27 NOVEMBER 2014 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

27 NOVEMBER 2014

Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,

Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:

Councillors

Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)

R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)

Mrs A R Green

Mrs P Grove-Jones

P W High

Miss B Palmer

J H Perry-Warnes

Mr N Smith - substitute for Mrs L M Brettle

Officers

R Shepherd

B Smith

Mrs A Sweeney

Mrs V Uprichard

J A Wyatt

Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager

Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager

Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager

Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer

Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer

Mrs M Moore – Senior Planning Officer

(131) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and Mrs L M

Brettle. One substitute Member attended the meeting as shown above.

(132) MINUTES

The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 30 October 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(133) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

There were no items of urgent business.

(134) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Miss B Palmer, R Reynolds, R Shepherd, N Smith and Mrs A C Sweeney declared interests, 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.

Development Committee 1 27 November 2014

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.

(135) COASTAL CONCORDAT

The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which explained the principles behind the Concordat, and the implications should an application be received that is required to be considered under the Concordat, with the Council as

Local Planning Authority acting as the ‘Lead Authority’.

The Development Manager reported that Councillor P Terrington had requested that the Concordat be expanded to include the intertidal zone. He therefore amended the first paragraph of the report to read “The Concordat encompasses developments that are located within the District below Mean High Water Spring Tide (e.g. sea defences, harbour developments), or within the intertidal zone , or have a direct link to the marine environment (e.g. offshore cable routes).”

The Chairman asked if the Council’s brief would be limited by the amendment. The

Development Manager stated that it would broaden the Council’s brief.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and

RESOLVED

1. That the approach set out in the Coastal Concordat be supported and adopted.

2. That Full Council be recommended to amend the Constitution and

Scheme of Delegation to enable Development Committee to determine controversial applications for Coastal Protection Consent, in circumstances where the Council as Local Planning Authority is acting as the lead authority under the Coastal Concordat and the Head of

Service declines to use their delegated authority.

3. That Members be briefed in respect of the key coastal management issues.

(136) BLAKENEY - PF/14/0954 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey extensions to link dwelling and annexe , single storey extension to annexe and erection of boat store to front elevation of annexe; 50 High Street for Mr & Mrs M Archer

The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that following the site visit, amended plans had been received which indicated a reduction in roof height by 350mm.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority had removed its objection on the basis that the outbuilding had been used as separate accommodation over a period of time. He recommended approval of this application as amended.


Councillor R Reynolds reported that Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, now supported the application as the Highway Authority had withdrawn its objection.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application, as amended, be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

(137) BODHAM - PF/14/1096 - Change of use of post office/convenience store (A1) to residential accommodation to existing dwelling; Bodham Post Office, The

Street for Ms Campbell

Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney declared a non-prejudicial interest as she had used the shop for many years.


Public Speaker

Mrs Campbell (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a tweet had been received requesting that the application be deferred to enable the Parish Council to consider a community initiative to retain the shop.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the accounts demonstrated that the business was not viable and therefore the application was recommended for approval.

Councillor J Perry-Warnes, the local Member, stated that there had been a time when the shop was thriving, but it was unfortunate that the present owners had put everything into the business and could not make a profit. He stated that the pub had recently been taken over and the new landlord had turned the business around. He referred to other community shops in North Norfolk. He considered that deferral would allow the village to mount a campaign to run the shop. He proposed deferral of this application.

Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney seconded deferral of this application. She stated that a meeting was due to be held in January to discuss the possibility of a community shop and she considered that the matter should be deferred until after the meeting had taken place. She was concerned at comments regarding the appropriateness of the price and considered that this should also be investigated.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had in the past been involved in the Federation of

Small Businesses and had spoken to many people in village shops. Whilst they were the hub of the community, in many cases people were using their savings to keep the business afloat. As an amendment, he proposed approval of this application in accordance with the recommendation.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that Bodham was a vibrant village and more houses were to be built there. There was a need to keep the village going and he considered that everything should be done to keep the shop open. He supported deferral of this application.


Councillor B Smith stated that the applicants were unable to draw a wage from the business and whilst nobody wanted to see it closed, the business could not keep going if it was not viable. He asked if the business had been advertised.

The Development Manager explained that it had been advertised nationally for more than 12 months.

Councillor B Smith seconded the amendment for approval of this application.

Councillor R Reynolds considered that the situation was unfortunate but it was necessary to question how the shop could be financed and how it could be made viable. He questioned whether a business plan had been investigated by the community.

