26 SEPTEMBER 2013
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
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L 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 C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
P Williams – substitute for J A Wyatt
Mr G R Jones (Gaunt Ward)
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds (observer)
T FitzPatrick (observer)
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr J Williams – Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(89)
HEAD OF PLANNING
The Chairman welcomed Mrs Nicola Baker, who had recently been appointed as
Head of Planning, to the meeting.
(90)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J A Wyatt. There was one
substitute Member in attendance.
(91)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 September 2013 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(92)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Development Manager stated that there was one item of urgent business which
he wished to bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at
Cromer, reference PF/13/0247. The reason for urgency was to consider further
objections to an application which the Head of Planning had been authorised to
approve at a previous meeting.
Development Committee
1
5 September 2013
(93)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor G R Jones 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.
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.
(94)
BLAKENEY - PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations to
single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion of
dormer windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing; Quay
Cottage, The Quay for Mr & Mrs Bertram
The Committee considered paragraph 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Horobin (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter of objection had been
received from a local resident raising similar concerns to those contained in the
report.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, considered that there was merit in the
application. However, she did not support the proposal given its location within the
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Blakeney Conservation Area, its position on
The Quay and in the street scene. She referred to the local opposition and Parish
Council’s objections. She proposed refusal of this application
Councillor P W High stated that Blakeney was a unique and special place which
attracted many people. There was no uniformity in terms of its architecture or
rooflines and he did not consider that the proposal would spoil The Quay. However,
he did not favour the proposed cedar cladding. He proposed approval of this
application subject to removal of the cladding.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the two-storey extension was out of keeping
with the nearby listed buildings. He was not in favour of the cedar cladding or the
splay bay. He seconded refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded Councillor High’s proposal to approve this
application subject to removal of the cladding.
Development Committee
2
5 September 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern that the plain glazing appeared to
be out of context.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was modern twist to the building and
breaking up the appearance of the windows would not be in keeping with the design.
In response to a further question regarding tinting of the glass, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the windows were set back and north facing so they would not
reflect the sun. It might be possible to use non-reflective glass.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that Councillor High’s proposal
was a direct negative of the first proposal and therefore the proposal for refusal
should be taken first.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 6
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed twostorey extension, due to its scale, massing and overall appearance
would not be compatible with the existing building and would fail to
preserve or enhance the setting of listed buildings, the street scene and
character of the area.
(95)
EDGEFIELD - PF/13/0872 - Erection of replacement garage with ground and
first floor studio/annexe; Vine Cottage, The Green for Mr J Goldney
The Committee considered paragraph 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Goldney (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Landscape Officer had no objection
subject to conditions including replacement of the existing apple tree if it were to be
removed.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that he had attended the
Parish Council meeting when this matter was discussed and heard the objections
raised. He referred to previous unsuccessful applications for a dwelling on the site.
He expressed concern regarding additional traffic and highway safety issues. He
referred to the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the size of the proposal.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the Authority had given permission for separate
dwellings on smaller plots than the application site. This application was for a linked
building which could not be sold as a separate dwelling. He considered that the
increase in traffic would be very small. He proposed approval of this application as
recommended.
Councillor P Williams considered that the proposed annexe was no larger than a
double garage. He considered that there could be many vehicle movements from the
existing three-bedroomed house and that additional traffic generated by this proposal
was not relevant. He seconded the proposal.
Development Committee
3
5 September 2013
Councillor R Reynolds considered that this proposal was for a cottage with a garage.
He referred to the policy issues outlined in the report.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that decisions by the Planning Inspectorate
indicated a clear view that an annexe could have its own facilities. He concurred with
the Officer’s recommendation subject to conditions which linked the annexe to the
main dwelling.
The Development Manager referred to previous applications for separate dwellings
which had been refused primarily on highway grounds. In this case, the Highway
Authority had taken a different view as the additional traffic generated by the annexe
would be limited.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the annexe would be of a similar height to the original dwelling.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to the comments of the Highway Authority
regarding visibility.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1
That this application be approved
recommendation of the Head of Planning.
(96)
in
accordance
with
the
GIMINGHAM - PF/13/0898 - Removal of Condition 5 of planning permission
reference: 10/0203 to remove requirement for passing bay; Oystercatchers
adjacent Treeside, School Lane for Mr Colbourne
The Committee considered paragraph 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Gotts (Gimingham Parish Council)
Mrs Colbourne (supporting)
The Development Manager referred to a comment by the Parish Council spokesman
and stated that the passing bay was subject to a condition and not a Section 106
Obligation.
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member, considered that there was no good reason
to remove the condition. The only reason appeared to be cost. He considered that
the passing bay was essential and stated he had supported the original application
for the dwelling on this basis. He expressed concern that the Highway Officer had
been unwilling to accept a request for a meeting with him as local Member to discuss
the matter.
Councillor B Smith referred to concerns regarding the stability of the bank. He
considered that the bank was stable and held together by trees and bushes, although
concrete reinforcement would be needed. The road had been a problem for many
years and he supported the Parish Council’s view that a passing bay was necessary.
He proposed refusal of this application. This was seconded by Councillor P W High.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the bank was attractive and concrete would detract
from its appearance. The Highway Authority had no objection to the removal of the
condition and he supported the recommendation for approval.
Development Committee
4
5 September 2013
In answer to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Development Control Officer
(Highways) confirmed that there was no record of accidents at this location.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor P W High that this
application be refused on grounds that removal of the condition would lead to
conditions detrimental to highway safety and the passing bay should therefore be
provided.
On being put to the vote, 6 Members voted in favour and 6 against. On the casting
vote of the Chairman, the proposition was declared lost.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That this application be approved.
(97)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0207 - Erection of first floor extension, including
raising height of roof, one and a half storey rear extension, single-storey front
extension and single-storey side/rear extension; 6 Thursford Road for Mrs
Amos
The Committee considered paragraph 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Amos (supporting)
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, considered that the extension was very
large, but having been on site and viewed the plans, she supported the Officer’s
recommendation. She asked what conditions would be imposed on the permission.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that conditions would be a standard time limit
condition, a materials condition, and removal of permitted development rights for
additional first floor windows.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(98)
TRUNCH - PF/13/0600 - Conversion of former commercial garage to one
dwelling; Trunch Garage, 5 Chapel Road for Trunch Garage
Councillor G R Jones (local Member) declared a personal interest in this application
as he was a customer of Trunch Garage.
The Committee considered paragraph 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating the correct front elevation. She requested delegated authority to approve
this application subject to no new objections being received following
readvertisement of this application as a departure from Development Plan policy and
subject to the conditions contained in the report.
Development Committee
5
5 September 2013
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member, had no comment to make on this
application.
Councillor B Smith considered that it would be of benefit to close the existing garage
and convert it to a dwelling as it would tidy the street scene and give local residents
some peace and quiet. He proposed delegated approval of this application as
recommended, which was seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application as
amended subject to no new objections being received following
readvertisement of this application as a departure from Development
Plan policy and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in
respect of removal of permitted development rights for alterations and
extensions and insertion of new windows/openings/rooflights, site
investigation into contaminants, implementation of measures identified
in the Sustainable Construction Checklist and historic building
recording.
(99)
TRUNCH - PF/13/0602 - Demolition of workshop/stores and erection of B2
(vehicle repair/MOT) workshop; Builder's Yard, Bradfield Road for Trunch
Garage
The Committee considered paragraph 6 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer indicated on a plan the location of an objector’s property,
known as Grainog, which was approximately 37 metres from its closest part to the
gates of the application site.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that four further letters of support and three
further letters of objection had been received in respect of the amended plan, which
reiterated previous objections. She read to the Committee the further comments of
the Planning Policy Manager regarding compliance with policy and requesting a
condition to require permanent closure of the existing garage prior to the
commencement of use of the replacement garage. Environmental Health had
confirmed they were satisfied with the conditions already specified and any noise or
odour issues could be dealt with under Environmental Health legislation.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to no new grounds of objection following readvertisement as a departure from
Development Plan policy, imposition of appropriate conditions as contained in the
report, a condition to require hedging to be retained and a condition or legal
agreement to require the existing garage to be closed prior to the use of the
replacement workshop.
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member, stated that it was difficult for people living
close to the site to accept the proposal. However, if the existing garage was causing
problems it would be of benefit to the whole village. He requested parking
restrictions to ensure that no cars could be left outside the premises and that the
existing hedge line be retained. He supported the application.
Councillor P Williams considered that the existing buildings on the site did not serve
any useful purpose and it would be beneficial to tidy the site. He considered that an
off-road parking area should be created outside the site by moving the fence back to
enable customers to drop their cars off outside opening hours if necessary.
Development Committee
6
5 September 2013
The Development Manager stated that there would be a significant number of car
parking spaces on the site. The Highway Authority had expressed concerns
regarding parking in the area generally.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes supported the local Member. He considered that it was
important that cars were not left outside the site.
Members expressed concerns regarding the timing of the cessation of the existing
use and the commencement of work on the replacement facility.
The Development Manager suggested that a time limit be placed on the permission
to require the cessation of the existing garage use within a specified time of the
bringing into use of the replacement garage.
Councillor M J M Baker suggested that the new site should not be commercially
occupied until the existing site has ceased trading. He requested a condition to
require the fence to be painted in a more recessive colour. He proposed delegated
approval subject to these additional conditions, which was seconded by Councillor B
Smith.
Councillor R Reynolds suggested that the hedging could be encouraged to cover
some of the fencing and cladding attached to the gates for additional security.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that noise would not be a problem as the garage
would not have a body shop. He suggested internal cladding to reduce noise.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this
application as amended subject to no new grounds of objection
following readvertisement as a departure from Development Plan
policy, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including upgrading of vehicular access and constructed in
accordance with industrial access construction specification, visibility
splay provided 2.4m x 25m, on site car parking and turning areas, no car
sales, hours of operation, external lighting, ventilation and extraction
details to be agreed, external colour finish to cladding to be agreed,
negotiations in respect of improvements to the boundary fence,
retention of hedgerows to boundaries of the site and a condition or legal
agreement to tie the commencement of the commercial operation of the
new facility to the cessation of the existing garage.
(100) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that
the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Councils be invited to
attend:
BODHAM – PF/13/0960 – Installation of 3.6mw solar development for
Genatec Limited
Development Committee
7
5 September 2013
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/13/0866 – Erection of 176 dwellings with
access, open space and associated works and formation of station car
park and outline application for employment development; land at
Norwich Road for Hopkins Homes
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/13/0971 - Formation of 116 touring pitches
and erection of two amenity blocks for Pinewoods Holiday Park
(101) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(102) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(103) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(104) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Officers updated the Committee on progress of a number of cases which were the
subject of appeals.
(105) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(106) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(107) CROMER - PF/13/0247 - Erection of 145 dwellings with access road, public
open space and associated works; Land west of Roughton Road for Norfolk
Homes Ltd
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reminded the Committee that the
Head of Planning had been authorised to approve this application at the
meeting on 5 September 2013 subject to no new grounds of objection following
readvertisement as a departure, the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and
(subject to any minor revisions) the imposition of the conditions listed in the report.
Subsequent to that decision, six further objections had been received which
reiterated the issues previously raised and a number of new issues.
Concerns had been raised regarding the neighbouring zoo in terms of its
attractiveness as a visitor attraction and the welfare of the animals, lack of renewable
energy proposals, impact on wildlife on the site and bats in particular, increase in
traffic on Metton Road, impact on school capacity and impact on the capacity of the
local doctor’s surgery.
Development Committee
8
5 September 2013
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that none of the issues raised were
considered sufficient to change the original recommendation to approve this
application. Both local Members had been consulted and neither had made any
comments. He recommended that the Committee reiterate its previous decision.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that no new issues had been raised with the
exception of the concerns regarding the zoo. He proposed that the previous decision
be confirmed, which was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application,
subject to, the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and (subject to
any minor revisions) the imposition of the conditions listed in the
report.
(108) PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT – NEIGHBOUR CONSULTATION SCHEME
In response to a request by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, it was agreed that the
Development Manager would provide six-monthly updates in respect of the number
of extensions which had been dealt with under the new neighbour consultation
scheme.
The meeting closed at 1.40 pm
Development Committee
9
5 September 2013