20 SEPTEMBER 2012
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)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman) (in the Chair for Minute 91)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
E Seward – substitute for J A Wyatt
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
Miss B Palmer – The Raynhams Ward
R C Price – Waxham Ward
Officers
Mrs E Duncan – Head of Legal
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mrs T Armitage – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner – Strategy Team Leader
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton – Landscape Officer
Mr P Rhymes – Conservation and Design Officer
(78)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Perry-Warnes and J A
Wyatt. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
The Chairman reported that Councillor Perry-Warnes had suffered a stroke. The
Committee wished him well for his recovery.
(79)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23 August 2012 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(80)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(81)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared an interest, the details of which are given
under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
20 September 2012
(82)
CROMER - NNDC TPO (CROMER) 2012 No. 3, Hampshire House, Cromwell
Road
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners requested the Landscape Officer’s comments on
Natural England’s policy to obliterate sycamores.
The Landscape Officer explained that whilst sycamores were once considered to be
non-native, evidence had now been found to suggest that they were in fact native
trees and that they were second to oak trees in terms of biodiversity value. He stated
that they would be one of the most important trees on the North Norfolk coast in the
future as they were resistant to the effects of global warming, whereas beech and
horse chestnut trees were dying out. He recommended that the TPO be approved
with modifications to the map to address inaccuracies with plotting of some of the
trees.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Cromer)
2012 No.3 be confirmed with modifications to the map.
(83)
HIGH KELLING - NNDC TPO (HIGH KELLING) 2012 No.4, Pineheath Road High
Kelling
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.
Public Speakers
Mr Burns (objecting)
Mr Morgan (supporting)
The Landscape Officer explained that the removal of trees referred to by the
objecting spokesman had been undertaken with the agreement of the Council and
replacement trees had been planted. He stated that High Kelling was a difficult area
to manage and it was considered that a blanket Tree Preservation Order would not
be appropriate. Tree Preservation Orders were served where there was perceived to
be a problem. However if appropriate management was taking place a TPO would
not be served.
The Development Manager read to the Committee an email received from Councillor
D Young, the local Member. Councillor Young had not visited the site, however he
considered that it would be unwise to disagree with the Landscape Officer’s
recommendation unless the Committee had visited the site and were satisfied with
the landowner’s plans.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
Development Committee
2
20 September 2012
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (High
Kelling) 2012 No. 4 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.
(84)
BACTON - PF/12/0710 - Erection of side conservatory; 59 Newlands Estate for
Mr Rush
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, considered that the proposed conservatory
would detract from the main building, and the overall bulk of the extension would be
overbearing. He considered that the proposal did not accord with Policy HO8. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the structure would be ugly and
seconded refusal.
The Development Manager advised against refusal on grounds of non-compliance
with Policy HO8.
He did not consider that the proposal represented a
disproportionately large increase or that it would impact on the surrounding
countryside. He considered that the issue related to the overall design of the
structure in terms of the main building, in which case Policy EN4 was more relevant.
The Senior Planning Officer added that the context of the buildings in the area should
be taken into account.
Following discussion, it was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor
Mrs P Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
development as proposed in conjunction with the existing extensions to
the building would be detrimental to the overall form of the existing
building and the character of the surrounding area.
Development Committee
3
20 September 2012
(85)
BINHAM - PF/12/0459 - Demolition of single-storey side extension, erection of
two-storey and single-storey side extensions and glass roofed porch; 50
Warham Road for Mr W Spice
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Spice (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor J D
Savory, a local Member, who considered that the needs of a local family outweighed
the issues raised in the report and therefore supported this application.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the policy issues. He stated that whilst some
form of extension may be acceptable, the main concern was the appearance of the
proposed extension in the street scene and lack of subordination with the original
building. He considered that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact
on the modest cottage both in the street scene and surrounding area.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposed extension was a vast
improvement and would be an asset to the village. He proposed approval of this
application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that whilst the extensions to the building were
becoming slightly bulky, he did not consider that this proposal would damage the
street scene. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs A R Green asked if the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager would be satisfied if the extension were stepped back. The Senior Planning
Officer explained that to do so would raise technical difficulties in creating a useable
space. He considered that it might be possible to extend the building at the rear
rather than in the linear form proposed.
