25 FEBRUARY 2016
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
R Reynolds (Chairman)
R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
S Hester
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs G Perry-Warnes – Corpusty Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – observer
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Miss S Hinchcliffe – Major Projects Team Leader
Mr N Doran – Solicitor
Mr D Mortimer – NCC Highways Development Management Officer
Mr S Bizley - Consultant
(201) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were in attendance.
(202) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minute
206
Councillor:
N Smith
Interest
Lives adjacent to the site.
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.
Development Committee
1
25 February 2016
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
The Head of Planning explained the proposed procedure for this meeting. Following
receipt of an overarching report which covered issues common to all applications,
each application would be presented to the Committee in turn and debated. No
proposals would be sought until all applications had been presented and debated.
For the benefit of members of the public, the Head of Planning explained that
lobbying was a normal part of the planning process but Members of the Committee
needed to come to the meeting with an open mind and to listen to the debate before
reaching a decision.
(203) PLANNING APPLICATIONS ON BEHALF OF BROADLAND ST BENEDICTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN BINHAM, EDGEFIELD, ERPINGHAM GREAT
RYBURGH & TRUNCH
The Major Projects Team Leader presented a report relating to five, full planning
applications for residential development which had been submitted by the applicant,
Broadland St Benedicts, for separate parcels of land across the North Norfolk
District. The report provided an overview of planning policy and financial viability
related issues for each of the planning applications under consideration.
With the exception of application PF/15/1228 at Great Ryburgh, each application
represented a departure from the development plan in that the three sites at Binham,
Edgefield and Erpingham lay outside of any defined development boundary,
proposed more than 10 dwellings and proposed a mix of market and affordable
housing. Application PF/15/1227 at Trunch proposed more than 10 dwellings
consisting of 100% affordable housing.
The applicant had put forward a case in support of their proposals that a District-wide
development strategy would enable the delivery of a greater amount of affordable
housing to meet identified local need. This would be brought about through an
element of market housing, the proceeds of which would be used to cross subsidise
the delivery of affordable housing across all of the sites.
The report highlighted a range of material planning considerations that were common
to all five proposals, namely:




Mechanisms for Delivery of Affordable Housing - The case being put forward
in support of the proposal by the applicant;
The main planning policy implications of the proposals;
Development viability; and
Proposed S.106 Obligation – Draft Agreement
The Portfolio Holder emphasised that the five applications contained a large number
of affordable homes, which was one of the Council’s key corporate objectives, and
would go a long way towards addressing housing need.
The Major Projects Team Leader presented each of the following applications,
displayed plans and photographs of the proposals and outlined the main issues for
consideration in each case, which were set out in detail in the Officer’s report. She
updated the Committee as shown below.
Development Committee
2
25 February 2016
(204) BINHAM - PF/15/1221 - Erection of twenty eight residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway, landscape works and a new pumping station; Land off
Priory Crescent and Walsingham Road, Binham, Norfolk for Broadland St
Benedicts
Public Speakers
Mr D Frost (Binham Parish Council)
Mrs P Alford (objecting)
Mr A Savage (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader read to the Committee the comments of Councillor
V FitzPatrick, a local Member, referring to the Parish Council’s comments and views
of local residents. Councillor FitzPatrick considered that the proposal appeared to be
sustainable and did not breach any significant planning considerations.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this
application as set out in the report.
Councillor S Hester, a local Member, expressed concern at the proportion of market
housing to affordable housing and questioned how it could be interpreted as small.
He considered that it would be preferable to relocate some of the proposed market
dwellings elsewhere to create more space for the proposed affordable dwellings.
At the request of the Chairman, the Major Projects Team Leader explained that the
NPPF did not give an interpretation of “small” in relation to the proportion of
affordable housing. She also clarified that the proposed green area could not be
used for dwellings as it contained soakaways.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the provision of jobs and housing for young people
should be foremost in Members’ minds. The cumulative proposals would result in 55
affordable dwellings in the District. The affordable dwellings in this application were
concentrated in one small area but it was not possible to move dwellings around to
make more space for the affordable dwellings because of the drainage situation. He
considered that the proposals were futuristic and deserved to go forward.
Councillor P W High expressed concern regarding the proportion of market dwellings.
He considered that the application should be deferred to consider the density of the
affordable dwellings and possible reduction in the number of market dwellings.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern that the affordable dwellings were crammed
into one corner of the site.
In response to a question by Councillor B Smith, the Major Projects Manager
explained that this proposal was an exceptions scheme. The model for delivery of
affordable dwellings was new and looked at funding across all the sites. He
considered that it was likely that more schemes of this type would come forward as
funding from Central Government was reduced.
