26 JULY 2012
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)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – Lancaster North Ward
K E Johnson – Cromer Town Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
(38)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology was received from Mr J D Savory as local Member for item 5.
(39)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 29 June 2012 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(40)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(41)
REQUESTS TO DEFER APPLICATIONS INCLUDED ON THIS AGENDA
None.
(42)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
Development Committee
1
26 July 2012
(43)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0584 - Erection of single-storey extension; Green
Barn, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs Hartley
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ report.
The application was for the erection of a single-storey extension to create a bedroom.
Amended plans had been received to include a parapet wall and incorporate a grass
roof. It had been referred to Committee at the request of the local Member, Councillor
D Young.
Councillor Young told the Committee that he had visited the site. He believed that the
extension would be low on the ground and would be screened by foliage. It was not
overlooked. However he requested a site visit. Councillor B Cabbell Manners said
that if the extension was not clearly visible it was unreasonable to turn down the
application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED
That the application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(44)
CROMER - PF/12/0532 - Construction of skatepark facility; Land at The
Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road for Cromer Skate Park
Public Speakers
Mr Eastwood (supporting)
Miss Gee (supporting)
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ report.
Since the original application had been submitted a meeting had taken place with the
Applicant and officers, including the County Public Rights of Way Officer. As
submitted it looked like the proposed plan would obstruct a public right of way that
was part of the Weavers Way. The Applicant had agreed to amend the plan
accordingly pending information from Norfolk County Council showing the exact
location of the footpath.
Environmental Health had no objections to the application, which had the full support
of Cromer Town Council. Once amended plans had been received there would be a
full reconsultation including the Architectural Liaison Officer regarding crime and
disorder issues and readvertisement. There had been some objections from local
residents but the application was considered to be acceptable in principle. The
Planning Legal Manager advised that any Human Rights issues could be addressed
by conditions imposed.
Councillor K E Johnson, as local Member, said that he fully supported the principle of
the Skatepark. The Council also supported it and had awarded the project a Big
Society Grant. He expressed concern about the proposed site and its proximity to
sheltered housing at Meadow Close. He fully supported the use of the Skatepark by
responsible children but there had been complaints by residents about noise
problems arising from use of the Skatepark facilities in North Lodge Park. The
Council was exploring the setting up of a community trust to run North Lodge Park
and it was possible that the project could be sited there.
Development Committee
2
26 July 2012
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, as local Member, also supported the provision of a
Skatepark in Cromer but emphasised that it must be in the right location. There was
significant use of the public footpath and the area of the proposal was in daily use by
children playing informal sports and he was concerned about where they would play
games if this area was not available. He also had concerns about the proximity to
sheltered housing and proposed that the application should be deferred and that the
Skatepark should be moved to another site east of the ditch.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones said that, in her ward, there was a similar project
within close proximity of a sheltered housing scheme and other housing. No
significant complaints were received and the park was locked at sundown. She
understood the concerns of Councillor Cabbell Manners but supported the
application. She asked if it was possible to negotiate regarding a different site, rather
than deferring consideration. The Development Manager explained that the facility
could be designed in such a way as to be clear of the footpath, rather than resiting it.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard said that she was not aware of any anti-social behaviour
issues regarding the North Walsham Skatepark. She supported Councillor Cabbell
Manners’ proposal, feeling it would be a shame to lose the flat area for the children to
play on.
Councillor R Shepherd approved of the project but believed, because Cromer was a
large town and this was a sizable project, that it would be larger and therefore noisier
than North Walsham or Stalham. He supported the proposal to defer.
Councillor r B Smith, referring to the Skatepark at Mundesley, said that it was good
for the children, encouraging them to develop sporting and social skills. The use of
concrete was effective in reducing noise. He supported the officer’s recommendation.
In reply to a question from Councillor J A Wyatt the Senior Planning Officer said there
had been no comments from the Ramblers’ Association or the Wildlife Trust.
Councillor M J M Baker supported the Skatepark but expressed concern about what
he perceived as a lack of information about the application and how the project would
be financed. The Development Manager advised that the application had been made
by Mr Harrison Robertshaw on behalf of Cromer Skatepark, which he understood
was a collection of local people. The land was owned by Norfolk County Council and
the District Council had a lease arrangement. Finance of the project was not a
planning consideration. There were issues about whether the specific site was right
for the project but it was recreational use of recreational land in accordance with
policy.