Councillor P W High stated that he knew the village well and sometimes used the shop. It had become very quiet. He considered that it was more difficult now that

Tesco and Lidl had opened.

The amendment for approval of this application, proposed by Councillor N Smith and seconded by Councillor B Smith, was put to the vote and declared carried by 8 votes to 5. On being put as the substantive proposition it was

RESOLVED by 8 votes to 5

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

(138) CROMER - PF/14/1296 - Installation of PV solar panels; Merchants Place, 16

Church Street for Cromer Past Present Future Ltd

Councillor N Smith declared an interest as he used the facilities at Merchants Place on occasions and would abstain from voting.


Public Speaker

Mr Leversedge (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local

Member, had no objection to this application.

Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, stated that Merchants Place was a very important resource for Cromer. He considered that the height of the building and positioning of the panels would not cause a problem. He considered that the benefits outweighed the objections.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to Stalham where the Committee had supported the installation of solar panels in a Conservation Area. She had great admiration for the work done at Merchants Place and considered that the solar panels would make little difference to the appearance of the building. She proposed approval of this application.

Councillor B Smith also referred to Stalham and added that in that case the building had been listed. He considered that the building subject to the current application was less prominent than the building in Stalham. He seconded the proposal.


Councillor R Shepherd supported this application. He stated that the panels would not be part of the structure and would not harm the building.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she had worked in the building on a voluntary basis. She stated that the business operated on a tight budget. She had objected to the Stalham proposal but now did not even notice the panels and most people had accepted them. She supported this application.

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That this application be approved.

Reason: The Committee considered that the visual impact would be limited and the benefits of the proposal outweighed the disbenefits.

(139) FAKENHAM - PO/14/1108 - Erection of 2 two-storey detached dwellings and garages, side/front extensions to existing single-storey dwelling and conversion of existing outbuilding to double garage; 11 Hall Staithe for Mr N

Bunkle

Councillor R Reynolds and Councillor Miss B Palmer declared a non-prejudicial interest as they were acquainted with a neighbour.


Public Speaker

Mr Bunkle (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer referred to the concerns raised by the neighbour and the comments of the Conservation and Design Team and English Heritage. He recommended approval of this application.

Councillor R Reynolds referred to concerns raised regarding highway safety and stated that traffic was slow at the junction.

It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Miss B Palmer and


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

(140) HOLT - PF/14/1373 - Demolition of existing timber merchant buildings and erection of A1 (retail) food store, associated access, car parking and landscaping; Thaxters Portable Buildings, Old Station Way for ALDI Stores Ltd

Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial interest as he owned a holiday let near to the site.


Public Speaker

Mr A Ward (supporting)


The Major Projects Manager presented plans of the previously approved scheme and the scheme proposed under the current application.

The Major Projects Manager reported that further representations had been received in respect of the retail impact, including a representation from a local Member for

Holt. Comments had been received from the Holt Chamber of Trade and Holt independent retailers. Further objections and supporting comments had been received.

The Major Projects Manager stated that the proposal increased the size of the sales area by 3m

2

, an increase in total sales area of 1%. A 10% increase in the Section

106 Obligation contribution previously agreed under permission PF/12/0929 had been negotiated under the current application (now £55,000).

Comments had been made regarding the single point of access which was proposed.

The Highway Authority had raised no objection. The number of parking spaces was still considered to be adequate and there was no justifiable reason to refuse the application on highway grounds.

The Major Projects Manager updated the Committee in respect of further comments which had been received from consultees. The Conservation and Design team had raised no objection to the proposal and landscaping could be agreed under a planning condition. Environmental Health had no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.

The Major Projects Manager stated that three hours free parking would be available and secured by planning condition, and proposals would reduce the distance people would have to walk to the town centre in comparison with the previously approved scheme. This would increase the likelihood of linked trips. He recommended approval of this application subject to a Section 106 Obligation as set out in the report.

The Planning Legal Manager referred to a comprehensive list of objections which had been received from Mr Michael Hill and summarised in the report. He stated that as Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, had a declarable interest in this application he had commented on Mr Hill’s comments and agreed with all the points he had raised. In addition, he had expressed concerns regarding the sales figures and considered the town had been short-changed on the Section 106 requirements.

The Planning Legal Manager responded to Councillor Baker’s comments by reference to the increased contribution in proportion to the increased sales area.

Councillor P W High, a local Member, considered that the scheme was an improvement on the previously approved scheme. He proposed approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor R Reynolds considered that the improvement in the Section 106 contribution and three hours free parking were excellent. A similar scheme in

Fakenham had worked well. He seconded the proposal.

