23 APRIL 2015
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
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 Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
T Ivory – Scottow Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Developments Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss S Tudhope – Planning Officer
(242) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were present.
(243) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 19 March and 26 March 2015
were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(244) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business
(245) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, P W High and Miss B Palmer declared interests, 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.
Development Committee
1
23 April 2015
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.
(246) BLAKENEY - PF/14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and outbuildings and
erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road
for Mrs Cargill
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Crossley (Wiveton Parish Council)
Mr Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)
Mr C Wheeler (objecting)
Mr Schofield (supporting)
The Head of Planning reported that Wiveton Parish Council disputed a comment in
the applicant’s Design and Access Statement which stated that the Parish Council
was not overly concerned with regard to the location of the house. The Parish
Council had not had any correspondence with the agent on this matter and
considered that a replacement dwelling should be on the site of an existing dwelling
and nowhere else. The agent had responded that this statement had been taken
directly from the pre-application process and therefore refuted this comment.
Additional representations had been received from CPRE regarding the site
boundary, scale of the building and its intrusion into the landscape.
A further representation had received stating that nothing had changed and the
proposal would result in ugly ribbon development.
Since the report was written, the appeal decision in respect of application PF/14/0785
had been received and circulated to Members.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to an email which had been sent to Members
from Mr R Hewitt, Solicitor, commenting on the appeal decision. He outlined the key
paragraphs of the appeal decision and referred to the submission by Mr Hewitt. He
stated that the appeal decision was relevant to this application. With regard to the
case law regarding precedent referred to by Mr Hewitt, he advised that it was for the
Committee to determine the weight to be given to this matter.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that it appeared that the Inspector was more
concerned with scale, mass and design of the building rather than its location within
the site. In this case, the design of the building and its siting had changed.
The Head of Planning stated that the building had been moved closer to the existing
site and was of a more vernacular design.
Development Committee
2
23 April 2015
In response to comments made by the speakers, the Head of Planning clarified
issues with regard to calculations and policy issues.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, referred to the landscape impact issues in
the report. She considered that the proposal would not enhance the landscape.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the building could be acceptable if the building
were dug further into the ground to bring the roof level in line with the existing
buildings.
The Head of Planning stated that Councillor Reynolds’ suggestion would be a
significant amendment to the application and recommended that consideration be
deferred for discussions with the applicant on this matter.
Councillor Reynolds requested clarification of the ground levels.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Schofield stated that the finished floor levels of
the building would not be the same as the finished floor level of the existing building,
which would result in an increase in height.
The Planning Legal Manager reiterated the Head of Planning’s recommendation for
deferral if the ground level of the proposed building were to be lowered.
Councillor R Reynolds proposed deferral of this application to negotiate the lowering
the ground level of the building. This was seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the scale and massing of the building was
excessive and against policy. He proposed that this application be refused on policy
grounds.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes withdrew his seconding of Councillor Reynolds’ proposal.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The replacement dwelling by virtue of its scale, massing and siting
would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding
countryside. The location of the dwelling further away from the retained
buildings on site would result in a detrimental intrusion into open
countryside.
The overall appearance and location would detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
adversely affect the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area.
The proposal was therefore contrary to policies H08, EN1, EN2, EN4 and
EN8 of the Council’s Core Strategy.
Development Committee
3
23 April 2015
(247) BLAKENEY - PF/14/1658 - Erection of 3 two-storey detached dwellings and new
vehicle access for plot 2; Land Adjacent to Poppyland, Back Lane for Mr and
Mrs Crawley
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)
Mrs R Thew (objecting)
Mr J Crawley (supporting)
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to members
of the Crawley family in very general terms. She was not completely happy with the
proposal but it was policy compliant. The area was already developed. Discussions
had taken place regarding landscaping to maximise the retention of trees.
The Planning Officer confirmed that the applicants had worked with the Landscape
Officer. The remaining trees would be protected and consent would be required for
works to the trees in the future.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposed dwellings would complete the
development of this area. He stated that the lane was narrow but he was not aware
of any accidents. He proposed approval of this application which was seconded by
Councillor J A Wyatt.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that a note be attached to the deeds of the new
properties so that buyers were aware that they were buying a property with protected
trees.
The Development Manager stated that it was not possible for the Local Planning
Authority to attach such a note to the deeds, but the land charge searches would
reveal that the properties were in a Conservation Area.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by
Councillor J Perry-Warnes that consideration of this application be deferred to allow
an inspection of the site by the Committee.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with 2 Members voting in
favour and the majority against.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(248) BLAKENEY - PF/15/0070 - Conversion of existing detached two-storey dwelling
into 2 apartments, including construction of dormer window and erection of 6
two-storey dwellings, creation of new access and installation of air source heat
pumps; Greencroft House, 22 Morston Road for London and Country Homes
(Blakeney) Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs S Hill (objecting)
Mr D Mead (supporting)
Development Committee
4
23 April 2015
The Development Manager reported the receipt of amended plans and that 14 letters
of objection had now been received. He reported additional grounds of objection,
including the access track around the site, which did not go right around the site and
re-join Morston Road as previously shown. Environmental Health had no objection to
the proposed air source heat pumps subject to the amendment of the siting of the
pump on site 6. The Countryside Officer’s comments on the amended landscaping
plan were awaited. He requested delegated authority to approve this application as
per the Officer report and subject to no objection from the Landscape Officer.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, stated that she was not completely happy
with the application, however it was compliant with policy, had been thought out and
she hoped the landscaping would make it a good site. She proposed delegated
approval of this application as recommended. This was seconded by Councillor J
Perry-Warnes.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Development Manager
explained the issue with regard to the right of way.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new grounds of objection following readvertisement of the
amended plans, no objection from the Environmental Protection Team
and the Landscape Officer and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a three year commencement period, in accordance
with amended and approved plans, materials, landscaping,
improvements to vehicular access, no gates, bollards, chain or other
means of obstruction shall be erected across the approved access,
visibility splays, access, car parking, off site highway improvement
works, removal of permitted development for any alterations,
extensions, insertion of windows, erection of outbuildings and any
other conditions that may be required from Environmental Protection
Team.
(249) HOLT - PO/14/1509 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
detached two-storey dwellings; 59 Hempstead Road for Mr P W High
Councillor P W High declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was the
applicant. He took no part in the consideration of this application but at the invitation
of the Committee remained in the Chamber to listen from the public seats.
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal, non-pecuniary interest in this application
as he owned a property nearby.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager stated that a comment by the objector regarding the
connection with the next door bungalow was incorrect as the buildings were not built
at the same time. Some of the planning history quoted related to the adjacent site.
The Development Manager stated that the principle of the proposed development
was acceptable. However, this application was recommended for refusal on access
and visibility grounds.
Development Committee
5
23 April 2015
Councillor M J M Baker referred to development which had already been approved
off the Hempstead Road and stated that traffic calming measures would be put in
when the estate was constructed. The footway would also be upgraded. He
considered that this proposal would make better use of a largely unused piece of
land. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor J
Perry-Warnes.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reason: Traffic calming measures and highway improvements which
will be provided in association with new development which has been
approved off Hempstead Road.
(250) NORTH WALSHAM - PO/14/1668 - Erection of 4 single-storey detached
dwellings and 4 detached two-storey dwellings; 45 Happisburgh Road for
Ashford Commercial Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager reported that an amended plan had been received
following the site inspection to show the full length of the proposed access. An
objection had been received from the Highway Authority in respect of the visibility
splay and pedestrian refuge as the land required to provide it was not within the
applicants’ control. He read the Highway Authority’s comments in full.
The Development Manager reported that Councillor P W Moore, a local Member,
supported the Highway Authority on this matter.
The Development Manager requested delegated authority to approve this application
if the applicants could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority that
they had control over the land to provide the visibility splay and pedestrian refuge, or
if not, delegated authority to refuse this application on highway grounds.
The Development Manager read to the Committee a presentation on behalf of Mr
Roper, an objector to this application, who had registered to speak at the meeting but
felt unwell.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was a member of North Walsham Town
Council but she had not discussed this matter except to ask what response had been
made to the Local Planning Authority. She supported the Highway Authority and the
objector’s concerns. She proposed refusal of this application on highway grounds.
Councillor J A Wyatt considered that that the proposal was overdevelopment of the
site. Councillor Mrs Uprichard agreed to include overdevelopment as a reason for
refusal. Councillor Wyatt seconded the proposal. Members also raised concerns in
respect of potential overlooking and loss of privacy.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on highway grounds and on grounds
that the proposal would result in a cramped form of development, out of
keeping with the character of the area and potentially detrimental to
neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy.
