23 JANUARY 2014
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 C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs H Eales – The Runtons Ward
Ms V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
G R Jones – Gaunt Ward
Mrs A Moore – North Walsham West Ward
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
E Seward – North Walsham North Ward
N Smith - observing
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Ms B Firth – Solicitor, Mills & Reeve
(176) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were in attendance.
(177) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19 December 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to Minute 165
being amended to read “Councillor R Reynolds considered that with the removal of
the garage, the plot would be larger than the adjacent plot.”.
(178) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(179) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the
item concerned.
Development Committee
1
23 January 2014
(180) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/012/0945 - Erection of A1 (retail) store (5,574 sqm
gross floor area, 3,623 sqm net sales area), new access onto A149 Cromer
Road, petrol filling station and ancillary development including 412 space car
park, service yard and landscaping; Land at Former Marrick’s Wire Ropes
Premises, Cromer Road, North Walsham for Scott Properties Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr N Lee (objecting)
Mr I Roberts, Mr B Delafield and Mr M Scott (supporting)
The Head of Planning stated that the details and principle of this application had
been addressed previously. One of the outstanding matters, relating to the
availability of Paston College land, had been resolved. The only issue now
outstanding was the suitability of the mitigation package. The package had to be
sufficient to mitigate the harmful effects on the town centre, based on outcomes as
well as monetary value and act as an impetus for additional investment.
The Head of Planning referred to the table contained in Appendix 2 to the Officer’s
report which set out each element of the mitigation package and the views of the
developer and officers in relation to each element. She explained each of the
elements in turn, how they either met or failed the required tests under the
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations and whether they were considered
sufficient to mitigate the harmful effects. She stated that there were a number of
initiatives which had merit, but overall the package was considered to be insufficient
to mitigate the adverse impact. It was clear that the package of measures was the
full and final offer from the developer.
North Walsham Town Council considered the mitigation package to be insufficient
and should be revisited. In the event of the Committee being minded to approve the
application, the Town Council had requested a number of adjustments to the
package and conditions to restrict the amount of white goods to be sold, to restrict
internal independent units and a timescale for completion of the works.
North Walsham Chamber of Trade sought amendments to the mitigation package as
it was considered to be insufficient to mitigate the adverse impacts on the town
centre.
North Walsham for Business did not support the application and referred to impacts
on the town centre following the opening of the Waitrose store.
The Head of Planning stated that the acceptability of the proposal hinged on securing
an acceptable mitigation package, which should act as an impetus for the town
centre and enable it to adapt to the changing retail environment. The proposed
mitigation package fell short in terms of its scale and the application was therefore
recommended for refusal and set out in the report.
In response to comments by the public speakers, the Head of Planning explained
that the applicants had been given the opportunity to reallocate funds and Officers
had tried to be helpful. It was the applicant’s responsibility to submit a mitigation
package.
Development Committee
2
23 January 2014
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that at the meeting in March 2013
she had urged the Committee to refuse the application on grounds that the mitigation
package was insufficient to address the severe adverse impact on the town centre.
Officers had worked to reach a compromise but the package was still insufficient to
address the impacts. She acknowledged the wish of many residents for an additional
filling station but considered that it did not outweigh the disadvantages. She urged
the Committee to refuse the application as recommended.
Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, stated that she had supported this
application previously on employment grounds. She stated that there was a
desperate need for work in North Walsham. She referred to Stalham which had
experienced problems following the opening of a Tesco supermarket but had since
recovered. She referred to the nature of North Walsham as a service town. She
requested that the Committee approve the application subject to conditions as
suggested in the retail consultant’s report of December 2012, to require the filling
station to be fully operational prior to the store opening, and a time limit condition of
three years to ensure swift improvement of the derelict site.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was a member of the Town Team, which
would benefit from the proposed mitigation package. However, she was not in favour
of the proposal. Employees would not necessarily come from North Walsham or
spend their money in the town and many local people worked out of town and
shopped close to their work. The free parking period would last for two years,
whereas it took at least 10 years for small towns to regenerate and the town would
still be struggling when the free parking was removed. North Walsham was a service
town, but there were three shops selling electrical goods which would be affected.
Whilst local people supported the application, what they really wanted was a filling
station. She proposed refusal of this application as recommended by the Head of
Planning.
Councillor E Seward stated that he was Chair of the Leadership of Place Project. In
his experience many people in the town questioned the need for another
supermarket. However, there was a desire for another filling station. It was vital that
the creation of 200 jobs did not result in the loss of a similar number of jobs in the
town centre. He expressed concern that approval could cause uncertainty if nothing
happened. People accepted that the town centre had to change and adapt and it
was in the process of doing so. He considered that the mitigation was insufficient to
help the town centre.
Councillor P W Moore stated that the principle had been agreed. It was a question of
whether the sums requested could be justified. He had not heard anybody say they
wanted another supermarket. The impact on retailers of white goods could be
controlled by limiting the amount of space available for the sale of such items in the
store. There were currently six empty shops in the town and it was not unusual for
four to six units to be vacant in a town centre. Town centres were dynamic and
changed. He considered that owners of properties should look after them and the
applicant should not be asked to provide money for this purpose. Jobs would be
available to people from all over North Norfolk, not solely North Walsham. He
supported the application and suggested that the application be deferred for further
negotiations if the Committee was not satisfied with the mitigation package.
The Head of Planning stated that 250 jobs would be created. She reminded the
Committee that monetary value was not the only consideration and the Committee
needed to consider what could be achieved to enhance the town centre and mitigate
trade moving out of the town.
Development Committee
3
23 January 2014
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the retail industry was moving towards smaller intown stores and this proposal was much larger than the industry standard. He
stated that 30% of the store would be non-food and considered that significant
mitigation would be necessary. He considered that job creation was a myth as it
would only take jobs from elsewhere. He stated that inward investment should be
wealth creating.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that Fakenham was a much smaller town which had a
large in-town store and two others on the periphery. He considered that the
arrangement worked well. He stated that footfall was needed to encourage growth
within the town centre. He supported the proposal subject to a minimum of 3 hours
free parking, hopper bus provision and conditions relating to the filling station.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that Stalham had taken ten years to regenerate
following the opening of the Tesco store. There had been massive closure of shops
and local and national press had described Stalham as a ghost town. At least two
shops were currently vacant. She stated that Section 106 monies negotiated at the
time were considerably less than the current offer. She stated that jobs available at
the Stalham store were mostly part-time, short term and seasonal contracts and
requested that this be taken in to consideration.
Ms Firth stated that she had been engaged by the Authority to advise on the
mitigation package with regard to the CIL regulations and to ensure that the package
was satisfactory and met the requirements and tests. The package had to be
considered in terms of what it could achieve. The package should create
employment and enable the town centre to withstand the effect of the new store. If
the Committee refused the application, the applicant could appeal against the
decision. Evidence of impact would be critical and it would be for the applicant to
persuade the Inspector that the package would be sufficient to mitigate the harm.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, Ms Firth stated that
affordability of the mitigation package was relevant.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded Councillor Mrs V Uprichard’s proposal to refuse
this application.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning on grounds that the proposed development
would have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of
North Walsham town centre and the applicant has failed to put forward a
package of mitigation which would properly mitigate the identified
significant impacts.
Having considered all of the available evidence, it is considered that
there are no material considerations sufficient to justify the clear
departure from Development Plan policy or evidence to justify the
acceptability of the harm to the vitality and viability of North Walsham
town centre that would result from the proposal.
Development Committee
4
23 January 2014
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.
(181) BLAKENEY - PF/13/1205 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include splay bay window, insertion of dormer
windows and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay Cottage, The Quay for
Mr & Mrs K Bertram
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Horabin (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that four further letters of objection had been
received in respect of the latest amended plans, which reiterated the concerns set
out in the report. English Heritage had commented that no amendments had been
made to the picture window or the doorway through the boundary wall. However,
English Heritage had made no previous comments regarding the doorway. The
Conservation and Design team considered the picture window to be acceptable. No
further comments had been received from the Parish Council.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the concerns raised by residents of dwellings
to the south regarding loss of view over the marshes and inappropriate design in the
Blakeney Conservation Area. He stated that there was no right to a view under
planning legislation.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, expressed concern regarding the
impact on Blakeney Conservation Area. She welcomed the amendments and noted
the views of English Heritage. She did not wish to make a proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the applicant had attempted to address the
Committee’s concerns. Referring to concerns raised regarding the roof height not
matching others in the village, he stated that there were varying roof heights
throughout the village. He proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there had been no real changes since the last
plan. He stated that the site was surrounded by Grade II listed buildings and this
proposal would change the street scene. He referred to the special nature of the
village. He proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
5
23 January 2014
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Reynolds’ proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that whilst the site was partially in the flood zone the proposed floor levels would be
higher than the ground level at the edge of the zone.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 6 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new material considerations being raised following
reconsultation and readvertisement of the amended plans and the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
(182) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/1226 - Conversion of barn to two holiday
units; Barn at Saxthorpe Hall, Aylsham Road, Saxthorpe for Mr W Alefounder
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Daniels (supporting)
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, considered that the proposal was
acceptable subject to the conditions listed in the report. He proposed approval of this
application which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the design was reminiscent of a prison
block. She proposed refusal of this application, which was seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd.
Councillor Mrs A R Green expressed concern regarding the glazing.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the principle of conversion was acceptable
but was not in favour of the design.
Councillor B Smith considered that the design was bland with no character and did
not enhance the area.
The Development Manager suggested that further negotiations take place with
regard to the design and recommended that the Committee either give delegated
authority to approve the application subject to design improvements or defer
consideration of the application for further design negotiations.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, with the support of his seconder, withdrew his
proposal. He proposed deferral of this application for design negotiations. This was
seconded by Councillor P W High.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that delegated authority to the officers would be
appropriate.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow design
negotiations to take place.
Development Committee
6
23 January 2014
(183) HOLT - PF/13/1542 - Erection of first floor extension to provide two residential
flats; Lion House Court, off High Street for Bakers & Larners of Holt
Councillor M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was
Managing Director of the applicant Company. He retired to the public gallery and
took no part in the meeting during consideration of this application.
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as they were acquainted
with Councillor Baker as a fellow councillor.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no objections had been raised by the Town
Council, Highway Authority, Conservation and Design and Environmental Health.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that Officers did not consider that refusal on
grounds of lack of parking could be justified as the site was in a sustainable location.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objections following expiry of the site notice/press
advertisement and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(184) KNAPTON - PO/13/1310 - Erection of eight dwellings; Land off School Close for
Victory Housing Trust
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Robertson (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no comments had been received from the
Parish Council.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Senior Planning Officer stated that a
footpath would be required by the Highway Authority at reserved matters stage.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating only the area which was to be developed.
In response to comments by the public speaker, the Development Manager
emphasised that this was an outline application and the plan showed an indicative
layout. Officers were reasonably comfortable that the site could accommodate the
number of dwellings proposed. If approved, a reserved matters application would
have to be submitted and local residents would then be able to comment on the
specifics. The Housing Strategy Team supported the proposals and considered that
there was a need for affordable housing in the locality.
Development Committee
7
23 January 2014
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member, stated that the main objectors had
campaigned strongly against this application. There were many homes in the village
owned by holidaymakers and he considered that many of the objections had no merit
in planning terms. He stated that the Parish Council did not object to the application.
A petition, which had been handed to the Chairman by the speaker, had been
circulated by the objectors, who had also applied for the land to be designated as a
village green. He stated that most villagers had always accepted that the land would
be developed. He considered that Knapton needed something to produce a stable
population and stated that there were 100 people seeking social housing in the
village. He stated that the area was well served by footpaths and there were few
accidents. He considered that the proposal was supported by the majority of the
residents of Knapton and the surrounding area.
Councillor B Smith and Councillor Mrs S A Arnold stated that they had been
approached by one of the residents of the adjacent cottages.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that exceptions sites provided housing for local
people. She proposed approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor
R Reynolds.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the concerns raised by Conservation and
Design concerns regarding the indicative design and requested that this be taken into
account.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the petition handed to her by the speaker.
She stated that it had not been ignored but the Committee had to deal with the
matters before them.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including standard time limit for outline
applications; compliance with Code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable
Homes; a programme of archaeological work; provision of a fire
hydrant; a scheme to secure the affordable housing in perpetuity and
conditions/informative notes to advise what is required in terms of
works to the highway; and all other conditions considered to be
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
(185) NORTH WALSHAM - PM/13/1326 - Erection of dwelling and detached double
garage; 45 Happisburgh Road for Mrs Y Bullimore
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection had been
received expressing concerns regarding overlooking and the proposed dwelling
being out of context with the area. He stated that the principle of development had
been established and Officers considered that it would be in keeping with the area in
terms of its scale.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, stated that the existing dwelling marked a
change in Happisburgh Road as it was the first dwelling which was set back. He had
some concerns regarding the height of the proposed three-storey dwelling and
considered that it would be preferable if the scale of the proposed dwelling was more
in keeping with existing development. He expressed concern with regard to a strip of
land which had been retained to allow future access to the rear of the site where
permission for development had been refused.
