26 MARCH 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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
G R Jones – Gaunt Ward
P Terrington – Priory Ward
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Developments Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Miss S Tudhope – Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(218) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
All Members were present.
(219) MINUTES
The Minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 26 February 2015 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(220) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
1. Prior Notification of intention to change agricultural building to a dwelling,
reference PU/15/0223 (to expedite processing of this matter).
2. Update on Enforcement case at Cley-next-the-Sea
3. Update on Enforcement case at Sheringham
Items 2 and 3 would be taken under urgent exempt business. The reason for
urgency was to advise Members as required by the Council’s Delegation Scheme.
(221) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker, P W High, Miss B Palmer and J A Wyatt declared interests,
the details of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
26 March 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.
(222) BODHAM - PF/14/0925 - Erection of wind turbine with a hub height of 40m and
blade tip height of 66m with associated substation buildings, access tracks
and crane hardstanding; Land at Pond Farm, New Road for Genatec Limited
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
The Chairman stated that this application would be treated as if it were a major
application in terms of public speaking.
Public Speakers
Mr G Place (East & West Beckham Parish Council)
Mr Farnworth, Mrs B Powell, Mr S Grewcock and Dr I Shepherd (objecting)
The Major Projects Manager stated that the main issues related to the impact of the
proposed turbine on the wider landscape and on heritage assets, and whether the
benefits of the renewable energy supply outweighed the harm. He displayed maps
and photographs supplied by the applicants which indicated the impact of the
proposed mast on the surrounding area. He referred to the local and national
planning policies which were relevant to this case. He drew attention to the issues
relating to impact on heritage assets and the landscape.
The Major Projects Manager reported the further comments of the Environmental
Protection Officer in relation to the additional noise survey which had been submitted
by the applicant. The Environmental Protection Officer considered that it was
extremely unlikely that justifiable noise complaints would be received. In view of this,
the Major Projects Manager advised the Committee that noise disturbance should not
be cited as a reason for refusal.
The Major Projects Manager read out the overall summary of the report to the
Committee. He recommended refusal of this application in accordance with the
recommendation in the report.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes expressed concern that a precedent could be set for other
wind turbines in the locality. He referred to the landscape issues and heritage assets
surrounding the site. He proposed refusal as recommended.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was not opposed to wind turbines, but the
Development Committee
2
26 March 2015
proposed location was inappropriate. She expressed concern at the industrialisation
of the coast and the sea. She seconded the proposal.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she was not convinced of the need for the
proposed turbine. There was a large solar farm in the vicinity. She expressed
concern at the impact on tourism. She stated that the area was attractive to artists
who came to enjoy the open skies and she did not want to see this blighted by the
turbine. She referred to the comments of the Highway Authority with regard to
transporting the generator and considered that this issue had not been properly
thought through. She also referred to Norfolk Constabulary’s objections with regard
to the impact on communications.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the Cock Point mast was necessary for public
safety and communication. He considered that the proposed turbine was not
necessary and referred to the solar farm also owned by the applicant. He considered
that it would be very difficult to adequately screen the turbine.
Councillor R Reynolds referred to the landscape impacts of the proposal. He stated
that much of North Norfolk was AONB and those areas which were not within the
AONB were visible for many miles. The mast would be visible from a great distance.
He stated that North Norfolk was well served by some of the largest off-shore
windfarms and there was no need for the proposed turbine. The site was on top of
the Cromer Ridge and he considered that if this turbine were approved it could set a
precedent for 10 to 15 more. He supported refusal on grounds of non-compliance
with Polices EN2 and EN7.
The Chairman stated that precedent could not be included as a ground for refusal.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had lived in West Beckham for most of his life.
He stated that the turbine would not supply power to local homes in the event of a
power cut in the National Grid, contrary to public belief. He stated that a power
station did not need to produce as much power when wind power was being
generated, however it would run inefficiently below its capacity and use as much
power as the turbine was generating. He stated that North Norfolk was not an
industrial energy producing area and relied on tourism and agriculture. He
expressed surprise that tourism had not been mentioned. He did not consider that
there was a compelling argument to outweigh the damage to heritage assets. He
also expressed concern at the effect on wildlife.
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
(223) BRINTON - PF/14/1174 - Change of use of agricultural land to the keeping of
horses and retention and conversion of barn to stables and tack room;
Primrose Grove, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr L Kidd
Councillor J A Wyatt declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this application
as he knew the applicant. He stated that he would abstain from voting on this
application.