The Development Manager asked Members to indicate if the principle of having the
skatepark on the Meadow was acceptable so that the project could be moved
forward.
He suggested that if Members wished to have it re-sited as discussed rather than
defer, Members may wish to give officers delegated power to approve the
application, subject to receipt of details proposing the re-siting (including being clear
of the footpath). This would involve full reconsultation and readvertisement and
provided there were no new grounds for objection this could speed up the process.
Having considered this suggestion, Councillor B Cabbell Manners withdrew his
proposal to defer and Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones withdrew her proposal to accept
the officer’s original recommendation.
Development Committee
3
26 July 2012
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED, by 10 votes to 2
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to relocation of the site to the east of the current
position, full reconsultation and readvertisement, no new grounds of
objection being received, and to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
(45)
FAKENHAM - PF/12/0342 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to D2 (amusement
arcade); 16 Norwich Street for Mr Aygun
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ report.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds spoke on behalf of the local Member, Councillor
S Ward. He did not consider the change of use in this location to be in keeping with
the core strategy and was concerned about the loss of retail space. He was also
concerned about the potentially detrimental effect to neighbouring businesses and
residential properties. The target group for this business was young people who
would be encouraged to spend money on gambling. There was also a potential for
anti-social behaviour and noise nuisance.
Councillor R Reynolds said that, although he was sympathetic to the provision of
more shops, there were already retail units in Fakenham which had been empty for a
significant period of time. This development would provide jobs but he asked that
restrictions should be imposed including preservation of the façade, type of lighting,
earlier closure of premises, noise control and management structure. He
acknowledged that town centres were changing because of the impact of out-of-town
retail outlets and online shopping.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, proposing the recommendation, said that town
centres needed to move with the times if they were to remain vibrant. Councillor R
Shepherd seconded the recommendation. He told the Committee that there had
been two large amusement arcades in Sheringham for many years and that they had
caused no problems.
Officers advised that conditions could only be imposed when they were relevant to
planning objectives it was not considered appropriate to require a management
arrangement condition. The amusement arcade would require a licence and any
noise issues would be addressed by Licensing and Environmental Health. Officers
would attempt to negotiate an earlier closing time with the Applicant but if this was
not possible the application would not be reported back to Committee. Any human
rights issues could be addressed by the conditions.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that the local Member who had called in
the application was not present to put his case.
Development Committee
4
26 July 2012
RESOLVED
That this application be approved, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including requiring all external doors and
windows to the building to be kept shut at all times during working
hours apart from when providing access for personnel and visitors and
deliveries and, if possible, opening hours to members of the public will
be restricted to between the hours of 9am and 8pm (subject to
negotiation with the Applicant) weekdays and Saturdays, and not at all
on Sundays and Bank or Public holidays.
(46)
HIGH KELLING - PF/12/0278 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection
of two-storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms G Elwood
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Carratu (supporting)
Mr Johnson, High Kelling Parish Council (objecting)
Mr Woodland (objecting)
The site was not in a Conservation Area but the Conservation Design and Landscape
Manager had been consulted and had raised no objections and the Landscape
Officer was satisfied with the details of the proposal as now submitted.
Six further letters of objection had been received, plus a letter of support and a letter
commenting on the scheme.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, said that the Parish Council objection had not
been unanimous and that the contemporary design created opposing views. The
development would be at the far end of the road and was tucked away.
Consideration should be given to screening if the application was approved.
Councillor P W High said that he did not consider the design to be out of keeping with
High Kelling and would support the application. Councillor B Smith seconded this,
considering the design innovative. Modern designs were refreshing and settled in
with their surroundings.
In response to a question about the colouring of the materials, the Senior Planning
Officer said that conditions would be imposed on the materials used, which would be
timber cladding. Landscaping conditions would also be imposed.
In reply to a question from the Chairman, the Applicant confirmed that she had
negotiated with her neighbour regarding planting a hedge, as an alternative to a
fence.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
5
26 July 2012
(47)
LANGHAM - PF/12/0721 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3-7, 10-12, 13
& 14 and variation of condition 3 to permit permanent residential occupation;
Former site of Langham Glass, North Street for Avada Country Homes
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Johnson (supporting)
Mr Hope, Langham Parish Council (objecting)
The Applicant was seeking permission to vary conditions 2 and 3 of planning
permission ref: PF/06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3 – 7, 10
– 12, 13 and 14 (including some re-siting) and to permit permanent residential
occupation of the units previously restricted to holiday accommodation. The Applicant
proposed to provide a commuted lump sum of £500,000 to pay for off-site affordable
housing provision to be used in the village of Langham.
The application had been referred to Committee at the request of the Head of
Planning and Building Control because the proposal was contrary to the
Development Plan.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objections to the
proposal.
A response had been received from Langham Parish Council expressing concerns
regarding affordable housing provision for hotel workers. The Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) indicated that this was not part of the proposal.
The offer was for the provision of affordable housing in the village of Langham. A
letter of objection had also recently been received from a former member of the
Parish Council who expressed general concern at the proposal.
The Sustainability Coordinator had suggested that a Code level 3 condition be
imposed on the cottages. The Applicant was in agreement.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) indicated that the application
posed a challenge to planning policy. The development was originally approved in
2006 but had not been completed because of the economic conditions. The
application approved in May 2012 would make the development just about
economically viable. If the variation was approved it would increase viability.
Councillor P Terrington, the local Member, noted the objection of the Parish Council
and the lack of support for affordable housing in the village. He also noted the
employment opportunities which the development would provide, but had concerns
about parking and the 20 mph limit. He was in favour of the affordable housing but
thought that it was essential that the planning and the site were appropriate for
Langham.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) said that there had always been
some issues regarding parking but Highways said they couldn’t support a refusal on
those grounds because the impact was not severe. The Applicant had submitted a
plan showing which spaces would be allocated to which property and this would be
the subject of a condition if the application were approved. The Highways Authority
had agreed to a 20 mph limit which would include a Traffic Regulation Order which
the Applicant would have to pay for.
Development Committee
6
26 July 2012
Councillor M J M Baker asked if officers were satisfied that the original aims of the
2006 application had not been eroded. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special
Cases) said that, in 2006, the Committee might not have been minded to approve the
variation. However the economic climate had worsened since then and banks were
reluctant to lend against restricted property. This posed a challenge to policy but the
alternative was that the development, and its economic benefits, would not be
delivered. Central government had instructed local authorities to be flexible.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones said that the site looked terrible and needed to be
developed. It was an appropriate location for second homes and would bring benefits
to local people. She proposed acceptance of the recommendation. Councillor P W
High seconded this, saying that it was time the matter was resolved and that the
likelihood was that the affordable housing would be built on a rural exception site.
Councillor P Terrington asked if the Committee could agree a change to Policy HO3
but he was advised that this would be a matter for the Planning Policy and Built
Heritage Working Party.
Regarding concerns about pressure on the village school, the Development Manager
said that there would be an additional consultation with County Planning. The
Developer had also been in discussion with the County Council and was due to meet
the school governors later that day.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED with 11 votes to 1
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no further objections from consultees,
including County Planning, and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions and the completion of an amended S106 obligation to
include the payment of £500,000 for the provision of affordable housing
and changes to phasing in respect of the delivery of the hotel.
(48)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ report.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Members and Chairman of the Town Council be invited to
attend:
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0418 - Erection of retail store and
associated parking; Polka Road Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia
Regional Co-Op Society and Lindum Group
Members agreed to include 2 other sites in Wells-next-the-Sea – a site for which the
Harbour Commissioners had applied for retrospective Planning Permission
(PF/12/0623) and the Ark Royal site in connection with application PF/12/0418. The
Town Council and local Members would be invited to attend the site inspections.
Development Committee
7
26 July 2012
(49)
APPEAL AGAINST NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 215 OF THE TOWN AND
COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: LAND ADJACENT TO HOLT ROAD,
WEYBOURNE
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officer’s report in respect of the outcome of a
recent Court case.
The Committee asked that the minutes should record thanks to Kate Steventon, the
Enforcement Officer, for a very positive result.
(50)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ report.
(51)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ report.
(52)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ report.
(53)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ report.
In response to a Member’s question, the Planning Legal Manager stated that the
Crisp Maltings legal challenge had not yet been listed for hearing in the High Court.
(54)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ report.
(55)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ report and the Officers updated the
Committee in respect of the appeals at Langham (where a partial award of costs had
been made against the District Council) and at Stiffkey where the Inspector had
approved some elements of the proposed development but rejected others.
The meeting closed at 12.17 pm.
Development Committee
8
26 July 2012