Development Committee
6
23 April 2015
(251) SCOTTOW - PF/14/1396 - Temporary change of use of Hangars 1, 2 and 3 from
military storage to storage of processed sugar; Hangars 1, 2 and 3, Former
RAF Coltishall for Norfolk County Council
Councillor M J M Baker declared an interest as he was a Member of Norfolk County
Council.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr T Clayton (supporting)
The Major Projects Manager reported that hangars 1 and 3 contained loose sugar
and hangar 2 contained bagged sugar. If the application were refused the sugar
would need to be removed and there would be a highway impact in doing so. He
advised that temporary approval would allow the delivery/dispatch times to be
restricted. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had been consulted and had no
objection on the assumption that all sugar was bagged. The HSE had been
reconsulted and the Fire Service would also need to be consulted on the advice of
the HSE.
The Major Projects Manager recommended that the application be approved for a
temporary period of three years subject to conditions to restrict times of vehicle
movements and any conditions required by the Health and Safety Executive and the
Fire Service.
Councillor T Ivory, the local Member, considered that the applicant had shown
contempt for the Authority and the residents of Scottow. He stated that the murals in
the hangars were an important part of the history of the base and had heritage and
cultural significance, to which weight could be attached. Whilst storage of sugar in
itself was not damaging, no investigation had been carried out as to the impact of air
conditioning and ventilation systems associated with the use. He considered that this
storage use was inappropriate in this location and expressed concern that this
proposal would set a precedent for other storage uses. He considered that there was
an unacceptable traffic impact which was not justified by job creation, and that
storage use would prevent the hangars being used for other employment generating
uses.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that it was inappropriate to store flammable
substances in a building where there were murals and items of historical interest.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed approval in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that a letter should be sent to Norfolk County
Council expressing this Council’s concerns at its conduct in respect of this
application. The Committee expressed its support for this suggestion.
Councillor R Reynolds expressed concern with regard to traffic and employment
issues. He stated that sugar caught fire easily and it was difficult to stop such a fire.
He considered that the sugar should be removed within a year or 18 months. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at the retrospective nature of this
application. She seconded refusal.
Development Committee
7
23 April 2015
The Major Projects Manager stated that if refused, the Committee would need to
consider enforcement action. The Officers advised the Committee with regard to
temporary approval or refusal with enforcement action.
Councillor T Ivory stated that he was concerned that short term planning permission
was acceptance of the principle of storage use. He expressed a preference for
refusal with enforcement action and stated that disruption would be short term.
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to grounds for refusal
and enforcement issues. He requested that a refusal reason on fire risk grounds be
delegated subject to the views of the HSE and Fire Service.
The Chairman asked Mr Clayton how long it would take to clear the site. Mr Clayton
stated that he would need to liaise with his client on this issue.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
1.
That this application be refused on grounds that storage use on the
scale proposed is inappropriate on this site and is likely to give rise to
significant traffic generation which would have a detrimental impact on
residents of the area and, subject to the views of the Health and Safety
Executive and Fire Service, fire risk grounds. Furthermore the proposal
would result in harm to locally designated heritage assets.
2.
That the Head of Planning be authorised to serve an Enforcement Notice
to require the removal of the sugar within 6 months of the effective date
of the notice, for the reasons stated above, to include conditions with
regard to compliance.
(252) SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0680 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 49m
and a blade tip height of 78m; Land at Manor Farm, Cranmer for Ogden
Renewable Energy
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
The Major Projects Manager referred to the effect of the proposed turbine on heritage
assets. The Ministry of Defence had been consulted with regard to low flying aircraft
and had raised no objection subject to the installation of aviation lighting. He stated
that the renewable energy benefits were considerably lower than with the turbine
proposal at Bodham which had recently been refused. He recommended refusal of
this application as stated in the report.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, stated that the Chairman of the Parish
Council was happy for him to speak on the Parish Council’s behalf. He stated that
the turbine was not small scale and it was in the middle of the countryside. He
considered that North Norfolk was already contributing to green energy with offshore
turbines and there was no reason to spoil the countryside. He expressed concern at
the damaging effect of the proposal on heritage assets and their settings. He stated
that the small airfield was well used and expressed concern that aircraft would be
routed around the site and fly over the village. He stated that there were 40
dwellings within 1km of the site. He requested refusal of this application.
