28 MAY 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
Mr P High
P Rice
S Shaw
B Smith
N Smith
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for S Ward
E Seward – substitute for Mrs V Uprichard
Mrs A Green – Wensum Ward
Ms M Prior – Holt Ward
T FitzPatrick – observing
P Moore - observing
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mr G Linder – Major Projects Team Leader
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mrs N Turner – Housing Team Leader (Strategy)
Mr C Reuben – Planning Officer
Mr D Mortimer – Development Management Officer (NCC Highways)
Mr G Worsfold – Assistant Engineer Estate Development (NCC Highways)
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S Hester, N Pearce, Mrs V
Uprichard and S Ward. Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown
above.
(2)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 23 April 2015 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
There were no items of urgent business
Development Committee
1
28 May 2015
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
The following interests were declared:
Minute
7
7
Councillor:
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
R Reynolds
Interest
Owned property in Holt
Owned property in Holt
Councillor P W High stated that he had spoken to the applicant and the objector with
regard to Holt PF/15/0388 (minute 7).
All Members had received correspondence in respect of applications Alby with
Thwaite PF/14/1688 (minute 5), Ryburgh PF/15/0213 (minute 10) and Sheringham
PF/15/0001 (minute 11).
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.
(5)
ALBY WITH THWAITE - PF/14/1688 - Conversion of agricultural barns to 7
residential dwellings; Barns at Thwaite Hill Farm, Thwaite Road for Mr
Romanos
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
The Major Projects Team Leader reported the contents of a letter received from the
applicant, who was unable to attend the meeting to present his comments.
The Major Projects Team Leader recommended approval of this application as set
out in the report.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that he had visited the site and had
attended two Parish Council meetings. He stated that part of one of the buildings
had been demolished due to a large tree which had fallen on it. He stated that the
main barn was one of the best he had seen and was in very good condition. The
main objections related to traffic. However, the site had been a potato farm which
generated a great deal of heavy traffic on the lane. Industrial use of the site could
result in more traffic. He stated that access on to Middle Hill was fairly good and the
road was straight at that point. The applicant had worked with the Officers to
overcome the Parish Council’s concerns regarding parking. He considered that
drainage would not affect any other properties. He considered that the applicant had
worked hard to accommodate the Officers’ suggestions. Whilst he understood the
Parish Council’s concerns, he supported approval.
Development Committee
2
28 May 2015
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Major Projects Team
Leader explained that the derelict unit was part of the traditional farm group. The
outbuildings were associated with the main barn. They had evolved over time but
were part of the historic group. Policy HO9 of the Core Strategy applied.
Councillor N Smith confirmed that the only unsound building in the complex was the
one which had been damaged by the fallen tree.
The Chairman stated that the buildings were very historic and he was pleased to see
that the barn doors were to be retained. The damaged building was part of the
complex.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the conditions referred to
in the report and all other conditions considered to be appropriate by
the Head of Planning.
(6)
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 57-74; Rainbows End Chalet Park, Mill Lane for Tingdene
Holiday Parks Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that the absence of a Unilateral Agreement
binding on future owners could potentially lead to an increase in the number of units
on the site. In answer to a question by Councillor B Smith, he explained that once
permission had been implemented it was there in perpetuity and if the site changed
hands the new owner could build out the additional units.
Councillor B Smith proposed refusal of this application as recommended, which was
seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
The Development Manager referred to the access and stated that approval would
potentially increase the use of the access. He requested delegated authority to
refuse subject to further discussions with the Highway Authority as to whether it
wished to support refusal.
The proposer and seconder agreed to this approach.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to refuse this application on
grounds that the proposal constitutes an unacceptable form of
development in the Countryside policy area where there is a general
presumption against residential development, and subject to any
additional highway grounds for refusal following consultation with the
Highway Authority. It is considered that the applicant has failed to
demonstrate satisfactorily that there are material considerations to
justify a departure from Development Plan policy in this case or that
compliance with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy
Framework has been achieved.
