23 JUNE 2011
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 A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
E Seward - substitute for Councillor J A Wyatt
Officers
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
(26)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R Shepherd and J A Wyatt.
There was one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(27)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 26 May
2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the
following amendment, which had been agreed by the local Member:
Minute (10): the decision should refer to the north-east elevation, not the south-west
elevation.
(28)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(29)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, P Grove-Jones, R Reynolds, E Seward and P Terrington
declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item
concerned.
1
(30)
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports outlining the need to
establish a Judging Panel for this year’s Graham Allen Award for Conservation and
Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging and presentation of the
awards.
RESOLVED
1. That the following nine Councillors from the Development
Committee, one of whom will be elected Chairman, should form the
Graham Allen Award Judging Panel: Mrs S Arnold, Mr M J M Baker,
Mrs A Green, Mr P W High, Mr S Partridge, Mr J H Perry-Warnes, Mr
R Reynolds, Mr B Smith and Mrs A C Sweeney.
2. That the date for judging entries be 28 July 2011 and that the date for
the presentation, 13 October 2011, be noted pending final
confirmation.
(31)
PLANNING PERFORMANCE UPDATE
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly
report covering that part of the Planning Service which deals with applications and
appeals for the period from January to March 2011. It included outturn figures for the
financial year 2010/11 and the turnround of planning applications, workload and
appeal outcomes.
RESOLVED
To note the report.
(32)
PF/09/1270 – Installation of Buried Electrical Cable System in Connection with
Off-shore Wind Farm – Land at Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports which recommended that
the Committee carry out a site visit on 14 July 2011, prior to meeting to give further
consideration to the application submitted seeking permission for the proposed
buried cable route in connection with the Dudgeon Off Shore Wind Farm.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the above site visit on 14 July 2011,
prior to reconsideration of the application at a special meeting of the
Committee, at a time and date to 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.
2
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.
(33)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/09/0561 - Retention of Three Timber Storage Sheds
and LPG Storage Tank; Cley Windmill, The Quay for Dr Godlee
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council originally raised no
objection but had changed their view and now raised concerns regarding
pedestrian/vehicular conflict. To date no new grounds of objection had been received
from residents in respect of the amended plans and no objection from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of the proposed boundary
treatments and the amended scheme.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that he had no objection to the sheds
and approved the partial burial of the tanks, and screening. After some discussion,
Members were assured that yew was suitable for screening purposes.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed that the application should be approved. He said
that in the present economic climate undue difficulties should not be created for
businesses.
RESOLVED unanimously
Delegated approval subject to no new grounds of objection and to the
imposition of conditions, including restricting the use of the sheds to
storage in association with the use of the mill complex only, erection of
the boundary wall and planting of the boundary hedge within three
months of the date of permission, planting the replacement tree within
the next available planting season and any other conditions required by
the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
(34)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/10/0945 - Change of use from B1 (office) to a mixed
use of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) on ground floor and B1 (office) on first floor; Cley
Windmill, The Quay for Dr J Godlee
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Letters had been received from neighbours objecting on grounds of potential noise
nuisance. Officers did not consider that noise would be a problem but proposed a two
year temporary permission so that the situation could be monitored.
The local Member, Councillor D Young, had no objection to the application. However
he had concerns about traffic flow and the opening times of the café and agreed with
the temporary permission.
Councillor M J M Baker reminded the Committee that this was a retrospective
application for an activity that had been taking place for 2 years. The café was for the
benefit of residents at Cley Windmill and people walking along the path. Other
Members agreed that the facility was used mainly by marsh walkers and birders and
3
that the opening times should coincide with their needs. There was discussion about
the need of imposing temporary permission. However, the Development Manager
explained that if a permanent permission was granted now it would be attached to
the building. He would want to discuss opening times with Environmental Health and
the applicants.
RESOLVED unanimously
To approve subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including agreeing the opening hours with the applicant and
Environmental Health.
(35)
EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0280 - Erection of single-storey side extension and porch;
Dollys Cottage, Holt Road for Mr Major
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Longe (Objecting)
The plan had been amended following concerns by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager regarding the proportions of the porch.
The Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the extension was too large.
The extension would increase the floor area of the existing property by 70% but the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considered that it would not harm the
character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager was also satisfied with the amendments to the porch.
The local Member, Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, told the Committee that he had no
objection to the application but he was aware of the Parish Council’s concerns.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1
Approve the amended plan subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(36)
FAKENHAM - PF/11/0361 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Briar
Patch, 8 Sculthorpe Road for Mrs K Harris
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he had
already expressed an opinion in writing prior to his election to the Council. He
vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this application.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Halliday (objecting)
Mr Garner (supporting)
4
Consideration of this application had been deferred from the meeting of 26 May 2011
pending a site visit which had since taken place. Fakenham Town Council had
objected on the grounds of overdevelopment and the design not being in keeping
with other properties in the area although this part of Fakenham had a varied mix of
development. Ten letters of objection had been received from local residents.
The architect had sought to address previous concerns. The site was small but the
development met the required criteria. The Highways Authority considered the
relocation of the access was an improvement.
The local Member, Councillor S Ward, told the Committee that although the architect
had addressed previous concerns regarding the application, the site was
overdeveloped and there were concerns regarding overlooking. Overdevelopment
would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area. Access could be an issue
as it was near a mini roundabout.
Councillors S Partridge and A Green commended the design but considered the site
would be severely overdeveloped.
The Development Manager, responding to a comment regarding the Highways
Authority’s approval of the relocation of the access, explained that the existing
access had limited visibility. He felt that if the Committee were minded to refuse, he
felt that Members’ principal concerns were that the development was cramped and
poorly related to and out of keeping with other development in the area.
It was proposed by Councillor S Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on the grounds of a cramped form of
development out of keeping with the pattern of development in the area
and conflict with Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(37)
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/11/0201 – Installation of Automated Teller Machine; 2
Church Street for Bankmachine Limited
Councillor E Seward declared an interest as a Member of North Walsham Town
Council and the Town Council Planning Committee. He was not a Member of the
Planning Committee when the application was considered.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Robinson (objecting)
The Town Council had objected and a letter of objection had been received from a
resident of North Walsham. The main concern was the width of the pavement and
the proximity to a busy junction. However the Highways Authority had not raised an
objection. The North Norfolk Safer Communities Partnership had raised a number of
issues referring to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 – Section 17.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager did not consider that the ATM
machine would have an adverse effect on the shop front.
5
A local Member, Councillor P W Moore, expressed concern regarding the lack of
advertisement control. He was concerned about the width of the pavement and the
proximity to the junction. The North Norfolk Safer Communities Partnership’s
comments were comprehensive and should be taken into consideration. He urged
Members to refuse the application.
Councillor E Seward, a local Member, proposed that the application should be
refused on Section 17 considerations and because the proposed ATM machine was
out of keeping with a conservation area. If the viability of North Walsham was to be
improved he considered that there should be more control over advertisement signs.
The Conservation Design and Landscape Manager said he would take this message
back to his team. Councillor Seward also pointed to the Section 17 objections and
expressed concern over the Highways Authority’s judgement. He was seconded by
Councillor B Smith who considered that the application should be refused on Section
17 considerations.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners moved that the application should be approved. He
was seconded by Councillor S Partridge.
The Development Manager said that whilst the community safety issues needed to
be taken into account some of them were for consideration by the applicant and were
not planning matters. The Highways Authority was the expert on highway safety and
their comments should be also be taken into account.
A vote was taken on the proposal to refuse the application. It was lost by 8 votes to 4.
A vote was taken on the proposal to approve the application.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4
To approve.
(38)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/11/0393 - Erection of single-storey dwelling with
accommodation in roof space; Land adjacent 1 Queensway for Mr & Mrs
Burton-Pye
Councillor E Seward declared an interest as a Member of North Walsham Town
Council and the Town Council Planning Committee. He was not a Member of the
Planning Committee when the application was considered.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
There had been objections from North Walsham Town Council and from a neighbour.
These were detailed in the officer’s report. Comments had been received from
Councillor V Gay, a local Member. She considered that the window and window
distance did not comply with the Design Guide and had concerns regarding
overcrowding. She asked for the permitted development rights to be removed if the
application was removed.
Councillor E Seward proposed that the application be refused on grounds of
overdevelopment and that it was out of keeping with the character of the surrounding
area. He was seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners.
6
RESOLVED unanimously
to refuse the application on the grounds that it comprised an
overdevelopment of the site. It would be a cramped form of
development out of keeping with the general character of the area and
would conflict with Policy EN4 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(39)
STALHAM - PF/11/0374 - Increasing roof height and erection of single-storey
and first floor rear extensions; Mile Stone, Ingham Road for Mr A Allanson
Councillor P Grove-Jones declared an interest. She is a member of Stalham Town
Council.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor P Grove-Jones, a local Member, said that the dwelling already had an
extension. It was surrounded by fields with a high hedge that screened it on 3 sides.
There had been an objection regarding overlooking but the adjacent property also
had a dormer window. Viewed from the road the development would have limited
impact and it was possible that a compromise could be reached regarding the roofing
materials. She recommended approval and was seconded by Councillor E Seward.
Officers, however, expressed concerns about the design although they would be
willing to discuss it with the applicant and suggest better ways to achieve the extra
accommodation required. Councillors S Partridge, A Green, M Baker, B Smith and J
Perry-Warnes expressed support of the officers’ recommendations. The proposal to
accept was withdrawn.
It was proposed by Councillor S Partridge, seconded by Councillor P Grove-Jones
and
RESOLVED unanimously
To refuse for the following reasons:
The positioning of the dormer on the roof slope and its massing would
materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding
countryside contrary to the aims of policy HO8 of the Core Strategy.
Furthermore the proposed dormer by virtue of its position on the roof
slope at the ridge line, box form and width, would result in an extension
which would be ill-proportioned and whose bulk, mass and scale would
be inappropriate for its host building and context, contrary to the aims
of policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
In addition, by virtue of its projection and shallow mono-pitch roof
coupled with the use of inappropriate materials, the proposed single
storey extension would be incongruous in relation to the host dwelling,
contrary to policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
In addition, the proposed dormer would result in overlooking of the
private patio garden area of the adjacent dwelling to the east which
would be significantly detrimental to its occupiers’ amenities, contrary
to policy EN4 of the Core Strategy.
7
(40)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0456 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0458 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0509 - Erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail
unit with ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0509 - Erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail
unit with ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0510 - Partial demolition and internal and
external works of repair and reinstatement to facilitate redevelopment of the
site; Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0513 - Demolition of fire damaged buildings;
Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
Councillor P Terrington declared an interest. He was a Member for Priory Ward but
was speaking as a local resident.
The Committee considered items 11 to 15 of the Officers’ reports together. The
Development Manager explained the differences between the type of applications on
each site.
Public Speaker
Mr Terrington (objecting)
The applications had been the subject of a site visit in the previous week. The
existing buildings had been damaged by fire in 2005. The Granary was the dominant
building in the area adjacent to the site.
Applications PF/11/0456 and LE/11/0458 were discussed:
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) presented the applications and
indicated the height and scale of the proposal.
He indicated that the principle of the development was acceptable. The key issue
was how to get the best scheme possible.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised that further comments
had been received from the Environment Agency. In summary the Environment
Agency wanted to be sure that the Emergency Planning Officer had all the necessary
facts to make an informed decision regarding flood risk. The key issue was to ensure
that the property would be safe in the event of a flood. The Emergency Planning
Officer had considered the proposal and raised no objection subject to the imposition
of conditions. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised that there
had been no highways safety objections.
8
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised committee that The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had raised no objection to the
scheme and that the applicant had made it clear that he wanted to provide a scheme
which would be a credit to Wells-next-the-Sea. He also advised that there had been
a suggestion from Norfolk Landscape Archaeology that the application be withdrawn
pending a desk-based archaeology assessment. However officers did not
recommend committee to request withdrawal. Officers advised that they considered
there to be no impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the scheme
complied with the Sustainability Policy.
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, said that it was an iconic site which had been
an eyesore for too long. Any development should enhance the area. He considered
this scheme was too high by one storey and wanted assurance that the ground floor
would not be used for residential purposes.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager said that the site must be
considered in context with the whole quayside and the prevailing character of the
Conservation Area which was one of the most important sites in the District. He
referred Members to his full comments on the application. Buildings in Wells had
varied in height due to organic development. The Granary was the tallest building.
Nothing should compete with the Granary but designers must be allowed some
freedom of expression. With this form of infill development scale, form and mass
were the key design criteria. The viability of the developments was vital and
development management must take this into account. If the height was reduced it
would severely affect the viability of the scheme. He said that whilst there was some
concern regarding the use of timber in the design there was a need for some
variance on the materials used in the facing elements. The Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager was satisfied that the height of both proposals was compatible
with the general scene and townscape of Wells and the Quay.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the street scene north elevation gave
the impression of a straight roof line, out of keeping with ancient towns and
settlements. The Committee had been asked to consider both developments
separately but one would influence the other. Councillor Baker suggested that one
development should be built according to the plan and the other lowered to provide
variation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners said that he didn’t approve of the proposed
weatherboarding and screeding. Councillor J Perry-Warnes supported this and
suggested making a condition regarding the material on the fascia. He proposed
approval of the scheme and was seconded by Councillor P W High. However,
Members asked to discuss the second scheme before voting on the first. Having
visited the site Members felt it was important to consider the proposals separately but
alongside each other.
Applications PF/11/0509, LA/11/510 and LE/11/0513 were discussed:
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) advised committee that one
additional letter of objection had been received. He also advised the committee that
the Emergency Planning Officer had raised no objection to the proposal subject to
conditions. In respect of application LE/11/0510 the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) advised committee that the applicant was concerned that proposed
conditions requiring a contract to be let before demolition commenced could slow the
redevelopment of the site and alternative wording may need to be considered.
9
Councillor J Savory told the Committee that his comments were the same as for the
other application. He considered the scheme to be too high and overbearing for
Wells and asked Members to consider this. Councillor M J M Baker also expressed
concern about the height but Councillor S Partridge did not consider it overbearing in
comparison with the Granary.
Councillor S Partridge felt that car parking provision was an issue for this
development - the car parking spaces were very small and may not be practical to
use.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed acceptance of the scheme. He was seconded
by Councillor P W High.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed concern about the screeding at the bottom
of the building. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager said he was
convinced that the height, scale and form of the development were compatible with
the surroundings but that, if the scheme was approved, there should be a condition
added about the materials.
There was a discussion about the materials. Timber was suggested but concern was
expressed that it would not be suitable. Members preferred the use of different types
of brick.
In respect of the two sites the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
advised that the Environment Agency would be advised of the Committee’s decision
and invited to make any further comment in relation to flood risk.
Separate decisions were taken on the applications:
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0456 - Erection of A1 (retail)/A3 (cafe) unit,
three flats and one maisonette; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED 11 to 1
Delegated approval subject to no further objection from the
Environment Agency, replacement of timber on the front elevation with
brickwork and agreement on the way forward in respect of the
archaeological concerns raised by Norfolk Landscape Archaeology and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
relating to external materials.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0458 - Demolition of remains of fire-damaged
building; Gifts Galore, The Quay for Mr C Isaac
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 11 votes with 1 abstention
Approval subject to conditions including one requiring that demolition
should not begin until a contract has been let for re-development works.
10
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0509 - Erection of 2 A1 retail units, 1 A1 retail
unit with ancillary first floor office/store and 9 flats; Festival Amusements, The
Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED by 11 to 1
Delegated approval subject to final agreement of design details
highlighted by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager,
deletion of ground floor render and replacement with brickwork, no
further objection from the Environment Agency, and agreement on the
way forward in respect of the archaeological concerns raised by Norfolk
Landscape Archaeology and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LA/11/0510 - Partial demolition and internal and
external works of repair and reinstatement to facilitate redevelopment of the
site; Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
Approval subject to the imposition of conditions including
archaeological recording of the demolition of the building and any
relevant conditions as may be required by the Planning Archaeologist in
relation to application PF/11/0509.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - LE/11/0513 - Demolition of fire damaged buildings;
Festival Amusements, The Quay for Novus Homes (Norfolk) Ltd
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED by 11 votes with 1 abstention
Approval subject to conditions including one requiring that demolition
should not begin until an agreed timescale for demolition was in place.
(41)
REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE TO UNDERTAKE A SITE INSPECTION
P & A PLANT SUPPLIES/UNIQUE BUILDING SUPPLIES, THE STREET, SUTTON
Mr M J M Baker declared a prejudicial interest and withdrew from the meeting.
The Committee considered item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
Although Officers had recommended a site visit they recognised that local knowledge
might provide more clarity on the situation. Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member said
that there had been a number of complaints to the Parish Council regarding the
number and size of lorries associated with the premises. Over the years the site had
gradually decreased as a garden centre and increased in the sale of building
materials. Councillor S Partridge and other Members concurred that building
materials had been sold from the site for more than 10 years. Further information
was required.
11
RESOLVED
That an inspection of the site should be deferred pending further
investigation.
(42)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(43)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 18 of the Officers’ reports.
(44)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 19 of the Officers’ reports.
(45)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 20 of the Officers’ reports.
(46)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 21 of the Officers’ reports.
(47)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 22 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 13.05 pm.
12