31 MAY 2012
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)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Miss B Palmer - substitute for P W High
Mrs A Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
Mrs B McGoun – St Benet Ward
N Smith – Erpingham Ward
P Terrington - Priory Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
K Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor P W High. There was one
substitute Member in attendance as shown above. An apology for absence was also
received from Councillor J D Savory, local Member for Priory Ward.
(2)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 3 May 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at Stiffkey, reference
PF/12/1257, which the Head of Planning and Building Control had been authorised to
approve under minute (246) of the meeting held on 5 April 2012. The reason for
urgency was to expedite processing of this application following the receipt of an
amended plan which did not fully accord with the terms of the delegated authority.
Development Committee
1
31 May 2012
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor R Reynolds declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the items 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 report of the Head of Planning and
Building Control, 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)
BRISTON - PF/12/0173 - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission ref:
1994/1558 PM to allow use of land designated as open space as allotments and
further parcel to garden; Land to rear 62a -72 Jewel Close and 33 Wellington
Road for Lomax Land Holdings Ltd
The Chairman stated that Members had received correspondence in this matter.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Simmonds (Briston Parish Council)
Mr Cox (Melton Constable Parish Council)
Mrs McKenzie-Dodds (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from a
resident of Melton Constable reiterating concerns already raised in the report. A
petition containing 170 signatures had been received requesting the retention of the
land as open space. 169 of the signatories to the petition lived within 300 metres of
the site.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the change of use would not have required
planning permission if the condition had not been imposed on the planning
permission. In the event of completion as open space the Parish Council could
convert the site to allotments at a later date without the need for planning permission.
He considered that allotments would give a mix of recreation space to the
development. The land had been allocated as open space for the development and
not residents of Melton Constable. The Senior Planning Officer responded to
concerns raised by the public speakers with regard to the footpath link.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, stated that he had not called in this
application. Councillor R Wright, as local Member for Melton Constable, had called
in the application but had not attended the meeting. Councillor Wyatt had no
concerns provided the footpath link was provided to allow access to the school from
Briston.
Development Committee
2
31 May 2012
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell Manners
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new grounds of objection
following reconsultation and readvertisment of the application, and
subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the construction of the
footpath link prior to the first use of the allotments.
(6)
CLEY NEXT THE SEA - PF/12/0314 - Retention of roof cupola; The Quay House,
1 Beau Rivage for Mr A Livsey
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Scammel-Katz (Cley Parish Council)
Councillor D Young, the local Member, expressed concern at the impact of the
cupola on the Conservation Area and the retrospective nature of this application.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that had a planning application been received
prior to the erection of the cupola, it would have been assessed and the same
recommendation may have been made. The Planning Legal Manager explained that
the law required retrospective planning applications to be determined as if they had
been submitted prior to development.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the cupola was out of keeping and an
inappropriate design in the Cley Conservation Area and the Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by
Councillor R Shepherd.
On being put to the vote, the proposition was declared lost with 3 members voting in
favour and 8 against.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to amending the colour finish of the
structure to match the existing render.
Two Members voted against the proposition.
(7)
HORNING - PF/11/1274 - Conversion, extension and alteration of shop and
dwelling to two residential flats; The Galley, 43 Lower Street for Mr J Timewell
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
3
31 May 2012
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, stated that The Galley had a very good
reputation and was popular with residents and tourists. It added to the vibrancy of
the village and was vital to the village’s tourism offer. She questioned the
interpretation of Core Strategy Policy CT3 and requested that this application be
deferred to undertake a viability test.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported the local Member’s views. She proposed
refusal of this application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Policy CT3 referred to important local
facilities and services. In the opinion of Officers this definition did not apply to The
Galley and, although he considered that an argument could be made on this basis, in
his opinion it would not be sustainable at appeal.
The Development Manager advised the Committee on possible reasons for refusal.
He stated that whilst it was regrettable when shops were lost, the fact that the unit
was currently in a quality use was not a matter that could be taken into account and
there was no guarantee that this would continue to be the case. With regard to
Policy CT3, the difficulty arose as there was alternative provision available and
refusal would therefore not accord with the policy.
Members referred to the importance of having a range of businesses to attract
tourists and sustain communities.
The Chairman stated that owners could not be forced to trade.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners expressed concern that the building could become
derelict if the business closed. He considered that if the business were trading
successfully it would have been marketed as such.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in the loss of an important local facility which would be
detrimental to the viability, vitality and attractiveness of the village.
(8)
OVERSTRAND - PF/12/0384 - Raising of roof to provide first floor
accommodation and erection of one and a half-storey front extension; 1 Beach
Close for Rev & Mrs Chandler
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Vickers (Overstrand Parish Council)
Mrs Ellis (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer recommended an additional condition to require surface
water drainage to be linked to the main sewer instead of a soakaway.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, considered that the proposal was
out of character with the surrounding area. She stated that the surrounding area
comprised low level, attractive bungalows, on a private road and on the edge of the
Development Committee
4
31 May 2012
25-year coastal erosion zone. She considered that the scale of the proposal was
tantamount to an additional dwelling. She considered that this application should be
refused on overdevelopment and design grounds.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposed extension was compliant
with Policy EN4, there was a mix of development in the area including bungalows
with rooms in the roof and a chalet adjacent to the property. The coastal erosion
issues had been addressed in the report. In response to concerns raised by the
objector regarding overlooking, she explained that the proposed rooflights were
above eye level and the first floor windows in the western elevation would be obscure
glazed bathroom windows.
In response to concerns raised regarding scale, the Development Manager stated
that the site was within the Development Boundary for Overstrand and therefore
Policy H08 was not applicable. The increase in footprint would be only approximately
3m2, although the volume increase would be 80%. The Coastal Engineer had been
consulted in respect of Policy EN11 and had raised no concerns.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to conditions removing
permitted development rights in respect of further windows on the
southern and western elevations, requiring obscure glazing of the first
floor windows on the western elevation, details of cladding to be agreed
and surface water to be discharged to the main sewer.
(9)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0212 - Erection of dwelling and conversion of
outbuilding to annexe; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands for Mr P Parker
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Gooderham (supporting)
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, referred to comments by the applicant’s
agent and English Heritage. He considered that harm to the Conservation Area was
the key issue rather than public benefit and that there would be little public benefit
from this proposal compared with the existing permission. He expressed concern
with regard to the car parking proposals. He considered that the current proposal
would not secure optimum use and he could not therefore support the application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the design of the proposed dwelling was not
sympathetic to the surrounding area.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that contemporary design was not appropriate in
this part of Wells. However, the existing permission for a contemporary building
could be implemented. On that basis, as the current proposal was for a smaller
building he supported the application.
Councillor Shepherd proposed refusal of this application.
Development Committee
5
31 May 2012
In answer to a question by Councillor J A Wyatt, the Senior Planning Officer stated
that if the original proposal were built it would be difficult to resist a future application
for conversion to a dwelling.
Councillor M J M Baker seconded the proposal to refuse this application.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed building
is considered to be inappropriate in the Wells Conservation Area in
terms of its design, scale and massing, with no community benefits to
outweigh these concerns.
(10)
WICKMERE - PF/12/0277 - Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1632 and condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to
permit permanent residential occupation; No 4, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton
Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara Associates
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest in this application as he was
acquainted with Mr McNamara.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr McNamara (supporting)
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, spoke in support of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green referred to discussions at a recent meeting of the Planning
Policy and Built Heritage Working Party regarding options for dealing with Policy H09
in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework. She suggested that
consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision as to the Council’s
future approach to the policy. She stated that there was a need to be consistent as
there was likely to be a number of similar applications.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners supported Councillor Mrs Green’s suggestion and
considered that the Council should also defer enforcement action pending the
resolution of this issue.
In response to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Development Manager
explained that a case at Helhoughton referred to by the applicant differed from this
application in that the building in that case was listed by association with a listed
building and a view was taken on the basis of the quality of the building. The
buildings which had the benefit of permanent residential permission on the
applicant’s site were Grade II listed, with the remaining non-listed buildings being
subject to a holiday restriction in accordance with the policy in force at the time of
application. He referred to the planning history of the application site, and stated that
whilst he was aware of the Working Party’s consideration of policy in the light of the
NPPF, this application was currently contrary to the Council’s adopted policy. He
recommended refusal of the application but suggested that enforcement action be
deferred pending the review of the policy, the timescale to be discussed with the
Chairman and local Member.
Development Committee
6
31 May 2012
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Cabbell
Manners
That consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision in
respect of Policy H09 in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework,
and that no enforcement action be taken pending the review.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor J
A Wyatt
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of
the Head of Planning and Building Control, and that enforcement action be
suspended pending the review of Policy H09, the timescale to be agreed with
the Chairman of the Committee and the local Member.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with 5 Members voting in
favour and 8 against.
The original proposition was put to the vote and it was
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That consideration of this application be deferred pending a decision in
respect of Policy H09 in the light of the National Planning Policy
Framework, and that no enforcement action be taken pending the
review.
(11)
MATTERS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(12)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(13)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(14)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(15)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee on the proceedings at the
recent Public Inquiry in respect of application reference PF/09/1270 (Cable route).
The Committee requested that a vote of thanks to the Planning Legal Manager for his
work on this case be recorded.
(16)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
7
31 May 2012
(17)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(18)
STIFFKEY - PF/11/1257 - Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation; Red
Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion 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 Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that this application had been
considered at the meeting on 5 April 2012, when it had been resolved to delegate
authority to approve this application subject to reduction in the height of the building
to the approximate height of the adjacent bungalow and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
An amended plan had been received indicating a reduction of the site level by
300mm. The building would remain approximately 2.3m higher than the adjacent
bungalow.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had been
reconsulted and maintained his objection in respect of the impact of the development
on the setting of the Conservation Area and wider landscape. Whilst the reduction in
the ground level was welcomed, Officers did not consider it to be sufficient to
overcome the objections previously raised.
The Senior Planning Officer
recommended refusal of this application in accordance with her previous
recommendation.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, reported that Councillor J D Savory, also a
local Member, supported this application and considered that the economic benefits
should be weighed against the environmental issues. Councillor Terrington stated
that his own views were that the building was too high, although he agreed with the
views expressed in support and considered that there could be an engineering
solution to enable the height to be further reduced.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners suggested that the removal of the lantern section
could achieve a satisfactory reduction in height. He suggested deferral to allow
further negotiations.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that a reduction in height of one metre would
achieve a satisfactory result and that the proposal would be of benefit to the village.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer explained that the agent had
stated that the reduction in ground level was the maximum that could be achieved.
She was unsure as to whether there was further scope for reducing the ceiling
heights to further reduce the overall height of the building.
At the request of the Chairman, the applicant, who was present at the meeting but
had not requested to speak, confirmed that the lantern had been added at the
suggestion of the Senior Conservation and Design Officer and indicated that it might
be possible to delete this feature from the application.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
Development Committee
8
31 May 2012
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the removal of the lantern from the
application and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The meeting closed at 12.35 pm.
Development Committee
9
31 May 2012