DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

23 JULY 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

R Reynolds (Chairman)

N Coppack

S Hester

P High

N Pearce

R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)

S Shaw

B Smith

N Smith

Mrs V Uprichard

Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward

Mrs A Green – substitute for P Rice

P Moore – substitute for Mrs S Butikofer

Ms M Prior – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones

Mrs S Arnold – Roughton Ward

J Lee – Suffield Park Ward

Mrs G Perry-Warnes - Corpusty Ward

J Rest – Lancaster South Ward

T FitzPatrick (observer)

Miss B Palmer (observer)

D Young (observer)

Officers

Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager

Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager

Mr G Linder

– Major Projects Team Leader

Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader

Miss J Medler

– Development Management Team Leader

Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader

Mr C Young

– Conservation & Design Team Leader

Mrs C Bye – Senior Environmental Protection Officer

Mr S Case – Landscape Officer

Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)

(44) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S Butikofer, Mrs P Grove-

Jones, P Rice and S Ward. Four substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.

(45) MINUTES

The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 25 June 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Development Committee 1 23 July 2015

(46) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

There were two items of urgent business which the Chairman had agreed to consider under report item 10 of the agenda, relating to a request for site inspections in respect of planning applications PF/15/0936 and PF/15/0938 at Worstead.

(47) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The following interests were declared:

Minute Councillor:

49

50

Interest

Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds Member for adjacent Lancaster North Ward

Mrs G Perry-Warnes

(local Member)

Father-in-law owns a field in Baconsthorpe

(non-disclosable transparency). but disclosed for

56 Mr N Coppack Owned a house in Thorpe Market

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that she had hear an item regarding

Hempstead PF/14/1669 on the radio prior to the meeting.

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.

(48) CROMER - PO/15/0572 - Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement apartments and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car parking and management proposals for adjoining woodland; Land to rear of Barclay Mews,

Overstrand Road for Sutherland Homes

Members had received correspondence in respect of this application.

The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mr T Adams (Cromer Town Council)

Mr Medlam (objecting)

Mr M Philpot (objecting)

Mr Graveling (objecting)

Mr J Mehta (supporting)


The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and displayed photographs and plans of the site. He stated that the applicants had submitted a plan disputing the height of the mast erected by the objectors to demonstrate ground levels. He displayed photographs of The Grove including views from the grounds and inside the building. He referred to the conflicting Heritage Impact Statements and the views of the Conservation and Design Officer. He displayed artistic impressions supplied by the applicants showing the development from The Grove when planting had matured.

He stated that the bedroom window of “Midway” overlooked the development site.

He explained that it was not viable to provide on-site affordable housing or an affordable housing contribution, but if approved the permission would be subject to a

Section 106 Obligation with a standard uplift clause which would give scope for a contribution towards affordable housing if circumstances changed.

The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Councillor J Lee, a local Member, referred to the history of this site, which had been allocated for development despite many objections. He stated that Cromer had few green areas left and referred to development which was taking place elsewhere in the town. He considered that there was no need for more housing of the type proposed. He considered that there was a need for affordable and social housing in

Cromer but not on this site. He expressed concern at encroachment onto Warren

Woods, proximity to The Grove and possible impact on the business at The Grove.

He referred to the comments of Anglian Water and was not confident that the infrastructure could cope with the development. He urged the Committee to refuse this application.

The Chairman invited the Officers to address the issues which had been raised.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader referred to issues of balance which had been raised by an objector. He stated that great weight had to be given to the setting of the listed building and a great deal of time had been spent by Officers in considering the design and form of the buildings and how they would affect it. He stated that the setting of the listed building encompassed not only physical boundaries but also tranquillity, rurality and cultural issues. He explained that the direct view of the application site from The Grove was relatively narrow, the setting of the building was not as originally built. Setting varied over time. The listed building was more than 90 metres away from the proposed development, which would be viewed with a green buffer in the foreground. The economic issue was a valid consideration. He considered that there would be a degree of harm whilst the development was being built but once it had settled into the landscape the tranquillity and rurality would, to a certain extent, be reinstated. The level of harm was recognised but not considered to be sufficient to sustain a conservation objection.

