23 AUGUST 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
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 Mrs A R Green
K Johnson – observer
R Oliver – observer
N Smith – observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs K Batchelar – Landscape Officer
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
(56)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs A R Green. There was
one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(57)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 26 July 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(58)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(59)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mrs A C Sweeney and P Terrington declared interests,
the details of which are given under the minute of the items concerned.
Development Committee
1
23 August 2012
(60)
UPPER SHERINGHAM - NNDC TPO (UPPER SHERINGHAM) 2012 No. 1 – The
Old Chapel, Chapel Yard
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order(TPO) at the above site.
Public Speaker
Mr Yardley (objecting)
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to the
current tenant of the property who considered that the tree caused no problems and
was indifferent as to whether or not it should be felled. The neighbour considered
that the tree was no longer a problem since the reduction works had been carried out.
She proposed the Officer’s recommendation to confirm the Tree Preservation Order.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the presence of the tree made it difficult for
the Trustees to manage the property. He proposed that the Order be not confirmed.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had spoken to the Estate Manager who
had requested a delay in confirmation of the Order for a period of six months to
assess whether or not the works carried out to the tree had been satisfactory. He
therefore considered that the Order should not be confirmed but that it be reassessed
in six months’ time.
The Landscape Officer explained that in terms of Officer time it would be preferable
to confirm the Order now and any future problems could be assessed under the
Order. If the tree impacted adversely on the property it may be appropriate to
remove it.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded Councillor Sweeney’s proposal to confirm
the Order. It was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (Upper
Sheringham) 2012 No. 1 be confirmed.
(61)
NORTH WALSHAM - NNDC TPO (NORTH WALSHAM) 2012 No.11 - Land at
Muckle Hill Farm, Anchor Road, Spa Common
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of
a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect a group of five oak trees at the above
site.
The Landscape Officer presented photographs to demonstrate the amenity value of
the trees and explained that a Tree Preservation Order would not prevent appropriate
management.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the legal issues which had been raised by
an objector. The Council’s Solicitor had advised that, in his opinion, the Council had
the authority to confirm the Tree Preservation Order in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Development Committee
2
23 August 2012
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones reported that Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local
Member, was in favour of confirmation of the Order but had had to leave the meeting
prior to consideration of this matter.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That North Norfolk District Council Tree Preservation Order (North
Walsham) 2012 No. 11 be confirmed.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(62)
BODHAM - PF/11/0983 - Erection of wind-turbine maximum hub height 60m,
maximum tip height 86.5m, associated infrastructure, single-storey substation
building, access tracks and crane hard-standing; Land at Pond Farm for
Genatec Ltd
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney declared a personal interest in this application as she
had attended public meetings at Bodham but had not taken part in those meetings,
and had visited Barningham Hall to explain the planning process but had not
discussed this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest in this application as he
had been acquainted with the Mack family, who were directly involved with Genatec
Ltd, for many years.
The Chairman stated that all Members had received a considerable amount of
correspondence in respect of this application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr H Bruford (Bodham Parish Council)
Mrs Powell (East and West Beckham Parish Council)
Dr I Shepherd, Mr S Grewcock and Mr M McMahon (objecting)
Mr D Roe and Mr A Presslee (supporting)
Development Committee
3
23 August 2012
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a number of
representations had been received since publication of the report which re-stated
concerns already set out in the report to Committee. He highlighted the key issues
relating to this application, as set out in the Officer’s report, relating to policy,
landscape and visual impacts, impacts on the AONB, heritage assets, residential
amenity, television and communications, infrastructure, wildlife/ecology, aviation,
highway safety and public rights of way, tourism and other sectors, and the benefits
of the proposed development in terms of renewable energy and other economic
benefits. He presented a series of photomontages produced by the applicant’s agent
to demonstrate the impact of the proposed turbines from a number of viewpoints and
in relation to residential dwellings and heritage assets.
The Landscape Officer explained the issues relating to landscape and heritage
assets.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) summarised the issues, in
particular those in respect of landscape and visual impacts and impact on heritage
assets, and stated that the Committee needed to weigh the identified harm against
the benefits of the proposal. In the opinion of Officers, the benefits of the proposal
would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm and refusal of this application was
therefore recommended as set out in the report.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that he understood the
majority of residents in his Ward did not support this application. He was concerned
that it would set a precedent for similar development. He considered that one turbine
would produce insufficient energy to justify the damage to the landscape. He
considered that elected Members had a duty to take care of the area and its
landscape, which would be permanently damaged by the proposal. He referred to
the objections which had been received from surrounding Parishes. He proposed the
Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that the proposed turbine would be closer to
West Beckham and Baconsthorpe, which she represented, than Bodham and it
would therefore have an impact on a larger number of people.
