21 NOVEMBER 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held at Sheringham Community
Centre, Holway Road, Sheringham at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for Mrs S A Arnold
Ms V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
B Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
Mrs L Walker – Happisburgh Ward
R Oliver – observer
E Seward - observer
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mrs N Turner – Housing Strategy Team Leader
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(127) APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING
In the absence of Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, it was proposed by Councillor R
Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED
That Councillor R Shepherd be appointed as Vice-Chairman for the
meeting.
(128) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs S A Arnold. There was
one substitute Member in attendance.
(129) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24 October 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Development Committee
1
21 November 2013
(130) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at Trunch, reference
PF/13/0602. The reason for urgency was to consider objections which had been
received in respect of this application which the Head of Planning had been
authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
(131) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared an interest, the details of which are given under the minute of
the item concerned.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members‟ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the Officers‟ report, the Committee
reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(132) BINHAM - PF/13/1192 - Conversion of two-storey barn to residential and
erection of three bay cartshed garage; Old Barn Farm, Binham Road, Wighton
for S C & G M Savory & Sons
All Members declared a personal interest as a fellow Councillor was an owner of the
applicant business.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that three letters had been received. Concerns
had been expressed regarding overlooking of Old Farm Bungalow, fire safety and
barn owl habitat. An amended plan had been received which indicated a reduction in
size of the openings in the gables. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager was now satisfied with the design.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior
Planning Officer stated that, in the opinion of the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, the steepness of the roof pitch indicated that the building may
have had a thatched roof in the past.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
Development Committee
2
21 November 2013
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(133) BRINTON - PF/13/0985 - Erection of two-storey side and rear extensions,
detached car port, formation of vehicular access and render of existing
dwelling and insertion of first floor side windows; The Villa, Old Hall Lane for
Mr & Mrs Kemp
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs A Kemp (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Brinton Parish Council considered that the
front elevation had been improved. However, it maintained its previous objections.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objection to the amended
plans subject to the use of clay pantiles to match the existing roof tiles.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that there was strong local
opposition expressed via the Parish Council, mainly relating to the size, scale and
design being inappropriate to Brinton Conservation Area. She understood the
concerns of the neighbour, but considered that the amended plans had helped
immensely.
She considered that the rear of the site was well screened from the
neighbour. She stated that she had spoken to the Parish Council and the applicant,
mainly in relation to the application coming to Committee but had not discussed the
application itself. She proposed approval of this application as recommended, which
was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposal was a good way of altering the
building. With regard to size, there was a mix of house sizes in the village.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to appropriate conditions.
(134) HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/0914 - Conversion of redundant agricultural building to
residential dwelling; Land adjacent 2 High House for Miss L Hughes & Mr P
James
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss L Hughes (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that although there was no time limit defined in
Policy HO9, the Planning Policy Manager considered that 10 years was a reasonable
timescale to elapse prior to conversion of a building. The overall appearance of the
Development Committee
3
21 November 2013
building was considered to be acceptable and there was no objection from the
Highway Authority. The key issue was compliance with Policy HO9.
Councillor Mrs L Walker, the local Member, considered that the proposal was an
acceptable use of the building and was supported by the National Planning Policy
Framework. She referred to the previous use of the building, previous acceptance by
the Authority that it was an agricultural building, and there being no timescale stated
in Policy HO9. She stated that 36 letters of support had been received, there was a
lack of housing for young people and it was better to use the building than leave it
empty and allowed to rot. The proposal would keep the applicants in the village and
help to sustain the community. She referred to Miss Hughes‟ involvement with the
community and surrounding parishes. She requested the Committee to approve the
application.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that it was the Council‟s fault that the policy was not
specific as to the timescale and policy should not be made „on the hoof‟. He did not
consider that approval of this application would set a precedent. He considered that
the proposal was not against policy and there was no reason to refuse it. He
proposed approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to a comment by the local Member regarding the
building being left to rot. He stated that it was only five years old and questioned why
it had been built unless there was another use in mind. He proposed refusal of this
application which was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
The Head of Planning stated that the policy framework did not specify 10 years.
However, the building had been built fairly recently and it was necessary to consider
it in terms of the policy framework and Policy HO9. In her opinion it was clearly
contrary to policy and whilst the application should be considered on its merits, there
was a question of how many newly constructed buildings might come forward for
conversion.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that if the applicants were prepared to accept a
personal condition he would amend his proposal. The applicants indicated that they
were prepared to accept such a condition. With the agreement of his seconder,
Councillor Baker amended his proposal to include a personal condition.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that such a condition would
restrict first occupation of the dwelling to the applicants. It would not be fair or
reasonable to permanently tie the applicants to it.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Head of Planning
confirmed that the applicants could reapply in five years‟ time for change of use of
the building.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that as Councillor Shepherd‟s
proposal was a direct negative of the original proposal, Councillor Baker‟s proposal
for approval of this application subject to a personal condition would be considered
first.
At the request of Councillor M J M Baker, voting was recorded as follows:
Development Committee
4
21 November 2013
For the proposal
Councillors:
M J M Baker
Mrs A R Green
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J Wyatt
(6)
Against the proposal
Abstentions
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Miss B Palmer
(7)
(1)
The proposition was declared lost.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 6 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that it is contrary to the
suitability criteria set out in Policy HO9 of the adopted North Norfolk
Core Strategy.
(135) HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0951 - Change of use from D1 (chapel) to C3
(residential); Methodist Church, The Street for Central Norfolk Methodist
Circuit
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Eggleton (Hindolveston Parish Council)
Reverend A King (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the main concerns related to highway safety.
The Highway Authority had indicated that traffic speeds were low and there was no
objection to on-street parking.
At the request of the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the
application related to change of use only.
Councillor P W High requested the comments of the Development Control Officer
(Highways) regarding the highway concerns and asked if he was aware of the
amount of HGV traffic using The Street.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that the site was on a fairly busy
road. Parking for the Methodist Church had been off the road within the curtilage of
the village hall but this would not be available in the future. The proposed use would
not generate many traffic movements. A single parking space had been proposed
but this would require manoeuvring over a footpath which was considered by the
Highway Authority to be more dangerous than parking on the street.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that suggestions by local residents that the
building should be converted to a cinema or gallery contradicted their concerns
regarding parking.
Development Committee
5
21 November 2013
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that on street parking was dangerous and it was a
shame that access could not be gained to the rear of the property through the village
hall car park.
In response to a question by Councillor P W High, Reverend King explained that the
Village Hall Committee had been approached on this matter but did not wish to
negotiate with the applicants.
In response to a further question by Councillor P W High, Mr Eggleton explained that
as far as he was aware, the Village Hall Committee had turned down any offers
which had been put forward but he was not aware of the details.
In answer to questions from Members regarding site dimensions and whether it was
possible to create a suitable parking area, the Senior Planning Officer stated that to
do so would require the removal of railings which would destroy the setting of the
Listed Building. It was possible for anybody to park on the roadside at the moment
and it was necessary to consider the bigger picture of finding a new use for the
building.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that it would be desirable to come to an
arrangement with the Village Hall Committee for access to the rear of the property or
a parking space on the village hall car park.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that parking had nothing to do with the change of use
application and proposed approval of this application which was seconded by
Councillor P W High.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to an advisory note that this
approval is for change of use only and does not provide for any
physical alterations to the exterior or interior of the building. Such
works would need to be the subject of fresh submissions for planning
permission and listed building consent.
(136) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0866 - Erection of 176 dwellings with access, open
space and associated works and formation of station car park and outline
application for employment development; Land at, Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes
Councillor M J M Baker declared a non-pecuniary interest in this application as his
business shared a boundary with the site.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that an amended plan had been
received in response to amendments required by the Highway Authority.
Amendments had also been received in response to comments by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager had commented that the designs were similar to those by the same
developer on other sites in the District.
Development Committee
6
21 November 2013
The Team Leader (Major Developments) displayed a plan showing the HSE hazard
zones in respect of condensate storage and transport. The safety zones had
influenced the layout of the site.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to the lack of affordable housing
and contributions towards education and libraries, which had been omitted because
of viability issues. The draft Section 106 Obligation included an uplift clause to allow
the possibility of financial contributions being made if the developer‟s profit exceeded
20%, and an incentive clause. The incentive clause would allow for the amount
payable towards affordable housing to be reduced from the financial equivalent of
providing 45% of the total number of dwellings proposed to 20%, in the event of 25
dwellings being completed within two years of the grant of planning permission, and
not 30 as stated in the report.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that a letter had been received
from the Town Council, reiterating its view that there were too many departures from
Policy with regard to affordable housing, renewable energy and Section 106
contributions, and expressing concern that approval would set a precedent for other
large housing developments in the area.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported the contents of a letter which had
been received from a planning consultant who represented landowners of the
adjoining site requesting deferral of this application, in view of the outstanding
matters to be resolved in respect of access and flood risk issues. The Team Leader
(Major Developments) confirmed that the provision of the access up to the boundary
with the adjoining land would be secured through the Section 106 Obligation and he
did not consider there was a need to defer this application.
With regard to flood risk, a Flood Risk Assessment had now been received and the
comments of the Environment Agency were awaited.
Highway amendments had been submitted but there were further concerns.
Discussions were ongoing and it was anticipated that further amendments would be
received.
A letter had been received by the Chairman of the Committee from the North
Walsham Headteachers‟ Cluster expressing concern that the application was being
considered without a contribution towards education.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that correspondence had been
received from Councillor N Lloyd, Member for North Walsham North Ward, who
acknowledging the complexity of the case and the work which had been put in by the
Officers, commenting on the appearance of the site and expressing the view that the
development would provide homes which were affordable for people who wished to
get on the housing ladder and bring in additional spending power. He supported this
application.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that this application conflicted with a
number of policies and considered that it would not provide any benefits for local
residents, would harm the education of children in North Walsham and provide no
social rented accommodation. There was no development brief for the site. She
questioned whether the uplift was a reasonable proposal. She urged the Committee
to refuse this application.
Development Committee
7
21 November 2013
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard commented that Manor Road school was at capacity and
Millfield School would therefore have to take the children from the site which, given
the predicted number of places required, would result in a shortfall of some 44 places
with no contribution towards education being made by the developer. She expressed
concern that the children would need to cross a busy road without the benefit of a
pedestrian crossing. She asked how likely it was that the commercial premises
would be developed and noted that the Health & Safety Executive could advise
against certain types of business in the hazard zone. She requested a condition to
require visual improvement of the employment area until such time as it was
developed. She requested clarification of the uplift clause and the mechanism for
determining profit. She referred to the comments made by Councillor Lloyd
regarding affordable homes to buy and stated that as approximately 44% of people in
North Walsham earned less than £25,000 per year they would be beyond most
people‟s reach. She requested sight of the viability study and asked if there had
been an independent assessment of it. She was not happy that the hornbeams at
the entrance to the site would be removed and requested that the plans be amended
to accommodate them. She expressed concern that children playing football on the
open space area might kick balls onto the railway line and requested that the open
space area be securely fenced to avoid danger to children.
Councillor M J M Baker requested a recorded vote. He expressed concern that
approval could set a precedent across North Norfolk for lack of provision of
affordable housing. He expressed concerns regarding the uplift clause and doubted
that the Council would gain from it. He considered that the application did nothing to
address the housing need in North Walsham. He considered that the amount paid
for the site should not be taken into account. He stated that funding had been
provided to the developer for infrastructure. He referred to the lack of any
contributions being offered by the developer except for a highway contribution. He
proposed refusal of this application and requested that the developer be required to
landscape the front of the site as it was currently an eyesore.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes commended the Officers on an excellent report. He
considered that it would be preferable for North Walsham if the site were developed
rather than left derelict. He proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to the Appendix to the report and
highlighted the statement that the development would allow the creation and
retention of jobs which was crucial. Although no „affordable‟ houses were to be
provided, the proposal would provide a significant amount of smaller properties which
would be more affordable for people to buy.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that even if the site were tidied up it would still be
there. He referred to the Northern Distributor Road which would be going to North
Walsham and there was a danger that the town would not be ready for it. Jobs would
be coming to the town. He seconded Councillor Perry-Warnes‟ proposal for
delegated approval.
In response to the points raised by Members, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) stated that the funding provided for infrastructure was as a loan
which would help fund the spine road through the site. He stated that it was not
possible to place a condition on a refusal as had been suggested by Councillor
Baker. However, planning legislation provided powers to require land to be tidied but
it would be a challenge to do so on this site. With regard to concerns in respect of
development of the employment area, a condition could be imposed to require
Development Committee
8
21 November 2013
temporary enhancement of the area. With regard to the type of development HSE
would object to within the inner hazard zone, this related to uses such as a pub or
hotel. An application had been received for bunding of the condensate area and if
approved, the inner zone would shrink which would allow more uses to take place
than at present. The Planning Inspector had already determined under an appeal
that the hornbeams could be removed and the Landscape Officer had raised no
objection provided there was sufficient mitigation. Secure fencing of the open space
could be considered.
The Housing Team Leader - Strategy explained that the uplift clause was becoming
standard across all applications where the required amount of affordable housing
could not be provided because of viability issues. A further viability report would be
required at the end of the development and she would be looking to see how the
position had changed. House prices also contributed to the determination of uplift.
20% was becoming an acceptable level in terms of profit for developers. It would be
an open book process. The Housing Team Leader - Strategy stated that she was
experienced in assessing viability reports and this work was done in house. It was
disappointing that no affordable housing was being provided but the viability issues
were clear. She would not support the application without the uplift clause.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the Highway Authority
considered that there was an adequate pedestrian crossing between the site and the
railway bridge, which had a central refuge with dropped kerbs. This opinion could
change when the remainder of the site came forward but at present it was not
considered necessary to install additional crossings.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Baker‟s proposal for refusal.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle supported this application. The proposal provided for
dwellings at the cheaper end of the market which would allow people to get on the
housing ladder. She did not consider that approval would set a precedent as each
site was assessed separately. She considered that the development would enhance
a very uninspiring site and help North Walsham in every way.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the Northern Distributor Road was by no
means certain to go ahead and was dependent on meeting a housebuilding target
around Norwich.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that a condition should be imposed to
require the provision of a pedestrian crossing.
In answer to a further question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Housing Team
Leader - Strategy explained that she considered the viability assessments and an
external assessor would only be used if she had concerns. She confirmed that the
uplift took effect when profit reached 20% and did not require an increase in profit of
20%.
Councillor B Smith referred to other previously derelict sites which had been
developed. He stated that the site was a blight on North Walsham and considered
that it deserved something better. This was a chance to do something positive and
provide housing, although not ideally what the Council wanted.
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that the Council was being threatened that if it did
not support this application, the site would remain derelict. He did not support this
application.
Development Committee
9
21 November 2013
The Head of Planning explained that in terms of the Development Plan, the National
Planning Policy Framework had to be taken into account as well as the Core
Strategy. She drew attention to the need to consider viability as required by the
NPPF. This was also clear in the Council‟s own policies relating to affordable
housing. Each application had to be considered on its own merits. The Officer‟s
recommendation for approval centred around the uplift clause. It was not contrary to
the Council‟s policies as the viability report had to be considered.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Government policy was expressed through
the NPPF, various ministerial statements and reflected in appeal decisions.
Government policies were pro-growth and the Council‟s corporate policies reflected
this. He advised that it was not possible to add a condition to the recommendation
for refusal.
There was provision under Section 215 of the Town and Country
Planning Act to serve a notice to require untidy land to be cleared but there was
some difficulty if land was awaiting development. The Council had required the
demolition of the buildings on the site as they were dangerous which had led to the
site appearing as it did. He advised the Committee with regard to the order in which
the proposals should be considered. The proposal by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
had been seconded first and should therefore be considered first, as refusal was a
direct negative.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard requested a condition to require any benefit from the
uplift clause to be applied to first to North Walsham, then surrounding parishes,
before elsewhere. Councillor Perry-Warnes and his seconder, Councillor Shepherd,
agreed to include this condition in their proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
1. Satisfactory completion of the Section 106 Obligation.
2. No new grounds of objection being received following
readvertisement of amended plans
3. No further objection being received from the Environment Agency in
respect of the revised Flood Risk Assessment.
4. No objection from the Highway Authority in response to the
amended plans and proposed financial contribution towards off-site
highway improvements.
5. Satisfactory submission of amended plans in respect of landscaping
and design.
At the request of Councillor M J M Baker, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Against the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Miss B Palmer
M J M Baker
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Mrs A C Sweeney
Development Committee
10
Abstentions
21 November 2013
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
(8)
(6)
(0)
(137) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Comper (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that she had taken photographs of the site from
the objector‟s property at her request but they were unavailable for display at the
meeting. With regard to concerns raised at the previous meeting, the agent had
confirmed that pedestrian and emergency access would be via an alleyway at the
rear of the site. The Building Control Manager had stated that the installation of a
sprinkler system would address issues relating to non-compliance with Building
Control Regulations.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor B J
Hannah, a local Member, who had left the meeting prior to consideration of this
application. He did not support this application and had raised issues regarding the
lack of adequate on-street parking in the area for existing residents. He had also
requested that occupiers of the unit be required to park on the Morris Street car park.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor R Smith, also a local Member,
supported Councillor Hannah‟s views and considered that the proposal was
overdevelopment of the site and overbearing to neighbouring properties.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the report which set out the reasons why this
application was considered to be acceptable. She recommended an additional
condition to require the main dwelling to revert to a single dwelling prior to first
occupation of the holiday unit.
The Chairman expressed disappointment that the photographs were not available
and suggested that this application be deferred.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he agreed with the local Members. He referred to
the objector‟s Human Rights. He stated that he had had a conversation with the
objector regarding covenants, which were not planning issues.
The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that enforcement of covenants was not a
planning issue and advised the Committee with regard to Human Rights. He
suggested that the Committee may wish to visit the site bearing in mind the disquiet
that had been expressed.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
Development Committee
11
21 November 2013
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members, Town Mayor
and a representative of the Highway Authority be invited to attend.
(138) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0889 - Conversion of D1 (community hall) to A5 (hot food
take-away) and first floor residential flat; 10 Wyndham Street for Mr P Crouch
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the views of Councillor B J Hannah, a local
Member, who had left the meeting prior to consideration of this application. He
considered that the site was unsuitable for a hot food takeaway as the road was
narrow and stopping vehicles would cause problems for other road users. He
considered that another hot food takeaway outlet would have a detrimental impact on
others in the town. He had requested that the Committee did not overlook problems
which would be stored up for the future.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the local Member‟s view. He stated that the area
became very crowded at times, the road was narrow with double yellow lines and
inadequate pavements, and was used as a rat run. He considered that it was the
wrong location for a takeaway. The road was mainly residential and the proposed
use could give rise to noise and litter.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney referred to the number of food outlets in the town and
asked if further outlets could be prevented. She opposed this application.
Councillor B Smith stated that he knew the area well and there had always been
problems with parking. He considered that the proposed use was inappropriate in a
restricted area. Sheringham was in danger of being swamped with takeaway outlets.
The area was very busy at times and the road was very narrow. He expressed
concern that there could be accidents given the nature of the road.
The Head of Planning stated that the proposal was policy compliant and the
proliferation of a particular type of use was not a planning issue. There had been no
objections from the Highway Authority, Police or Environmental Health.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that people would park on double yellow
lines while they waited for their order. She asked the Development Control Officer
(Highways) to explain why the Highway Authority had no objection.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained that the current use of the
building was as a community hall which would engender visits from a number of
people during the day. There would need to be a significant increase in the number
of vehicle movements in order to raise an objection. He considered that much of the
trade would come from nearby pubs. Anybody flouting the waiting restrictions risked
prosecution.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior
Planning Officer explained the location of the nearest car parks.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd regarding disposal of trade
waste, the Head of Planning explained that Environmental Health had raised no
objection.
Development Committee
12
21 November 2013
Councillor P W High proposed approval of this application. Councillor R Shepherd
accepted that there was no choice but to approve the application and seconded the
proposal.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 5
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include those listed in the report.
(139) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1035 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission
ref: 12/0429 to permit permanent extension to opening hours to 12 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious/bank holidays); Zahras, 8A Station
Approach for Mr M Miah
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of Councillor B J Hannah, a local
Member, who had left the meeting prior to consideration of this application. He had
referred to criminal damage and disturbance associated with late night opening of
other premises in the past and stated that CCTV was about to be decommissioned.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there had been no objection from consultees
or residents. The premises was in an area designated as Town Centre and the
proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he lived close to the site. The adjacent Chinese
takeaway opened until midnight and he could see no reason why the applicant
should not do so. It was a well-run business which was kept very clean. He
proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt.
Councillor M J M Baker requested clarification of “religious holidays” given the multifaith, multi-cultural nature of the country.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that this would mean statutory Christian
festivals, notwithstanding the multi-cultural situation. Councillor R Shepherd added
that the applicant also closed the premises during Ramadan and Eid.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(140) STALHAM - PF/13/1117 - Variation of Conditions 25 & 27 of planning
permission reference: 12/1427 to enable variations to sustainability and energy
requirements, by insertion of the wording "Unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority...." at the beginning of each condition; Land off
Yarmouth Road for Hopkins Homes Limited
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, stated that she was generally not in
favour of the precedent which appeared to be set for removing conditions imposed
on these developments. However, in this case affordable housing requirements and
Code level 3 would remain intact. She requested clarification of the requirements of
the Section 106 Obligation.
Development Committee
13
21 November 2013
The Team Leader (Major Developments) explained the requirements of the Section
106 Obligation, which required a library contribution but no contribution to education
as there were no capacity issues in local schools.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of the
conditions contained in the report.
(141) WEST BECKHAM - PF/13/0989 - Conversion of garage to crab processing
facility; Fairfields, Sheringham Road for Mr K Bishop
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney declared a personal interest in this application as the
applicant was her neighbour. She would take no part in the discussion or voting on
this matter.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr K Bishop (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had stated that he would boil
crabs for one hour every other day during high season and processing according to
the catch. He was aware that permission would be personal and he did not employ
staff. Environmental Health had no objection subject to conditions.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that there was a similar facility in Stalham
which did not cause any problems. She proposed approval of this application which
was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions as listed in the report.
(142) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers‟ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that
the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Councils be invited to
attend:
HAPPISBURGH - PF/13/1220 - Change of use of land to caravan park for
134 static caravans, 60 touring caravans and camping area; land south
of North Walsham Road for Happisburgh Estates
Development Committee
14
21 November 2013
WEST RAYNHAM – PF/13/1166 – Installation of 49.9MW solar farm with
plant housing and perimeter fence for Good Energy West Raynham
Airfield Solar Park (030) Ltd
WEYBOURNE – PF/13/1067 – Erection of single-storey dwelling and
attached double garage to 25 Pine Walk; 25 Pine Walk for Mr T McCarthy
(143) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Head of Planning presented the quarterly report on planning applications and
appeals for the period from July to September 2013, covering the turnaround of
applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
The Committee noted the report.
(144) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers‟ reports.
(145) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers‟ reports.
(146) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
(147) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
(148) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers‟ reports.
(149) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers‟ reports.
(150) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers‟ reports.
(151) TRUNCH - PF/13/0602 - Demolition of workshop/stores and erection of B2
(vehicle repair/MOT) workshop; Builder's Yard, Bradfield Road for Trunch
Garage
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter
of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that this application was
considered at its meeting on 26 September 2013, together with an application
Development Committee
15
21 November 2013
for conversion of the existing premises to a dwelling, when it was resolved to
authorise the Head of Planning to approve this application as amended subject to no
new grounds of objection following readvertisement as a departure from
Development Plan policy, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including upgrading of vehicular access and constructed in accordance with industrial
access construction specification, visibility splay provided 2.4m x 25m, on site car
parking and turning areas, no car sales, hours of operation, external lighting,
ventilation and extraction details to be agreed, external colour finish to cladding to be
agreed, negotiations in respect of improvements to the boundary fence, retention of
hedgerows to boundaries of the site and a condition or legal agreement to tie the
commencement of the commercial operation of the new facility to the cessation of the
existing garage.
Following readvertisement, 14 letters of objection were received in respect of this
application, claiming that it was incorrectly presented as a change of use from one
workshop to another.
The objectors claimed that the land was used for
agricultural/equestrian purposes and that this modest employment which would be
generated did not justify this proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the application was not presented as a
change of use application. It had been presented as a purpose-built building for the
relocation of an existing well-established local business and had been considered
and consulted upon as such. She referred to the Highway Authority‟s comments.
She considered that nobody had been misinformed in respect of this application.
She recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions in accordance with the Committee‟s previous decision.
Councillor B Smith considered that the case had been presented as stated. He
proposed approval of this application as recommended, which was duly seconded.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including upgrading of vehicular access and
constructed in accordance with industrial access construction
specification, visibility splay provided 2.4m x 25m, on site car parking
and turning areas, no car sales, hours of operation, external lighting,
ventilation and extraction details to be agreed, external colour finish to
cladding to be agreed, negotiations in respect of improvements to the
boundary fence, retention of hedgerows to boundaries of the site and a
condition or legal agreement to tie the commencement of the
commercial operation of the new facility to the cessation of the existing
garage.
The meeting closed at 1.17 pm.
Development Committee
16
21 November 2013