Development Committee
3
28 May 2015
Subsequent to this resolution, during the course of the meeting an email was
received on behalf the applicant stating that the unilateral agreement had now been
signed. The Planning Legal Manager requested that in addition to the resolution
above, the Committee also delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve this
application subject to the receipt of the signed Agreement.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the receipt of a signed Unilateral Agreement, otherwise to
refuse the application in accordance with the above resolution.
(7)
HOLT - PF/15/0388 - Change of use of retail (A1) to restaurant (A3); 4 Fish Hill
for Mr Bradley
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Bennett (objecting)
Mr T Bradley (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that if the building were not
listed the use could be changed for a temporary period of two years without planning
permission.
No objection had been received from Environmental Health or
Conservation and Design.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the objector had provided
a copy of a letter from a Solicitor raising issues relating to land ownership and use of
the toilets. These were civil matters which did not relate to planning.
The Development Management Team Leader reported that the applicant had
provided further information regarding the kitchen extraction including clarification
that he had engaged a commercial kitchen extraction specialist. It was proposed that
the premises would be a pizza and pasta restaurant with no gas cooking or deep fat
fryers. A silencer could be fitted to the flue. The comments of Environmental Health
were awaited.
The Development Management Team Leader recommended approval subject to the
conditions outlined in the report.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, emphasised that this application related to the
change of use of the premises and no more, and that planning permission would not
have been required if the building were not listed. He referred to the comments of
Environmental Health regarding the flue and the requirement for further permission
for internal or external alterations. He proposed approval in respect of the change of
use. Other issues could be considered when full details were provided.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that issues relating to land ownership and
access were not within the jurisdiction of the Local Planning Authority and were
therefore not material considerations. He confirmed that the application related to
change of use only and that any alterations would require separate planning
permission. He advised that a site inspection may be appropriate given the
controversial nature of the proposal.
Development Committee
4
28 May 2015
Councillor Ms M Prior, a local Member, considered that the proposal would have an
adverse impact on the objectors’ privacy. She stated that there was insufficient
space to get a commercial bin through the gateway, the objectors owned the
courtyard which was their only outside space for their home, and provided pedestrian
access to the flats. The objectors were under no legal obligation to allow any person
to cross their premises. She considered that staff of the restaurant would congregate
during breaks, there would be an impact on residents of the flats as they would be
unable to open windows when cooking was taking place. Toilet facilities would need
to be adequate for the number of customers and disabled facilities installed. Vents
would be close to the windows and to the objectors’ outside seating area. She
considered that it was misrepresentation to say that there was parking nearby as
spaces were time limited with a good turnover. She considered that the proposal
would interfere with the objectors’ Human Rights and urged the Committee to refuse
this application.
Councillor P W High stated that whilst he was aware of all the issues raised by
Councillor Ms M Prior, this application related only to change of use and these issues
could be discussed at a later date. He did not consider that a site inspection was
necessary at this stage. He requested that Environmental Health discuss the
relevant issues with the applicant and the objectors.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed a site inspection, which was seconded by
Councillor P Rice.
Councillor B Smith seconded Councillor P W High’s proposal for approval as an
amendment.
The Development Manager explained that a site inspection would allow the
Committee to consider issues regarding loss of privacy and proximity to nearby
residential development.
The amendment for approval of this application was put to the vote and declared lost
with 4 Members voting in favour and 7 against.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to visit the site and that the local Members, Chairman of the
Town Council and an Environmental Health Officer be invited to attend.
(8)
HOVETON - PF/15/0123 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of
replacement single-storey dwelling; 2 Summer Drive, for Mr Shepherd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor B Smith expressed concern that the local Member had called in the
application but had not sent in his comments.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions considered to be appropriate by the Head of Planning.
Development Committee
5
28 May 2015
(9)
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
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr T Hunt (Roughton Parish Council)
Mrs J Disbrey (objecting)
Mr R Seaman, Mr T Musker, Ms J Musker and Mr A Irvine (supporting)
The Planning Officer reported that a plan had been received which indicated how the
site would be zoned and explained the proposed highway works. He recommended
approval of this application subject to the prior completion of a Section 106
agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The Planning Legal Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs
S A Arnold, the local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. She supported
the application subject to the Section 106 provisions. She had asked if the concerns
which had been raised by objectors could be addressed with regard to the lack of
screening of properties adjacent to the proposed footpath.
The Assistant Engineer Estate Development explained the proposed highway
conditions relating to design and construction of estate roads, visibility at the access
onto Back Lane, traffic management plan and off-site highway works.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the relocation of play equipment on
Roughton Common requested by two of the speakers. He advised that this was a
matter which should be resolved between the Parish Council and the interested
parties and the current application could not be used as a mechanism for resolving
issues elsewhere.
Councillor N Smith considered that the proposal would boost businesses in the
village. However, he was concerned at the access from Back Lane onto the A140.
Whilst visibility was good, the access was on a slope.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked why there was no affordable housing proposed
on the site.
The Housing Team Leader (Strategy) explained that when considering affordable
housing requirements, sites must not be made unviable and had to provide a return
for the landowner and developer. If the Section 106 requirements were too high, a
site would not be viable. In this case, she had concluded that the site would not
deliver the required return to enable affordable housing to be provided. However, it
was proposed to impose an affordable housing uplift clause, whereby the site viability
would be assessed again towards the end of the development and if the level of profit
was above a certain level, 50% of the additional profit would be taken as a
contribution towards affordable housing elsewhere.
Councillor P Rice requested that a condition be imposed to require fencing along the
footpath to address the objector’s concerns. He expressed concern with regard to
the hedge planted along the site of the visibility splay. He requested clarification with
regard to the 20mph requirement and the proposed development, and confirmation
as to the road types.
Development Committee
6
28 May 2015
The Assistant Engineer Estate Development explained that the proposed condition
required that no works should commence until the Traffic Order was promoted, but
as the Order would be subject to public consultation, there was no guarantee that it
would be successful. He explained that the estate road would be in accordance with
the design guide for new residential roads. Back Lane was a traditional road, which
was either unclassified or a C road.
The Planning Officer stated that the applicants were happy to accept a condition with
regard to screening of the footpath.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that a 20mph limit would not prevent speeding
and that physical speed attenuation features would be necessary.
The Assistant Engineer Estate Development explained that the scheme had been
discussed between the applicants and the Highway Authority and formed part of the
planning application. There would be changes in the road width and the Highway
Authority considered that this would help maintain the speed limit, rather than the
installation of vertical features which were often disliked by local residents.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds referred to comments by the speaker regarding
fencing and also puddles in front of the Anglian Water compound. With regard to
affordable housing, she pointed out that there were 12 two-bed properties proposed
which were only just above the affordable housing minimum size requirement. She
referred to the viability issues set out in the report.
In answer to questions by Councillor B Smith, the Assistant Engineer Estate
Development explained that the width of the visibility splay related to the speed of the
road. With regard to a suggestion by Councillor Smith with regard to a gateway
feature, he explained that the detailed design of off-site works would be considered
when the detailed application was submitted. These would be subject to a legal
agreement. However, he considered that the works as proposed were appropriate.
Councillor N Smith expressed concern regarding road widening. He requested
clarification with regard to the visibility splay if the proposed 20mph speed limit was
not agreed.
The Assistant Engineer Estate Development stated that the Highway Authority would
request a larger visibility splay if the 20mph speed limit was not supported.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(i)
The prior completion of a Section 106 agreement in accordance
with the terms set out in the report; and
(ii)
The imposition of conditions considered to be appropriate by the
Head of Planning, including a condition requiring the erection of
screening along the footpath.
Development Committee
7
28 May 2015
(10)
RYBURGH - PF/15/0213 - Change of use of residential dwelling (C3) to tea-room
(A3) and erection of rear extension and pergola to front elevation; 19A Station
Road, Great Ryburgh for Tiny Teapot Tearoom
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Pink (Ryburgh Parish Council)
Mrs A Buxton (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader referred to an email which had been
sent to all Members by the applicants explaining why they considered that the
scheme was acceptable. She referred to the highway safety concerns raised by the
Highway Authority and recommended that this application be refused in accordance
with the recommendation in the report.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, considered that this was a difficult
application. Whilst it was policy compliant, there were highway issues. She asked if
it was possible to erect a ‘stop’ sign on the junction. She referred to the applicant’s
intention to provide a parking area at the rear of his property.
The Development Management Officer (NCC Highways) stated that it would be
necessary to discuss the local Member’s suggestion with colleagues before he could
give an answer. He had not seen the site of the proposed car parking area. He
explained the highway issues and stated that there was no guarantee that the
parking area would be used. He stated that roadside parking had increased since
the opening of the adjacent chip shop.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds congratulated the applicant on securing start-up
funding for the business and expressed concern that the Highway Authority had
declined to visit the site. She asked where the parking would be and suggested
deferral of this application to allow the Highway Authority to consider the matter.
The Development Manager stated that he understood the intention was to provide a
parking area for staff at the rear of the site. He suggested that the Committee may
wish to visit the site.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the applicant clarified the site of the parking area.
Members of the Committee spoke in support of deferral.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, seconded by Councillor P
Rice and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to visit the site and that the local Member, the Chairman of
the Parish Council and a representative of the Highway Authority be
invited to attend.
Development Committee
8
28 May 2015
(11)
SHERINGHAM - PF/15/0001 - Demolition of existing buildings, erection of 32
no. dwellings, accesses, roads, open space and associated works; Hilbre,
Holway Road for Norfolk Homes
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Ms J Mold (objecting)
Mr J Nicholls (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader gave a detailed presentation of the scheme,
together with photographs and a ‘fly-through’ presentation. Following the last
meeting, the colour of the render had been amended and the tenure of the affordable
housing amended to four rented and two shared ownership dwellings.
The Major Projects Team Leader recommended approval subject to the completion
of a Section 106 Planning Obligation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, stated that the main concern was the route
through Snaefell Park. He requested clarification as to the definition of a ‘type 3’
road.
The Assistant Engineer Estate Development explained the technical specification for
a type 3 estate road.
Councillor P W High stated that he had spoken against this application at the
previous meeting. He questioned the Highway Authority’s change of view from an
earlier application which required the development to be served from Holway Road.
In response to questions by Councillor P Rice, the Assistant Engineer Estate
Development stated that the guidance for road types was published in 1998. A
20mph speed limit had been imposed on Snaefell Park since its construction. All
new estate roads were designed as 20mph limits and the layout of estate roads was
designed to restrict speeds throughout the development.
Councillor Rice stated that additional buildings would create additional traffic and
there appeared to be a lack of clarity on the highway issues.
Councillor N Smith stated that he could understand the highway concerns, as the
Snaefell access was on the top of a hill and close to a pedestrian crossing used by
children. He requested clarification with regard to drainage issues.
The Major Projects Team Leader explained that ground conditions were not
sufficiently permeable to cope with all surface water run-off, and therefore an
attenuation tank was proposed to store water during heavy rainfall. This had been
agreed by the Environment Agency and Anglian Water.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed disappointment that there were no more
than six affordable homes proposed. However, the main concern related to the
access and the developer had not explained why it was considered necessary to
access the site from Snaefell Park.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Nicholls explained that the original application,
which accessed the site from Holway Road only, had been submitted by Tesco.
Development Committee
9
28 May 2015
Norfolk Homes had retained an area of land in Snaefell Park which he stated that
purchasers of properties in phase 2 of the Snaefell development were aware of. He
stated that Norfolk Homes was keen to provide permeability and integration of the
Snaefell and Hilbre developments and access to Morley Hill.
Councillor E Seward stated that the Committee would need to be very clear as to
why it preferred the Holway Road access given the views of the Highway Authority.
He expressed concern at a comment made by the applicant’s representative in his
address to the Committee in which he had threatened an appeal. He questioned
whether the development would meet housing need.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he was satisfied that everything had been debated
and considered and thoroughly explored as far as planning was concerned. He paid
tribute to the residents of Snaefell Park who had opposed this application. He
expressed disappointment that the applicants would not change their minds
regarding the access road, and considered that the Highway Authority guidance
needed revision. He stated that the development would provide some affordable
housing which was desperately needed, and the colour of the render had been toned
down as requested. He reluctantly proposed approval of this application as
recommended as there were no planning reasons to reject it.
