24 JULY 2014
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman) (Chairing the meeting for
Minutes 27, 29, 30 and 34-43)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds (substitute for B Smith)
P Terrington (substitute for Miss B Palmer)
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
B Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
G R Jones – Gaunt Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr C Board – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
(23)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Smith and Miss B Palmer.
Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
The Chairman had to leave the meeting early due to an engagement which had been
arranged prior to the change in the meeting date.
(24)
MINUTES
Councillor R Reynolds requested an addition to Minute 9 (Fakenham PF/12/1451) to
reflect his request to retain as closely as possible the external appearance of the Old
Chapel.
The Chairman requested an amendment to a typographical error in minute 3.
Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 June
2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(25)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
Development Committee
1
24 July 2014
(26)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, R Reynolds and R Shepherd declared
interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the items concerned.
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.
(27) BACTON - PF/14/0348 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; Land at St Peters
Court, Walcott Road for Mr R Shearwood
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Shearwood (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received which
indicated changes to the layout of the site to address concerns in respect of the
neighbouring property. He recommended approval of this application subject to
conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning, including early
commencement under the incentive scheme, removal of permitted development
rights, details of materials and those required by the Highway Authority.
In answer to a question by Councillor P Terrington, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that a viability assessment was not necessary given the scale of development.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor J PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to conditions considered
appropriate by the Head of Planning, including early commencement
under the incentive scheme, removal of permitted development rights,
details of materials and those required by the Highway Authority.
Development Committee
2
24 July 2014
(28) CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/0237 - Demolition of garage and erection of singlestorey side extension with attached garage; Stone Cutters Cottage, The
Fairstead for Mr S Young
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager stated that he knew one of the objectors through a
sporting connection and would not take part in the meeting during consideration of this
application.
Public Speaker
Mr Kelham (Cley Parish Council)
Mr Daley (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of the Conservation
and Design Officer, who had concerns regarding the revised design. However, these
concerns were not sufficient to sustain an objection on design grounds. He
considered that there would be no substantial harm to the Conservation Area and
there were no heritage issues with regard to demolition of a section of the wall.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to expiry of the press notice, and conditions regarding materials to be used,
submission of full details of surface water drainage and detailed drawings to
demonstrate the quality of work to be carried out.
In response to comments by the public speakers, the Senior Planning Officer clarified
issues regarding the construction and scale of the garage.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, considered that it was unfortunate that some of
the flint would be lost from the Loke wall. He had been concerned that the roof and
guttering would overhang the Loke but accepted the comments of the Senior Planning
Officer. He referred to concerns by residents of Mason’s Yard regarding parking,
impact on the shared drive and overshadowing. His main concerns related to
appearance of the gable on the south elevation and scale of the proposed extension in
relation to the existing cottage.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposal was not overdevelopment, and
there was a degree of overlooking of Mason’s Yard already. He proposed delegated
approval of this application subject to a good degree of flint facing being used.
In response to a question from Councillor P Terrington, the Senior Planning Officer
explained that Policy HO8 did not provide a reference point to work to with regard to
the size of an extension and the application had to be considered on its merits and the
ability of a site to accommodate the extension.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the Loke was narrow and he considered that there
would be little visual difference to people using the Loke. He seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior
Planning Officer clarified the objector’s concerns regarding the National Planning
Policy Framework and stated that the Council’s policies were in accordance with the
NPPF.
Development Committee
3
24 July 2014
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to expiry of the press notice, and conditions regarding materials
to be used, including flint facing, submission of full details of surface
water drainage and detailed drawings to demonstrate the quality of work
to be carried out
(29) MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0138 - Retention of timber outbuilding; 35 Trunch Road for
Mr & Mrs J Bonham
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr D Vale (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer recommended additional conditions to prevent any
commercial use of the building. He read to the Committee an email from the applicant
who was unable to attend the meeting.
In respect of comments made by the objector, Councillor R Reynolds, in the Chair for
this item, reminded the Committee that this application related to a storage building
and not stables.
Councillor G R Jones stated that the Ombudsman had been requested to investigate
the handling of this case. He considered that the application would have an impact on
the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. He disagreed with the applicant’s statement
that the building was on the same concrete pad as a previous building as the porch
was not on the same footprint. He did not agree that the building would “meld into the
existing residential character of the area” and considered that increased the
accumulation of buildings in a small area. He considered that the proposal was
contrary to Policies EN1 and EN4 of the Core Strategy.