Councillor N Pearce expressed concern regarding parking provision. He considered
that if cars were to park on Priory Crescent it would exacerbate problems for large
vehicles.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the scheme met the Council’s parking
standards. Additional parking for the affordable dwellings would be provided in a
communal parking area. The development had been designed to enable lorries to
turn. The Highway Authority had not raised an objection to the scheme.
Development Committee
3
25 February 2016
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that the issues raised had been
explained in the report. The village had good facilities. She referred to the
comments by the Major Projects Manager with regard to delivery of affordable
dwellings.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer expressed concern with regard to the location of the
affordable dwellings.
Councillor S Hester raised concerns regarding Human Rights in relation to
disturbance during the anticipated 4-year construction period. This was a densely
populated area with elderly people in close proximity. Binham was a small village
and this proposal represented 17% growth.
The Head of Planning stated that Human Rights implications had been considered
and taken into account.
Councillor N Coppack asked if the proposed bollards were removable as he was
concerned with regard to emergency access.
The Major Projects Manager stated that the bollards were intended to stop people
driving through to Priory Crescent. A condition could be imposed to ensure they
were detachable. He added that parking on the roadway was not a planning matter.
(205) EDGEFIELD - PF/15/1223 - Erection of twenty two residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Rectory Road and
Holt Road, Edgefield, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts
Public Speakers
Mr J Seymour (Edgefield Parish Council)
Mr R Window (objecting)
Mr I Hill (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that a neighbour had raised issues
regarding a series of ponds close to his property and recent flooding. It was
considered unlikely that the proposal would contribute to flooding but this issue would
need to be raised with the Environment Agency.
The Major Projects Manager stated that conditions could be included to agree
drainage details prior to commencement of the development.
Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that there was a need for
affordable housing and she considered that the benefits to the community
outweighed the disadvantages. She stated that she would be grateful if the issue
regarding the bus shelter could be resolved. However, she wholeheartedly
supported this application.
Councillors Mrs P Grove-Jones and P High commended the spread of the affordable
units across the site.
Councillor S Hester considered that the proportion of market housing to affordable
housing was not small. He asked why 28 dwellings were being proposed on 1.3
hectares at Binham, whereas only 22 dwellings were being proposed on 1.83
hectares on this site.
Development Committee
4
25 February 2016
The Major Projects Team Leader explained that density was based on constraints of
the site and local housing needs, which differed on each site.
The Solicitor referred to the definition of “rural exception sites” in Annex 2 of the
NPPF. It did not specify small numbers had to be in proportion to the number of
affordable dwellings although this had not been tested in Court or Inquiry. He
considered that 10 or 12 were small numbers.
(206) ERPINGHAM - PF/15/1461 - Erection of twenty four residential units (Class C3)
with associated highway and landscape works; Land off Eagle Road,
Erpingham, Norfolk for Broadland St Benedicts LLP
Public Speakers
Mr J Compston (objecting)
Mr K Harrison (objecting)
Mrs L Ryan (objecting)
Mr C Chambers (objecting)
Mr E Mumford-Smith (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader summarised the comments of Erpingham Parish
Council as no representative of the Parish Council had been able to attend the
meeting.
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to another application for a related
exceptions scheme in Erpingham (PF/15/1587) which would be discussed at a future
meeting. She stated that there was a need for housing on both sites. The proposals
could help to enhance and maintain existing facilities in the village.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, declared an interest in this application as he
lived adjacent to the site. He explained that he had taken legal advice and would
speak on the application but would not vote.
The Solicitor confirmed that it was acceptable for Councillor Smith to speak and that
he would be reporting the comments of those he represented.
Councillor N Smith referred to the comments made by speakers concerning impact
on tourism and highway issues. He distributed photographs relating to visual impact,
landscape and design issues. He referred to the comments of Anglian Water that
there was adequate sewerage capacity to cope with flooding, and questioned why
there had been so many problems if this were the case. He stated that there was no
mention in the report regarding education beyond junior school. Children would have
to go to Aylsham where an additional 600 houses were being built and he considered
that there would be major problems for the senior school.
The Chairman stated that drainage had been explained in depth and that Anglian
Water had stated that problems were related to maintenance and not capacity.
In response to concerns raised concerning drainage, the Major Projects Team
Leader reported that she had contacted Anglian Water with regard to its maintenance
programme but had received no further response to date. Environmental Health had
no record of flooding since 2007. If there were maintenance issues they needed to
be reported to Anglian Water.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that affordable houses were desperately needed. He
had misgivings regarding Eagle Road but considered that the issues had been
addressed as far as possible.
Development Committee
5
25 February 2016
In response to concerns raised by Councillor Mrs S Butikofer the Solicitor referred to
the Protocol regarding planning applications affecting the Council’s land and stated
that this issue had been addressed in the report.
(207) RYBURGH - PF/15/1228 - Erection of five residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works.; Land off Highfield Close, Great
Ryburgh for Broadland St Benedicts
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that there was no market housing on this
site.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this was an ideal proposal.
(208) TRUNCH - PF/15/1227 - Erection of twelve residential units (Class C3) with
associated highway and landscape works; Land off Cornish Avenue, Trunch
for Broadland St Benedicts
Public Speakers
Mr A Fordham (Trunch Parish Council)
Mr A Savage (supporting)
Councillor N Coppack welcomed this application and the contributions to be made
under the Section 106 Obligation. He stated that it was important to replace the
cherry tree which was to be removed.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to infill applications in Trunch which had been
refused as the land was designated as Countryside. She was concerned that the
Council’s policies were being walked over in this case.
The Head of Planning explained that the policy framework made clear provision for
affordable housing schemes as an exception where market housing would not
normally be promoted. All the schemes which were being considered were compliant
with the exceptions policy. Under current policy, infill plots in the Countryside were
contrary to policy.
Councillor B Smith expressed concerns regarding light pollution from the site.
Following the presentations on each of the applications, the Committee took a break
for lunch at 1.25 pm and resumed at 2 pm.
(209) DETERMINATION OF ABOVE PLANNING APPLICATIONS
The Committee determined the applications as follows:
Binham PF/15/1221
Councillor R Shepherd proposed delegated approval in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Councillor P Rice stated that his main concern related to the density of the affordable
housing and considered that it should be reconsidered. He proposed deferral of this
application.
Development Committee
6
25 February 2016
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds emphasised the need for affordable homes and
considered that the proposed schemes were an excellent way of achieving them.
She referred to the Corporate Plan objectives regarding affordable housing.
Councillor P W High seconded the proposal by Councillor Rice to defer this
application.
Councillor S Hester reiterated his concerns regarding the interpretation of “small”.
He was also concerned that if the land were used for open market housing it could
not be used for affordable housing. He considered that the developer should
reconsider this proposal.
Councillor N Coppack expressed concern that the affordable units were pushed into
a tight corner. He referred to the other proposals where affordable housing was
mixed in with the market housing.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded, as an amendment, the proposal by Councillor R
Shepherd for delegated approval.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared lost with 5 Members voting in
favour and 6 against.
The proposal to defer this application was put to the vote and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 5
That consideration of this application be deferred to request the
applicant to reconsider the design of the site in terms of density and
distribution of affordable housing.
Edgefield PF/15/1223
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with
the terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking and wheel cleaning, provision of a
visibility splay and Traffic Regulation Order, securing appropriate
design details and materials, hard and soft landscaping,
arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface and foul water
drainage, provision of a fire hydrant, contamination site
investigation, details of use of renewable technologies and any
other conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
Development Committee
7
25 February 2016
Erpingham PF/15/1461
Councillors P W High, Mrs P Grove-Jones and P Rice expressed concerns regarding
drainage.
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer expressed concern regarding highway safety.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with
the terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; highways construction and
construction worker parking, provision of a visibility splay, offsite highway works and Traffic Regulation Order, securing
appropriate materials, hard and soft landscaping, arboricultural
and ecological mitigation, surface water drainage, provision of a
fire hydrant, contamination site investigation, details of use of
renewable technologies and any other conditions considered to
be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Great Ryburgh PF/15/1228
It was proposed by Councillor N Coppack, seconded by Councillor Mrs S Butikofer
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with
the terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; highways access and parking,
construction traffic management plan, materials of construction,
hard and soft landscaping, arboricultural and ecological
mitigation, surface water drainage, contamination site
investigation and any other conditions considered to be
appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Trunch PF/15/1227
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor N Coppack and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
Development Committee
8
25 February 2016
(i)
Prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance with
the terms set out in the report.
(ii)
Appropriate conditions relating to; highways access and parking,
materials of construction, hard and soft landscaping,
arboricultural and ecological mitigation, surface water drainage,
contamination site investigation and any other conditions
considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
The meeting closed at 2.20 pm.
CHAIRMAN
7 April 2016
Development Committee
9
25 February 2016