25 JUNE 2015
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
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
S Hester
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
Mrs A Green – substitute for P High
Ms M Prior – Holt Ward
J Punchard – Lancaster South Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Miss S Hinchcliffe – Planning Officer
Mr C Reuben – Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
(24)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P High and S Ward. Two
substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
(25)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 28 May 2015 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(26)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business
(27)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
29
31
Councillor:
P Rice
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Development Committee
Interest
Involved with site when he was a County
Councillor
Member for adjacent Lancaster North Ward
and Member of Fakenham Town Council
1
25 June 2015
31
R Reynolds
Member for adjacent Lancaster North Ward
and Member of Fakenham Town Council
All Members had received correspondence relating to application Swanton Novers
PF/15/0320.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Councillor P Rice had consulted him with
regard to his involvement with the Scottow site. He confirmed that the interest was
not a disclosable prejudicial interest.
(28)
PLANNING PROTOCOLS
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which recommended the
adoption of a suite of Planning protocols which set out clearly how the Council deals
with Planning matters.
RESOLVED
That the following protocols be adopted:
Code of Good Practice for Planning
Code of Practice – Site Visit by Development Committee
Have your say on Planning Applications and Tree Preservation Orders
Development Committee – Decision Making Protocol
(29)
SCOTTOW – ENQ/15/0090 – Hangers 1, 2 and 3, Scottow Enterprise Park,
Lamas Road, Badersfield – Unlawful storage of processed sugar
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports relating to enforcement
action to be taken in this case following representations by the applicant as to
timescale.
The Major Projects Manager reminded the Committee of the previous decision and
drew attention to the applicant’s requested amendment. He recommended that the
Enforcement Notice be issued requiring all stored sugar to be removed from Hangar
3 within 6 months of the effective date of the Notice and from Hangars 1 and 2 by 23
April 2016.
Councillor S Shaw, the local Member, expressed concern as to how lorry movements
would affect the local inhabitants if a shorter timescale were agreed.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the timescale recommended by the Officers
was acceptable. However, he considered that it would ease the situation for the local
residents if an 18 month period were allowed for removal of the sugar.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds proposed the Officer’s recommendation, which
was seconded by Councillor P Rice.
Councillor P Rice stated that his main concerns related to fire risk and that it was
wise to remove the sugar as soon as possible.
Development Committee
2
25 June 2015
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Major Projects Manager
stated that he was unaware if any sugar had been removed.
RESOLVED
That the Enforcement Notice be issued with the following amended
timescales requiring all stored sugar to be removed:
Hangar 3 – within 6 months of the effective date of the notice
Hangars 1 and 2 – by 23 April 2016.
(30)
HIGH KELLING Tree Preservation Order 2015 No.4 Land at Kelling Hospital,
Holt NR25 6QA
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports relating to confirmation of a
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several individual trees, groups of trees
and woodland at the above site.
Public Speakers
Mr M Wiley (supporting)
Mr D Wright (objecting)
The Landscape Officer referred to concerns raised by the objectors. He stated that
the soil was sandy and subsidence was therefore not a problem and that the Tree
Preservation Order did not prevent the proper management of the trees.
Following comments by the public speakers, the Landscape Officer stated that the
law now allowed the serving of Tree Preservation Orders on Crown land. With
regard to the diseased trees, the disease was not a serious form and most horse
chestnut trees were able to resist it. There was no indication that the trees were
currently in poor condition but there was an obligation on the owners to carry out
regular surveys. The TPO would not prevent necessary works being carried out.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the area was beautiful, there was no danger to
houses or the road and he therefore proposed that the Order be confirmed.
In response to questions by Members, the Landscape Officer explained that
management by root pruning was a possibility if the trees were a nuisance. The
trees at the rear were approximately 200 years old, and those in the avenue were
approximately 100 years old.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that the TPO would protect amenity and
give the Council control.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That Tree Preservation Order 2015 No. 4 Land at Kelling Hospital, Holt
be confirmed.
Development Committee
3
25 June 2015
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.
(31)
FAKENHAM - PF/15/0452 - Extension to provide a new two-storey retail unit
(A1); Millers Walk for Fakenham Properties Ltd
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Schofield (supporting)
The Planning Officer reported that UK Power Networks had no objection to the
amended plan. The Conservation and Design Team Leader had no objection to the
amended design. She drew attention to the highway issues. Further comments
were awaited from the Highway Authority with regard to the suggestion by the local
Member and Town Council with regard to opening up of the junction of Cattle Market
Street onto White Horse Street.
The Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of conditions as listed in the report.
Councillor J Punchard, a local Member, stated that he had no objection to the
development of additional retail space, which was welcome and much needed in the
town. He had no objection to the loss of car parking spaces given the way the
restricted parking period was managed. His main concern related to access issues.
He considered that the opening of the access onto White Horse Street would reduce
congestion at the mini roundabout. The suggestion was not to form a crossroads but
to install a mini roundabout or raised junction to slow traffic. He considered there
would be a benefit if the bollarded section were moved to allow access only to the car
park and auction house.
The Development Management Officer (NCC Highways) stated that the highway
proposals suggested by the Town Council would be considered by the Highway
Authority at its forthcoming Development Team meeting.
Councillor J Punchard requested deferral of this application for a site inspection.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed deferral of this application to await the views of the
Highway Authority and for a site inspection by the Committee.
Development Committee
4
25 June 2015
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that vehicles driving from Cattle
Market Street to Bridge Street would cause congestion. She considered that this
application should be refused.
Councillor P Rice seconded the proposal for a site inspection. He asked if it would
be possible to form another entrance to the car park from White Horse Street.
The Development Management Officer (NCC Highways) agreed to take this
suggestion to the Highway Authority’s meeting for consideration.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to await the further
views of the Highway Authority and to allow a site inspection by the
Committee and that the local Members and Town Mayor be invited to
attend.
(32)
GRESHAM - PF/15/0488 - Installation of 90kW ground mounted solar PV array;
Chaucer Barn, Holt Road for Mr Mermagen
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no objections from Environmental Health, no objections
being received following expiry of the site notice, and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions including a time limit, accordance
with the approved plans, cessation of use and any other conditions tat
may be required by Environmental Health.
(33)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill
for Mr Bradley
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Bennett (objecting)
The Development Management Team Leader reported that details had been
received in respect of the proposed extraction system, which would be routed
internally with a cowl on the flat roofed section of the building. The applicant had
also confirmed that he would be leasing the flat above the premises and the owner
had no objection to internal extraction. Refuse would be stored in the premises and
transferred daily to another site owned by the applicant.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that three further
representations had been received one of which commented on the application, and
two which supported the application.
The Environmental Health Officer had commented that the kitchen extraction system
appeared satisfactory but further time was needed to consider the matter in detail.
No
Development Committee
5
25 June 2015
objection had been raised to the refuse collection proposals, subject to further
information being received and the provision of grease traps in the drains.
There were no Conservation and Design objections in principle to the alterations to
the listed building.
The Development Management Team Leader requested delegated authority to
approve the application subject to no objections being received from Environmental
Health and the imposition of the conditions listed in the report, subject to the
amendment of conditions 5 and 6 to reflect the information received.
Councillor Ms M Prior, a local Member, stated that consideration should be given to
the permanent residents of the building who would be affected by the proposal. She
was particularly concerned with regard to the storage and collection of waste and
how it would be monitored. She considered that the waste proposals highlighted the
lack of suitable space at the rear of the premises. She referred to information she
had received regarding the operation of the business as a pizzeria and take-away,
and asked if litter emanating from the premises would be monitored. She raised
issues with regard to the stainless steel flue, odours, and smoking breaks having to
be taken at the front of the premises. She was extremely concerned that the type of
food being sold could change in the future without the need for further permission.
Councillor P Rice expressed concern with regard to fire risk and asked if the Norfolk
Fire Service had been consulted.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that Environmental Health had
discussed this application with the Fire Service, which had suggested requirements
for fire resistance and separation.
With regard to noise, smell and fumes, the Development Manager stated that advice
had been taken from Environmental Health Officers, who considered the proposals to
be acceptable. The application related to A3 restaurant use. This covered any type
of restaurant but did not include take-away use. In terms of impact on neighbours,
the Environmental Health Officer considered the proposal to be acceptable. The
owner of the building would not permit external bin storage and the proposals for
waste collection and disposal were considered to be acceptable but the
Environmental Health Officer required time to consider this matter further.
The Development Manager stated that planning permission was required only
because the building was listed, otherwise the change of use could take place
without permission for a two-year period.
Councillor Ms M Prior stated that there was an assumption that the applicants would
use the alley for bin storage, which was not acceptable.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that Councillor P W High, a local Member for whom
she was substituting, supported this application.
Councillor S Hester stated that he had experience in the restaurant trade and waste
oil containers could leak, causing a health and safety issue. He expressed concerns
in respect of rats, odour, and storage of empty bottles which could attract flies.
The Development Manager stated that waste oil could be raised with Environmental
Health. He was happy to seek confirmation from the applicant with regard to the
suggested take-away use.
Development Committee
6
25 June 2015
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer expressed concerns that the applicant was considering
how to maximise the business rather than the practicalities of waste disposal.
However, she considered that the main concern was the impact on the listed
building. She also commented that there was a need to take into account the fact
that pizza ovens operated at a high temperature.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that there were a number of questions and
deferral of the application would be the best option.
It was proposed and seconded and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred:
1. To seek confirmation from the applicant with regard to take-away
use;
2. To further consult the Environmental Health Officer on the issues
raised by the Committee and request attendance at the next meeting;
and
3. To seek information regarding the efficacy of the proposed flue.
(34)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs S Bushby (Ryburgh Parish Council)
Mr James (supporting)
The Planning Officer stated that if the Committee were minded to approve this
application on the basis of the additional car parking it would be necessary to seek a
further amended plan which included the car parking area within the application site,
which would be subject to readvertisement. He reported that the Highway Authority
maintained its objection. Whilst there were benefits to the proposal, Officers
considered that they did not outweigh the highway safety concerns and the
application was recommended for refusal on highway safety grounds.
Councillor N Smith stated that he had spent many years promoting small businesses
and had sat on the panel which approved a grant for this proposal. However, having
visited the site, he expressed concern that parked vehicles caused visibility issues
and that although the access to the loke had been widened, it would be difficult to
two vehicles to pass. He considered that there was also a danger to pedestrians.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that this was a very difficult application.
The Council promoted small businesses, jobs and tourism, but she supported the
highway objections in this case.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that this proposal was contrary to Core Strategy
policies CT5 and CT6. He considered that regardless of the parking issue, the
visibility at the entrance to the loke was non-existent in one direction. He suggested
that the applicant approach the Council’s Economic Development team for
assistance. He proposed refusal in accordance with the recommendation of the
Head of Planning.
Development Committee
7
25 June 2015
Councillor P Rice stated that he had approached the Highway Engineer with regard
to placing restrictions on the highway. However, there would be a cost to the
applicant.
Councillor S Hester stated that traffic was slow because of the angle of the bend and
traffic lights on the bridge. He considered that cars parked on the road were also
beneficial in slowing the traffic.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed surprise at the absence of double yellow
lines despite the restricted visibility.
The Development Management Officer (NCC Highways) explained the Highway
Authority’s objections. Parking restrictions would require a contribution from the
applicant and be put in place prior to the business opening. The proposal would
increase on-street parking and if parking were provided at the rear of the premises it
would lead to intensification of the use of a sub-standard access.
Councillor N Smith stated that he had a great deal of sympathy for the applicant.
However, even if traffic speeds were slow there was potential for a serious accident
to happen. He seconded refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, sympathised with the applicant and
hoped he would be able to bring forward a proposal which could be supported.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse this application,
subject to no new material issues being raised following
readvertisement of the amended plans, in accordance with her
recommendation.
(35)
SWANTON NOVERS - PF/15/0320 - Erection of first floor side/front extension
with dormer window to roofslope (part retrospective); Oak Tree Cottage, St
Giles Road for Mr Monday
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Hart (Swanton Novers Parish Council)
Mrs Dailly (objecting)
Mrs Monday (supporting)
The Planning Legal Manager stated that most Members had received
correspondence in this matter. He understood that one of the public speakers would
request a recorded vote. However, this was a matter for the Committee to decide.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that Councillor S Ward, the local
Member, had not made comment on this application, which had been called in by his
predecessor. She considered that this application was acceptable subject to
improved screening.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that if this application were not retrospective
the Committee would have considered it to be not in keeping. She referred to
concerns that a balcony could be added in the future. She considered that this
application should be refused.
Development Committee
8
25 June 2015
Councillor P Rice considered that the front of the extension was acceptable, but he
had reservations with regard to the rear. He suggested that obscured glazing be
used in the side window, the paintwork to be terracotta and additional screening to
the north and west.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that this application was in compliance with Policy HO8
and the objectors lived some distance away. He supported the recommendation of
the Head of Planning, subject to additional conditions relating to colour.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern at the retrospective nature of this
application. She considered that the design was unacceptable.
Councillor S Hester considered that the design was not in keeping with the
surrounding area and expressed concern with regard to suburbanisation. However,
he considered that design amendments could improve the extension.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that if the extension were slightly smaller
it would not require planning permission, and personal taste was not a valid reason to
refuse an application.
The Development Manager advised that the Committee had to decide whether or not
refusal was justified on design grounds. The extension was not in keeping with the
original building, but it was necessary to consider its context. The Officer’s
recommendation was an ‘on balance’ recommendation. He requested delegated
authority to approve the application if the Committee required amendments to the
design.
It was proposed by Councillor N Smith, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the imposition of conditions in respect of additional
landscaping, obscure glazing of the side window and subject to
negotiations in respect of colour (terracotta).
(36)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that
the local Member(s) and representative of the Town/Parish Council be
invited to attend:
CROMER – PO/15/0572 - Erection of 68 sheltered housing retirement
apartments and one bungalow, including communal facilities, car
parking and management proposals for adjoining woodland; land to
rear of Barclay Mews, Overstrand Road for Sutherland Homes
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/15/0311 - Erection of three car garage with
games room/gym above and link extension to existing dwelling; Glebe
Farm, Marsh Road for Mr and Mrs R Hall
Development Committee
9
25 June 2015
POTTER HEIGHAM – PF/15/0312 - Erection of agricultural storage barn;
Glebe Farm, Marsh Road for Mr R Hall
SHERINGHAM – PF/15/0114 - Erection of 52 dwellings, access, roads,
open space, parking areas and associated works; Land off Holway
Road/Butts Lane for Norfolk Homes Ltd
THORPE MARKET – PF/15/0326 - Demolition of single-storey extension
and erection of two-storey front extension and single-storey rear
extension; 2 Sand Pit Cottages, Sandpit Lane for Mr & Mrs Chamberlin
(37)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(38)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(39)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(40)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(41)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(42)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(43)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on the Supreme Court case
relating to Crisp Maltings, Great Ryburgh.
The meeting closed at 12.52 pm.
CHAIRMAN
23 July 2015
Development Committee
10
25 June 2015