Councillor Mrs Sweeney stated that the environment and wildlife which was vital for
the tourist industry would be permanently changed. She considered that approval of
this application would make it impossible to refuse others nearby. She was aware
that other landowners had expressed an interest in siting additional turbines close to
this site. She considered that there would be no community benefits arising from the
proposal. Given the current and proposed offshore windfarm development she
considered that there was no need to jeopardise the local economy by siting wind
turbines on land.
Councillor Mrs Sweeney referred to the views expressed by the closest Parish
Councils, which reflected the views of local residents.
She referred to evidence
which, in her opinion, demonstrated that there would be an impact on local property
values. Possible noise, flicker and visual pollution were relevant. She considered
that the proposed turbine and any subsequent turbines would have an impact on the
size and activity at the substation in West Beckham. She referred to the Landscape
Character Assessment relating to wind turbine development, which advised against
siting them close to the Cromer Ridge. She seconded the proposal to refuse this
application.
Development Committee
4
23 August 2012
Councillor P W High stated that he did not object to the principle of using natural
resources but expressed concern with regard to the siting of the proposed turbine in
terms of its visual impact, both on the wider landscape and local residents.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he was a resident of West Beckham and Member
for Holt Ward. He expressed concern at the impact of the proposal on the tourist
industry. He referred to a recent survey which indicated that 20% of those surveyed
would choose not to take a holiday in an area where wind turbines were situated,
which would put at risk £60m of income from tourism per year.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the comments made by Councillor Perry-Warnes.
He stated that the environment was precious and people should not be bullied into
accepting development they did not want.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported the principle of farm diversification, but
stated that applicants should consider the impact on other local industries when
putting forward proposals. He considered that there were other ways of diversifying
into the green energy business, such as photovoltaics or biomass, which the
applicants could consider.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed turbine would be sited within a prominent location and in
a landscape setting which has previously been identified as being
sensitive to change from large scale wind farm development and which
also includes a number of heritage assets, some of which are of the
highest designated category. The proposed turbine would be relatively
small compared to national schemes and the amount of electricity
generation is also relatively small such that, on balance, it is considered
that the electricity generation benefits would be outweighed by the
identified harm to the wider landscape and a number of heritage assets.
In particular it is considered that views of the turbine in the wider
landscape and especially those views set against the scale of
designated historic assets would result in significant change to the
character and scale of the landscape and the way in which it would be
understood by different receptors and the way in which historic assets
would be understood within their setting.
In particular these adverse/harmful impacts are evidenced in views of
All Saints Church, Bodham from locations between High Kelling and
Bodham on the A148, from certain locations at Baconsthorpe Castle, in
wider landscape views south of St Peters Church North Barningham
and, to some extent, on the setting of Barningham Hall.
The cumulative effect of these impacts on heritage assets and impacts
on the wider landscape is such that, notwithstanding the benefits that
can be attributed to the turbine including the renewable energy benefits,
proposed heritage asset fund and landscape enhancements, it is
considered that the benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the
identified harm and there are no other identified material considerations
in support of the proposal which would justify a departure from
Development Plan policies.
Development Committee
5
23 August 2012
(63)
BRININGHAM - PF/12/0165 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 91/0344 to permit occupation without complying with agricultural
occupancy restriction; Miresfield, Melton Road for Mr D Barkway
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Committee noted that no comments had been received from Councillor R J
Wright, the local Member, who had called in this application. The Chairman
requested that an article be included in the Members’ Bulletin to remind Members
that they should either attend the meeting or send in their comments to be read out if
they call in an application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor P
Terrington and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(64)
HOLT - PF/12/0667 - Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail)/tattoo studio; 20 High Street for The Tonsorial Artist
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Whybrow (supporting)
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had called in the application to allow residents
of Holt to comment on this application. He referred to the location of the premises in
the core retail area of the historic Georgian market town and stated that it was for the
Committee to decide if the proposed use was appropriate.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners
and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved.
(65)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/12/0572 - Formation of car-park and widening of existing
entrance; Bretts (Lings) Wood, Holt Road for Norfolk Wildlife Trust
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Cushing (objecting)
Mr J Milton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the objector’s shooting rights were not
relevant in determining this application as this was a civil matter. The comments of
the Police Architectural Liaison Officer were still awaited.
Development Committee
6
23 August 2012
Councillor P Terrington reported that Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member,
for whom he was substituting had concerns regarding access to the highway. He
proposed refusal of this application on highway safety grounds.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the application should not be
discussed without the views of the Police.
Councillor M J M Baker was surprised that the Highway Authority had not objected to
an additional access onto the corridor of movement. This was a stretch of road
where traffic speeds were high. He also expressed concern regarding disturbance to
wildlife and danger arising from the exercise of shooting rights.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes reiterated the concerns expressed by the previous
speakers and also expressed concern regarding possible anti-social behaviour.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he understood that the public already had
access to the wood through the applicant’s lease. However, rights were a civil
matter. There was an existing gateway into the wood and vehicles currently parked
in the entrance adjacent to the carriageway. The Highway Authority did not object to
this application on the basis that vehicles would be removed from the verge without
intensifying the use of the access.
Several Members expressed concern regarding traffic speeds along this stretch of
road and referred to fatalities which had occurred nearby. Councillor R Shepherd
considered that a properly constructed lay by would be the safest option as it would
be difficult to judge speeds properly from the proposed entrance. Councillor B Smith
considered that statistical evidence regarding accidents should be obtained prior to
making a decision on this application.
The Development Manager suggested that in view of Members’ comments it would
be preferable to await the views of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer, and seek
information from the Highway Authority in respect of accidents and any further
comments in respect of traffic speeds and visibility.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that whilst there would be a barrier to prevent vehicular access beyond the car
parking area, there was nothing to stop vehicles parking along the access track.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed deferral of this application to await the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and to seek the further
comments of the Highway Authority in respect of accidents, and Members’ concerns
in respect of traffic speeds and visibility.
Councillor P Terrington withdrew his proposal.
Councillor B Smith seconded the proposal to defer this application.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to await the
comments of the Police Architectural Liaison Officer and to seek the
further comments of the Highway Authority in respect of accidents,
traffic speeds and visibility.
Development Committee
7
23 August 2012
(66)
SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0429 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission
reference 10/0639 to permit extension of opening hours to 12.00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays (excluding religious bank holidays); Zahras, 8A Station
Approach for Mr M Miah
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer stated that he
understood that the applicant’s staff cleared up any litter outside the premises but
could not be responsible for litter deposited elsewhere.
Neither of the local Members, who had called in the application, were present at the
meeting.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones questioned why the business required an extension of
hours when other takeaway businesses closed at 11pm. She was concerned that
approval of this application would set a precedent.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he lived close to these premises and there had
been no problems. There was a neighbouring takeaway business which had
unrestricted hours so a precedent had already been set.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that planning permission had been given for
redevelopment of the adjacent premises subject to a condition to require the
business to close no later than 11pm. However, this permission had not yet been
implemented and the existing business was currently unrestricted.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew her objection.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved for a temporary period of 12 months.
One Member abstained from voting.
(67)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0623 - Retention of lighting column; Walkway,
Outer Harbour, Beach Road for Wells Harbour Commissioners
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest in this application as he had
raised concerns over associated developments. He would speak on this application
as local Member but abstain from voting.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicants had confirmed that the light
was a health and safety requirement and also for security. It had been in situ for a
year without complaint.
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, referred to the planning history of the jetty
and relevant policies. He considered that the recommendations of the Environmental
Statement in respect of application 20090581 which required low level, low wattage
lighting should be considered in this case. He considered there was no justification
Development Committee
8
23 August 2012
for the lighting column if health and safety concerns had been met by the low level
lighting He stated that the Norfolk Coast Partnership had not been consulted in
respect of the current application. He considered that the lighting column was
unsuitable for a rural setting, did not enhance the landscape and could set a
precedent for additional lighting columns towards the town. He requested deferral of
this application pending finalisation of the Council’s Integrated Coastal Zone
Management policy, consultation with Norfolk Coast Partnership and to request the
applicant to consider low level lighting solutions as recommended by the
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he was an electrician involved in health and safety
work. He considered that low level lighting might not be satisfactory from a health
and safety viewpoint. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor B Smith referred to the lighting on the nearby football pitch which bore no
comparison to the lighting column now under consideration. He considered that the
light was a beacon for vessels entering the harbour at night. He seconded the
proposal.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved.
(68)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visits be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
BLAKENEY - PF/12/0681 - Erection of 24 dwellings (of which 50%
affordable dwellings) and associated garages, carports, boundary wall
and fences and creation of 2 accesses; Land west of Langham Road for
Hillside Residential Ltd
EAST RUSTON - PF/12/0478 - Erection of two 18m high wind turbines
(height to hub); Old Manor Farm, Long Common for Mr J McLeod
(69)
DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 10 in respect of the quarterly report on planning
applications and appeals for the period from April to June 2012, covering the
turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes. Figures were also
included for land charge searches.
The Chairman congratulated the Development Management team on keeping up with
the current workload.
The Committee noted that the year out student, Gillian Lipinski, would shortly be
leaving the authority to resume her studies. The Committee requested that its thanks
and best wishes for the future be passed on to Mrs Lipinski.
Development Committee
9
23 August 2012
(70)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(71)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(72)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(73)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(74)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(75)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(76)
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(77)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 17 of the Officers’ exempt report updates the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of current enforcement cases
and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 June 2012.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) informed the Committee that
efforts were being made to deal with the backlog of cases. However, he had not
been able to give as much support to the Enforcement team as he would like given
the number of large ‘special case’ applications that had recently been submitted.
RESOLVED
1. That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of
Current Enforcement Cases be noted.
2. That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed
from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
CHAIRMAN
20 September 2012
10
23 August 2012