The Landscape Officer stated that the woodland management plan had been assessed independently of the development. He was satisfied that the woodland management plan would work and protect the woodland for the future. The

Arboricultural Assessment had shown that there would be no construction within the root protection area of the trees. Although landscaping was a reserved matter, he had discussed the matter with the applicants. The southern boundary was very important and the bund and trees would create an instant barrier. Additional trees would be desirable and could be discussed with the applicants. He stated that the applicants had a good record in terms of planting and maintenance.


The Major Projects Team Leader explained that the uplift clause was a standard clause in a Section 106 agreement where affordable housing was not provided or less than required. He stated that detailed financial issues would need to be discussed under private business. The Chairman considered that it was not necessary to discuss this matter.

Councillor Ms M Prior considered that if the application were approved, conditions should specify the type and size of planting to ensure that there was a verdant barrier. With regard to the age restriction, she questioned whether 55 years was too low given the current retirement age.

The Major Projects Team Leader explained that landscaping details was a reserved matter and that no development could take place until a reserved matters application was received and approved. This would be subject to the normal consultation/advertisement process and could come before the Committee.

In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Major Projects

Team Leader explained that the materials proposed were rendered walls with glazed tiles. The Conservation and Design Officer had requested that a combination of matt and glazed tiles be used. Exact details would be a condition of planning permission.

Councillor P W Moore referred to “Midway” which appeared to have been built in the grounds of The Grove. The setting of The Grove may have been affected by that development. He referred to the trees which were recommended for removal had been planted by the owner of The Grove and their future was not therefore in the applicants’ hands. He considered that landscaping details should be requested.

However, he considered that the proposal was a good scheme.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had visited the site himself as he was unable to attend the site visit. He stated that North Norfolk relied on tourism and it was open spaces such as the application site which attracted visitors. He expressed concern that development of this area would have an adverse impact. He had reservations with regard to drainage and the impact on residents below the site in adverse weather. He considered that the development would release other housing for sale, but as many of the residents were likely to be from other areas it would not benefit

North Norfolk.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard supported the views expressed with regard to loss of green space. However, she could not see any evidence that the space was used by everyone. She stated that the proposal would bring in people from other areas who would be spending money on groceries, services and other goods which would be a useful asset to the town. She proposed delegated approval as recommended.

Councillor N Pearce, a local Member, considered that this part of Cromer had been developed too quickly. He was very concerned with regard to infrastructure, including drainage, and did not support the application.

Councillor R Shepherd considered there were no planning reasons on which to refuse the application, although he was not in favour of the tower in the design. He seconded the proposal.

Councillor B Smith considered that the buildings should be moved further away from the woodland. He considered that the lack of affordable housing would not encourage young people to remain in the area. He expressed concerns regarding the buffer when the trees were not in full foliage and design issues relating to the


tower, dormer windows and materials. He considered that matt tiles should be used if the application were approved. He was unhappy with viability issues and age discrimination.

Councillor N Smith expressed concern at the pressure on medical services.

Councillor P W High stated that there were no planning reasons to refuse this application and a precedent had been set on two previous occasions with regard to lack of affordable housing provision.

In response to a question by Councillor N Coppack, the Major Projects Team Leader referred to the Highway Authority requirements for this type of development of 1 – 1.5 car spaces per dwelling. It would be a gated community and visitors could park on the private road. Sutherland Court Gardens did not have an age restriction and had two spaces per unit. Purchasers would consider the parking availability when purchasing.

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that a strong indication had been given of the planting scheme, which would be 3m in height. Details of species would be subject to a further planning application.

The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to the policy background. He stated that the Committee could not ignore the fact that the site had been allocated for up to 60 dwellings, although it did not mean that planning permission was inevitable. The Committee had to balance the Development Plan issues against other material considerations. He referred to the National Planning

Policy Framework in respect of securing the optimum viable use of land.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 5

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to:

1) Amendments to the fenestration details of the proposed buildings to the satisfaction of the Council's Conservation and Design Officer.