Councillor R Shepherd considered that the proposal was timely considering the large number of houses which were to be built in Holt and that it would provide more choice.

Councillor J Perry-Warnes fully supported the revised access arrangements. He stated that the proposal would provide additional car parking which was needed for the town.



That this application be approved subject to the completion of a Section

106 Obligation to secure a contribution sum of £55,000 to be used for improvements as identified in 'A Vision For Holt 2012' or such other purposes as shall be agreed between the Council and Holt Town

Council to mitigate the impact of the Development on the vitality and viability of Holt Town Centre; to provide an A4 folded leaflet with details promoting Holt Town Centre and the Primary Shopping Area uses with the leaflets to be displayed between the checkouts and the exit to the store. Furthermore an exterior display board measuring 2000mm x

1500mm to be provided with information to promote the town centre and subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report and other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.

(141) LITTLE SNORING - PO/14/1249 - Erection of twenty dwellings and associated works; Land adjacent to Kettlestone Road and north of Holt Road for Mr Gray and Mrs Stackwood


Public Speaker

Mr Hendry (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had no objections and had suggested that measures relating to sustainability and climate change be incorporated into the conditions. She stated that access was the only issue for consideration under this application. An indicative layout had been received, showing a possible layout with a feature building at the entrance, the trees which would be retained and the position of the swale. She referred to the comments of the Parish

Council. She stated that the principle of the development had been established as the site had been allocated in the Site Specific Allocations. The Highway Authority and Environmental Health had no objections to the proposal. She recommended approval of this application subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that she had attended meetings of the Parish Council when its concerns were discussed. She considered that it would be preferable for 16 dwellings to be built on the application site and a further

10 on the allocated site near to the school. However, she considered that 50% affordable dwellings was excellent. She asked if the swale would be fenced off.

Mr Hendry stated that the swale would be a gentle, graduated slope and it would be fenced if the water was at a depth where this was considered necessary.

Councillor Mrs Green considered that a limit of 16 dwellings would allow a play area for young children in the centre of the site. She expressed concern at the proposed post and rail fence along the main road. She considered that the hedge should be retained for safety and to stop some of the traffic noise. She also requested that the

Highway Authority install a zebra crossing between the development and The Croft.

The Chairman stated that the applicant could not be requested to provide the crossing.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the hedge along the main Holt Road was proposed for retention.


Councillor R Reynolds supported the views of the local Member. He asked if it was possible to suggest to the Highway Authority that a crossing be developed on the

A148. He considered that 50% affordable housing was excellent and was pleased that there would be some control over the details of the swale.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes and

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention

That this application be approved subject to the prior completion of a

Section 106 agreement in accordance with the terms set out in the report and subject to the imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning, including those required by the

Highway Authority.

(142) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/14/1116 - Demolition of youth centre to extend the carparking facilities for proposed retail unit; 7-9 Yarmouth Road for Lidl UK GmbH


The Major Projects Manager outlined the key issues in respect of the loss of a community facility and footpath links. The youth centre was not the last facility of its kind in the town and a footpath link had been negotiated to improve the connectivity with the town. The applicants had indicated that they were happy to accept a requirement to provide 90 minutes free parking on the whole of the car park.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she fully supported the application but was displeased to see that demolition had commenced prior to consideration of this matter. She was greatly concerned about the number of retrospective planning applications considered by the Committee.

Councillor Mrs Uprichard read to the Committee the comments of Councillor E

Seward, who considered that the youth centre was unlikely to be returned to community use and that the enlarged car park was necessary to enable people to park, not only to shop at Lidl, but also to make linked trips to the town. As a County

Councillor, he had supported and encouraged the sale of the youth centre building to

Lidl and taken the view that the material consideration was that the new Lidl store would add to the vitality and viability of North Walsham town centre and there must be an adequate free car park to allow it to happen. He fully supported the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Mrs Uprichard proposed approval of this application as recommended.

The Major Projects Manager reported that Councillor N Lloyd had commented that this application had been reviewed by local Members before recent proposals to sell the North Walsham Town Council building to Wetherspoons Group. He had called in this application on the grounds of the loss of public amenity buildings in North

Walsham. He considered that the Committee should have the opportunity to review this application to demolish the previously publicly-owned former youth centre building with due consideration to the impending loss of the Town Council building.

The Major Projects Manager stated that the possible loss of the Town Council building was not a material consideration and these issues should be considered when an application for change of use of that building was received.

Councillor J Perry-Warnes seconded the proposal.


RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention

That this application be approved subject to conditions including 90 minutes free parking, completion of landscaping works and subject to other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of Planning.

(143) 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


Public Speakers

Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)

Mr B Smith (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments submitted by

Councillors B J Hannah and Councillor R Smith. The local Members supported the need for investment in the hotel but had raised concerns regarding the design of the proposed extension. Councillor Smith had raised additional concerns regarding the impact on the privacy and amenities of surrounding residents.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that Officers had no objection to the principle of the extension and acknowledged that the applicant was attempting to fund improvements to the hotel building. Negotiations had taken place with the applicant’s agent but concerns remained in respect of the design and impact on the

Conservation area and impact on residential amenities. Officers considered that the proposal, as submitted, would result in significant harm to the heritage asset and recommended refusal of this application.

The Chairman referred to a communication which had been sent to all Members by the agent.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that The Burlington was an icon and the last true seaside hotel. He stated that neighbours and residents had been fairly positive about the proposal, but he took on board the concerns of the Town Council and local

Members. He suggested deferral to consider the roof design which was causing the most concern.

Councillor J Perry-Warnes stated that holidaymakers required modern, up-to-date facilities and it was necessary for cater for them. He stated that he was very much in favour of the application and there was nothing wrong with the design. He proposed approval of this application.

Councillor R Reynolds considered that a ridge design would be more appropriate for the roof and that the small windows on the new extension should be similar in design to those at the eastern end of the existing building. He supported deferral of this application to negotiate amendments to the design.

Councillor B Smith stated that he had no objection to the general design of the extension but was concerned at the mixture of roof pitches. He understood the economic issues and did not wish to see the loss of another hotel. He supported deferral to negotiate with regard to the roof.


Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she liked the design but agreed with

Councillor Reynolds’ comments. She was concerned with regard to balconies on the rear and considered that balconies would be better located on the north facing the sea.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that The Burlington was the only building of worth on the Esplanade. She was in favour of this application but considered that the roof pitches should be reconsidered. She agreed that there was a need for the extension to bring the hotel back to profitability.

Councillor Mrs A R Green supported the application.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-

Jones that consideration of this application be deferred.

The Development Manager stated that there was the possibility of an appeal against non-determination if this application were deferred. Officers, the applicant and agent shared the view that there was a need to secure the future of the building.

Discussions had previously taken place with regard to the roof and the rhythm of the fenestration, but he considered that it would be acceptable to discuss it further.

The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee to be specific as to the reasons for deferral.

Mr Smith (architect) stated that he took on board all that had been said. He explained that the design of the roof had been the result of discussions with Officers, including the former Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager. He stated that he was happy to discuss the matter.

Councillor R Reynolds stated that he would like to see the ridge running right through to achieve a balance. He also considered that the windows should be balanced with the existing windows.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that the hotel and the extension looked like two separate buildings and she considered that effort should be made to unify the frontage. She considered that amendments to the fenestration could help to achieve it.

The Development Manager stated that it appeared that Members wished to see a more harmonised roof in a more traditional form. Also, the windows on the right hand side of the front elevation should have a relationship with the rest of the building.

The overarching concern was in relation to the general design in the Conservation

Area. Overlooking and loss of privacy were also issues that needed further consideration during any discussions.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-

Jones and


That consideration of this application be deferred for design negotiations in respect of the roof and windows and to address issues of overlooking and loss of privacy, in accordance with the views expressed by Members.


(144) SHERINGHAM - PO/14/1126 - Erection of detached single-storey dwelling;

Threeways, 47 St Austins Grove for Ms J Rayner and Ms S Thirtle

Councillor R Shepherd declared a prejudicial interest as he knew Ms Thirtle and her father very well. He would not take part in discussion or vote on this application.


Public Speakers

Mr L McGinn (Sheringham Town Council)

Ms J Rayner (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority was satisfied with the parking arrangements and had raised no objection to the proposal.

The Senior Planning Officer reported the views of the local Members. Councillor B J

Hannah had raised no objection to the application. Councillor R Smith supported the

Officer’s recommendation for refusal as he considered that the proposal was overdevelopment, would result in a very small amount of amenity space for the new dwelling and have an adverse impact on the existing property.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that there was a very small amount of amenity space for both dwellings. The proposal would be detrimental to the overall character of the area, given the open aspect on the corner at present, and would result in a cramped form of development.

In response to concerns raised by Ms Rayner with regard to the amenity space calculation, the Development Manager explained that the figures related to private amenity space to the rear, not including the car parking area. Members had visited the site.

Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had visited the site, and whilst there was a large garden, the proposal would result in the loss of a considerable amount of space. He proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt.

Councillor B Smith also expressed concerns regarding the amount of space available for an additional building.

Councillor N Smith stated that he had not been able to visit the site. However, he supported the application.

RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions

That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal is contrary to Policy EN4 in that i. The proposed dwelling would result in a cramped and over-intensive form of development out of keeping with and damaging to the lowdensity suburban character of the area. ii. The proposed plot sub-division would result in a sub-standard level of amenity space being retained for the existing dwelling.


(145) STALHAM - PF/14/0801 - Conversion of storage building to residential dwelling and erection of attached car-port; Horse Barns, Wayford Road for Mrs K Attree


Public Speaker

Mr A Pelling (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that further information had been received in respect of contamination and use of the site. The comments of Environmental Health and the Highway Authority were awaited in respect of this information. The building was not considered to be worthy of retention and the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

The Chairman stated that this application had been called in by Councillor R

Stevens, a local Member, but no further comments had been received from him.

In response to questions by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the local Member, the

Development Manager and Planning Legal Manager explained issues relating to the established storage use of the building. Concerns had been raised by Mr Pelling with regard to intensification of this lawful use and use of the private driveway.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she had visited the site. Residents had very little garden space and an amenity area which was used by all residents.

Concern regarding the private driveway was a civil matter. She referred to the planning reasons for refusal of this application, but considered that the building was an eyesore as it was. She considered that it would be preferable to demolish the building and use the site as a garden area for residents. However, Members may consider that a residential property would be of benefit to the residents. Although it was very close to the neighbour, no objection had been raised except with regard to colour.

Councillor R Reynolds proposed refusal of this application as recommended.

Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the application should be approved.

Councillor B Smith seconded the proposal for refusal.

Councillor N Smith considered that it would be preferable to demolish the building and erect a house.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that the application was for conversion of a large shed. He stated that there was an access to some large barns to the rear of the development. He considered that it would be preferable to access the building from that area, although the owner of the barns would be reluctant to allow it. There was an acknowledged storage use and finding a suitable new use for the building would be difficult.

Councillor P W High stated that he was inclined to agree with Councillor Mrs Green that the building should be demolished and a new dwelling erected on the site.

The Development Manager stated that demolition and replacement would create significant planning policy issues. The issues appeared to relate to the relationship with existing residential buildings and the quality of the building. He suggested that

Members may wish to undertake a site inspection.


Councillor B Smith stated that even if a site visit took place, the proposal remained contrary to Policy HO9. If approved, the Committee would be duty bound to consider other similar applications.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones reiterated her view that it would be preferable to demolish to building and replace it with a garden area. She stated that the proposal was totally against policy.

It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor B Smith and

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

(146) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION


RESOLVED

That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that the local Members and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to attend :

BACTON – PF/14/1181 – Variation of condition 1 of planning permission ref: SM5180 to permit revised road layout, and changes to design, including elevations, to units 57-72; Rainbow’s End Chalet Park, Mill

Lane for Tingdene Holiday Parks Ltd.

SCOTTOW – PF/14/1334 – Installation and operation of a ground mounted solar photo voltaic array to generate electricity of up to 50MW capacity comprising photo voltaic panels, inverters, security fencing, cameras and other association infrastructure for Scottow Moor Solar

Limited

The Development Manager stated that it had been suggested that all Members be invited to view the Scottow site following the conclusion of the site inspection to better understand the issues involving the site in general.

(147) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE

UPDATE

The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from July to September 2014, covering the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges searches received.

The Development Manager stated that restructuring would create difficulties for the performance of the team for a few months. It was hoped to recruit new staff in the near future.

The Chairman requested that a chart showing posts and names be available for the next meeting.


(148) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.

(149) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(150) NEW APPEALS


(151) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS


The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Bodham wind turbine appeal had been called in for determination by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local

Government. The Planning Legal Manager explained the process for determining the appeal.

(152) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND


The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on a number of appeals and answered Members’ questions.

(153) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES


(154) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS


The Planning Legal Manager reported that the Supreme Court would consider the

Ryburgh Maltings case in June.

(155) 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.

(156) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES

The Committee considered item 21 of the Officers’ exempt report updating the situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 September

2014.


Officers updated the Committee on a number of cases.

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 1.20 pm.


27 NOVEMBER 2014 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Related documents

Products

Support

27 NOVEMBER 2014 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib