26 NOVEMBER 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
P High
N Pearce
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
Mr V FitzPatrick – Priory Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
J Rest – observer
Mrs M Prior - observer
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
Mr J Shaw – Senior Engineer, NCC Highways Development Control
Mr D Mortimer - Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
(147) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Ward. One substitute
Member attended the meeting as shown above.
(148) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
(149) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
151
Councillor:
S Hester
Development Committee
Interest
Neighbour and had previously worked for the
applicant
1
26 November 2015
(150) S106 AGREEMENTS - UPLIFT CLAUSES
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which brought to its
attention recent appeal decisions relating to the use of uplift clauses (sometimes also
known as “clawback” clauses) within Section 106 agreements, reviewed the use of
such clauses, and proposed amendments to the Council’s standard uplift clauses.
The Head of Planning and Planning Legal Manager answered Members’ questions:







Existing agreements were still sound in terms of uplift clauses and would not
be impacted by the changes.
The proposals were intended to speed up delivery.
The Council had a legitimate right to require faster implementation. Uplift
clauses could be used if developments took longer.
Developers could avoid the uncertainty of uplift clauses by building quickly.
Most developments would not be subject to uplift clauses.
The proposals would only apply to undetermined applications.
There would be no change in the way viability was assessed.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
1. That the changes to the use of uplift clauses as outlined in the report be
approved and applied to all undetermined applications as at 26
November 2015 and for all future planning applications.
2. That scheme viability will only be assessed at outline stage when the
proposed development includes significant Section 106 Agreement
requirements and/or exceptional development costs as determined by
the Council.
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.
Development Committee
2
26 November 2015
(151) HINDRINGHAM - PF/15/1191 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling (resubmission PF/14/1499); Land adjacent Lion House, 6 The Street for Mr & Mrs
P Iles
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Iles (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader emphasised the policy issues relating
to this application. He recommended refusal in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
Councillor V FitzPatrick, a local Member, stated that Hindringham was well
connected with nearby villages and was on a bus route. Whilst the proposal was
technically in breach of policy, the site was in between two existing dwellings and he
considered that the proposed dwelling was a well-proportioned, well-designed family
home which was needed in the village. He requested that the Committee approve
this application.
Councillor S Hester, a local Member, having declared an interest in this application,
spoke but did not vote on this application. He referred to the policy issues and stated
that the proposal was infill development in a residential area. He considered that it
would result in little impact on traffic or the sewerage system. He urged Members to
consider if the policy reflected the setting of the dwelling.
The Development Manager explained the rationale which had been used for
identifying settlements in the Core Strategy. Many other settlements were covered
by the Countryside policy area and applications for dwellings in those settlements
had been consistently refused as they were unsustainable. A previous application for
a dwelling on this site had been refused in March 2015. He advised the Committee
to refuse this application as recommended. It would be open to the applicant to test
the decision on appeal.
In response to a question by Councillor P Rice, the Development Manager explained
that other development in the village had been approved under the previous Local
Plan. The Authority was in the process of reviewing its Core Strategy, but this was
not a matter for this Committee to consider. He was unaware of the planning history
of containers on the application site.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to proposals in the Countryside which had been
refused by the Committee. The Committee had to be consistent and the current
application was clearly contrary to policy. However, this was a difficult application.
Councillor P W High stated that he appreciated the views which had been expressed
but the Committee had to stand by current policy. He proposed refusal of this
application, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that, whilst she liked the proposal, this
was not the forum in which to change policy.
Councillor N Coppack considered that it would be common sense to allow this
development.
Development Committee
3
26 November 2015
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones and Councillor B Smith referred to the need to adhere
to policy and expressed concerns regarding precedent if this application were
approved.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
Councillor S Hester abstained from voting on this application.
(152) WALCOTT - PF/15/0503 - Retention of single-storey replacement dwelling; The
Glen, Helena Road for Mr & Mrs Robinson
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Development Management Team Leader emphasised the flood risk issues
relating to this application.
Councillor N Smith considered that there was no more danger to the occupants of the
replacement dwelling than there had been previously.
The Development Manager explained that replacement dwellings were expected to
be designed to minimise risk to life and limb from flooding.
Councillor B Smith expressed concern that this building was in the flood zone and
from photographs displayed the original building had been badly damaged by
flooding. He considered that the barrier was insufficient and the building as
constructed would not resist flooding and serious inundation by the sea. He
proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the land sloped in a southerly direction which
would make matters worse. He seconded the proposal, and with the proposer’s
agreement added that enforcement action should be taken.
Several Members spoke in support of refusal of this application. Councillor P W High
asked if it was possible to negotiate improvements to the barrier as an alternative to
enforcement action.
The Development Management Team Leader stated that the issue was not just with
the barrier but the building itself which could not withstand pressure from an
overtopping event.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
1.
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning.
2.
That the Head of Planning be authorised to commence enforcement
action for the building to be removed from the site within 12 months
from the effective date of the Notice, under Section 172 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.
Development Committee
4
26 November 2015
(153) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/0886 - Variation of conditions 3 & 18 of
planning permission ref: 11/0509 to permit retention of revised projecting
windows to east elevation; Quayside Court, The Quay for T Gill and Son
(Norwich) Ltd
All Members had received correspondence in respect of this application.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Arguile (Wells Town Council)
Mr A Grey (objecting)
Mr D Reeve (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader read to the Committee a letter which
had been sent to the Chief Executive from Solicitors acting for the freeholders of the
completed development, expressing concerns regarding delays in dealing with the
application. He also read to the Committee a letter which had been sent to
Councillor V FitzPatrick by Solicitors acting for a previous director of Novus Homes
expressing concern in respect of a number of inaccuracies which had not been
verified with his client.
The Development Management Team Leader summarised the points raised in two
letters of support which had been received from owners of two of the flats in
Quayside Court. An email had been received from the Management Company
explaining that damage was caused to the projecting window by a lorry reversing into
the opening to turn round and not by a vehicle entering Croft Yard. There had been
no problems when residents moved in.
The Development Management Team Leader drew attention to a typographical error
on page 16 of the report, which should have read .710 m instead of mm. He outlined
the main points in the report.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that measurements had been
rechecked on site. The windows were set slightly higher above Croft Yard than
approved, not lower, and the projection on the east elevation was approximately
30mm more than approved. The east elevation did not encroach onto Croft Yard and
the wall to wall width of Croft Yard had not been reduced. He stated that this
application could have been dealt with as a non-material amendment. The intention
of condition 4 had been to prevent any additions at a later date to the front elevation
only. He displayed photographs which had been shown at the previous meeting and
additional photographs of lorries using Croft Yard. He requested delegated authority
to approve this application.
Councillor V FitzPatrick, a local Member, expressed concerns that the Committee
was being asked to consider facts of which they had no prior knowledge. He referred
to the photographs of a removal lorry using Croft Yard, which appeared to rebut a
statement made at the time of the original application that it was unlikely that vehicles
would strike the building. He referred to the representations which had been read by
the Development Management Team Leader. He expressed concern at the
confusion regarding the position of the building and the windows. He considered that
this application should be refused on highway safety grounds given the possibility of
a vehicle striking a bay window and endangering members of the public and
residents of the flats, and on residential amenity grounds as vehicles manoeuvring in
or out of Croft Yard would prevent people accessing their properties in The Granary,
Development Committee
5
26 November 2015
Croft Yard or Quayside Court for several minutes. He stated that Croft Yard was a
public highway and condition 4 stated that no structures should overhang the
highway.
Councillor S Hester, a local Member, considered that in this instance the additional
projection was not a minor non-material amendment as 30mm could make a great
deal of difference to large vehicles in a tight situation. He referred to the Council’s
duty of care and expressed concern that there was a real danger that someone could
be hit by falling debris. He requested that the Committee refuse this application and
hoped that the developer would reduce the projection considerably.
The Senior Engineer (NCC Highways) explained that there were no public vehicular
rights of way whatsoever over Croft Yard. There was a public right of way on foot
only. However, it was a public highway with the same status as other footpaths. The
Highway Authority’s remit was to consider highway rights and safety of pedestrians
using the road. He stated that the photographs of the delivery vehicle and refuse
vehicle demonstrated that they could get past the projecting window. The Highway
Authority was unable to take any action.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that lorries could enter and exit Croft Yard, which was
one of a number of small yards in Wells. He referred to the civil nature of the traffic
issues. He referred to Government guidance and stated that the windows as built
had not resulted in a substantial difference from the previous approval. He proposed
delegated approval of this application in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked if any complaints had been received that refuse
lorries were unable to access the yard. The Development Management Team
Leader stated that he could not verify this.
Councillor N Smith stated that drivers of large vehicles would be unable to see the
projection in their mirrors when reversing into the yard. He considered that there
would be no danger to drivers but anybody underneath the window could be
endangered.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Development
Management Team Leader stated that the emergency services had raised no
objections when the development was built.
Councillor P W High seconded the proposal for delegated approval.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the history of this site. He stated that the
Committee’s role was to determine the planning application in accordance with the
Development Plan unless other material considerations indicated otherwise. He
referred to issues which had been raised which were not material considerations. He
advised the Committee that, in his opinion, there were no defensible reasons on
which this application could be refused.
Councillor B Smith considered that the colour of the windows was an issue and
asked if anything could be done to make them more visible. The Chairman
suggested that chevrons could be applied to the building.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application in
accordance with her recommendation.
Development Committee
6
26 November 2015
(154) WIVETON - PF/15/1208 - Installation of 30 metre high shared
telecommunications base station tower with six antennas and associated
ground-based equipment cabinets; Friary Farm Caravan Park, Cley Road,
Blakeney for Arqiva
This application had been withdrawn.
(155) APPEAL DECISIONS - RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 6 of the Officers’ report.
At the request of Members, the Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on
an appeal which had been lodged against the refusal of application PF/14/0925
(Bodham wind turbine).
He also stated that the legal challenge by objectors against the Inspector’s decision to
approve planning application PF/13/1521 (Cromer Crematorium) had been struck out
by the Court. It was understood that the objectors’ representative had put forward
some possible changes to the approved scheme but the District Council is not a party
to any negotiations.
(156) 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 paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(157) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered paragraph 7 of the Officers’ exempt reports which
updated the situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding
enforcement cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30
September 2015.
RESOLVED
That the report and annexed Schedules of cases be noted and that
those cases which have been resolved be removed from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 12.05 pm.
CHAIRMAN
14 January 2016
Development Committee
7
26 November 2015