21 MARCH 2013
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
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Terrington – substitute for M J M Baker
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
Ms V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
Mrs A M Moore – North Walsham West Ward
R Oliver - observer
Miss B Palmer – observer
E Seward - observer
Officers
Mr S Blatch – Corporate Director
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr M Rayner – Engineer, Major Developments (NCC Highways)
Mr A Willeard – Assistant Engineer, Estate Development (NCC Highways)
Mr M Wood – Retail Consultant
(238) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor M J M Baker. There was one
substitute Member in attendance.
(239) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee
(240) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors B Cabbell Manners, P W High, R Shepherd and P Terrington declared
interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
21 March 2013
(241) Proposed designation of Local Development Order on land at Egmere,
Walsingham to accommodate onshore support facilities related to offshore
wind energy developments off the North Norfolk coast
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports, regarding the proposed
designation of a Local Development Order by the District Council on land at Egmere,
Walsingham to accommodate onshore support facilities related to offshore wind
energy developments off the North Norfolk coast.
The Corporate Director presented the report. He explained the background to this
matter. A public consultation exercise had been carried out, which raised issues
relating to highways, the principle of the development in open countryside, design of
buildings, relationship of the site to the AONB and protected natural environment
sites and pressure for further development on Wells Harbour. Technical consultation
responses had recently been received from English Heritage, Natural England,
suggesting that further work may be required to establish the extent to which the
proposed development may impact on historic assets; and from the Environment
Agency suggesting a number of detailed conditions.
The Corporate Director sought the Committee’s support for the proposed designation
of the Local Development Order and whether it supported the introduction of a
40mph speed limit on the B1105 at Egmere.
The Corporate Director reported that the local Member, Councillor T FitzPatrick, had
promoted the Order in his capacity as a Cabinet Member prior to becoming Leader.
He had therefore asked Councillor Miss B Palmer to represent local people with
respect to the proposal.
Councillor Miss B Palmer stated that she had no comment to make on this matter.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners had no comment on the proposed designation of the
Local Development Order, but considered that the introduction of a speed limit was
unnecessary.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the proposed Order and considered that it could be
a catalyst for improving the road network and broadband provision.
Councillor P Terrington considered that the consultation had been very good.
However, he had some concerns regarding the pressure for further development in
Wells Harbour and referred to the statement by the Harbour Commissioners that they
did not propose any further expansion to the harbour. He stated that the cumulative
impact of development within the “North Norfolk renewables corridor” had to be taken
into account and referred to recent approval of a large solar farm and bio-digester on
nearby sites at Egmere. He had concerns regarding the lack of democratic scrutiny of
future proposals and asked if it was proposed to draw up a set of conditions in
advance of development.
The Corporate Director stated that any proposals which conformed to the conditions
of the Local Development Order would have permitted development rights. The
Order would allow the Council as a Planning Authority to identify up-front a list of
standard conditions with which development would need to comply. Statutory notice
would need to be given to the Council by developers so that details of proposals
could be viewed on the Council’s website, but there would be no further opportunity
for public comment on proposals which conformed with the Order.
Development Committee
2
21 March 2013
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this was a very good scheme in the right
place. He asked what controls there would be regarding impact of noise and
pollution on the nearest dwellings.
The Corporate Director stated that an area nearest to the dwellings would be
excluded from development and, in response to comments received, it was proposed
to amend the boundary to afford additional protection to those dwellings.
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 Development
Management, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(242) HOLT - PF/12/0929 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and
erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated accesses, car parking and
servicing area; Thaxters of Holt Ltd, Old Station Way for Norwood Homes
(Westgate) LLP
Councillor P W High declared a personal interest in this application as he knew many
members of the public who were present and had spoken to many people in the
town.
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal interest in this application as Trevor
Thaxter was a friend.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Ms M Prior (Holt Town Council)
Mr Bruce-Lockhart, Mr I Furniss and Mr M Sherwood (objecting)
Mr T Schofield (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) presented the report. He stated
that since the withdrawal of a proposal for a supermarket on land owned by
Gresham’s School, there were no sequentially preferable sites which were suitable,
available or viable.