Development Committee
8
23 April 2015
Councillor M J M Baker stated that turbines were not environmentally friendly taking
into account their carbon footprint from manufacturing, sourcing materials and siting.
They were less efficient than a conventional power station and 500kw of electricity
would require 500kw of power station to back it up. He proposed refusal of this
application which was seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the whole of his Ward would be in direct line with
the turbine and have a direct view of it. He considered that it would be a pity to ruin
Norfolk’s big skies with the turbine. He referred to the impact on the heritage assets
of Cranmer Hall and its parkland, the Coach House and Sculthorpe Church.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the proposal would ruin a beautiful
landscape and the aviation lights would also have an impact on the area.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
(253) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0001 - Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32
no. dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre,
Holway Road for Norfolk Homes
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs J Mold (objecting)
Mr B Gaell (objecting)
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that a letter had been received from a
neighbour expressing gratitude for efforts made to amend the siting of one of the
proposed dwellings. The concerns of the Housing Officer had now been resolved.
He read to the Committee the detailed comments of the Highway Authority with
regard to the access arrangements. The Conservation and Design Officer had
confirmed that he had no objection to the amended plans.
The Major Projects Team Leader displayed a fly-through video which had been
prepared by the applicants, and samples of proposed coloured render were
circulated to the Committee.
The Major Projects Team Leader recommended approval subject to appropriate
conditions and completion of a Section 106 Obligation.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern that a representative of the Highway
Authority was not present as requested. He stated that Snaefell Park had a village
atmosphere and the dwellings had been sold without the buyers knowing that there
was an intention to link to the adjacent site. He considered that both the existing
Snaefell Park and the proposed Hilbre estate should retain village atmospheres. He
considered that direct access to the Hilbre site from Holway Road was safe. The
Snaefell Park access was safe for the existing development but not for additional
development. He considered that there were problems with vehicles passing and the
speed of vehicles travelling downhill had not been taken into account. He stated that
Development Committee
9
23 April 2015
Snaefell iced up in winter. He considered that it was geographically wrong to link the
two developments. He expressed concern with regard to infrastructure and school
capacity. He referred to the use of coloured render and considered that there were
street scene issues as there would be a dramatic change between the dwellings on
Snaefell Park and the Hilbre development. He proposed deferral of this application
to resolve access and colour scheme issues.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that the estate road would become a
rat run. She was also concerned that residents of the proposed affordable housing
would not have direct access to their homes. She considered that the coloured
render would become dated. She was pleased that some of the affordable dwellings
would be one-bedroomed.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the Hilbre access from Holway Road had
better visibility and would be safer than the Snaefell Park access. He seconded the
proposal for deferral and requested that a letter be sent to the Highway Authority
expressing the Committee’s concern that a representative had not attended the
meeting when requested to do so.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that the Hilbre exit was much safer than the
Snaefell Park exit. He supported deferral of this application.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the Highways Officer had given a
presentation at the site inspection and had sent in his detailed written comments as
he had difficulty attending the meeting. He considered that the Highways Officer was
unlikely to have made any comment other than he had made in writing.
Councillor B Smith stated that he did not support the isolation of the affordable
dwellings. He considered that the direct exit onto Holway Road was the safest,
particularly for heavy vehicles.
The Chairman invited Mr Presslee to comment on the issues which had been raised.
Mr Presslee considered that the highway points had been covered and he was
unable to add anything further. The scheme met the standards advised by the
Highway Authority. He considered that the proposal was good design and that the
render would not appear too bright. The fly-through presentation made the colours
look darker than they were.
The Chairman asked Mr Presslee if there was a preference to use the Snaefell
access. Mr Presslee explained that the design approach was preferable to creating a
cul-de-sac and allowed for better permeability through the site. The proposal linked
the west side of the site to the east and allowed a footpath link through Snaefell Park
to Morley Hill.
Councillor P W High stated that the outline application was approved with access
from Holway Road.
RESOLVED unanimously
1.
That consideration of this application be deferred to resolve issues with
regard to the access and colour scheme.
2.
That a letter be sent to the Highway Authority expressing the
Committee’s disappointment that the Highways Officer had not attended
the meeting.
Development Committee
10
23 April 2015
(254) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0104 - Erection of single-storey rear and side
extensions; 13 St Austins Grove for Ms G Woolrych
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Tait (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that Councillor R Smith, a local Member,
had reiterated his concerns regarding the size and design of the extension.
The Major Projects Team Leader recommended approval of this application subject
to the conditions listed in the report, with the exception of the removal of permitted
development rights which was not considered necessary as any further extensions
would be to the side of the dwelling and would therefore require planning permission.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at the flat roof design and asked if
it would be possible to add a slight pitch to assist run off.
Mr Tait confirmed that the flat roof had a slight slope and drainage.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(255) THURSFORD - PF/15/0028 - Erection of single-storey extension to side/rear of
existing annex accommodation; Heath House, Brick Kiln Road for Mr GrahamWood
Councillors M J M Baker and Miss B Palmer declared non-prejudicial interests in this
application as they were acquainted with the applicant.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that this application related to
the enlargement of an existing small annexe for the present occupier who wished to
marry. All services were shared and the other end of the driveway was not used.
She proposed approval of this application.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Development
Manager explained that an annexe had to have a relationship with, and be close to,
the main dwelling but did not need to be attached. Each application was considered
on its own merits.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he understood on the site visit that the applicant
intended to use the second access. He asked if the access could be closed off. He
also asked if approval would set a precedent for building in the Countryside.
The Development Manager stated that Officers could seek to secure the closure of
the access.
Development Committee
11
23 April 2015
The Planning Legal Manager considered that approval of this application was unlikely
to set a precedent but there were concerns and the application was recommended
for refusal for good reason.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Mrs Green’s proposal for approval.
The Chairman requested a condition to close off the access. The proposer and
seconder agreed to add such a condition.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including annexe restriction and permanent
closure of the second access.
Reason: Having considered the proposal and visited the site, the
Committee is satisfied that the building is a genuine annexe.
(256) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including the
erection of a single-storey front extension and installation of front balcony, the
erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions and the installation of
render and cladding to the front and rear of dwelling; East Quay House, East
End for Mr S Howe
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr P Rainsford (objecting)
Mr S Howe (supporting)
The Development Manager reported that the Town Council did not wish to make
further comment. He reported that the Conservation and Design Officer’s comments
should state that “the building would not harm the setting of the adjacent Grade II
listed Old Custom House” and not East Quay House as stated.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor J D
Savory, a local Member, who did not support the proposal and had requested
deferral for a site inspection. However, the Committee had already visited the site.
The Development Manager reported that Councillor P Terrington, a local Member,
did not wish to comment further on this application and had referred the matter to
Councillor Savory.
The Development Manager recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
12
23 April 2015
(257) WEST BECKHAM - PF/15/0102 - Erection of part two-storey/part first floor
extension to convert single-storey dwelling into two-storey dwelling; Glabri,
Back Lane for Mr and Mrs Clarke
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Clarke (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the increase in floor space quoted in
the report related to one floor only, and the total increase in floor space would be
double. The proposal would result in a significant increase in size, bulk and height of
the building.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, stated that she knew the bungalow
well. She stated that it was a dreary building at the end of the lane. She had no
objection in principle to alterations to the building, although she considered that it
was too high. She considered that 1½ storeys would be acceptable.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Clarke stated that he was relocating his family
and business to the area and ideally required a full sized family house.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the proposal was acceptable and proposed
approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reasons: The Committee considers that there are several similar sized
dwellings in the area and the proposal is acceptable in terms of
residential amenity and impact.
(258) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals
for the period from January to February 2015, covering the turnaround of
applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.
The Chairman congratulated the staff and stated that they were doing well in difficult
circumstances.
(259) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(260) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(261) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
13
23 April 2015
(262) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the appeal against the refusal of
application PF/14/0785 in respect of Three Owls Farm, Blakeney had been
dismissed.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the appeal in respect of Bodham
PF/11/0983 (wind turbine) had now been withdrawn.
(263) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(264) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(265) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(266) 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 Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to
the Act.
(267) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered the Officers’ exempt report updating the situation
previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and
unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 March 2015.
Officers updated the Committee on a number of cases.
RESOLVED
That the report and annexed Schedules of cases be noted and that
those cases which have been resolved be removed from the Schedules.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.10 pm, resumed at 2.00 pm and closed at 3.40
pm.
Development Committee
14
23 April 2015