Development Committee
3
26 March 2015
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr M O’Kane (Brinton Parish Council)
Mr R Dubbins (objecting)
Mrs Kidd (supporting)
The Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had submitted further
comments. The Parish Council was unanimously opposed to this application and
requested refusal. However, if approved, the Parish Council had requested
conditions to restrict vehicular access to the existing access, restrictions on fencing
and to be consulted on a landscaping scheme and parking details.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Planning Officer explained the
difference between this application and the previous application. The previous
application related to the use of the unauthorised building for a commercial sawmill
and timber storage, which was refused and an enforcement notice served. The
enforcement notice was on hold pending the outcome of this application.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had attended meetings of
the Parish Council when this application was discussed and listened to the
discussion, and had also received many emails.
She found the Officer’s
recommendation difficult to justify and considered that the current proposal was not
acceptable. She could not understand why it was necessary to increase the height of
the building.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the views of the Parish Council. He considered
that the proposal was contrary to Policies EN2 (Protection and enhancement of
landscape and settlement character) and EN4 (Design). Policy CT5 (The transport
impact of new development) was also of concern as horseboxes would need to use
the small lane. He proposed refusal for those reasons.
Councillor P W High considered that the proposal would be a blot on the landscape.
He referred to the planning history of this site. He seconded the proposal.
The Development Manager stated that there was a complex history to the site, much
of it arising prior to the applicant’s ownership of the land. He explained the
enforcement issues and the reason for the Head of Planning’s recommendation of
approval. He appreciated Members’ concerns regarding the setting and appearance
of the building, and planning reasons had been given for refusal of the application.
However, the Highway Authority had not raised an objection to the proposal.
The Development Manager and Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with
regard to policy reasons for refusal.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he was happy to amend his proposal.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she could think of no better sight in the
countryside than horses in a field. She suggested that the applicant should be
requested to reconsider the height of the building in view of the concerns, and also
suggested a site inspection.
The Chairman stated that the majority of the Committee had already seen the site in
connection with another matter.
Development Committee
4
26 March 2015
Councillor B Smith stated that the horses were not a problem, but he did not see the
need for a structure of the size proposed to house them. He considered that the
proposed building would be too prominent in the landscape.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Officers advised that it
was not possible to make separate decisions regarding the keeping of horses and
the building.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes considered that this application was contrary to national
policies as well as local policies.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal is
contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy Policies EN2 and EN4.
Reasons: The siting, scale and appearance of the building would have
an adverse impact on visual amenities and the rural character of the
area.
(224) BRISTON - PF/15/0122 - Installation of 300KW of ground mounted solar PV
array; Lawn Farm, Edgefield Road for RenEnergy
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Manager reported that the Parish Council had no objection to this
application. He recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions
listed in the report and an additional lighting condition.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, declined to comment on this application.
In response to Members’ questions, the Development Manager explained that the
array could not be sited on the roof of the building as it already had panels on it.
Electricity generated by this scheme was for farm use and would not be going into
the National Grid.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Brettle and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report and an additional lighting details condition.
(225) HOLT - PO/14/1509 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of two
detached two-storey dwellings; 59 Hempstead Road for Mr P W High
Councillor P W High declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he was the
applicant and retired to the public seating area during consideration of this matter.
Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial, non-pecuniary interest as he
owned a dwelling close to the site.
Development Committee
5
26 March 2015
All Members declared that they knew the applicant.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the “Relevant Planning
History” listed in the report was incorrect and did not relate to this site.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the applicant had confirmed
that the comment by the objector that “the bungalow next door was built in
conjunction with this development …” was not correct. The applicant had not
provided any indication that he was willing to enter into a legal agreement with regard
to the visibility splay.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that this was a difficult application as other
dwellings along this road had access directly onto the highway.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee that the Chairman of the Town Council and
a representative of the Highway Authority be invited to attend.
(226) MUNDESLEY - PF/14/1505 - Erection of one and a half-storey dwelling (revised
access); Munbeck, 19 Marina Road for Mr Smith
Councillor B Smith stated that he had had telephone contact with Mr Smith, who was
not related to him.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Smith (supporting)
The Development Manager drew attention to the objection from Coastal
Management regarding the coastal erosion line and to concerns regarding the
relationship of the proposed dwelling to the existing dwelling.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, considered that the applicant had addressed
the majority of the concerns. He stated that the 100 year erosion line was not a hard
and fast rule nor was there any proof that erosion would happen. He stated that
Mundesley was well defended at the moment. The average life of a new dwelling
was 70-100 years. He considered that in the event that the roadway serving the site
was washed away, an alternative access could be made through Meadow Drive.
Fluvial flooding was unlikely to occur because of the existing drainage. He proposed
approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
The Planning Legal Manager assisted the proposer and seconder with the reasons
for approval. The Development Manager stated that it would be necessary to impose
conditions.
RESOLVED unanimously
Development Committee
6
26 March 2015
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reason: The site of the proposed dwelling was not within the coastal
erosion zone and although the proposed access was within the coastal
erosion zone, there was the possibility of an alternative access being
made available on the southern side of the site during the 100 year
epoch. The existing dwelling was in the ownership of the applicant who
did not consider there was an issue with residential amenity for that
dwelling. Those concerns could be overcome using conditions.
(227) NORTHREPPS - PF/14/1559 - Demolition of buildings and erection of forty
dwellings, refurbishment of existing dwelling, contouring site, alterations of
the existing access and off-site highway improvements; Former Cherryridge
Poultry Site, Church Street for Lovell Partnerships Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A McKay (Northrepps Parish Council)
Mrs N La Ronde (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader outlined the planning history of this site. He
presented plans of the proposed development and photographs showing the current
condition of the site. He stated that the report should have included reference to
Core Strategy Policy EN1 relating to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. He
referred to the Highway Authority’s objections. However, the outline permission had
set a precedent for housing development on the site and the main issue related to
the increase in the number of dwellings. The applicants had demonstrated that 41
dwellings were necessary to make the development viable. The application had
been made under the Housing Incentive Scheme to reduce the number of affordable
dwellings to 20% in return for the completion of 16 of the dwellings within 18 months
of the grant of planning permission.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the Highway Authority had declined a
request to send a representative to the meeting. However, it accepted that the
Officers had taken a balanced approach bearing in mind other matters.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to advertisement as a departure from the Development Plan,
discussions regarding materials, the Highway Authority having no objection to the
technical details, completion of a Section 106 Obligation covering affordable housing
provision, the programme for dwelling completions under the Housing Incentive
Scheme, contributions to libraries and visitor pressure mitigation, and subject to
conditions to include highway requirements including off-site works, drainage and
ecological mitigation.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Major Projects Team Leader stated
that the Countryside and Parks Manager did not wish to adopt the open space within
the development. The applicants would put in place arrangements for future
maintenance.
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the
local Member, was unable to attend. He reported her comments that the site was in
Development Committee
7
26 March 2015
the centre of the village abutting the Conservation Area on two sides, was originally
allocated as employment land, and was now derelict following the closure of the
turkey processing factory. She considered that the proposal ticked all the boxes,
would provide affordable housing and assist in the viability of the village nursery and
primary school. She disagreed strongly with the Highway Authority and referred to
the lorries which used the site when it was in commercial use. She fully supported
the application.
Councillor B Smith stated that he could remember the site when it was a turkey farm.
He could understand to a degree the Highway Authority’s concerns as the road was
very narrow. However, he considered that the proposal was acceptable given the
proposed off-site works. He considered that it would be good for the village. He
proposed approval of this application as recommended by the Major Projects Team
Leader.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle requested reassurance that there would be adequate car
parking provision within the site.
The Major Projects Team Leader stated that the layout met the Council’s car parking
standards in terms of the number of spaces per dwelling.
The Chairman considered that measures should be taken to prevent parking on the
open space.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle seconded Councillor Smith’s proposal.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to subject to advertisement as a departure from the
Development Plan, discussions regarding materials, the Highway
Authority having no objection to the technical details, completion of a
Section 106 Obligation covering affordable housing provision, the
programme for dwelling completion under the Housing Incentive
Scheme, contributions to libraries and visitor pressure mitigation, and
subject to conditions including highway requirements including off-site
works, drainage and ecological mitigation.
(228) SHERINGHAM - PF/14/0887 - Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six
residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel; Burlington
Hotel, The Esplanade for Mr S McDermott
All Members had been lobbied on this application.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)
Mr B Smith (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader presented plans and photographs of
models produced by the applicant’s agent to demonstrate the design amendments
since the deferral of this application on 27 November 2014.
Development Committee
8
26 March 2015
The Development Management Team Leader reported that Councillor B J Hannah
and Councillor R Smith, the local Members, were unable to attend the meeting but
supported the Officer’s recommendation to refuse this application. Sheringham
Town Council objected to the amended application.
The Development Management Team Leader stated whilst the principle of an
extension was acceptable, the current proposal was recommended for refusal.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposals were necessary to preserve the
existing building. He did not agree with the objections of English Heritage, and
referred to nearby developments which had already blighted the Conservation Area.
He considered that no heritage assets would be affected by the proposed
development. He considered that the proposal was an entirely acceptable form of
development given the parameters of the area. He proposed approval of the
application.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes seconded the proposal. He stated that Sheringham
needed good accommodation and was very dependent on the holiday industry. He
understood the need for the proposal and stated that it was necessary for the
proposed apartments to be of good quality. He referred to the location of the building
facing the North Sea.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that hotels like the Burlington were a dying breed and
needed to diversify and be supported wherever possible. He had no objection to the
proposal in principle, however he considered that the design was not in keeping with
the existing building.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported Councillor Shepherd’s comments regarding
the existing development along the Esplanade. Whilst she had reservations
regarding the design of the extension, the hotel was not currently thriving and if
refused, the process would have to start again. She supported the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the amended design was better than the original,
but he still had reservations with regard to the design of the windows in terms of their
balance with the existing building.
Councillor P W High considered that the design was as good as could be achieved.
Councillor B Smith considered that hybrid buildings were always controversial, but he
considered that the proposal worked, was interesting, and would be unique when
completed.
The Development Manager stated that the objections from English Heritage related
to the impact the demolition and new building would have on the Conservation Area.
He read from the comments of English Heritage and gave advice on weighing the
public benefits of the proposal with the harm to the heritage asset. He advised that a
link between the development and the improvement or preservation of the existing
building would need to be secured by a legal agreement. If the Committee were
minded to approve this application he requested delegated authority to deal with this
matter.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that Members who had spoken in favour of
the application had weighed the issues and advised the Committee with regard to the
reasons for approval.
Development Committee
9
26 March 2015
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED by 13 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to link the
development to works to secure the preservation of the Burlington Hotel
and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Reasons: The proposal would ensure the long term survival of the
iconic hotel building in the Conservation Area.
(229) THURSFORD - PF/15/0028 - Erection of single-storey extension to side/rear of
existing annex accommodation; Heath House, Brick Kiln Road for Mr GrahamWood
Councillors M J M Baker and Miss B Palmer declared a non-prejudicial, nonpecuniary interest as they were acquainted with the applicant.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Wood (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader recommended refusal of this
application as set out in the report.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that the annex was currently a
small bachelor home for the applicant’s son, who now wished to marry. All facilities
were shared with the main dwelling. No new entrance would be formed. She
proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(230) 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 9 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the Town Council’s
comments were awaited in respect of the amended proposals. She requested
delegated authority to approve this application in accordance with the
recommendation.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, stated that the Town Council were happy
with the amended design. He thanked the applicant and Officers for working
together to achieve an acceptable compromise, which he urged the Committee to
approve.
Development Committee
10
26 March 2015
Councillor R Reynolds confirmed that the Town Council had spoken in respect of the
revised plans at the site inspection. He proposed delegated approval of this
application, which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to no new grounds of objection being received following
reconsultation and readvertisement of the amended plans and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(231) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Member and representative of the Town/Parish Council be
invited to attend:
BLAKENEY – PF14/1566 - Demolition of dwelling, barns and
outbuildings and erection of two and a half storey dwelling; Three Owls
Farm, Saxlingham Road for Mrs Cargill
BLAKENEY – PF/15/0070 – Conversion of existing detached two storey
dwelling into 2 apartments, including construction of dormer window
and erection of 6 two storey dwellings and creation of new access;
Greencroft House, 22 Morston Road for London and Country Homes
(Blakeney) Ltd.
NORTH WALSHAM – PO/14/1668 – Erection of 4 single storey detached
dwellings and 4 detached two storey dwellings; land to rear of 45
Happisburgh Road for Ashford Commercial Ltd.
ROUGHTON – PO/14/0986 – Erection of thirty dwellings with open space
to provide sports pitch, wetland habitat, space for community facility,
car park and footpath link to village; land at Back Lane for Mr J T C
Mermagen
ROUGHTON - PO/15/0058 – Erection of 10 dwellings; Roughton Motor
Co, Chapel Road for Dove Jeffery Homes
ROUGHTON - PO/15/0108 - Erection of 19 affordable dwellings,
infrastructure and associated parking; land adjacent to Chapel Road for
Dove Jeffery Homes
(232) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(233) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
11
26 March 2015
(234) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(235) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that there would be a site visit for Blakeney –
PF14/1566 to explain the new proposals to members.
(236) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager advised members that he had received a request to
ensure that an Inspector was on site for Cromer PF/13/1521 while the leaves were
off the surrounding trees and there was a clearer view of the site.
(237) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the appeals relating to the sites at
Hempstead (PF/12/0562) and Mundesley (PF/14/0626) had been allowed. The
appeal relating to the site at Weybourne (PF/14/0450) had been dismissed.
(238) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The following items of business were considered as items of urgency under Section
100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
(239) ANTINGHAM – PU/15/0223 - Prior notification of intention to change of use of
agricultural building to dwelling (C3); Barn at Wilds Farm Barn, Pond Road for
A W Ditch & Son
The Development Manager reported that a prior notification had been submitted in
respect of the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling. Prior
notifications were subject to a strict time limit for determination which in this case
would expire prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Committee.
The Development Manager explained the criteria which had to be met to qualify for
permitted development. The proposed development met these criteria. The
application was made under both parts of the legislation, i.e. for the use and details
of the proposed development. He displayed elevations and a site plan, explained
the proposed layout and the relationship to the existing building.
Six letters of objection had been received on a number of grounds, which the
Development Manager outlined.
Development Committee
12
26 March 2015
He also indicated what matters the Council could take into consideration in
determining whether the proposals were acceptable.
The proposals were considered to be acceptable, subject to conditions and the
Development Manager recommended that prior approval be granted.
Public Speakers
Mr T Roberts (objecting)
Mr M Ditch (supporting)
The Development Manager informed the Committee that in his view there was
sufficient detail provided for this to be a valid application under the permitted
development criteria.
Councillor G Jones, the local Member, expressed concerns about the issue of the
right of way. He said that the objector had purchased the easement when he bought
the farm and that any development of the property could not take place without
unlawful infringement of the objector’s right of way. He said that he was concerned
that a solicitor’s letter had not been included with the papers and he then referred to
guidance for the conversion of traditional farm buildings which centred around the
preservation of character and the setting.
Councillor G Jones considered that if a curtilage infringed someone’s rights then it
could not be done and it was therefore impractical and undesirable to approve the
application. He explained that it was impractical due to the location and siting and
undesirable because it was harmful and objectionable. He suggested that the
Committee had two options before them: to refuse the application and allow the
applicant to appeal or the allow it and face the possibility of a legal challenge.
The Development Manager responded to Councillor Jones’ reference to a solicitor’s
letter. He said that there were two and they were included as part of the six letters of
objection. He then went onto to outline the content of the letters in more detail, the
main points being references to the conveyance plan, rights of way and the septic
tank, all issues that had already been discussed and considered. Councillor Jones
replied that the letters indicated that the whole farm had a right of way. The
Development Manager reiterated that this was not an issue for consideration by the
Committee. He also explained that permitted development regulations allowed quite
a lot of alterations to the buildings.
The Planning Legal Manager said that there had been a lot of discussion about rights
of way. He said that there were opposing views but that this was an issue for the
Courts or the Lands Tribunal to decide. It was not a matter for the Development
Committee to rule upon but was a private, civil matter.
Councillor R Reynolds said that the position of the Committee had been made clear.
Councillor Mrs A Sweeney sought clarification on the siting of the farmhouse on the
map.
Councillor R Shepherd said that if the only objection was regarding rights of way that
he could not see a reason for refusing the application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
Development Committee
13
26 March 2015
RESOLVED unanimously
That prior approval be granted subject to appropriate conditions.
(240) 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 Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to
the Act.
(241) ENFORCEMENT CASES AT CLEY AND SHERINGHAM
The Development Manager updated the Committee on two enforcement cases where
the Council was looking to take legal action at Cley and Sheringham.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.25 pm, resumed at 1.45 pm and closed at 2.26
pm.
Development Committee
14
26 March 2015