2) Satisfactory completion of a S.106 Planning Obligation to cover the following:

(a)The Council's standard affordable housing uplift clauses to enable the viability of the development to be assessed near the end of the development to ensure that if the viability of the site has improved, this improvement results in a financial contribution for affordable housing.

(b) An age restriction of 55 years or over to at least one occupier of the proposed apartments.

(c) Future maintenance of the private road.

(d) Compliance with the submitted Woodland Management Plan.

(e) Financial payment of £3,500 towards improvements to public rights of way.

(f) Financial payment (£50 per dwelling) to mitigate against potential impacts on the North Norfolk Coast SAC / SPA and Ramsar site arising as a result of increased visitor pressure.


3) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include the submission of reserved matters (landscaping), precise details of materials, drainage and renewable energy.

4) Expiry of the period of re-advertisement of amended plans and no new grounds of objection being received.

(49) FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit

(A1); Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd


Public Speaker

Mr T Schofield (supporting)

The Development Management Team Leader reported that a plan had been received indicating the extent of land in the ownership of the applicants. The proposal was acceptable both in policy and design terms. The loss of car parking spaces was acceptable given the site’s town centre location and proximity to other public car parks. The proposal would require the closure of the existing White Horse Street access.

The Development Management Team Leader reported that the Highway Authority considered that it would not be acceptable to reopen White Horse Street onto Cattle

Market Street as suggested by the Town Council. The creation of a one way system along Cattle Market Street would not be supported by the Highway Authority. The creation of an additional access from the car park onto White Horse Street had been suggested. The applicants were willing to consider the suggestion, but were concerned that as the land required was subject to a 250 year lease, there could be a ransom situation which would make the proposal unviable. The applicants had requested that the application be determined as submitted. The Highway Authority had no objection to the application as it stood.

The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval of this application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report.

Councillor R Shepherd supported the creation of an alternative access onto White

Horse Street but acknowledged that there would be a problem with a third party lease.

In answer to a question by Councillor P W Moore, Mr Schofield confirmed that the p roposed unit would be an independent retail unit as part of the Miller’s Walk development.

Councillor P W Moore supported this application subject to a Section 106 Obligation in respect of an additional access onto White Horse Street.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that Fakenham needed this development. She supported the Highway Authority’s view regarding the one-way system which had been suggested.

Councillor R Shepherd proposed approval of this application subject to the imposition of the suggested conditions and a Section 106 Obligation with regard to the additional access. This was seconded by Councillor P W Moore.


The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning to approve the application and suggested that the Section 106

Obligation should refer to “reasonable endeavours” to provide the additional access in view of the situation regarding the third party lease. If it was not possible the application would be approved as it stood.

In response to a question by Councillor P W Moore, the Development Management

Officer (NCC Highways) stated that the Highway Authority’s Development Team had agreed that it would support an additional access onto White Horse Street, but would not insist upon it.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W Moore and


That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to require the applicants to use reasonable endeavours to secure an additional access onto White Horse Street, and subject to conditions relating to:



Restriction of the use of the unit to Use Class A1 (Retail);



Securing a scheme of enhanced car parking signage;



Provision of a fire hydrant.

(50) HEMPSTEAD - PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and associated infrastructure; Selbrigg Farm for Selbrigg Generation

The Commi ttee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speakers

Mrs S Summers (Hempstead Parish Council)

Mr R Johnson (High Kelling Parish Council)

Mr C Gorham (objecting)

Mr I Shepherd (objecting)

Mrs A Courtauld (objecting)

Mr Harvey (supporting)

Mr F Fielden (supporting)

The Major Projects Team Leader referred to the consultation responses, and in particular to the views of Heritage England. The primary concern related to landscape and impact on heritage assets. He referred to the Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government relating to the determination of planning applications for wind energy development.

The Major Projects Team Leader updated the report. T he applicant’s ecologist had confirmed that with the exception of the pond, there had been no significant changes to the ecology since the Ecology Report was produced and considered that it remained valid. Concerns had been raised by a former District Councillor in respect of precedent. The output f igure given on page 71 should read “1640000kWh” and not as shown.

The Major Projects Team Leader displayed maps and photographs indicating the


proximity of the proposed turbine to the AONB and impact from a number of viewpoints. He outlined the concerns in respect of the impact on heritage assets.

The public benefits had been taken into consideration, but were not considered to outweigh the harm to the landscape and historic assets. The impacts on local communities would be considerable and had not been addressed. The application was therefore recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, the local Member, referred to the local opposition to this proposal and the need to take into account its impact on the landscape, heritage assets, local residents and wildlife, as well as the rights of the landowner. She stated that Hempstead Parish Council supported the application and the nearest resident was some distance away. She considered that the proposal was policy compliant.

She considered that the impact on historic assets was subjective and that green energy should be promoted. She did not consider that the adverse impact on amenity was sufficient to outweigh the benefits and the applicant’s rights, and therefore supported the application.

Councillor N Pearce considered that the impact of the proposed turbine on views and on the skyline had been under-estimated. He asked if the energy would benefit local homes or be fed into the National Grid. He did not support the application.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that there was a need for electricity production.

However, there were many turbines off the coast and more were planned, over which the Authority had no control. She supported the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor P W Moore considered that the closely examined arguments against the wind turbine at Bodham were relevant to this proposal. He proposed refusal of this application as recommended.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that the effect of the proposed turbine would be far-reaching. She referred to the natural beauty of the area, which had wide areas of natural open space and large skies. She considered that the natural beauty should be protected for future generations. She stated that an enormous amount of wind energy was produced off the coast of North Norfolk. She considered that the proposed turbine would be a blot on the landscape and supported refusal of this application.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that the large skies of Norfolk attracted visitors. He referred to the Ministry of Defence’s request for lighting on the turbine and concerns regarding obstruction to aircraft.

The Major Projects Team Leader stated that flashing lights only operated when aircraft were in the area. The applicant stated that the lighting would not be visible to the naked eye.

Councillor S Hester expressed concern regarding possible noise from the turbine which would have a detrimental impact on local residents.

It was proposed by Councillor P W Moore, seconded by Councillor B Smith and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.


(51) HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill for Mr Bradley


Public Speaker

Mr Bennett (objecting)

The Development Management Team Leader reported that 16 objections and 3 letters of support had now been received. The applicant had advised that the takeaway element would comprise 10-15% of the business and would be offered from the main restaurant menu. The takeaway use was therefore considered incidental to the restaurant use. Environmental Health was satisfied with the proposed grease traps. Detailed plans of the flue had not been provided, but Officers had been advised that it would run internally and the applicant had reiterated his willingness to work with Officers. The flue would require planning permission if it were

1 metre or more above the roof.

Environmental Health had no objection with regard to the proposed grease traps, kitchen extraction system and noise attenuation proposals, subject to background noise monitoring being carried out.

The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the report, subject to condition 4 being reworded to require submission and approval of the detailed design of the extraction system and a background noise survey.

The Senior Environmental Protection Officer confirmed that the flue height would be

1 metre above the flat roof. All waste would be removed from the premises daily and taken to a separate facility. The odour control system was sufficiently robust to deal with all odour types and was more than necessary for the current proposal.

Councillor Ms M Prior, a local Member, expressed concern that scant information had been provided during the course of this application. She considered that the impact on residential amenity had been given less importance than it should. She stated that there was a lack of information with regard to the height of the flue and location of vents in relation to residential windows and doors. She considered that there should be separate fire ratings for the flats and fire resistant doors and windows.

She considered that the application should specify A5 takeaway use. She referred to the limited amount of parking on Fish Hill. She expressed concern with regard to monitoring of opening times. She proposed refusal of this application.

Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that this application only related to change of use. He had been unable to attend the site inspection or the previous meeting and would make no further comment at this stage.

Councillor P W Moore supported Councillor Ms Prior. He expressed concern with regard to the impact on residential amenity. He referred to the waste disposal proposals and asked what would happen if the premises changed hands. He considered that the application should be further deferred or refused as being premature.

Councillor N Pearce considered that the proposal would require a great deal of management which may be ineffective if someone was away.


Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that this was an application for a change of use which would not have come before the Committee if the building were not listed. She considered that the concerns regarding the flue had been resolved.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard questioned why the restaurant needed to open at 8am.

The Development Manager explained that Use Class A3 covered a number of restaurant uses and could relate to other types of restaurant use which were open earlier in the day. The proposed 10% - 15% takeaway element was considered to be ancillary to the principal use of the building and would not require a separate planning permission. The flue would be routed internally through the later addition to the building and separate applications would be required for planning permission and listed building consent. The expert opinion of Environmental Health had been sought on the information which had been gathered. With regard to waste, the new operator would have to remove it daily or put forward an alternative proposal which would be considered by Environmental Health.

The Senior Environmental Protection Officer stated that it was not unusual to have premises which removed waste to another location. The proposals were acceptable and if problems occurred Officers would work with the operators to resolve them.

She referred to the proposed insulation condition and considered that the hours of use would not cause problems for residential properties. She considered that the noise criteria were achievable and that it would be difficult to ask the applicant to pay for a background noise survey without the use being in place. The Fire Officer was aware of the site and happy that the flats had separate exits.

Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that many of the concerns were hypothetical and there were a number of conditions to be imposed. Environmental Health would deal with any problems.

In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior

Environmental Protection Officer stated that there were no concerns with regard to the amount of waste which would be produced. It could be contained within the premises and removed daily.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor R

Shepherd and

RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning, subject to the amendment of condition 4 to require the submission and approval of the detailed design of the extraction system and a background noise survey.

(52) LITTLE SNORING - PF/15/0546 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling;

Green Farm House, The Street for Mr Hayes


Public Speakers

Mr Verrall (Little Snoring Parish Council)

Mr Davis (objecting)

Mr Hayes (supporting)


The Development Management Team Leader reported that two further representations had been received, including a petition containing 15 signatures, on similar grounds to those previously received in respect of access and removal of trees. He outlined the main issues set out in the report. He recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the report.

The Conservation and Design Team Leader explained that the setting of the listed building would be far less affected by the creation of a separate access which would create a functional separation between the listed building and the proposed building.

Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, referred to the concerns raised by the

Parish Council and the comments made by the applicant regarding traffic movements and the lack of accidents. She had no objections to the proposed dwelling, and provided the gates were set a long way back to protect children, she was unable to support the objections.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that with regard to concerns raised regarding the safety of schoolchildren, the pavement was safe and wide. The Highway Authority was satisfied with the proposal and there were no planning grounds for refusal. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor N Coppack.

Councillor P W Moore expressed concern regarding the loss of trees arising from the creation of the new access. He considered that there was no reason why the existing driveway could not be used.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that there were a number of conditions to be attached to the permission and only small trees and shrubs would be removed.

She supported the proposal.

Councillor N Smith referred to the importance of local knowledge and considered that it would be preferable to compromise by using the existing access.


That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

(53) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1399 - Change of use of land to carboot sales;

Davenports Magic Kingdom, Cromer Road for Davenports Magic Kingdom


The Development Management Team Leader stated that 132 car parking spaces would be provided and not 232 as stated in the report. He displayed photographs of the site. He recommended that a temporary one year permission be granted in order not to jeopardise the long term future of the site for employment purposes.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard reported that Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, supported the application. She referred to the longstanding drainage issue and considered that a one year permission would be fair.

The Chairman read to the Committee a statement from Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, expressing concerns with regard to traffic and inconvenience to users of Cromer Road which would be exacerbated by customers of Waitrose. She was


also concerned at possible contamination of the attenuation pond and that drainage problems had not been addressed. Temporary permission would allow close monitoring of the situation.

Councillor P W Moore considered that with 100 less cars than stated in the report the highway situation would not be critical, but Cromer Road was busy. He stated that

North Walsham Town Council held market rights and the operator would need to seek permission before the use could commence. He considered that temporary permission would resolve most of the issues and if the Town Council refused permission the use could not proceed.

Councillor R Shepherd proposed temporary approval as recommended, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard.

The Planning Legal Manager briefly explained the Town Council’s market rights and stated that this issue was a matter for the Town Council.


