26 FEBRUARY 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
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Williams – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
J Punchard – Lancaster South Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
Mr G Linder – Major Projects Team Leader
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr S Case – Landscape Officer
(194) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and Mrs P
Grove-Jones. One substitute Member attended the meeting as shown above.
(195) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 29 January 2015 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(196) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business.
(197) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor P W High declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the item 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.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
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.
(198) CROMER - PF/15/0068 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref:
11/0387 to permit retention of dormer window in revised position; Exton House,
1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
All Members declared they were acquainted with the applicant as a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered items 1 and 2 of the Officers’ reports together as they
were related applications.
Public Speaker
Mr R Price (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader explained that the dormer had not been
constructed in accordance with the approved plans to minimise intrusion into the roof
joists and to overcome difficulties with making the structure watertight.
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that Cromer Town Council had made no
comment on the applications. The Conservation and Design Team had no objection
to the proposal. He recommended approval of both applications PF/15/0068 and
LA/15/0069.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(199) CROMER - LA/15/0069 - Retention of dormer window to rear roof slope; Exton
House, 1 Surrey Street for Mr R Price
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
(200) FAKENHAM - PF/14/1632 - Change of use of A1 (retail) to mixed use A1 (retail)
and A3 (restaurant/cafe) and insertion of new shop front; 8-10 Bridge Street for
ACCA Ltd
All Members had received telephone calls regarding this application. Councillor R
Reynolds stated that he had taken legal advice in connection with this application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr L O’Sullivan (objecting)
Mr S Millett (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader explained the policy issues relating to
the retail frontage (Policy EC5). This application did not comply with Policy EC5.
However, it would be possible to change the use of the premises to A3
(restaurant/café) use for a temporary period of up to two years without the need for
planning permission under permitted development rights. Officers considered that
the benefits of the proposal outweighed the policy issues in this case and the
Development Management Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve
the application.
Councillor J Punchard, a local Member, expressed concerns in respect of the number
of similar outlets in the town which would lead to the degradation of the range of
facilities, sustainability issues, impact on vitality and viability of the town centre,
erosion of original features by the amendment to the entrance, lack of marketing of
the units and additional burden on the drainage system. He referred to the
narrowness of Bridge Street at this point and the problems which could be caused by
deliveries to the premises and danger to customers exiting the premises. He stated
that the proposed seating area would remove the parking space for the flat at the
rear. Whilst the proposal would bring two empty shop units back into use, it would
also prevent two small businesses from opening in the town. He stated that the
premises would not draw people into the town centre due to its edge of centre
location.
Councillor P W High sympathised with the objectors but stated that the relaxation of
the change of use rules meant that the business could be started anyway. He
proposed delegated approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that competition was not a planning issue. The shops
had been empty for several years. There would be an element of A1 retail use within
the premises and the proposal would create jobs.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that Bridge Street had changed little over the years
and had a run-down appearance. Approval would bring in a major business, bring
two empty units back into use and have economic benefits in terms of investment
and jobs. He considered that this proposal would be welcomed in Sheringham where
there were already 56 cafés and other food outlets. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated times were tough but coffee shops were thriving
and growing. She supported the proposal.
Councillor P Williams stated that there were many other places where people could
eat and drink, and Fakenham was not a tourist area like Holt or Sheringham. He
raised issues regarding what tenancy agreement may be in place for car parking with
the flat and removal of the parking space for the flat.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the Highway Authority had
raised no objection and the site was adjacent to a public car park. The tenancy
agreement was a civil matter.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new material issues or grounds of objection being raised
following readvertisement and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(201) FIELD DALLING - PF/14/1384 - Erection of 2 storey side extension with glass
link; School Lane Cottage, 10-11 School Road, Saxlingham for Mirka McNeill
Design
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr I Farmer (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to issues raised regarding impact on trees.
He stated that there was not considered to be an amenity issue, and the developer
intended to use mini piles to minimise the impact on the root system. The Landscape
Officer was satisfied with the proposals.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, considered that the conditions would be
adhered to and should satisfy the concerns of the neighbour. She had no objection
to the application.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that the Leylandii trees to the south and west
of the cottage had reached maximum height and were too tall. He proposed
approval of this application as recommended.
The Landscape Officer stated that the trees were not fully mature and could grow up
to a further 20 feet in height. They were solid trees with a good, compact root
system. He considered that the proposed development would have no impact.
Councillor P W High seconded the proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd congratulated the architect on the project and considered that
it would have no impact on the adjacent property.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
in
accordance
with
the
(202) HINDRINGHAM - PF/14/1499 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; Lion
House, The Street for Mr & Mrs Iles
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Iles (supporting)
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
The Development Management Team Leader reported that an amended plan had
been received in respect of parking provision and siting of the proposed building.
The Parish Council had confirmed that it had no objection.
Following receipt of the amended plan, the Highway Authority had no objection
subject to conditions. It also had no objection in principle to a Stopping Up Order
being made in respect of the frontage of the site subject to the retention of a
minimum width of 2 metres.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that in response to Officers’
concerns regarding overlooking, sight lines had been submitted and the agent had
had advised that overlooking could be overcome by fixed louvres to first floor
windows and obscured glazing to bathroom and dressing room windows. The agent
considered that it would be difficult to achieve Code Level 5 if the windows were
moved. In support of the application, the agent had referred to the previous planning
permission and considered that the Council’s policies were out of date and that the
location was sustainable.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended refusal as stated in the
report.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, gave apologies on behalf of Councillor J D
Savory, the other local Member, who was unable to attend. He referred to localism
and stated that there was support in the village for the application, the site was in a
sustainable location in terms of access services, it was an infill site and the type of
design encouraged by the NPPF. He had not been aware of overlooking issues but
considered that this could be overcome. He requested the Committee to approve
this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that Policy EN4 was quite specific and had to be taken
into consideration. He considered that further thought needed to be given to the
windows. The proposal was also contrary to Policy SS2, although he agreed that it
was possibly in keeping with the NPPF. He stated that he was not totally against a
building on the site, he supported the Officer’s view. He proposed refusal of this
application as recommended.
Councillor P Williams considered that if the windows on the upper floor were right
hung it would help to address the overlooking issue.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, the Development
Management Team Leader stated that permission was given in 1978 and 1986, prior
to the current Core Strategy, but these permissions were no longer extant.
The Planning Legal Manager added that it was often the case in villages in the
Countryside policy area that planning permission had been given in the past. Such
proposals may be acceptable in policy terms in the future, but at the present time this
proposal was contrary to policy.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
(203) HOLT - PO/14/1603 - Erection of up to 170 dwellings and associated
infrastructure; Land South of Lodge Close for Gladman Developments Ltd
Councillor P W High declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
adjacent to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
matter.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr B Payne (Holt Town Council)
Mr C Greenwood (objecting)
Dr I Shepherd (objecting)
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the previous application on this site had
been refused and an appeal had been submitted, the hearing for which would be
held in July.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the applicant’s case was based on the
five-year land supply. He referred to the Planning Policy Manager’s comments.
Currently, the Council’s published figures demonstrated a 5.4 year supply of housing
land for the period from 2014-2019. This would be updated for 2015-2020. He
recommended that this application be refused for the reasons stated in the report,
with the addition of the words:
“The proposed development would result in over-capacity issues at the local primary
school without the opportunity for on-site expansion.
Accordingly the proposed development would be contrary to the above development
plan policies.”
Councillor J Perry-Warnes proposed refusal of this application as recommended.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that very little had changed since the previous
application, except that the applicants were making an issue of the five year land
supply. The Council was able to demonstrate a five year land supply. Core Strategy
Policy SS2 still applied. He had concerns with regard to access. He seconded the
proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to the comments made by Natural England in respect
of the proximity of the site to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and by Dr
Shepherd on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). He
supported the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor P Williams stated that the SSSI was very important and should be
protected. He expressed concern regarding the access. He questioned whether the
provision of 45% affordable housing would be viable.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she had grave concerns with regard to the
access. She considered there was insufficient room on the site to provide the
number of dwellings envisaged by the applicants.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
The Development Manager stated that Officers did not recommend refusal on
highway grounds and it had not been a reason for refusal on the previous application.
The Planning Inspector would have to consider highway and SSSI issues when
determining the appeal as they had been raised locally. It was not possible to
guarantee that 45% affordable housing would be provided and the applicants had
offered it subject to viability. Affordable housing would be considered at reserved
matters stage if the application were approved on appeal.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney expressed concerns regarding the impact on the
doctors’ surgery, and with regard to the amount of traffic emanating from the
development and its effect on existing residents.
The Major Projects Team Leader referred to other major applications in Holt on which
NHS England had been consulted. NHS England had produced a formula to assess
the impact of those developments and contributions which would be required.
Comments were awaited with regard to this application.
With regard to the comments by Natural England, the applicants would be willing to
contribute to the upkeep of footpaths in Holt Country Park.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he would withdraw his concerns regarding access
but stood by his comments regarding SS2 and the five year land supply.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle emphasised that the proposal would have an impact on the
SSSI and the Glaven Valley.
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning (Policy SS2 and impact on the primary school).
(204) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/14/1583 - Alterations to dwelling including
erection of two-storey front and rear extensions and the installation of front
balcony; East Quay House, East End for Mr S Howe
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr G Hewitt (Wells Town Council)
In response to questions by Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, regarding
tertiary windows and the extension of the building towards the rear, the Development
Management Team Leader explained that the windows in question were bathroom
windows and the relationship was not considered to be an issue. No objection had
been received from the neighbour at the rear. There was already a close relationship
between the buildings and there was unlikely to be a significant additional loss of
light.
Councillor P Terrington referred to the Town Council’s objections on grounds of
design. He considered that the proposed design was not in keeping with the
Conservation Area with its theme of pitched roofs or with the East Quay. He
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
considered that pitched roofs provided harmony in the area and the proposed flat
roof would introduce discord. He requested a site inspection.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the local Member and Town Council’s views with
regard to design.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the design was good but it was not
appropriate for Wells and out of keeping with the street scene. She proposed refusal
of this application, which was not seconded.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee, and that the local Members and Chairman
of the Town Council be invited to attend (to be held on 12 March 2015).
(205) 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 Member and Town Mayor be invited to attend:
SHERINGHAM – PF/15/0001 – Demolition of existing buildings, erection
of 32 no. dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works;
Hilbre, Holway Road for Norfolk Homes (to be held on 16 April 2015).
(206) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(207) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(208) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(209) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Inquiry in respect of Bodham
PF/11/0983 (wind turbine) would take place on 9 June 2015.
(210) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015
(211) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the appeal decision in respect of Cromer
PF/13/0979 had been allowed and not dismissed as stated.
(212) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Supreme Court hearing in respect of
the Ryburgh Maltings case would take place on 23 June 2015.
The meeting closed at 11.53 am.
Development Committee
1
26 February 2015