At the request of Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Major Projects Team
Leader confirmed that planning permission given in 2000 had been amended in
relation to a garage on Snaefell Park by correspondence in 2003. Mr Nicholls had
sent an email stating that the amendment was made prior to any of the units on
phase 2 being legally completed and residents bought knowing where the garage
would be located.
Councillor P W High reluctantly seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the completion of a Section
106 Planning Obligation and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(12)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Member and representative of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HEMPSTEAD – PF/14/1669 - Installation of a single wind turbine with a
maximum height to tip of 78m, a new access track, a hardstanding, a
small substation building, a temporary meteorological mast and
associated infrastructure; Selbrigg Farm for Selbrigg Generation
SWANTON NOVERS – PF/15/0320 – Erection of first floor side/front
extension with dormer window to roofslope (part retrospective)
Development Committee
10
28 May 2015
(13)
THE GRAHAM ALLEN AWARD FOR CONSERVATION AND DESIGN
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
(14)
1.
That a Graham Allen Award Judging Panel comprising all Members of
the Development Committee be formed, one of whom will be elected
Chairman, and that substitutes be invited to attend.
2.
That the judging of entries takes place on 12 August 2015, with the
presentation to take place on 17 September 2015.
3.
That the revised eligibility criteria for entries be accepted.
SALTHOUSE - APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF S106 OBLIGATION, BARDS
HILL BARNS
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager explained the background to this case and the current
position. He recommended approval as set out in the report.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, stated that he was not clear as to whether
sufficient evidence had been provided in this case, however the figures did
demonstrate a lack of viability. He expressed some concern that there were two
applications and two companies involved in the site, and the Section 106 agreement
only applied to one of them. He stated that both companies were in profit at the time
the original application was brought to Committee. He expressed concern that
approval would be a ‘win-win’ for the developer. If approved, he hoped that the
District Valuer would be assiduous in assessing viability so that he could assure the
residents of Salthouse that the Council had done all it could.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that the Committee could not take into account
the financial position of the Company. It could only consider the viability of the
scheme.
Councillor P Rice asked if the contribution of £92,000 had been factored into the
Council’s budget.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the Council should attempt to release the
sum of £46,000 from the first tranche of the development.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed concern that developers might think they
could agree to any conditions to secure permission, and then come back if schemes
were not viable.
Councillor N Smith stated that the barn was in a state of collapse and if the
application were not agreed, it was likely that the Council would not receive any
money and the barn would remain in that state. He considered that the Council
should forgo the money and enable the building to be completed.
The Head of Planning explained that Section 106 contributions were ring-fenced for
the purpose for which they were taken. It was not factored into the Council’s budget
and there would not be a shortfall if the Obligation were released. She suggested
Development Committee
11
28 May 2015
that as a compromise, it could be accepted that the payment of £92,000 was
unrealistic subject to requiring the first tranche of £46,000 to be paid. Work on the
final barn should commence within 12 months and the successor in title clause
removed from the agreement as requested.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor N Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
(15)
1.
That subject to confirmation from the District Valuer that this scheme is
not viable, the Head of Planning be authorised to release the developer
from providing the off-site affordable housing contribution of £92,000,
subject to the developer releasing the first tranche of £46,000.
2.
That development of the final barn be commenced within 12 months.
3.
That the successor in title cause be removed from the agreement.
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(16)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(17)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(18)
INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(19)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(20)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(21)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(22)
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.
Development Committee
12
28 May 2015
(23)
SHERINGHAM PF/15/0001 – COMMENTS BY DEVELOPER’S REPRESENTATIVE
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds expressed concern at threats made by the
developer’s representative during his address to the Committee in respect of
Sheringham PF/15/0001.
Following discussion it was
RESOLVED
That a letter be sent to Norfolk Homes expressing the Committee’s
displeasure at the attitude of its representative.
The meeting closed at 1.55 pm.
CHAIRMAN
25 June 2015
Development Committee
13
28 May 2015