Seaview Crescent, Sheringham unless otherwise agreed
in writing by the Local Planning Authority”.
(232) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Members and Town Mayor be invited to attend:
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/13/1335 – continued use of land for hand car
wash and valeting services and retention of canopy and 2 containers,
land at New Road for Mr Meizeraitis
(233) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
6
20 March 2014
(234) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(235) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(236) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(237) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(238) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(239) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government (1) and David Mack (2)
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Judge had refused consent for an
appeal against the High Court decision to the Court of Appeal. David Mack, the
applicant, had now applied to the Court of Appeal seeking leave to challenge the
High Court decision.
A proposal for a smaller turbine had been presented by the applicant to a public
meeting held in Bodham. An application for planning permission had not yet been
received.
Councillors Mrs A C Sweeney and Councillor J Perry-Warnes reported that they had
attended a meeting. Councillor Mrs Sweeney considered that the meeting had not
been properly advertised as details had only been circulated in Bodham but not
Beckham which would be affected by the proposal.
The meeting closed at 11.00 am.
Development Committee
7
20 March 2014