Several Members supported this suggestion. Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones asked if it
would be possible to defer consideration to put the suggestion to the applicant. The
Chairman and Officers advised that it would be advisable to refuse this application
and the applicant could then reapply with a revised scheme.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the existing building was not fit for
purpose. He referred to the linear nature of many of the buildings in Binham, some
of which were considerably longer than the proposal if built.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and at the request
of the Chairman, Mr Spice explained that he had considered all options and his
reasons for the option chosen.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
carried by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention that this application be approved.
The Development Manager referred to an offer by the applicant to reconstruct the
fossilised gable and considered that detailed plans should be sought.
Development Committee
4
20 September 2012
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the submission of detailed plans in
respect of the reconstructed gable.
(86)
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50% affordable
dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall and fences and
creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for Hillside Residential
Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)
The Senior Planning Officer explained the design and landscape issues relating to
this application and issues relating to occupancy of the affordable dwellings. She
reported that the comments of the Environment Agency were awaited in respect of
the surface water drainage proposals. She stated that a Section 106 Obligation was
in the process of preparation and would include affordable housing provision,
financial contributions requested by Norfolk County Council and contributions
towards play and open space provision.
The Strategy Team Leader explained that the Local Lettings Agreement, which gave
priority to people from the parish and surrounding parishes when allocating
affordable housing, only applied to exception housing sites, whereas the site in
question was an allocated site and this policy did not apply. However, the Council’s
allocations policy was under review in the light of the Localism Act and the new policy
would maximise the number of homes occupied by people in housing need with
strong connections to towns and villages in North Norfolk. It was expected that the
policy will come into use in April, prior to completion of the affordable dwellings on
the site, and therefore could enable the Parish Council’s request for some of the
affordable dwellings to be let to local people to be met through the allocations policy
rather than a planning agreement.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had attended the Parish
Council’s AGM when the developers had made a presentation. She had listened but
had not made any comment. She considered that the amended plans endeavoured
to address the special nature of the site. She welcomed the inclusion of 50%
affordable housing and the review of the allocations policy which would address the
Parish Council’s concerns. She considered that there was no reason to reject this
application.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Development Manager stated
that local letting could not be secured by a planning agreement. Local lettings would
need to be secured through the Council’s housing responsibilities and he referred to
the Strategy Team Leader’s comments regarding the allocations policy.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported this application. However, he expressed
concern as to whether the developers could appeal if the affordable housing element
made the scheme unviable.
The Development Manager explained that this was a risk with any development of
this nature.
Development Committee
5
20 September 2012
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A
Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to:
The Environment Agency confirming it has no objection to the revised
Flood Risk Assessment
A S106 Obligation securing the provision and phasing of affordable
housing, financial contributions as requested by the County Council
and by the District Council in relation to open space enhancements and
managing visitor pressure.
The imposition of appropriate conditions, in particular to include:
implementation of highway works, and prior approval of details
regarding landscaping and materials.
(87)
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines (height to
hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Miss Cripps (objecting)
Mr McLeod (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the main issues outlined in the report and the
number of representations both objecting to and in favour of this application. There
were no updates to report.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, stated that he had attended a number of
Parish Council meetings when this application had been discussed, and had had
meetings on and off site with the applicant and main objectors. A considerable
amount of correspondence had been received and local opinion was divided on this
issue. He stated that the turbines would be visible from Back Road and one cottage
would have a view of three turbines including the turbine at Gothic Cottage. He
stated that the applicant’s intention was to be electricity neutral and would be happy
to accept a condition to prevent any additional turbines on his land.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that the site inspection had been invaluable as
it was possible to assess the topography of the site, which sat low in the landscape.
He considered that the proposal was acceptable and proposed approval of this
application, which was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
Councillor P W High expressed concern at the impact on the attractive landscape
and on the views to Happisburgh and the coast. He did not support the application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposal would destroy the landscape
and possibly lead to other proposals for wind turbines in the area. He asked if the
Gothic Cottage application had been considered by the Committee.
