24 OCTOBER 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held at Sheringham Community
Centre, Holway Road, Sheringham at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for Mrs A R Green
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs C Batchelar – Landscape Officer
(109) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and Mrs A R
Green. There was one substitute Member in attendance.
(110) MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26 September 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(111) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(112) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared an interest, the details of which are given under the minute of
the item concerned. All Members had received correspondence on a number of
issues.
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.
Development Committee
1
24 October 2013
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.
(113) BODHAM - PF/13/0960 - Installation of 3.6mw solar development; Land at Pond
Farm for Genatec Limited
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest in this application as he
knew the applicant, his father and other members of his family.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs B Powell (speaking as an objector and on behalf of Bodham Parish Council)
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) displayed plans and
photographs, including plans supplied by the applicant indicating zones of visibility.
He referred to a question which had been raised at the site inspection regarding the
type of trees to be planted and stated that tree planting mitigation could be dealt with
by condition.
A formal response had been received from the Highway Authority confirming it had
no objection to the proposed routing of construction traffic, subject to conditions.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the practice
guidance to PPS22 referred to in the report had recently been superseded by
Planning Practice Guidance for Low Carbon and Renewable Energy. This new
guidance referred mainly to wind turbines, but it also contained some paragraphs
relating to solar energy. However, it was considered that the guidance raised no
additional issues not already covered within the report.
In response to the Environment Agency’s suggestion that cut-off drainage may be
required to address flood risk issues, the applicant had stated that as the land was
sloping downwards there would be no flooding. The Environment Agency had
accepted this view and had raised no objection.
Further representations had been received, one of which had been forwarded to the
Committee. Issues raised in the representations were similar to those summarised in
the report.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that in his opinion there
were no substantive grounds on which to refuse this application. He recommended
approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those relating
to landscape mitigation, landscape management and biodiversity enhancement.
The Chairman referred to concerns raised by the objecting spokesperson regarding
noise from the West Beckham sub-station and asked Mr Presslee if it was possible to
mitigate the problem.
Development Committee
2
24 October 2013
Mr Presslee responded that he did not consider that mitigation was necessary and
referred the question to the applicant. The applicant stated that the West Beckham
sub-station was run by UK Power Networks and confirmed that there would be no
expansion if this application were approved. He suggested that any further issues be
referred to UK Power Networks.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Landscape Officer gave details of the
planting scheme and explained that standard trees were included in the planting
specification but these could include ‘heavy standard’ trees.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, considered that all the aspects of
this application had been covered well by the Officer’s report and presentation. He
considered that the planting which had been outlined by the Landscape Officer would
mitigate to some extent the concerns raised by the objecting spokesperson. He
supported the one-way system for construction traffic. He proposed approval of this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that the report erroneously referred to West
Beckham Parish Council in addition to East and West Beckham Parish Council. She
referred to the High Court challenge in respect of the Planning Inspector’s decision to
allow a wind turbine at the site and to a previously-approved solar farm at East
Beckham, and expressed concern that the area around West Beckham was being
overwhelmed by an industrial landscape. She stated that East and West Beckham
Parish Council had not been told of the proposed loop system for traffic. She was
concerned that Sheringham Road was a narrow road with residential development
and there had been incidents on a number of occasions. She referred to the
accident record at the crossroads with the A148 at Upper Sheringham and
considered that it was not suitable for construction traffic. She was also concerned
that agricultural land would be taken out of production. She requested that the site
be landscaped. She proposed deferral of this application pending the outcome of the
High Court challenge.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that the applicant had
stated that the land was agricultural grade 3b and 4 and which Government guidance
had indicated could be developed.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there were no planning grounds on which to
refuse the application. He seconded Councillor Perry-Warnes’ proposal for approval
of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds requested a condition to require planting to take place
immediately.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if there was a technical reason for the
concentration of such developments in a small area and whether it was likely that
there would be more applications.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that the link point was
the substation at West Beckham. The developments had to link to the grid system.
However, UK Power Networks had advised that there were constraints on capacity
across Norfolk and it would be for that company to determine whether improvements
to grid capacity were possible.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had spoken to the applicant and
understood that serious consideration was being given to grazing sheep under the
solar panels. He requested landscaping conditions.
Development Committee
3
24 October 2013
Councillor P W High supported the application in principle, but expressed concern
regarding the highway network. He seconded, as an amendment, Councillor Mrs
Sweeney’s proposal to defer consideration of this application.
In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that management and maintenance of the
landscaping would be included as a condition.
In response to the amendment to defer this application, the Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the application had been assessed
taking into account the cumulative impact of the proposed development and the wind
turbine.
Councillor P W High considered that it would be totally wrong to have both
developments on the same site.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to the proposal to
defer this application. He also advised that as the report had been written on the
basis that the turbine development would go ahead, refusal on grounds of cumulative
effect would not be supported by the Officers.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that if the application
were deferred, the applicant could appeal on grounds of non-determination and
suggested landscaping conditions might be lost if an Inspector was subsequently
minded to approve the scheme.
The amendment to defer this application until the outcome of the High Court
challenge is known was put to the vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in
favour and 9 against.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, to include those relating to landscape
mitigation, landscape management and biodiversity enhancement, with
a requirement to commence planting immediately, the inclusion of
mature trees and regular maintenance, and a one-way system for
construction traffic.
(114) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/13/0783 - Variation of Conditions 2 & 3 of
planning permission reference: 10/1030 to permit revised layout and
appearance including retention of existing lean-to previously indicated as
being demolished; The Barn, The Street, Saxthorpe for Mr M Mace
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, considered that the overlooking
issues had now been resolved. He proposed approval of this application which was
seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including those listed in the report.
Development Committee
4
24 October 2013
(115) NORTHREPPS - AI/13/1037 - Display of non-illuminated advertisement; 2 Old
Station Yard, Norwich Road for Mr A Oxtoby
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as the applicant’s wife
was Chief Executive of the Council.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of standard
advertisement conditions.
(116) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0851 - Erection of single-storey rear extension to provide
self-contained unit of holiday accommodation and installation of roof light; 8
Morris Street for Ms H Wheelen
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr P Burns (Sheringham Town Council)
Mrs Comper (objecting)
Mr M Coe (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the agent had confirmed that two flats in
the existing house would be converted back to a single dwelling.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor B J
Hannah, a local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. Councillor Hannah
was concerned at the lack of residential parking spaces and had asked for a
condition that the occupiers of the self-contained unit be required to use the public
car park. He also considered that there was inadequate access to the property.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was no statutory minimum space for the
existing dwelling. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had raised no
objection on grounds of impact on the Conservation Area. With regard to car
parking, the site was within the Conservation Area where a reduction in the normal
requirements was acceptable. Given the proximity of the site to the town and a
public car park it was not considered that lack of parking was a sufficient ground on
which to refuse the application.
In response to a question by the Chairman in respect of the amount of garden which
would remain following development, the Officers stated that it appeared from the
plan that 12 metres of garden would remain.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern as to how emergency vehicles would
access the site as the rear access was very narrow and there would be no access
through the main house. He was also concerned at the massing of the proposed
development and lack of uniformity. He supported Councillor Hannah’s views
regarding lack of parking. He proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
5
24 October 2013
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that Building Control and the Fire Service had not been consulted.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor Shepherd’s proposal to refuse this
application.
The Head of Planning advised the Committee to bear in mind that the proposal would
not result in a net increase in the number of residential units and stated that refusal
on grounds related to lack of parking would be difficult to justify. If the Committee
were minded to refuse this application it should concentrate on amenity issues.
Refusal on scale and massing grounds would also be difficult to justify as the
increase was small in comparison with the existing development. If the Committee
were minded to approve this application, she suggested that an additional condition
be imposed to ensure that the holiday unit was not occupied prior to the conversion
of the main house back to a single dwelling unit.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with regard to its reasons for
refusal of this application.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed deferral of this application to allow
consultation with the emergency services.
Councillor Shepherd withdrew his proposal for refusal and seconded Councillor
Perry-Warnes’ proposal for deferral.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle asked how building materials would be brought onto the
site. The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was likely that most materials would
be delivered using the alleyway at the rear of the site.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4
That consideration of this application be deferred to consult the
emergency services and to confirm how materials would be brought
onto the site.
(117) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0897 - Variation of Condition 2 and Removal of Condition
9 of planning permission reference 10/0126 to permit installation of render in
lieu of timber cladding; 7 Museum Cottages, Station Road for Mr W Jepson
Councillor J A Wyatt stated that he had received emailed representations in respect
of this application.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Burns (Sheringham Town Council)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that white render was considered to be
inappropriate but cream or off-white was acceptable. There was a mix of materials in
the area but Officers considered that timber was incongruous.
Development Committee
6
24 October 2013
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the finish had to be in keeping with Museum
Cottages. He did not favour a rendered finish and therefore proposed refusal of this
application.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the architect considered that timber cladding was out of keeping
with the area. Officers and Members had considered that cladding was acceptable
when the application for conversion of the building was approved.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that cladding was not in keeping with the area. He
proposed approval of this application as recommended.
The Head of Planning drew attention to the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager, who had no objection to this application.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the appearance of cladding would
deteriorate over time and that cream render would be more in keeping. She
seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by a Member, the Senior Planning Officer explained that
the proposal included covering the flint face of the building with render. However,
permission had already been given under application PF/10/0126 to cover the flint
with cladding.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2
That this application be approved subject to the external colour finish
being cream.
(118) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
(119) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(120) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(121) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(122) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(123) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that it was the intention in future to provide
additional detail in respect of appeal decisions and to report progress on Court cases
to the Committee.
Development Committee
7
24 October 2013
He stated that the appeal against the High Court decision in respect of Crisp
Maltings, Great Ryburgh would be heard in the Court of Appeal on 26 or 27
November 2013.
(124) APPLICATIONS CALLED IN BY MEMBERS
The Chairman expressed concern that an application on the agenda had been called
in by a Member who had not attended the meeting nor forwarded his comments in
time for consideration by the Committee.
(125) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(126) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 12 of the report updates the situation previously
reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved
complaints more than three months old as at 30 September 2013.
RESOLVED
That the report and annexed Schedules of cases be noted and that
those cases which have been resolved be removed from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 11.25 am.
Development Committee
8
24 October 2013