23 SEPTEMBER 2010
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE held in the Council
Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
S J Partridge (Chairman)
J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman)
H C Cordeaux
Mrs A R Green
P W High
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs L Walker
B Cabbell Manners - substitute for P J Willcox
Mrs H P Eales - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
G W Barran - Stalham and Sutton Ward
Mrs L M Brettle - Glaven Valley Ward
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett - Poppyland Ward
Mrs G M D Lisher - Lancaster South Ward
J Lisher - Lancaster South Ward
Mrs H T Nelson - Cabinet Member for Conservation, Design and Landscape
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mrs E Duncan - Legal and Democratic Services Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(70)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Perry-Warnes, J D
Savory, Mrs M Seward and P J Willcox. There were two substitute Members in
attendance as listed above.
(71)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 26 August 2010 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(72)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(73)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
Development Control Committee
1
23 September 2010
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and answered
Members’ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(74)
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2 flats:
Site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Woods (objecting)
Mr Burghall (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of the agent in respect of
drainage issues. Further investigations were required and a response was awaited.
She summarised the points raised in a further letter which had been received from a
previous objector.
A letter had been received from Hempton Parish Council in respect of procedural
matters which would be responded to separately. The Senior Planning Officer read
to the Committee a letter of objection which had been received from Hempton Parish
Council in respect of the amended plans. An email had been received from
Councillor Miss D A Wakefield, the local Member, stating that the comments
submitted by the Parish Clerk did not accord with the views of the Parish Council,
which considered that the amended plans were much improved but continued to
object to the proposal as a whole as the issues had not been properly addressed and
discussed by the Development Control Committee. A letter had also been received
from Councillor Miss Wakefield stating that whilst the design had been improved she
had concerns regarding loss of amenity to residents, insufficient parking, the
applicants’ refusal to accept responsibility for any subsidence that may occur, a
misleading response to the MP, and lack of meaningful consultation.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the comments of Pudding Norton Parish
were awaited. No objections had been received from consultees. She requested
delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the
recommendation in the report.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that a condition would be imposed in respect of materials.
Development Control Committee
2
23 September 2010
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson stated that Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones, Cabinet
Member for Strategic Housing, strongly supported the Officer’s recommendation.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no further grounds of objection
being received from the Parish Councils or following expiry of the
readvertisement of the amended plans and the satisfactory resolution of
the impact of the development on the water table and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
(75)
BLAKENEY - PF/10/0897 - Erection of ground and first floor extensions;
Moonrakers, Back Lane for Mrs Rogerson
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection had been
received reiterating the concerns referred to in the report and in respect of
inaccuracies in the boundaries. The Parish Council had no objection subject to the
inclusion of additional flint. This had been addressed by the amended plan. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objection to this application
subject to protection of trees. Environmental Health had no objection.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that there had been strong
objections from the neighbours which she did not wish to downgrade but she
considered that the amendments were acceptable.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(76)
FAKENHAM - PO/10/0898 - Erection of two detached one and a half storey
dwellings; Lavengro, Heath Lane for Mr Gilchrist
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Bradley (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the further comments of the Town Council in
respect of overdevelopment, reduction in the variety of housing stock and access.
The Town Council had requested a site inspection. Two letters of objection had been
received from local residents. A letter had also been received from the previous
owner’s brother stating that the proposed development was against his late brother’s
Development Control Committee
3
23 September 2010
wishes. A letter had also been received from the local MP. The Building Control
Manager had stated that it was unlikely that any subsidence would be so severe as
to prevent development and such issues would be dealt with under the Building
Regulations. The agent had confirmed that a local structural engineer had advised
that there were no concerns in respect of subsidence. Comments had been received
from the County Council’s Access Officer in respect of rights of way.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs G M D Lisher, a local Member, requested a site inspection. She
stated that the photographs displayed at the meeting did not reflect the current
situation and expressed concerns regarding access, parking, proximity to the AONB,
biodiversity issues and impact on utilities from construction traffic. She asked why
the Highway Authority had commented when it had no jurisdiction over the
unadopted road.
Councillor J Lisher, a local Member, also requested a site inspection.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained that part of Heath Lane was
adopted and the visibility was considered to be acceptable.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that this application should be refused as
the proposal was overdevelopment and incongruous with the remainder of the site.
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee to undertake a
site inspection to assess the character of the site as density of the proposal was
below that required by the adopted Core Strategy and this could only be justified by
reference to the character of the site.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED unanimously
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.
(77)
KELLING - PF/10/0619 - Change of use of livery yard to a mixed use of livery
yard and riding centre; Squirrel Wood Equestrian Centre, Warren Road, High
Kelling for Mrs L Davies
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Davies (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that rights of way were civil
matters. He reported the points raised in a further letter of objection had been
received from a resident of Warren Barns. He also reported the contents of a letter
which had been received from the landowner. The applicant had requested
temporary approval until the expiry of her lease on the premises.
Development Control Committee
4
23 September 2010
The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was difficult to establish when the livery
business commenced. He referred to the Inspector’s decision which appeared to
accept that a livery business was being operated in 2004.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that he had tried a pony at the premises some
years ago and livery was taking place at that time.
Councillor H C Cordeaux, the local Member, stated that he had visited the site and
spoken to the applicant and agent. He stated that the Chair of the Kelling Heath
Trustees had confirmed that commercial hacking was not allowed on the heath. He
stated that the site access was in High Kelling which had not been mentioned in the
report. High Kelling Parish Council considered that the business was a muchneeded facility. However, the most direct route to the site was via Warren Road
which was an unmade private road. He considered that if this application were
approved there should be a requirement for proper signage to direct users away from
Warren Road.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicant had had professional signage
prepared but the signs were removed by a local resident with the landowner’s
permission. She did not have control of the land and signage could not be controlled.
New clients were advised on the correct route.
Councillor Cordeaux suggested that brown tourist signs be erected.
The
Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that it was unlikely that brown signs
would be approved as they were intended for facilities which the public could use
without prior booking.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners suggested that the applicant be requested to use her
best endeavours to erect appropriate signage.
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the applicant stated that she had already
spoken to other landowners who had agreed to allow her to erect her signs.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs L
Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of two years,
subject to conditions restricting the number of horses which can be
used at any one time in connection with the riding centre element of the
business.
(78)
MELTON CONSTABLE - PF/10/0738 - Erection of general purpose agricultural
building; Land off Melton Road for G W Harrold & Partners
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Cox (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor R Combe, the local Member,
considered that the proposed building was too large. He considered that the
applicants should be asked to lower the building by two metres and to use the
excavated soil to create a bank to screen the building.
Development Control Committee
5
23 September 2010
Councillor P W High supported the views of the Parish Council and local Member.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that large farms required large buildings. He
considered that trees would screen the building. He proposed approval of this
application.
Councillor J A Wyatt stated that the proposal would be beneficial as lorries would not
need to travel through the village. He considered that the building was too large but
stated that it would be difficult to access the building if it were lowered into the
ground. He stated that he would have no objection if the building were reduced in
size.
Councillor H C Cordeaux proposed that this application be approved subject to
reducing the height of the building by two metres and screening of the building by
tree planting and creation of a bank using the excavated soil.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that discussions had been held with the agent
with regard to the scale of the building. However, modern machinery would be
unable to access the building if the height were reduced. He considered that
lowering the ground level by two metres was excessive and suggested one metre
might be acceptable as a compromise. He suggested deferral of this application for
negotiations.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred for negotiations in
respect of the height of the building or lowering of the ground level.
(79)
OVERSTRAND - LE/10/0716 - Demolition of section of boundary wall to
facilitate formation of vehicular access and parking area; 8 The Londs for Mrs
R Hillary
The Committee considered a supplementary officer’s report.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that sections of the wall differed in the date of
construction. The section to be removed did not exist prior to the 1950s.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that whilst the wall had
been altered and part of the wall on the opposite side of the road had been removed,
The Londs had always been like a tunnel. She referred to an application for a new
dwelling further along The Londs which had been refused on highway grounds and a
subsequent appeal against the refusal had been dismissed. She stated that The
Londs was mainly a pedestrian route with most of the dwellings accessed off
adjacent roads. She asked what the Highway Authority’s comments would have
been had it been consulted on this application.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that planning permission was only required for
the removal of the section of wall and not the creation of a parking space.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained that The Londs was an
unclassified road and there was no need to consult the Highway Authority on this
matter.
Development Control Committee
6
23 September 2010
Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett referred to the gradual loss of heritage and pedestrian
safety issues. She requested that this application be refused.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that Conservation Areas should retain their
purity. He considered that the removal of the section of wall, which was not original,
would return some purity to the Conservation Area.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs J
Trett and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(80)
the
PASTON - PF/10/0737 - Installation of on-shore pipelines and replacement gas
processing and treatment equipment together with temporary construction
facilities; Eni Hewett Onshore Terminal, Paston Road, Bacton for Eni Hewett
Ltd (SC090159)
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Emma Lunt (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that an email had been received
from the applicant giving assurances that a meeting would be set up with Perenco to
discuss beach works etc. Assurances were also given that the applicants would
seriously address issues of concern raised by the Coast Protection Engineer. The
Norfolk Coast Project had removed its objection to the siting of the temporary
compound following a response from the applicants in respect the lack of a suitable
alternative site. A letter had been received from planning consultants acting for Shell
raising issues regarding access to the beach over land in its ownership and
implications for its own proposals, impact on its operations and safety and
environmental issues. Shell had requested that Seagulls Road and the beach
access ramp be included in the application. It had also suggested that the applicants
seek an alternative means of access as there was no agreement between the
applicants and Shell, and that a further report be presented to the Committee giving a
comprehensive list of conditions.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) considered that it was not necessary to
include the road and access ramp in the application. The landowners ultimately had
control over them and could refuse permission to use them. However, this was not
an issue that would affect the granting of planning permission.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, referred to the vital role of the gas terminal in
the country’s economy. He referred to the concerns raised in respect of traffic and
requested that times of deliveries be provided.
In answer to a query by the Head of Planning and Building Control, Members
confirmed that they did not consider it necessary to receive a further report outlining
a comprehensive list of conditions.
Development Control Committee
7
23 September 2010
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objection from the Coast
Protection Engineer on the submitted additional details, and subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions, to include those
recommended by the Highway Authority, Environmental Health Officer,
Natural England and the Council's Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager and to require a park and ride scheme for construction
workers to be in place prior to the commencement of work on the site.
(81)
STALHAM - PF/10/0869 - Variation of conditions 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17 and 18 to planning reference: 07/1919 to permit retention and
occupation of Phase 1 of development as built; Old Baker's Yard for Victory
Housing
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Burghall (supporting)
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that Stalham Town Council still
objected to this scheme. A further letter of objection had been received from a local
resident. The Chief Executive had received a letter of complaint in respect of the
handling of this case and requesting an investigation into the matter, the service of a
Stop Notice and removal of the application from the agenda.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan, a local Member, supported the Town Council’s concerns and had made
comments regarding the number of amendments to the scheme. She had requested
deferral of this application.
A letter had been received from the agents regarding the installation of air source
heat pumps which were required by sustainability assessors. These were sited at
the rear of the building and would be hidden from view when phase 3 of the scheme
was implemented.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager was satisfied with the details of
the proposed shop front.
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended approval of this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor G W Barran, a local Member, referred to the concerns raised by the Town
Council and requested deferral of this application to discuss the differences in the
scheme and the objections raised.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that the scheme was acceptable. She stated
that tenants had already been found for the shops.
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee it should not take
into account possible loss of funding or the way in which the site had been
developed. The Committee should consider the plans before it and make the
appropriate decision if those plans were acceptable.
Development Control Committee
8
23 September 2010
Councillor Mrs L Walker stated that whilst the Town Council had received many
representations, she had received none.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales expressed concern at the design of the building in relation
to the neighbouring buildings.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that rendering might improve the appearance
of the building.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor H C Cordeaux
and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(82)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/10/0784 - Erection of 2 no. two-storey dwellings
and four apartments; Partners, Northfield Lane for Novus Construction
(Norfolk) Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss Case (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the views of Councillor J D
Savory, a local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. Councillor Savory
had met one neighbour and received a telephone call from another. He had
requested refusal on grounds of inappropriate design, overdevelopment, detriment to
the amenity of neighbours and inadequate car parking and amenity space.
The Chairman stated that all Members had received correspondence in this matter.
In response to a question by Councillor P W High, the Head of Planning and Building
Control stated that notwithstanding the recent announcement by the Government in
respect of building on garden land, the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s
adopted Core Strategy.
Councillor Mrs J Trett, a local Member, stated that whilst the original proposal was
unacceptable, there was no reason in planning terms to refuse the application as
now amended. She proposed approval of this application which was seconded by
Councillor P W High. On being put to the vote, the proposal was declared lost with 4
Members voting in favour, 5 against with 1 abstention.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that this application should be refused on
grounds related to design, density and impact on the Conservation Area.
Councillor H C Cordeaux expressed concern in respect of the access.
The Head of Planning and Building Control recommended deferral of this application
to allow Officers to reflect on the issues of concern and bring a report back to a future
meeting.
Development Control Committee
9
23 September 2010
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow Officers to
reflect on the issues of concern raised by Members and bring a report
back to a future meeting.
(83)
WIVETON - PF/10/0842 - Erection of detached annexe; Fairway, The Street for
Mr and Mrs G Proctor-Mears
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had raised an objection
in respect of materials and had suggested that clay pantiles be used. A letter had
been received from the agent stating that the applicants would be prepared to use
alternative materials, although shingles had been used to make the building as
recessive as possible.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
considered that there would be no harmful effect on this part of the Conservation
Area.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, read to the Committee the comments
of Wiveton Parish Council, which was unanimous in its objection to the application.
She stated that she would like the agents to discuss any changes or improvements
the applicants would be willing to make.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor Mrs J Trett
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including agreement of external materials to be
used, to include pantiles, and, if necessary, agreement on the colour of
any stains, paints or varnishes to be used.
(84)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(85)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the officers’ reports.
(86)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports.
(87)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(88)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee
10
23 September 2010
(89)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the officers’ reports.
(90)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 16 of the officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.
Development Control Committee
11
23 September 2010