The Development Manager reminded the Committee that it had to deal with the
application on its planning merits. Members had visited the site and so could fully
assess it in terms of Policies EN1 and EN4. He reminded Councillor Jones that the
report and recommendation to Committee was that of the Head of Planning. He
advised that any reference to the Ombudsman was not something for the Committee
to consider.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the application did not comply with Policies
EN1, EN2 and EN4. He was concerned that the building could be converted to a
chalet.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee to determine this application as
submitted. Change of use to residential would require a separate application.
In response to concerns raised by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that there was no evidence that a caravan on adjacent land was in
residential occupation. He referred to the aerial photograph and stated that dwellings
in the area had very large rear gardens with a mix of different forms of outbuildings,
garden structures etc, which were of comparable depth into the land. In the event of
an appeal the Inspector would consider the wider context.
Development Committee
4
24 July 2014
Councillor M J M Baker requested advice with regard to an appeal against refusal of
this application. The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that if it was
minded to refuse this application, the grounds should relate to Policies EN1 and EN4.
The Development Manager stated that concerns raised by Members related to the
design and size of the building and its impact on the AONB. He considered that there
were reasonable planning grounds to refuse this application if that was the wish of
Members in relation to Policies EN1 and EN4.
In response to comments by Councillor Mrs L Brettle regarding design amendments,
the Senior Planning Officer stated that the application should be determined as
submitted.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal is
contrary to Core Strategy Policies EN1 and EN4 in respect of its in
appropriate design and appearance and significant impact on the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that this was a retrospective application and
recommended that the Committee authorise commencement of enforcement
proceedings, with 3 months for compliance from the effective date of the Notice.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to commence enforcement
proceedings if necessary for the reasons contained in the refusal
notice, with a three month period for compliance.
(30) MUNDESLEY - PF/14/0492 - Retention of child's two-storey playhouse; 35
Paston Road for Miss S Dack
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(31) SCULTHORPE - PF/14/0520 - Use of land for school playing field with car
parking, ecology study area, foot and cycle paths, fencing and formation of
access; Grove Farm Land for Colegate Management Ltd
Councillors R Reynolds and Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that they knew Mr
Walters, the Chairman of the Parish Council, but had not discussed this application
with him.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Walters (Sculthorpe Parish Council)
Mr Bastin (supporting)
Development Committee
5
24 July 2014
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further representation in support of this
application had been received. The Highway Authority had no objection to the
proposed vehicular access from Moor Lane, which had also overcome the concerns of
the Parish Council. A landscaping condition would be imposed to address the
concerns raised by the closest neighbours and the use of external lighting on the
playing field would be restricted. A suggestion had been put to the agent with regard
to the installation of an additional pedestrian gate and continuation of the footpath
inside the field boundary on Sculthorpe Road to improve pedestrian safety, to which a
response was awaited. He recommended approval of this application in accordance
with the recommendation.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, stated that the provision of play facilities for
the school was supported within the village, but there was a major concern regarding
future intentions with regard to access and encroachment onto agricultural land. He
considered that the paths should be grassed rather than rolled gravel as proposed to
assist with the agricultural use of the land and so that areas were less defined. He
considered that the access was not satisfactory but accepted the views of the
Highway Authority. He requested that gates be installed to prevent access by motor
cycles and that a proper scheme of planting be carried out to address concerns
regarding overlooking of Grove Farm.
Councillor M J M Baker requested clarification of the scheme. He expressed concern
that the proposal was out of context with agricultural operations and that the land
would become a park.
The Development Manager stated that he understood the proposal was for change of
use of part of the land for school playing field, car park and ecology study area. The
remainder of the proposal related to paths on agricultural land, which would remain in
agricultural use. No change of use was being requested. The estate fencing was of a
type seen around the District.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed approval of this application subject to measures
to prevent access by motor cycles and the installation of an additional gate and
section of footpath inside the field boundary.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the paths should be designed so that it was
possible to carry out agricultural operations. He requested that the vehicular access
gate from Moor Lane remain locked and used only for access for agricultural
purposes. He requested that screening be maintained for Grove Farm and the
additional gate and footpath be installed. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that hard surfaced footpaths would be
preferable to grass as the latter would become muddy in winter.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern with regard to public access when
agricultural operations were being carried out.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that health and safety issues in relation to
agricultural operations and public access was a matter for the farmer. The paths
could be provided without the need for planning permission. The Chairman requested
that the agent raise these concerns with his client.
Councillor P Terrington requested reassurance that change of use of the area would
not make it easier to apply for planning permission for housing in the future.
Development Committee
6
24 July 2014
The Senior Planning Officer stated that Sculthorpe did not have a development
boundary and housing proposals were unlikely to be acceptable, particularly given the
large allocation nearby in Fakenham. Applications had to be considered on their
merits.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that obesity was a huge problem in
children and she therefore supported this application. She considered that a
continuous footpath was essential.
In response to a question from Councillor J A Wyatt regarding management of the car
park, the Senior Planning Officer stated that this had not been fully addressed. He
considered that the gates should be locked when not in use by the school and the
Bowls Club given a key. The Chairman asked Mr Bastin for guarantees as to its use.
Mr Bastin stated that he could not give guarantees but understood that the school
would enter into an agreement with the landowner and the school would manage the
car park under a lease. There could be a community benefit in offering it to local
organisations out of hours. There was a legitimate concern regarding the security of
the site and playing areas. He anticipated that the gates would be secured when not
otherwise directly controlled by users.
At the request of the Chairman, the proposer and seconder confirmed that paths
should be hard surfaced.
RESOLVED by 10 for, 0 against with 3 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including a comprehensive landscaping scheme
for the site which includes the provision of species rich buffer strips
adjacent to the pathways and boundaries, lighting, installation of an
additional pedestrian gate and footpath from Sculthorpe Road, and
measures to prevent access to the field by motor cycles.
(32) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0259 - Erection of two-storey front and rear extensions; 5
Havelock Road for Mr M Bywater
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal interest in this application as he was
acquainted with the main objector. He would speak but not vote on this item.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
Mr P Burgess (objecting)
Mrs K Bywater (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that Members had the benefit of a site visit to
assess the proposal. Giving a description of the proposed works, he stated that
conditions would be imposed with regard to materials and use of obscured glazing.
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, requested that the Committee take on board
the views of the objector, which he supported.
Development Committee
7
24 July 2014
Councillor R Reynolds stated that having been on the site, it was noticeable that the
footprint was not as large as large as the original conservatory. He considered that
there was no reason to refuse this application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to conditions in respect of
materials and use of obscured glazing.
(33) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0405 - Demolition of toilets and tourist information office
and erection of building to provide A1 (retail shop), public toilets and tourist
information office and re-alignment of rail track and footpath; Information
Centre & Public Toilets, Station Approach for North Norfolk Railway
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
The Senior Planning Officer referred to the Town Council’s concerns regarding the
facilities to be provided and those of objectors in respect of congestion around the
station and bus stop. He stated that this was not an issue for the Local Planning
Authority. He recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, stated that he had been concerned that the
extension of the rail track would encroach onto Otterndorf Green. He was
disappointed that it was not possible achieve an improved proposal for the toilets and
expressed concern as to future cleaning and maintenance of the site. He considered
that the footpath should be asphalt.
Members raised concerns regarding the internal facilities to be provided and lack of a
nappy changing area.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the current proposals were considerably better
than the initial proposals. If necessary, the applicant could be requested to amend the
internal arrangements.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed a site inspection.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that a site inspection was unnecessary. He
referred to the importance of the facility to tourism in the area and applauded the
applicant for being prepared to undertake such a project. He proposed approval of
this application.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney referred to her experience of working in the existing
Tourist Information Centre. She considered that the proposed replacement TIC,
although larger than the existing, was not large enough.
Councillor R Shepherd was disappointed that all four Sheringham Members had not
been invited to attend meetings in respect of this project. He considered that the
architects should be requested to reconsider the proposals given the concerns that
had been expressed and proposed deferral of this application. He was pleased that
less green area would be lost than had been feared.
Development Committee
8
24 July 2014
Councillor J A Wyatt asked how far it was proposed to extend the platform and
expressed concerns regarding health and safety issues.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the land was operational land and planning
permission was not required to extend the platform. He stated that the internal layout
of the building was not an issue for the Committee and considered that it was
questionable as to whether deferral would achieve further improvement.
The Development Manager advised the Committee with regard to its remit. The
concerns could be raised with the developer but there was no planning reason to
request additional toilet facilities or an increase in size of the proposed TIC. The
applicant had permitted development rights in respect of its operational land and
would be familiar with health and safety aspects.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal with the proviso that the
Committee’s concerns were passed on to the developer. Councillor Baker accepted
the addition to his proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd withdrew his proposal for deferral of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the application was subject to lottery funding
and the funding body would have some influence over the provision of facilities.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions and that the concerns raised by the Committee
in respect of the proposed facilities be passed on to the applicant.
Councillor B J Hannah requested that the concern also be raised with the applicant
that local Members were not involved in discussions regarding the development.
(34)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Members and Town Mayor or Chairman of the Parish Council
be invited to attend:
GREAT RYBURGH – PF/14/0579 – Erection of four barley storage silos
for Crisp Maltings Group Limited
(35)
THE GRAHAM ALLEN AWARD FOR CONSERVATION AND DESIGN
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
At the commencement of the meeting, the Chairman had requested that the Awards
Panel comprise all Members of the Development Committee and that all substitute
Members be invited to attend in a non-voting capacity. She was not present during
consideration of this item.
Development Committee
9
24 July 2014
Councillor P W High considered that all Members of the Development Committee
should be included but only those substitutes who were substituting for Committee
Members on the day should attend.
RESOLVED
(36)
1.
That a Graham Allen Award Judging Panel comprising all Members of
the Development Committee be formed, one of whom will be elected
Chairman.
2.
That the judging of entries takes place on 22 August 2014, with the
presentation to take place on 2 October 2014.
THE TOWN & COUNTRY (GENERAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT)
(AMENDMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)(ENGLAND) ORDER 2014
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager referred to the contents of the report and advised that he
wished to amend the recommendation.
He also advised that the Head of Planning had contacted the Monitoring Officer to
provide advice as to whether he could include the suggested amendments to the
Constitution and delegation scheme under his powers or if it would be a matter for the
Constitution Working Party and Full Council. A reply was currently awaited. The
recommendation, if agreed, would therefore be either to the Monitoring Officer or the
Constitution Working Party accordingly.
The Development Manager referred to recent prior notification applications for the
change of use of agricultural buildings to dwellings, which had resulted not only in
representations from Parish Councils, but also local residents. Given the need to deal
with such proposals in the timescale the recommendation needed to make reference
to local residents/third parties and refer to appropriate consultation periods, as the
prior approvals under part MB allow 21 days for representations.
The Development Manager referred to the limited matters that could be taken into
consideration.
The Development Manager then referred to the Town and Country (General Permitted
Development) (Amendment)(England) Order 2013, which also introduced a number of
prior approvals, including the ability to extend dwellings further than previously
allowed. He reminded Members that a training session had been provided on those
changes at that time. However, again such approvals were not specifically referred to
in the Constitution or Delegation Scheme. Although we have received relatively few
such prior approvals the recommendation should be widened to include all prior
approvals.
In response to a question from Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Development Manager
explained that the process was similar to the existing Member Protocol for dealing with
planning applications. The difference being that not only would the agreement of local
Member(s) be required but also the Committee Chair.
The recommendation was amended to reflect the matters raised by the Development
Manager as follows:
Development Committee
10
24 July 2014
Recommendation:
That Committee resolves to recommend that the Constitution and Scheme of
Delegation be amended as follows:
Responses to all prior notification/approvals under the provisions of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended by
subsequent Orders,
Conditional Delegation to Head of Planning
(a)
Where any representation is received from a Town or Parish Council or local
residents or third parties within the relevant consultation period which conflicts
with the intended course of action, the Head of Planning should consult with the
Chairman of Development Committee and the local Member(s).
(b)
Any additional or amended plans submitted under these procedures should be
sent to the relevant Town or Parish Council for information purposes.
In response to a question from Councillor P Terrington, the Development Manager
confirmed that if the local Member(s) or the Chair did not agree the prior approval
would have to be referred to Committee. The practicalities/timing would have to be
addressed at that time.
RESOLVED
1.
Subject to clarification from the Monitoring Officer, that the Constitution
Working Party and Full Council be recommended to amend the
Constitution as follows:
Responses to all prior notification/approvals under the provisions of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as
amended by subsequent Orders,
Conditional Delegation to Head of Planning
2.
(37)
(a)
Where any representation is received from a Town or Parish Council or
local residents or third parties within the relevant consultation period
which conflicts with the intended course of action, the Head of Planning
should consult with the Chairman of Development Committee and the
local Member(s).
(b)
Any additional or amended plans submitted under these procedures
should be sent to the relevant Town or Parish Council for information
purposes.
That a training session for Members be arranged in respect of Prior
Notifications.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(38)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
11
24 July 2014
(39)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(40)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(41)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(42)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(43)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.45 pm
Development Committee
12
24 July 2014