That this application be approved for a temporary period of one year subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report.

(54) POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0311 - Erection of three car garage with games room/gym above and link extension to existing dwelling; Glebe Farm, Marsh

Road for Mr & Mrs R Hall


Public Speaker

Mr D Pickering (Potter Heigham Parish Council)

Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that Councillor P Rice, a local Member, considered that this application should be refused, as the application had nothing to do with the farm itself and the dwelling was a separate dwelling for a stockman who did not live on the site.

The Development Manager explained that the original application for the dwelling had been made by Mr Hall and had been given careful consideration. Permitted development rights had been withdrawn for the garage as part of the original permission. He stated that the recommendation was a balanced one. A condition was recommended which would restrict the garage to ancillary accommodation, although this would not prevent it being used for bedrooms. Either a stockman or the owner would qualify as an agricultural worker. He understood that Mr Hall was both the owner and stockman on the farm.

Councillor P W Moore stated that he had no objection to the application but considered the extension was rather large for a farm cottage. He expressed concern that the extension could be used in the future for holiday accommodation.

The Development Manager confirmed that holiday accommodation would require a further planning application.

Councillor Ms M Prior stated that there were no other dwellings nearby, the size was not incongruous with the surrounding land and she supported the application.


Councillor N Pearce referred to comments made regarding non-compliance with previous conditions and asked if the Council would ensure compliance with conditions placed on this application.

The Development Manager stated that there was an issue relating to quality of the landscaping previously carried out. It was easy to ensure that a landscaping scheme was submitted and planting carried out, but the maintenance regime was more difficult. If non-compliance was reported to the Authority it would be followed up under the enforcement process.

The Chairman stated that the Landscape Officer was concerned that the trees which had been planted were not the agreed species.

Councillor B Smith expressed concern regarding possible light pollution.

It was proposed by Councillor Ms M Prior, seconded by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-

Reynolds and

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including landscaping and use to be ancillary to the main dwelling with no commercial use or use as a separate dwelling.

(55) POTTER HEIGHAM - PF/15/0312 - Erection of agricultural storage barn; Glebe

Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall


Public Speaker

Mr D Pickering (Potter Heigham Parish Council)

The Development Management Team Leader reported that Potter Heigham Parish

Council had expressed concerns as to how the farm was being used and occupied and the number of vehicle movements each day, including large machinery and existing vehicle movements by the applicant’s building business. The Parish Council considered that additional vehicle movements were not in the interests of the local community.

The Development Management Team Leader reported that the Highway Authority had no objections to this application, notwithstanding the comments of the Parish

Council. The road was lightly trafficked and whilst two vehicles meeting would cause some inconvenience, the Highway Authority considered that it was not sufficient to warrant an objection.

The applicant had confirmed the farm business was owned by himself and his wife.

He was the stockman, the farm was not rented out and he assisted local farmers.

The Development Management Team Leader stated that no objections had been received from consultees, although concern had been raised as to how run-off would be dealt with. The Landscape Officer considered that landscape and visual impact could be mitigated by a comprehensive landscaping scheme, including 50% standard trees being planted.


The Development Management Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the recommendation in the report.

Councillor Mrs A R Green reported that Councillor P Rice, a local Member, considered that two over-large barns were inappropriate on 37 acres and the proposed design was not appropriate for straw storage. He considered that the proposal was overdevelopment.

Councillor B Smith stated that this was a working farm and the business should be supported. Traffic movements would take place regardless of the proposed barn.

He did not consider that this application was overdevelopment.

Councillor N Pearce requested a restriction to prevent the use of the building for housing pigs.

The Chairman stated that the proposal related to the storage of straw.

Councillor R Shepherd expressed concerns regarding the landscaping and requested conditions relating to size of the trees.

The Development Management Team Leader stated that the Landscape Officer had requested specific conditions which included size, and a landscaping scheme was required which could be discussed with the applicant.

Councillor P W Moore expressed concern regarding the alleged building business and asked if this could be investigated.

The Chairman stated that he had seen no evidence of a building business on site.

The Development Manager stated that as far as he was aware no enforcement complaints had been received. If a complaint was received it would be investigated.

Permission was sought for an agricultural building and a change of use application would be required for storage of building materials or other commercial use. It may not require permission for change of use to keeping livestock but Environmental

Health may have concerns. A condition could be imposed to specify agricultural storage and not livestock.

It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application subject to receipt of acceptable drainage details and the imposition of appropriate conditions including landscaping and agricultural storage use only.

(56) THORPE MARKET - PF/15/0326 - Demolition of single-storey front extension and erection of part two-storey and part single-storey front extension; 2 Sand

Pit Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin


The Development Management Team Leader indicated the position of windows in the neighbouring properties, which were not shown on the submitted plan, and


of the proximity to the boundary. There would be some loss of light to the neighbour to the north.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and


That this application be refused on grounds that the two-storey element would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring properties because of the overbearing impact and loss of outlook to the neighbour to the south, and overshadowing/loss of light to the neighbour to the north.

(57) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION


RESOLVED

That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that the local Member(s) and representative of the Town/Parish Council be invited to attend : displayed photographs. He stated that the recommendation for approval was a balanced one.

Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council was concerned about the impact on neighbours. Thorpe Market was compact and buildings had an impact on one another. The existing single storey extension did not enhance the building or its neighbours and needed updating. She considered that the proposed extension was a good design but would be overbearing on the boundary with two other properties and would be overdevelopment of the site. The right of way issue referred to was a private matter.

Councillor R Shepherd proposed refusal on grounds of overdevelopment.

The Development Manager stated that the dwelling had a large curtilage and it would be difficult to argue a case on overdevelopment grounds. However, he accepted that the proposed extension would have an impact on the property to the south because

CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/15/0467 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling, Green Farm, Holt Road for Executors of Estate of E W Jay and

Y U Watts

WORSTEAD – PF/15/0936 - Development of ground mounted solar voltaic panels and associated works; Land at Bunn’s Hill, North

Walsham for Solarcentury

WORSTEAD – PF/15/0938 - Proposed development of ground mounted solar photovoltaic panels and associated works; Lan d at Frog’s Loke,

North Walsham for Frog’s Loke Solar Ltd


(58) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE

UPDATE

The Committee noted the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from April to June 2015, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received. The Development

Manager updated the Committee on staffing issues.

(59) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.

(60) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(61) NEW APPEALS


(62) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS


(63) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND


The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on current appeal cases.

(64) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES


The Planning Legal Manager reported that in dismissing the appeal against refusal of

Briston PU/14/1390 the Inspector had given consideration as to what comprised a barn that could be converted to a dwelling. This was a good decision for the

Authority and for other Authorities in considering applications for conversion of barns to dwellings.

In respect of the appeal relating to Manor Caravan Park, Happisburgh (PF/14/0120), it had been agreed in discussion with the Leader of the Council, Portfolio Holder and local Member that the decision would not be challenged.

The Planning Legal Manager reported that appeals against the refusal of planning permission in respect of the following cases had been dismissed, and outlined the

Inspector’s reasons for dismissal in both cases:

Blakeney – PF/14/0785 – Demolition of existing dwelling, farm buildings and barns to be replaced with a dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mrs Kathy

Cargill

Roughton – PF/14/0677 – Proposed residential development; Woodlands Bungalow,

Roughton Road for Mr D Sayer.


(65) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS


The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Supreme Court appeal relating to the

Crisp Maltings site at Great Ryburgh had been dismissed. This was a significant case and proved the original decision was correct. He paid tribute to Councillor Mrs

A R Green, the local Member, who had consistently supported local residents.

Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Portfolio Holder, acknowledged that this had been a difficult issue for Councillor Mrs Green, and expressed her gratitude to the Legal team.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that this had been a team effort, including the case officer for the application, Geoff Lyon and various colleagues. He referred to comments which had been made regarding the costs of this case and reminded the

Committee that the District Council and Crisp Maltings had been jointly represented in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.30 pm, resumed at 2.25 pm and closed at 3.52 pm.

CHAIRMAN

20 August 2015


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Products

Support

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib