21 JULY 2011
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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer - substitute for R Reynolds
N Smith - substitute for Mrs A R Green
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - Poppyland Ward
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
B J Hannah - Sheringham North Ward
T FitzPatrick - Walsingham Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mrs E Duncan - Legal and Democratic Services Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Young - Senior Conservation and Design Officer
Miss F Davies - Enabling Officer
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
Mr D Sutton - Environmental Protection Officer
Mr B Dye - Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(52)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A R Green and R
Reynolds. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
(53)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 23 June
2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(54)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to
1. A planning application at Great Ryburgh, reference PF/09/0966. The reason for
urgency was to undertake a site inspection in anticipation of this application being
reconsidered by the Committee.
Development Committee
1
21 July 2011
2. To report a change of date for the Committee site inspections in August.
(55)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, B Cabbell Manners and B Smith declared interests, the
details of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.
As both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had interests in Minute (63), it was
proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That Councillor S J Partridge be appointed Chairman of the meeting for
minute (63).
(56)
CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Update regarding unauthorised installation of a
shopfront and roller shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within
Cromer Conservation Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports updating the Committee on
the current situation with regard to unauthorised works at the premises and
requesting the Committee’s further instructions with regard to enforcement action.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to comments that had
been published in the press which were not supportive of prosecution. He stated that
if action were not taken in this case it would give the wrong message to others in the
longer term. He reported that no acceptable plans had been submitted and
therefore requested authority to commence prosecution proceedings for failure to
comply with the Enforcement Notice.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee the
comments of Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member. Councillor Johnson had
expressed concern at the conduct of Iceland Foods Ltd and its agents in this matter.
He considered that failure to proceed with action in this matter would send out the
wrong message and make the Council appear weak in matters of enforcement. He
urged the Committee to authorise further action in this matter.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that the former
Woolworths shopfront was much better than the current one. He considered that
prosecution proceedings should be commenced within 28 days.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Company’s
agent had requested that enforcement proceedings be deferred for a further two
months.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor S J
Partridge
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence
prosecution proceedings under section 179 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland Foods Ltd for failure to
comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002 unless acceptable plans have
been submitted as a formal application within 28 days.
Development Committee
2
21 July 2011
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by
Councillor B Smith
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence
immediate prosecution proceedings under section 179 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland Foods Ltd for
failure to comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002.
Councillor Cabbell Manners, with the agreement of his seconder, withdrew his
proposal.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
commence immediate prosecution proceedings under section 179 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against Iceland
Foods Ltd for failure to comply with Enforcement Notice ENF/10/0002.
(57)
CASTAWAYS HOLIDAY PARK, PASTON ROAD, BACTON
ALLEGED UNAUTHORISED DEVELOPMENTS
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports advising members of alleged
unauthorised developments at the Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road, Bacton.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that emails had been received on the morning
of the meeting from the owners of the site which included statements from people who
had stayed at the park which supported their view. However, he had not had an
opportunity to verify these statements.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, considered that a retrospective application should
be submitted. He stated that he was supportive of local businesses but there had
been problems and he did not consider that it would be helpful to add to them.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the owners of the Castaways site, Bacton, be advised that the
Council believes that unauthorised development has taken place on the
site through the extension of the club-house building and creation of
flat nos. 6 & 7 and that retrospective applications for these
developments therefore need to be submitted to the authority for
consideration.
Without prejudice to their determination, such
applications should be lodged with the authority within a period of three
months from the date of this Committee meeting, failing which a further
report will be submitted to the Committee to consider enforcement
action to secure the removal of the unauthorised development or to
impose appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
3
21 July 2011
(58)
BRISTON – TPO 2011 No.10 Briston Lodge Holt Road
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports in respect of a Tree
Preservation Order at the above site.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Briston)
2011No. 10 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.
(59) GREAT SNORING - PF/11/0521 - Erection of first floor rear extension; 101
Fakenham Road for Mr and Mrs Roberts
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Roberts (supporting)
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, referred to illustrations that had been
submitted to demonstrate the impact of the proposed extension on the neighbour and
a suggested alternative proposal. He considered that the proposal as submitted did
not respect the existing dwelling. He referred to the neighbour’s concerns regarding
possible loss of light, overbearing effect and loss of privacy to his garden and patio.
He requested a site inspection or refusal of this application.
The Development Manager stated that the illustrations referred to by the local Member
were not part of the application and their complete accuracy could not be verified.
Clarification as to the orientation of the proposal in relation to the neighbouring
property was requested by a Member and given by the Senior Planning Officer.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
Development Committee
4
21 July 2011
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including the removal of permitted development
rights for windows in the eastern elevation of the extension and the
requirement for external facing materials to match the existing as far as
is practical.
One Member abstained from voting.
(60) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0517 - Erection of 36 dwellings; Land off Wood View
for Youngs Homes
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Fitzhugh (objecting)
Miss Laronde (supporting)
Mr Tann (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that satisfactory design
amendments had been received. These had been readvertised. Five further letters of
objection had been received which were based on similar grounds to those already
reported. The Town Council had reiterated its objection.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) requested delegated authority to approve
this application subject to an archaeological evaluation, completion of a Section 106
Obligation in respect of affordable housing, landscaping and Norfolk County Council
contributions and the imposition of appropriate conditions to include those listed in the
report and to require prior approval of a construction management plan.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, referred to the need for affordable housing.
She referred to an affordable housing scheme on Ketts Road to which there had been
no objection, in contrast with the current application which had attracted many
objections. She expressed concern in respect of the use of Grade 2 agricultural land
and stated that there were a number of derelict brownfield sites with the benefit of
planning permission conveniently located close to the town. She considered that if
those permissions were implemented they would provide 300 homes far closer to the
centre of the town, of which a high percentage would be affordable. She expressed
concern that the application did not currently include even the minimum requirement
for renewable energy. No funding source had been identified. She requested refusal
of this application as there was no clear indication it would be affordable, it was not
efficient use of land and did not meet Core Strategy Policies EN4 and EN6.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained that the applicants had confirmed
that the dwellings would meet level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and were
happy to accept a condition to that effect, and had also requested a condition in
respect of renewable energy.
The Senior Conservation and Design Officer stated that Officers had worked with the
applicants in respect of the design of the scheme. He considered that the proposed
development was compatible with its surroundings and the proportions of the
individual dwellings were acceptable.
Development Committee
5
21 July 2011
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to the shortage of affordable housing in North
Walsham and considered that this scheme would be provided at no cost to the Council
or the Council Tax payer. He referred to affordable housing schemes in Holt which
had been a success. He considered there were no planning reasons on which to
refuse this application. He proposed delegated approval as recommended.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that this scheme was on the outskirts of the town,
whereas those in Holt were infill developments. He considered that grade 2
agricultural land should be retained for food production. He considered that the
Committee should determine the full details and did not support delegated approval.
The Development Manager explained that there was a great deal of detail in the
application and that the recommendation to delegate authority to approve was not
unusual.
In answer to a question by Councillor S J Partridge, the Enabling Officer stated that
funding for affordable housing schemes had changed and explained how funding for
this scheme could come forward. Mr Tann was invited to further clarify the situation.
He stated that the Homes and Communities Agency would not award funding until
permission had been granted. Youngs Homes was in discussion with Victory Housing
Trust and had received a firm offer for part of the scheme.
Councillor P W High considered that the key issue was the need for affordable
housing in North Walsham. Whilst other sites could be developed, the affordable
housing element would not necessarily be allocated to local people, whereas
exception sites were allocated in accordance with the Council’s local lettings policy.
He seconded the proposal.
In answer to a question by Councillor S J Partridge, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) explained that there was no limit on the number of dwellings that could
be provided on an exceptions site such as the one under consideration, although there
was a limit on rural sites. Also, the fact that there were objectors to the scheme was
not a planning reason to refuse permission. It was necessary to consider the planning
policies which had already been through public consultation.
Councillor S J Partridge referred to the strength of local feeling against this proposal.
Councillor B Smith considered that the town could die if building did not take place
within the centre of the town. He did not support building on the edge of town.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to the site specific allocations and
stated that in North Walsham there were two or three sites which had been allocated
for housing or mixed use developments in the town. These were located more
centrally than the current site and in some cases included greenfield land. He
considered that the exceptions policy would inevitably mean that there would be
development on greenfield sites rather than brownfield sites.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) explained the location of facilities such as the primary school in
relation to the application site.
The proposal to give delegated authority to approve this application was put to the
vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 9 against.
Development Committee
6
21 July 2011
The Development Manager stated that the Committee could either defer or refuse the
application and requested that the reasons for doing so be stated.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the local opposition to this application, both from
local residents and local Members.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the applicants had a right of appeal to the
Secretary of State and that reasons for refusal had to be considered very carefully. In
his view, local opposition was not on its own a defensible reason to refuse the
application.
Councillor Ms V R Gay reiterated the concerns she had raised regarding efficient use
of land, land usage, lack of a clear proposal for 10% renewable energy and lack of
local distinctiveness, and the use of grade 2 agricultural land when there were
brownfield sites available within the town.
Councillor B Smith added that he considered that the proposal would not benefit the
countryside and did not sit well with the surrounding dwellings.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern at the lack of public transport to service
the site and the reliance of residents of the site on cars.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners explained that farmers were discouraged from having
their land in full production and encouraged to leave margins in order to reduce
oversupply of food. He did not consider that concern regarding the use of grade 2
agricultural land was a planning reason to refuse this application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst reasons had been put forward that
could be considered as valid planning reasons for refusal, he was unsure as to
whether or not they would be defensible on appeal.
The Development Manager considered each of the reasons put forward by the
Committee. With regard to efficient use of land and use of grade 2 agricultural land,
he stated that much of North Norfolk was grade 2 agricultural land and to refuse an
application on this ground could rule out any such exceptions proposals in the District.
He considered that the proposed density was reasonable and mirrored in some
respects the existing density and layout on the adjacent land. With regard to the
availability of brownfield land within the town, he stated that some of this land was
allocated for development but this may or may not come forward and would depend
on the market. Many of the sites were allocated for market housing with some
affordable housing, and if all came forward with a 45% affordable requirement it would
meet only 10% of the identified affordable housing need in North Walsham. With
regard to renewable energy, the applicant was happy to accept a condition. He
advised the Committee to defer consideration if Members required further details.
With regard to design and landscaping, the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager was now satisfied in terms of design and landscape impact. He stated that it
was very difficult to support the reasons for refusal put forward by the Committee. No
objection had been raised by the County Council in respect of sustainable transport
issues.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that the proposal did not meet the criteria
specified in Policy CT5 in respect of reducing the need to travel and encouraging
sustainable forms of transport.
Development Committee
7
21 July 2011
The Development Manager stated that the site was as close to the built up area of
North Walsham as possible. Any exceptions site would require people to travel.
Whilst there did not appear to be any nearby bus routes, the site was reasonably
related to the town centre in his view. Officers considered that it was a reasonable
site in this respect.
The Highways Officer confirmed that the Highway Authority had no objection to this
application in respect of proximity to the town.
Councillor B Smith considered that this application should be refused on grounds of
detriment to the open countryside and the increased number of traffic movements that
would occur.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to infrastructure issues that had been identified in a
number of Council documents and considered that the existing infrastructure would be
unable to cope with the additional requirements.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the terms of reference of the Committee,
which needed to be reflected in the Committee’s decisions. He advised that refusal of
this application would in his view be a significant departure from policy and Officers
were not convinced that there were sound planning reasons for such a departure. In
his opinion there could be significant implications for planning policy and, in such
cases, it was necessary to defer the matter to a subsequent meeting to seek the
advice of the Monitoring Officer on the legal implications and of the Section 151
Officer in respect of any financial implications which might flow from the decision. The
Development Manager confirmed that he was the authorised representative of the
Head of Planning and Building Control. He agreed with the comments of the Planning
Legal Manager and advised the Committee to proceed on the basis that it was minded
to refuse this application for the reasons put forward, following which the views of the
Monitoring Officer and Section 151 Officer would be sought and the matter brought
back to a future meeting when the Committee could determine the application in the
light of the advice received. Officers would also comment on the suggested reasons
for refusal.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 3
That the Committee is minded to refuse this application on grounds that
the development on the edge of town would be detrimental to the open
countryside setting of the site, is remote from the town centre, would
result in an increase of traffic in the area and place an unacceptable
strain upon inadequate local infrastructure.
(61)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/0748 - Erection of single-storey rear extension; 30
Bacton Road for Mr Inder-Grey & Ms Sullivan
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor Mrs L M
Brettle and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
Development Committee
8
21 July 2011
(62)
SHERINGHAM - PF/11/0713 - Retention of partially constructed dwelling and
increase in fence height along northern boundary; The Low House, Campion
Way for Mr & Mrs Mash
Councillor B Smith declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was a friend
of two of the objectors. Whilst he was present during part of the debate, he vacated
the Council Chamber prior to the vote being taken.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Hobbs (objecting)
Mr Bond (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that six further letters of objection had been
received which reiterated some of the objections in the report and raised additional
concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on property values. One letter of
support had been received. The Highway Authority had confirmed that it did not
object to the revised scheme and the proposed garage doors. The applicant had sent
a letter to Members explaining the background to the scheme.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions as listed in the report.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, proposed a site inspection.
seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners.
This was
Councillor B J Hannah, Member for Sheringham North Ward, stated that he had been
in discussion with both the applicants and the objectors. He considered that a building
of this design was incompatible with the area. He stated that this case had caused a
great deal of animosity between the applicants and the neighbours. However, he
supported the Officer’s recommendation and requested that a dropped kerb be
included in the conditions.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that a condition would be imposed to require the
access to be constructed.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 4
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town
Mayor be invited to attend.
(63)
JUDICIAL REVIEW - PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL LETTER RE CONTINUED USE
OF AIRFIELD AT WINSPURS FARM, NORTHREPPS
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a prejudicial interest in this application as she
was acquainted with one of the parties involved in the dispute.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he
was related by marriage to one of the parties.
Both Members vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.
Development Committee
9
21 July 2011
Councillor B Smith stated that he had been acquainted with the Gurney family
several years ago but did not have contact with them now. The Planning Legal
Manager advised that there was no declarable interest.
Councillor S J Partridge chaired the meeting for this item.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports seeking the Committee’s
response to a letter putting the Council on notice of a potential judicial review of the
Council’s alleged failure to take enforcement action following expiration of temporary
planning permission in respect of continued use of an airfield.
The Planning Legal Manager outlined the background to this case. He explained the
pre-action protocol and stated that the correct procedure had been followed by the
Solicitors who were acting for the local residents. He stated that it appeared that the
problems appeared not to be from fixed wing aircraft. However, other aircraft such
as gyrocopters and microlights which flew circuits appeared to be causing most of
the objections. He recommended that the Committee considers whether it is
appropriate to take enforcement action in this case and referred Members to
paragraph 5 of PPG 18 “Enforcing Planning Control” which was quoted in the report.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that there had been a large
number of representations in respect of the current planning application. Some
consultation responses had been received but other important responses were
awaited. Environmental Health wished to carry out a monitoring exercise at an Open
Day on 23 July. One of the crucial issues related to the Habitats Regulations in
respect of sites along the North Norfolk coast. Natural England had no objections to
the proposals which it considered would have no impact on designated sites. No
incidents of disturbance had been reported through the Wash and North Norfolk
Coast European Marine Site Management Scheme or any other means. Measures
introduced had been effective at minimising impact. It was untrue that there had
been an objection from Natural England as alleged in the Solicitor’s letter. An
appropriate assessment under s61 of the Habitats Directive would not be needed but
conditions would be imposed. The main issues were in respect of noise and
disturbance to wildlife, which had either been dealt with or were in hand.
The Legal and Democratic Services Manager stated the Council had to consider its
enforcement powers if there was an impact on wildlife and noise complaints. She
had considered the case law referred to in the Solicitor’s letter which, in her opinion,
did not give the complainants significant cause for action against the Council. She
stated that the Committee had to weigh the competing interests in this matter. She
considered that there was a defence against judicial review if a case were brought.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that it was preferable for the applicants to
continue flying to enable Environmental Health to continue to monitor the site and the
surrounding area. He considered that the Open Day would be the best day to do so.
If there were a significant problem the matter would be reported back to the
Committee at the next meeting for consideration of enforcement action. However, if
there were no significant problems which required immediate action, the planning
application would be reported as soon as possible, but no enforcement action taken
in the meantime. He also recommended that the Committee undertake a site
inspection.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that a number of Committee Members had already
visited the site. He stated that he had voted against temporary approval previously
as he considered that the use should be permanent. He stated that this airfield was
Development Committee
10
21 July 2011
crucial to North Norfolk tourism, the airfield had been in existence for a long time and
the current planning application had been submitted within the timescale for renewal.
He expressed concern at carrying out monitoring on the Open Day when there would
be more noise than usual.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that she was attending the
meeting as an observer. She stated that the operator and one of the principal
objectors were close personal friends and would make no comment at this stage.
Councillor Baker proposed that in the event of no significant problem resulting from
the Open Day on 23 July the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve the application on a permanent basis.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that there were a number of issues
that had not yet been addressed, and objectors may feel that they had not had a fair
hearing. He considered that the Committee should consider the planning application.
The Environmental Protection Officer explained the reason for undertaking
monitoring at the Open Day. He stated that he would be visiting the properties from
which noise complaints had been received to assess the amenity issues.
Councillor N Smith stated that Parish Councils in his Ward had expressed concern
regarding the noise from microlights. He considered that the number of microlights
had increased over the past two years.
Councillor R Reynolds supported a site inspection as he had not seen the site. He
asked if Network Rail had been consulted. The Head of Planning and Building
Control confirmed that the Company had been consulted but had not yet responded.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED
(64)
1.
That the Committee undertakes a site inspection prior to consideration
of planning application PF/11/0232 and that the local Member and a
representative of the Parish Council be invited to attend.
2.
That Environmental Health monitor the Open Day on 23 July and in the
event of significant problems this matter be reported back to Committee
on 18 August for consideration of enforcement action, or if no
significant problems are found, the planning application be reported to
a future meeting.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(65)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(66)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
11
21 July 2011
(67)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(68)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(69)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(70)
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
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Development Manager recommended that the Committee visit the site pending
reconsideration of this application at a future meeting.
RESOLVED
That a site inspection be arranged in respect of this application and that
the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend.
(71)
SITE INSPECTIONS - CHANGE OF DATE
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
It was noted that the site inspections would now take place on Thursday 4 August
2011.
(72)
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(73)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 15 of the Officers’ exempt reports updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 June 2011.
Development Committee
12
21 July 2011
The Committee considered the cases listed in the Schedules and identified those
which they wished to be prioritised.
RESOLVED
1.
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
2.
That the cases highlighted by Members be dealt with as a priority.
2.
That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed from
the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 1.10 pm.
Development Committee
13
21 July 2011