Development Committee
6
20 September 2012
The Development Manager explained that Gothic Cottage had been a delegated
decision and had not been presented to Committee.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that there were lovely sweeping views towards
Happisburgh lighthouse and the Committee had a responsibility to protect North
Norfolk’s heritage. She acknowledged the applicant’s aspiration to make his farm
electricity-neutral but the turbines would stand for 25 years during which time they
would deteriorate. She referred to the objections to the turbine at Gothic Cottage
since its erection. She was opposed to this application in terms of its impact on the
landscape and heritage views.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds asked if it would be possible to reduce the
height of the proposed turbine and requested a comparison with the height of the
Gothic Cottage turbine.
The Development Manager explained that the current proposal was approximately
10m lower than the turbine at Gothic Cottage. He explained that the latter application
had been determined under delegated powers with the agreement of the local
Member. He stated that there was a distinct difference between the two modest
turbines now proposed and a windfarm. There were arguments around landscape
and heritage impacts, but Officers were of the view that the impact was insufficient to
justify refusal of this application.
The Landscape Officer stated that the issues had been carefully considered and she
was of the opinion that any harm caused by the proposal would not result in
significant erosion of the landscape character. Long distance views would be
retained, and whilst there would be an impact, it would be minor.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr McLeod explained that the size of the turbines
matched almost exactly the electricity needed on the farm. Smaller turbines would
not produce sufficient electricity. Lowering the height could cause the blades to
make contact with the ground, and there would also be less wind at lower levels and
more disturbance of the wind flow.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that whilst he generally opposed turbines on land, he
was impressed that obvious care had been taken to site the proposed turbines where
they were obscured from view as much as possible. They would also reduce the
need for electricity and he therefore supported this application.
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(88)
HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0541 - Removal of Condition 3 of planning permission
reference: 04/1385 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
restriction; Brymur Farm, The Common for Mr B Ward
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Corfield (supporting)
Development Committee
7
20 September 2012
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had also contacted the
Guinness Partnership, a registered social landlord from Hertfordshire, with regard to
taking on the dwelling for affordable housing. This did not comply with Policy HO6
which required the dwelling to be offered to a local provider. In any case, the
Guinness Partnership had declined the offer.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal of this application subject to an
amendment to the recommendation in the report to state that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the site has been offered to a Registered Social Landlord
operating locally on terms that would allow a dwelling to be constructed and occupied
as an affordable dwelling and that option has been rejected.
Councillor Miss B Palmer, the local Member, stated that the applicant could not meet
the requirement to have occupied the dwelling for 12 years as it had not been built.
He could demonstrate that there was no need for the dwelling on site. The dwelling
had been offered to a registered social landlord. She stated that there were no
amenities within a six mile radius of this site, little public transport and access to and
from the site was difficult.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was no need as the dwelling had
not been built, no amenities and the site was not suitable for a dwelling. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that there were two other dwellings along the road
which had no agricultural connection.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Senior Planning Officer
confirmed that the dwelling could be built and occupied if the site were purchased
with an agricultural occupancy restriction.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on the following grounds:
SS2: Development in the Countryside
HO6: Removal
Conditions
of
Agricultural,
Forestry
and
other
Occupancy
In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the removal of the
occupancy condition would fail to accord with Policy HO6 of the
adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. This is because the dwelling to
which the condition relates has not yet been constructed and it cannot
therefore have been occupied for a minimum period of 12 years. In
addition the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site has been
offered to a Registered Social Landlord operating locally on terms that
would allow a dwelling to be constructed and occupied as an affordable
dwelling and that option has been rejected.
Development Committee
8
20 September 2012
(89)
HEMPSTEAD - PF/12/0562 - Change of use from Public House to residential
dwelling; Hare & Hounds, Baconsthorpe Road for Mrs V Purkiss
The Development Manager reported that the applicant had requested deferral of this
application to allow further time for consideration of drainage details. This request
was supported by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred at the request of the
applicant and local Member.
(90)
HOVETON - PF/12/0216 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 28 Waveney Drive for Mr & Mrs A Bryan
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Bryan (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor N D
Dixon, the local Member. He considered that the density of development was
inappropriate for the estate and suggested that the Committee visit the site if
Members were unfamiliar with the estate.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that Officers did not consider that the proposal
was out of character with the estate and recommended approval of this application
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones requested information on policies regarding infill of
gardens in the area. She was concerned that there were a number of large gardens
on the estate.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that there was no specific policy on infill
development and the proposal had been considered under Core Strategy Policy
EN4. It was necessary to consider how development fitted in with its setting.
The Development Manager added that Policy EN4 did not prevent infilling but
required it to considered carefully.
In response to a question and at the request of the Chairman, Mr Bryan explained
that the only window in the existing dwelling which overlooked the proposed dwelling
was a secondary window.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Senior Planning Officer
considered that there was limited scope for infilling on other plots within the estate.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
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.
Development Committee
9
20 September 2012
(91)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0803 - Removal of condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 10/1045 to permit retention of slate roof covering; White Horse, 34
High Street for Mr D A Walsgrove
The Chairman had to leave the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application. The Vice-Chairman took the Chair in her absence.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett declared a personal interest as she was an
occasional customer of the public house.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
The Conservation and Design Officer stated that the building was proposed for local
listing within the Overstrand Conservation Area Appraisal. He reminded the
Committee that the extension had not been built in accordance with the approved
plans and it was important to consider the message that would be sent out if this roof
were allowed to remain in the Conservation Area. He considered that the Council
had been very reasonable in its previous decision under application PF/10/1045.
There was a need to ensure local distinctiveness and quality of design which
preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that she had called in the
application as she considered the recommendation to be contrary to the Council’s
aim of supporting local businesses. She stated that this was a successful business in
which the owner had invested a considerable amount. She explained why the
extension had not been built in accordance with the planning permission. She stated
that the extension was similar in style to a summer house and views of it were
limited. She requested approval of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the extension was hardly noticeable
and referred to the change of view by English Heritage elsewhere in the country in
favour of new design.
Councillor B Smith supported the local Member. He stated that there were other
buildings in the area with slate roofs.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the white paintwork emphasised the slate
roof.
Councillor P W High stated that the extension as built was not as approved. Whilst
he understood the local Member’s point of view, he could not support this application.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the slate tiles had weathered very well. He
was supportive of local jobs and supported the local Member’s view. He considered
that there was no reason to require the tiles to be amended.
Councillor Mrs A R Green agreed with Councillor High’s comments in respect of the
retrospective nature of the application. However, she considered that the extension
as built was acceptable.
Councillor E Seward considered that the extension was incompatible with the area.
However, he referred to the local Member’s comments regarding the technical
difficulties in replacing the slates with the approved pantiles.
Development Committee
10
20 September 2012
The Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst there were other examples of slate
roofs in the village, in this case they were out of context with the host building. He
was not aware that the applicant had submitted any technical evidence to indicate
that pantiles could not be used. He considered that pantiles were not much heavier
than slates.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor E Seward
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of
the Head of Development Management.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was declared lost by 2 votes to 8.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2
That this application be approved.
Reasons: Members consider that the roof as constructed is acceptable
given a combination of the weathering which has taken place and the
fact that there are examples of slates being used in the surrounding
area, and are mindful of the need to ensure the successful continuation
of the business.
(92)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(93)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(94)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(95)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(96)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(97)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(98)
WIND TURBINE APPLICATIONS
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds proposed that all future wind turbine
applications be determined by the Committee. This was seconded by Councillor B
Cabbell Manners.
Development Committee
11
20 September 2012
The Head of Legal suggested that a report be submitted to the next meeting to
propose a change to the Scheme of Delegation. This would then need to be ratified
by full Council.
The Development Manager explained that applications would only be approved
under delegated powers where objections had been received with the consent of the
local Member(s).
The Committee discussed this matter and it was agreed:
(99)
1.
That Officers circulate a list of live applications for wind turbines in the District.
Any Member could then request that the applications be called in for
determination by the Committee.
2.
That a report be prepared for consideration at the next meeting of the
Committee in respect of a change to the Scheme of Delegation to require all
applications for wind turbines to be considered by the Development
Committee. If such change is agreed, the approval of Full Council would be
sought to amend the Scheme of Delegation.
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
It was noted that the next scheduled meeting on 15 November 2012 coincided with
the election of the new Police Commissioner and agreed that the meeting would be
moved to 8 November 2012, with the site inspections being moved to 1 November
2012.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
12
20 September 2012