Development Committee
8
23 January 2014
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, considered that the proposed dwelling
would overdevelop the site.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposed dwelling was large for a
narrow site. She considered that the street scene should be considered and that the
developer be asked why extra space was required in the roof.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that removing the rooms in the roof would only
result in a reduction in the ridge height of approximately half a metre.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard that consideration of this application be deferred to obtain
a street scene plan.
With regard to concerns raised about the narrowness of the site, Councillor R
Reynolds stated that the dwelling would be viewed in conjunction with the strip of
land retained for access to the rear.
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposed dwelling would be too close to the
existing dwelling and suggested that the proposed dwelling be repositioned, with the
retained land separating the existing and proposed dwelling.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard suggested that the windows in the roof be relocated to
the rear of the proposed dwelling.
The amendment for deferral was put to the vote and declared lost with 4 Members
voting in favour and 9 against.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new material issues being raised following expiry of the
reconsultation and readvertisement period for the amended description,
and subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report.
(186) RUNTON - PF/13/1177 - Continued use of land as garden/storage and retention
of vehicular access, gates and fencing and the excavation of soil; Land
adjacent Sunray, Thains Lane, East Runton for Mr S Withers
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Spinks (The Runtons Parish Council)
Mr Withers (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Landscape Officer had no objection to
the proposed amendments and had requested the removal of permitted development
rights for structures on the site.
Development Committee
9
23 January 2014
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, considered that the development was
inappropriate and had a significantly detrimental impact on the lane and surrounding
area. She considered that the sandbags should be removed and landscaping carried
out which was sympathetic to the area, incorporating planting and flintwork with gates
which were suitable for its country setting. She considered that the proposed
conditions would not return the land to its original state. She expressed concern that
it would be difficult to regulate development on the land as it could not be seen
behind the fence and gates as erected. She requested that the application be
refused.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the views of the local Member.
refusal of this application.
He proposed
Councillor R Reynolds proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor
B Smith.
Councillors R Shepherd and M J M Baker expressed concern with regard to
proposed conditions 2 and 3, which appeared to prevent garden buildings being
erected in a domestic garden. The Senior Planning Officer explained that condition 3
did not prevent the erection of garden buildings. It imposed a requirement to submit
a planning application for such structures by removing permitted development rights.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(187) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/1101 - Erection of first and second floor side extension
with rear balcony above first floor extension and installation of two dormer
windows; Westcliffe House, 17 Victoria Street for Mr & Mrs Kirkham
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
No comments had been received from Councillor R Smith who had called in this
application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application could only be fully understood
by visiting the site. He proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor
J H Perry-Warnes.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town
Mayor be invited to attend.
Development Committee
10
23 January 2014
(188) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 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:
BRISTON – PF/13/1529 – Erection of eighteen dwellings; land at Church
Street for Victory Housing Trust
CROMER – PF/13/0979 – Erection of two three storey dwellings and one
two storey dwelling on land at Roughton Road, adjacent 1 Burnt Hills for
PP3
FAKENHAM – PO/13/1380 - Erection of three dwellings; Beech House,
Hayes Lane for Mr and Mrs R Gordon
(The above to take place on 13 February 2014)
HOLT
–
PO/13/1306
Residential
and
employment
(A3,A4,B1,B2,B8,C1,C2,D1 and D2 Class Uses) development including
provision of public open space, roundabout and vehicular link road;
land at Heath Farm, Hempstead Road for Brown Brothers and Bullen
Investments Ltd (to take place on 13 March 2014)
(189) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
UPDATE
AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly
report on planning applications and appeals for the period from October to December
2013, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and
Land Charges searches received.
The Chairman congratulated the Development Management Team on the progress
made towards meeting its targets.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the difficulties experienced by Officers when
they needed approval by local Members to determine planning applications but were
unable to get a response.
The Planning Legal Manager suggested an amendment to the Constitution be sought
to give default power to the Chairman if local Members were unavailable.
The Chairman expressed her concern that some Members who called in applications
for Committee determination did not attend the meeting or send their comments.
She requested that an item be published in the Members’ Bulletin to remind
Members of their responsibilities.
(190) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
11
23 January 2014
(191) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(192) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(193) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(194) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(195) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(196) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(197) 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.
(198) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 18 of the report updates the situation previously
reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved
complaints more than three months old as at 31 December 2013.
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 closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
12
23 January 2014