With regard to the original building on the site, the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) stated that there was insufficient justification for its retention and
there would be no objection in principle to its demolition.
Development Committee
3
21 March 2013
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) outlined the points raised in a
number of further letters of objection which had been received. Most of the additional
letters had been copied to Members. Many of the issues raised in those letters had
been outlined in the report. Concerns had been raised regarding the Retail
Consultant’s report, potential harm to the town centre and highway issues.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a letter had been
received from the applicant regarding mitigation in terms of new signage, repainting
of the underpass and provision of additional artwork, double yellow lines, directions
to the town centre to be displayed, additional car parking and a financial contribution
to maintenance of public toilets in the town. The applicant was in discussion with
Sanders Coaches with regard to the provision of a hopper bus service between the
site and the town centre. Whilst a contribution towards the Holt Vision had been
discussed, the applicant had concerns as to whether this was appropriate.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and
subject to agreeing a package of mitigation broadly in accordance with that submitted
by the applicant.
In response to comments made by the public speakers, and in particular, those of the
representative from the Chamber of Trade, the Retail Consultant stated that it was an
accepted fact that any out of centre retail development would have an impact on the
town centre. The test as to whether the impact would be significantly adverse related
to the town centre as a whole, not just convenience stores. He had analysed the
figures supplied by the Chamber of Trade and considered that, although there was a
discrepancy in the assessment of turnover, the impact would be broadly similar to his
own assessment. He drew attention to the fact that only 22% of main food shopping
trips were made locally, the remainder being lost to other centres. Whilst some
expenditure would still be lost after the store was built, it would allow a proportion to
be retained.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, referred to the local support for this application.
He proposed delegated approval of this application, which was seconded by
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
Councillor P Terrington stated that whilst he was substituting for Councillor Baker, a
local Member, he would express his own views. He stated that there was a direct
correlation between the growth of out of town supermarkets and town centre decline.
He considered that the loss of convenience shops in the town would change the
character of the town centre to a tourist centre and the vitality would be lost. He
considered that a store of the size proposed would result in some claw-back from
other centres but it would not be great given the presence of a larger supermarket in
the town.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes had no objection to the loss of the existing building on
the site. He considered that new retail development would be necessary to serve the
new residential developments which were proposed for Holt.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to a recent survey which revealed that every
household used a supermarket every month and that people were not brand loyal.
He was not surprised that residents of Holt went to other centres to shop as they only
had one supermarket in the town. He considered that Holt was different from most
towns because of the public school, which helped to support the town. He
considered that it would not be possible to stop all the leakage to other centres, but
the proposed supermarket would stop some of it.
Development Committee
4
21 March 2013
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposal was well researched and the site
was in a good position. He considered that it would not change the unique nature of
the town centre. It would provide more choice for shoppers. He stated that the town
was spreading both northwards and southwards and there would be more footfall
through the town.
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that the proposal would help to alleviate the parking
problems in the town. It would also provide employment. He supported the
proposal.
The Committee voted to support the principle of the development, which was
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2.
The Committee then discussed the mitigation measures to offset any adverse impact
on the town centre. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the
Committee a letter from the applicant in respect of mitigation. The Committee
indicated that it would wish to secure signage, improvements to the underpass,
parking restrictions at the junction of Hempstead Road and Coronation Road, a
pedestrian crossing and hopper bus provision. The Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) stated that concerns had been raised as to whether it would be
appropriate to request a contribution towards improvements to the toilets in the town
centre in connection with this development. In terms of car parking, there would be
discussions regarding layout.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application, subject to agreement on an appropriate package of
mitigation measures to offset any adverse impacts and in respect of
highway improvements as and where required (to be secured by a
Section 106 Obligation), and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions, including those suggested by consultees including
conditions limiting the sales area of the supermarket.
(243) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0945 - Erection of A1 (retail) store (5,574 sqm gross
floor area, 3,623 sqm net sales area), new access onto A149 Cromer Road,
petrol filling station and ancillary development including 412 space car park,
service yard and landscaping; Former Marricks Wire Ropes Premises, Cromer
Road for Scott Properties Ltd
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in this application as he
knew both the developer and landowner of the site. He would speak on the
application but would abstain from voting.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was a Member of North Walsham Town
Council.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs J Belson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs M Stockdale (objecting)
Mr M Inkster, Mr I Roberts, Mr S Wynes and Mr M Scott (supporting)
Development Committee
5
21 March 2013
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that a meeting of the
Board of Governors of Paston College was due to be held shortly to discuss whether
or not The Lawns site would be available for supermarket development. If so, The
Lawns site would be sequentially preferable to the application site. He stated that it
might be necessary to delegate a decision based on those discussions.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that Officers considered
that the development of a supermarket on the application site would have a
significant adverse impact on the town centre. The mitigation currently proposed by
the applicants was considered to be derisory. He had put forward a suggested
mitigation package for consideration by the applicants, who had indicated informally
that they would be prepared to consider appropriate mitigation. However, as
currently submitted, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) was unable
to recommend approval.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that North Walsham
Chamber of Business had reaffirmed its concerns that the proposal would have a
significant impact on businesses in the town centre.
In response to a question by the Chairman as to whether or not there was a
significant mitigation package on the table, Mr Scott stated that mitigation would need
to be negotiated.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, stated that the use of retail facilities
across the District and in North Walsham had increased by 20% since the retail study
was carried out 8 years previously. She considered that this was possibly due to the
increasing success and popularity of Paston College, whose students were using
local shops. She did not favour the development of The Lawns site for a
supermarket and referred to the Council’s Local Development Framework which
stated that the site was not suitable for large scale retail development. She stated
that the application site was currently derelict and an eyesore, which was a shame
considering the redevelopment of the former Crane Fruehauf site. She considered
that the chance of the application site coming back into industrial use was remote
and the proposal would create a large number of jobs for local people. She referred
to the recent closure of the Sainsbury’s petrol filling station, which meant that the
nearest facilities were at Roughton or Stalham. She requested that the Committee
give delegated authority to approve this application subject to a Section 106
Obligation in respect of town centre mitigation, similar to that approved for Holt.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, referred to the comments made by the
representative from the Chamber of Business. She was concerned that the
mitigation being offered did not acknowledge the scale of the threat or address the
concerns which had been raised. She considered that the application should be
refused for that reason.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the proposal would have a considerable
impact on the town centre.
However, she considered that a supermarket
development on The Lawns site would have more impact as it would be within 2 to 3
minutes of Market Street. She considered that the application site was the better of
the two sites. She stated that the proposal was popular with residents of North
Walsham. Whilst she had been inundated with objections regarding the Holt
application, she had received none in respect of this application. She considered
that the mitigation package on offer was derisory.
Development Committee
6
21 March 2013
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported the application. He considered that the
town had been in decline for some time and that an insufficient choice of
supermarkets was causing leakage to other centres. He considered that if this
application were refused, the leakage would continue and the town would continue to
die. Alternatively, approval of this application would create badly-needed jobs both in
the store and in its construction. Mitigation could be used as a catalyst for
reinvention of the town centre, which would retain people in the town.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes supported this application. He considered that the
biggest benefits would be from the creation of employment and development of the
filling station. He considered that Officers could resolve the mitigation issues.
Councillor P Terrington stated that out of town stores had an impact on town centres.
In this case it was even more critical as money had been attracted from the Mary
Portas scheme to regenerate the town centre. He considered that the application
should be refused as currently submitted.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that Scenario C as set out in the report would
address the needs of the town.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that there would be a period when shops
would close, but the town would regenerate as had happened in Stalham, where
there was now only one empty shop in the town centre. She requested that careful
consideration be given to the entrance into the lane leading to the site. She
welcomed the regeneration of the site, which was currently an eyesore. However,
she expressed concern at the design of the building, which in her opinion had the
appearance of a warehouse, and requested that it be reconsidered.
The Head of Development Management stated that he would prefer to bring the
mitigation package back to the Committee for consideration given the considerable
difference between the mitigation considered necessary and that being offered by the
developers.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that this was covered by Scenario C and proposed
that in the event that Paston College Lawns site is not considered to be available in
sequential terms and that appropriate mitigation has been provided to offset the
identified significant adverse impacts on the town centre, that the Head of
Development Management be authorised to approve this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including those set out by consultees and subject
to completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation
and subject to a Section 278 Agreement to secure required off-site improvement
works. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard that consideration of this application
be deferred to allow discussions on the mitigation package. There was no seconder.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the principle should be supported and
that Officers discuss with the applicants and the Town Council with regard to the
mitigation package.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the applicant needed
to accept formally that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact,
following which it would be necessary to work out what mitigation could be achieved.
He considered that this matter should be reported back to the Committee.
Development Committee
7
21 March 2013
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager referred to the comments made
by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones regarding design. He stated that he also had
concerns regarding design issues and referred to the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) which stated that good quality design should always be the aim.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the advice in the NPPF which stated that
planning obligations should only be used where it was not possible to address
impacts through conditions, and set out a number of tests which had to be met. He
stated that the Committee, Town Council and the applicant would have very different
aspirations as to the mitigation which was required.
In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Head of Development
Management stated that it would be necessary to resolve the situation with the
Paston College site to ensure that the Committee’s decision was sound. The
decision could be made subject to the College’s decision regarding the site.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That in the event that Paston College Lawns site is not considered to be
available in sequential terms and that appropriate mitigation has been
provided to offset the identified significant adverse impacts on the town
centre, the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including those set out by consultees and subject to completion of a
Section 106 Obligation to secure an agreed package of mitigation and
subject to a Section 278 Agreement to secure required off-site
improvement works.
Councillor Cabbell Manners abstained from voting on this matter.
The Committee discussed possible mitigation measures for discussion and confirmed
that it was happy for the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) to negotiate
with the developer, and in the event that a good package of mitigation measures
could not be achieved the matter would be reported back to the Committee.
(244) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0007 - Erection of 123 dwellings with public
park and open space and associated landscaping, drainage and highway
infrastructure; Land off Two Furlong Hill and Market Lane for Hopkins Homes
Ltd & Holkham Estate
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest in this application as his brother
would be speaking in opposition to the application, he knew many of the objectors
socially, had been engaged in supply work at the local school and knew the
Headmaster of the school.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr G Anthony (Wells-next-the-Sea Town Council)
Mr A Ogle, Mr J Terrington (objecting)
Lord Coke and Mr S Bryan (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that an amended plan had been
received. The latest layout plan addressed issues of detail raised by the Highway
Authority and written confirmation was awaited.
Development Committee
8
21 March 2013
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that nine further signatures had
been received to each of the petitions objecting to the Market Lane access and
sewerage network. One letter of support had been received. A letter had been
received from a neighbouring property owner regarding overlooking which was
exacerbated by differing ground levels. However, the proposal complied with the
Design Guide requirements in respect of distance and the relationship could not be
considered to be unacceptable.
The Head of Development Management reported the comments of Norfolk County
Councillor Marie Strong including those in respect of highway issues.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that the design had been
amended to address concerns regarding the scale of the proposed dwellings on the
high part of the site. It was now considered that the visual bulk of those dwellings
had been reduced. However, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager still
had some concerns regarding the design of three large buildings on the site. The
Landscape Officer did not object but had requested consideration of roof materials.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) read to the Committee the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. The applicants had been made
aware of the comments but had requested that the application be determined in its
present form.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) read to the Committee a further email from
the Housing Officer which referred to the need for wheelchair accessible dwellings.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the scheme was, on balance,
considered by Officers to be acceptable and that there were no sustainable reasons
to refuse. He requested delegated authority to approve this application subject to
resolution of details regarding roofing materials, the imposition of appropriate
conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Obligation.
In response to a question by the Chairman, Mr Bryan stated that the affordable
bungalows would be lifetime compliant which meant they could be adapted to meet
residents’ needs as they became older.
The Planning Legal Manager reported the views of Councillor J D Savory, a local
Member, in support of the proposal in principle. Councillor Savory acknowledged the
concerns of local residents regarding overlooking but considered that the separation
distances were adequate. With regard to sewerage, he noted Anglian Water’s view
that the network was capable of accommodating the additional capacity. He
considered that three entrances onto Market Lane was unacceptable and requested
that the proposal be reduced to one entrance only.
In response to a question by the Chairman regarding sewage issues, the Team
Leader (Major Developments) stated that he had little to add to the report. He
explained that this issue had been the subject of discussions between Anglian Water
and local residents for some time prior to the submission of this application and that
Anglian Water maintained that there was sufficient capacity in the local sewerage
infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development.
The Assistant Engineer commented on concerns that had been raised regarding
highway issues, and, in particular, the accesses onto Market Lane. He considered
that there were no grounds on which the Highway Authority could justify a
recommendation for refusal.
Development Committee
9
21 March 2013
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, referred to the concerns raised by local
residents, although there was no objection to the principle of the development. He
stated that his concerns regarding the amount of affordable housing proposed had
been allayed. With regard to foul sewage, he questioned the results of the desktop
modelling and requested a condition to require flow testing of the system. He
accepted the Highway Authority’s comments regarding access onto Fakenham Road,
but considered that three accesses onto Market Lane would cause congestion. He
requested that further consideration be given to this issue. He expressed concern at
the loss of parking for buses serving the school and requested that consideration be
given to providing alternative parking for the school and to accommodate some
parking for the cemetery. He proposed that delegated approval be given subject to
one access onto Fakenham Road and monitoring of the sewage system prior to the
commencement of development.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the scheme was very good. He accepted the
advice of the Highway Authority and Anglian Water with regard to highways and
sewage. However, he considered that the amount of traffic coming from the site,
together with summer tourist traffic, could cause congestion and suggested that two
access points onto Fakenham Road could be beneficial. He proposed delegated
authority to approve this application subject to the creation of two access points onto
Fakenham Road.
Councillor P W High considered that the site was well designed. He considered that
if there were no access onto Market Lane, cars would be parked on the road which
would make the situation worse. He proposed the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that a turning space at the end of the cul-desac would be of benefit.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the concerns raised regarding Market Lane and the
drainage issues. He welcomed the affordable housing and shared equity units. He
seconded Councillor High’s proposal.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones seconded Councillor Shepherd’s proposal as an
amendment.
The Assistant Engineer stated that the Highway Authority would prefer one access
onto Fakenham Road rather than the two being suggested by Councillors Shepherd
and Mrs Grove-Jones, as the additional access would create more right-turning
movements on a rural road.
Councillor Shepherd stated that he wished his proposal to stand.
Councillor J A Wyatt suggested a limit on pick-up times at the school.
Councillor P Terrington considered that it would be unworkable.
However,
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded Councillor P Terrington’s proposal as a
further amendment.
The further amendment, proposed by Councillor P Terrington and seconded by
Councillor B Cabbell Manners for delegated approval subject to one access onto
Fakenham Road and flow testing of the sewage system, was put to the vote and
declared lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 9 against.
Development Committee
10
21 March 2013
The amendment, proposed by Councillor R Shepherd and seconded by Councillor
Mrs P Grove-Jones for delegated approval subject to two accesses onto Fakenham
Road, was put to the vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 7
against with 2 abstentions.
The original proposal by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
was put to the vote and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to resolution of details regarding roofing
materials, the imposition of appropriate conditions and the completion
of a Section 106 Obligation.
The meeting closed at 1.20 pm.
Development Committee
11
21 March 2013