13 OCTOBER 2011
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
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
Mrs V Uprichard - substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
S Ward - substitute for P W High
N D Dixon - Hoveton Ward
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - Poppyland Ward
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
Mrs A M Moore - North Walsham West Ward
P Terrington - Priory Ward
K E Johnson - observer
P W Moore - observer
Miss B Palmer - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Miss F Davies - Enabling Officer
Mr D Higgins - Principal Engineer, Major Developments (NCC (Highways))
(116) APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN
As the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had prejudicial interests in application
PF/11/0864 it was necessary for the Committee to appoint a Member to chair the
meeting during consideration of that item.
RESOLVED
That Councillor S J Partridge be appointed temporary Chairman of the
meeting during consideration of application PF/11/0864 (Minute 86).
Development Committee
1
13 October 2011
(117) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and Mrs P GroveJones. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
(118) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 September 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Councillor B Smith stated that the interest he had declared in Minute 106 of the
meeting held on 15 September was incorrect. He was a member of Mundesley
Maritime Museum and as a consequence knew members of Coastwatch.
Subject to the above amendment, the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on
15 September 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(76)
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 the cancellation of a meeting which was due
to be held on 20 October.
(77)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, B Cabbell Manners, R Reynolds, R Shepherd, P
Terrington and Mrs V Uprichard declared interests, the details of which are given
under the minute of the item concerned.
(78)
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/11/0517 – Erection of 36 dwellings; Land off Wood
View for Youngs Homes
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard declared a personal interest in this application as she
was North Walsham Town Mayor and had made representations on this application
on behalf of the Town Council. However, she had come to the meeting with an open
mind and would express her personal views on this application. She also declared
that she was a tenant of a property owned by a Housing Association.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Robinson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Fitzhugh (objecting)
Ms La Ronde (supporting)
Mr Goodley (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the plans had been amended
from those originally submitted and were now considered to be acceptable. He
reported that the Strategic Director (Community) had been in correspondence with
Mr Fitzhugh, an objector to this application, who had expressed concerns in respect
of the Rural Exceptions Policy (HO3). The Team Leader (Major Developments)
stated that Policy HO3 had been adopted as part of the Core Strategy and the
current application complied with the criteria contained in that policy.
Development Committee
2
13 October 2011
The Head of Planning and Building Control read to the Committee a letter from
Councillors N Lloyd and E Seward, Members for North Walsham North Ward, who
did not support this application on grounds that the site was designated as
Countryside, on the edge of town and remote from services and facilities, and there
were designated sites for residential development within the town which had attracted
interest from social landlords and which were more suitable for affordable housing.
There was a desire to maximise affordable dwellings on the vacant site at Norwich
Road.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that there was a need for affordable
housing. She referred to an affordable housing scheme on Ketts Road to which there
had been no objection. However, there were doubts as to whether the proposed
development was a suitable use for the land. She had doubts as to whether the
proposal complied with the over-arching requirements of HO3. At the previous
meeting, Members had been given no analysis of other sites which could be available
for affordable housing. There were sites with residential planning permission located
more conveniently to the town and within easy walking distance of services. Wood
View was almost a two-mile walk from the Market Cross. Some of the available sites
had attracted interest from social landlords. She stated that a quarter of the need in
North Walsham could be met from within the development boundary. She expressed
concern that the vitality of the town could suffer if sites outside the development
boundary were developed rather than those within the boundary.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that under the Local Plan, only villages were
allowed to have exception sites. When the Core Strategy was drawn up, changes
were made to allow exception sites in the towns where it was recognised that there
was a chronic shortage of affordable dwellings. This had been approved by the
Inspector. He considered that there was no reason to refuse this application which
could be supported on appeal. He proposed delegated approval in accordance with
the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that it was proposed to build on agricultural land when
it was important to be able to feed an ever increasing population. He considered that
the reasons for refusal advanced at the meeting on 21 July were still valid.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, stated that the site was outside the
designated settlement. There was a need to demonstrate clearly that the need could
not be met on sites which were designated as residential. She considered that this
was not the case as there were clearly a number of sites available, mainly on
brownfield land. She considered that if 36 affordable houses were built on the
application site, there would be 36 less built within the town boundary. She referred
to the walking distance from the town, lack of a bus service to serve the site, the
desire to discourage car journeys, and the lack of commitment from any housing
association to the development. The proposal was not supported by local residents
or the Town Council. She proposed that this application be refused on grounds that
the location was unsustainable given the distance from services and facilities in the
town, the proposal is contrary to the Core Strategy vision for North Walsham, and
other sites were designated for residential development within the settlement
boundary which would provide affordable housing. This was seconded by Councillor
Mrs A C Sweeney.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that whilst distance from local
facilities could be a valid ground for refusal, it was not considered to be defensible in
this case. Whilst the site was less sustainable than some other sites within the town,
the development was acceptable under Policy HO3.
There was no policy
requirement to apply a sequential test.
Development Committee
3
13 October 2011
The Enabling Officer stated that the proposed provision on this site would be in
addition to other sites which were being discussed with Housing Associations.
Victory Housing had expressed an interest in taking the units if planning permission
were granted. Sites with planning permission would have priority for Housing
Corporation funding over those which did not.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that Policy HO3 allowed for
affordable housing in far less sustainable locations than this edge of town site.
The Principal Engineer, Major Developments stated that there would be additional
traffic but it was considered that the highway network could cope with it. The
Highway Authority would not defend a highway reason for refusal.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that affordable developments outside village
boundaries were very different from this proposal as they involved one or two
dwellings for people within the village who wanted them. In this case, it was
proposed to house 36 families outside the reasonable walking distance from the town
centre.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Team Leader (Major
Developments) explained that this proposal would be limited to people with
connections with North Walsham or surrounding villages. This would not apply to
affordable housing within the development boundary, which would be open to
anybody on the general housing register.
Councillor S Ward stated that, as a young person, he understood the need for
affordable housing and supported this application.
The proposal for refusal of this application was put to the vote and declared lost, with
4 Members voting in favour and 7 against with two abstentions.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to:
1) An archaeological evaluation of the site being undertaken to the
satisfaction of Norfolk County Council.
2) The completion of a Section 106 Obligation to include securing the
provision of the affordable housing in accordance with the
requirements of Core Strategy Policy HO3, payments towards library
and fire hydrant provision to Norfolk County Council, and the provision
of landscaping which is not shown within the application site.
3) The imposition of appropriate conditions to include road
construction details, a construction traffic management plan,
landscaping, tree protection, materials, minimum code level 3
construction, details of 10% renewable energy provision, surface water
drainage and a scheme for future maintenance of the open space,
together with any other conditions considered necessary by the Head of
Planning and Building Control.
Development Committee
4
13 October 2011
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.
(79)
BACTON - PF/11/1000 - Retention of extension to clubhouse and continued use
of two additional holiday flats; Castaways Holiday Park, Paston Road for
Castaways Holiday Park
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the further comments of the Highway
Authority in respect of car parking were awaited.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no over-riding objections on parking
grounds from the Highway Authority and to the imposition of conditions
including limiting the use of the club house extension for purposes
ancillary to the holiday park and a condition limiting the use of the flats
to holiday accommodation only or to the use permitted under
application reference PF/10/0963 for a similar duration.
(80)
BEESTON REGIS - PF/11/1070 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land
adjacent to 4 Meadow Cottage, Beeston Common for Mr Barnes
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Beckley (Beeston Regis Parish Council)
Mrs McCormack (objecting)
Mr Drake (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Sheringham Town Council had no
objection. The report stated erroneously that comments were awaited from the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager in respect of landscaping; this should
have read “Conservation and Design”. However, he had no comments to make on
this application.
Development Committee
5
13 October 2011
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, referred to the refusal of application
20101055 and considered that the reasons for refusal of that application applied to
the current application.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, seconded by Councillor R
Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in a cramped form of development which is out of keeping with
the surrounding development.
(81)
BRISTON - PF/11/0373 - Erection of agricultural contractors storage and
maintenance building; Land off Tithe Barn Lane for Mr C Nutkins
Councillors R Reynolds and R Shepherd declared personal interests in this
application as they knew the applicant.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Serne (Briston Parish Council)
Mr Stott (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that one further letter of objection had been
received which reiterated objections already made in respect of this application.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, considered that the application would be
acceptable if the applicant were prepared to enter into a Section 106 Obligation to
restrict deliveries to no more than three per week, and a condition imposed to
prevent sub-letting of the building. He proposed deferral of this application to
negotiate with the applicant on these issues. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A
R Green.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the agricultural nature of the area and considered
that anybody moving into the area should be aware of the width of the road and the
nature of its use.
Councillor S J Partridge referred to the difficulty in negotiating the gateway
experienced by the driver of the minibus used on the site inspection. He considered
that this would also be the case for agricultural vehicles. He considered that
widening the entrance would be inappropriate, although this did not form part of the
current application.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by
Councillor S Ward
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 8 votes to 2 with 1
abstention, and on being put as the substantive proposition it was RESOLVED by 8
votes to 3.
Development Committee
6
13 October 2011
(82)
HICKLING - PF/11/0854 - Conversion of barn to residential dwelling with
detached garage and re-location of stables; Old Manor House, Sutton Road for
Mrs P Jarvis
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating a reduction in the number of dormers and a cartshed style garage. The
Emergency Planning Officer had no objection to this application.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(83)
HOLT - PF/11/0703 - Conversion of and extension of outbuildings to retail units
and construction of pedestrian access; 1 Bull Street for Greenways Holt Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Bullen (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the reference to access from the car park
was incorrect. The only access would be through the front access gate.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, supported the creation of additional retail
units in the town centre. However, he expressed concern in respect of the lack of car
parking available at the site and in Holt generally. He suggested that a financial
contribution towards the provision of car parking facilities be sought from the
applicant.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to Policy CT6 of the adopted
Core Strategy, which made provision for commuted payments for car parking in
appropriate cases. However, no payment had been requested from any other
developer either in Holt or elsewhere and any request for payment should be
accompanied by firm proposals by the Local Authority to provide car parking. Whilst
payment could in theory be requested from the developer, there was no mechanism
in place for doing so. If the Committee wished to pursue this suggestion the
Committee should defer the application or be minded to approve subject to
discussions taking place with the applicant.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed deferral of this application pending discussions
with the applicant in respect of a possible contribution towards car parking provision
in Holt.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that this proposal would add to the retail offer in
Holt. Whilst he understood Councillor Baker’s point, permission had been given for
other retail proposals in recent years without such provision. The Council had no
proposals for the provision of a car park and he considered that it would be unfair to
use this application as a catalyst. He proposed the Officer’s recommendation.
Development Committee
7
13 October 2011
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners seconded Councillor Partridge’s amendment. He
stated that the proposal would not create a destination offer but would add to the
existing offer.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 9 votes to 3 and,
on being put as the substantive motion, it was
RESOLVED
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(84)
the
HOVETON - PF/11/0762 - Erection of 120 dwellings, new vehicular access and
creation of public open space; Land off Stalham Road for Persimmon Homes
(Anglia) Ltd
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Newey (Hoveton Parish Council)
Mr Rix (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the medical centre had expressed concern
about the footpath link. Consideration had been given to an agreement to provide
the link if this situation changed in the future. Comments had been circulated to
Members outlining the concern of the preferred social landlord that the link could
become a rat run, lack of natural surveillance and detriment to the properties on that
part of the site, which would be wheelchair bungalows for affordable rent. On the
basis of those comments, the applicant considered that the link would not be
deliverable as part of the proposed scheme. Officers were of the opinion that,
although it was desirable as a short cut, the link was not necessary as there were
other routes out of the site to the medical centre and it would not be reasonable to
impose a condition to require its provision.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Countryside and Parks Manager had
estimated the figure for maintenance of the open space and this was subject to
verification. If it were preferable for another management body to take over the
maintenance of the open space it could be included as part of the S106 Obligation.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Broads Authority had raised an
objection on grounds that the development encroached on land which was used by
skylarks as a nesting site. It was not possible to compensate for loss of habitat on
adjacent land as this was out of the applicant’s control. However, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager (Landscape) did not consider that this would justify
refusal of the application. Officers considered that the benefits of the proposal
outweighed the disbenefits in this respect.
In response to the concerns raised by the Parish Council, the Senior Planning Officer
had responded directly in respect of its comments regarding street lighting. The
Parish Council had also raised concerns regarding private drives, their future
maintenance and how bin collections would be affected. Private drives would not be
adopted by the Highway Authority, and their maintenance would be the responsibility
Development Committee
8
13 October 2011
of the residents. Environmental Health was satisfied with the bin collection strategy
which had been submitted by the applicant. The walking route to the primary school
met the minimum requirements of the Highway Authority and no improvements were
required.
As a whole, the scheme was considered by Officers to be commendable, particularly
in view of the amount of affordable housing to be provided. The Senior Planning
Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application as recommended in
the report, subject to review provisions for future maintenance of the open space
being included in the S106 Obligation.
In response to comments made by the Parish Council representative, the Principal
Engineer, Major Developments explained that an assessment of the walking routes
to school was made in accordance with guidance from the Road Safety Association.
The routes satisfied the criteria. There were three points where people could cross
the A1151, one of which was outside the medical centre where there was a large
island. The Highway Authority was satisfied that facilities were adequate for the
scale of the development.
Councillor N D Dixon, the local Member, referred to the lack of support for the
allocation from the village. However, that point had been passed and he was
committed to making sure that this development was as good as it could be. He had
challenged the assumption that the open space would be managed by the District
Council in the future. However, this issue had been addressed by the amendment
suggested to the Section 106 Agreement. He requested a condition that the option
to provide a link to the medical centre remain open for 15 years as he considered
that this route would become a desire line for residents once the estate was
occupied. He considered that the Housing Association’s objection did not take into
account the views of the wider community. He stated that if provision were not made
for the link at this stage, the opportunity to provide it in the future would be lost.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed delegated approval of this application
subject to the inclusion of a 15-year option to provide a link.
Councillor S J Partridge expressed concern in respect of fuel poverty and requested
that ground source heat pumps be installed. The Senior Planning Officer stated that
all dwellings would meet Code level 3; however the best technology would be
determined by condition.
Councillor Partridge referred to the Parish Council’s comments regarding highways.
He suggested that a light controlled crossing be installed as the road was dangerous
and would be used by many children. He did not consider that it was necessary to
provide a link to the medical centre. He proposed delegated approval as
recommended subject to the installation of a light-controlled crossing, but without a
link to the medical centre.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that elderly residents would appreciate a window
low enough to look out of when seated, and also the provision of a back door.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern with regard to road safety arising from
refuse collection vehicles reversing along the private drives, and also to damage
caused by such vehicles to the surface of those drives.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes seconded the proposal by Councillor Cabbell Manners.
He supported the provision of an access to the medical centre.
Development Committee
9
13 October 2011
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern that the provision of a link would
encourage people to park in the development and walk through if the car parks were
full. He seconded Councillor Partridge’s amendment.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that there were a number of tests which
conditions had to meet. He expressed concern as to whether a condition in respect
of the link could be legally imposed as such a condition failed in terms of
enforceability, and he also questioned whether it was necessary or reasonable to do
so.
Councillor Cabbell Manners withdrew the option to provide a link from his proposal.
The Principal Engineer, Major Developments stated that it could be questioned as to
whether it was necessary or reasonable to provide a crossing. He stated it would
cost over £100,000 to install a light-controlled crossing which would be paid for by
the developer. Evidence had been produced to show that it was not necessary.
Councillor Partridge acknowledged that it was a large amount for the developer to
pay, but he considered that there should be some provision to assist children to cross
the road in safety. He suggested delegated authority to investigate this matter
further.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he would be happy to explore
the suggestion but it might impact on the developer’s ability to provide as much
affordable housing.
The Senior Planning Officer outlined the funding which was being offered for other
purposes.
Councillor S J Partridge withdrew his proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to:
A S106 Obligation securing the provision and phasing of affordable
housing, financial contributions as requested by the County Council
and by the District Council in relation to air quality monitoring, play
provision and open space transfer/maintenance, and review provisions
for the future maintenance of the open space.
The imposition of appropriate conditions to include implementation of
necessary highway works; implementation of sustainable and
renewable energy measures, prior approval of management plan for the
future maintenance of the open space area, safeguarding of open space
in perpetuity, protection of trees on the site during construction,
removal of permitted development rights for the dwellings on plots
7,8,9, 107, 108, 109, 110, street lighting and removal of permitted
development rights in respect of front boundaries.
Development Committee
10
13 October 2011
(85)
LANGHAM - PF/11/0890 - Erection of dwelling (amended design to include
construction of dormer windows and installation of roof lights to facilitate
conversion of roofspace to habitable accommodation, amendments to
fenestration and deletion of parapets); Land adjacent Rowan Cottage, Hollow
Lane for Isis Builders Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Hope (Langham Parish Council)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the views of Councillor J D Savory, a local
Member. He accepted that the principle of development had been established but
considered that a further increase in capacity would have a detrimental impact on the
neighbouring residents and be detrimental to highway safety.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, supported Councillor Savory’s views and
requested that the Parish Council’s objections be considered.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in overdevelopment of the site, potential overlooking and
detrimental impact on the neighbour’s amenities.
(86)
NORTHREPPS - PF/11/0232 - Continued use of land as airfield on a permanent
basis; Land at Winspur Farm for Mr C Gurney
Councillor S J Partridge chaired the meeting during consideration of this application.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a prejudicial interest in this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a prejudicial interest in this application.
Both Members vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Ms Fish (Northrepps Parish Council)
Mr Watkins (Sidestrand Parish Council)
Miss Primrose (Southrepps Parish Council)
Mr Houghton (objecting)
Mr Brooke (objecting)
Mr Smith (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a separate planning application would be
required for the retention of the refreshment building, works carried out to the access
track, car parking and change of use of the buildings at the entrance of the site to
aircraft hangars. The applicant had confirmed that these matters would be
regularised.
Development Committee
11
13 October 2011
The Senior Planning Officer reported the responses of Natural England, the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and Environmental Protection Officer
in respect of the cumulative impact of two airfields.
Natural England was satisfied with the mitigation measures and had requested that
advisory notices be erected at the airfield in respect of overflying of the Gunton Park
Lake SSSI.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager considered that the cumulative
impact of two airfields was insufficient to warrant concern.
The Environmental Protection Officer considered that the cumulative impact would be
insignificant unless they were in competition with each other.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a specific pattern had to be flown on takeoff and landing which could be construed as circuit flying. An advisory note would be
attached to the permission in this respect.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a copy of a letter had been received from
an agent acting for an objector.
The Head of Planning and Building Control read to the Committee a letter received
from the Chairman of Sidestrand Parish Council, which objected to the proposal and
expressed concern that the Council had not received the consultation on this
application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that Council was subject to High Court
proceedings in respect of this matter, referred to in the appendix to the report. An
email had been received late in the previous evening from the Solicitor acting for the
objectors expressing concern that the appendix was not available on the Council’s
website. However, it was available in hard copy and a copy had been forwarded to
the objectors’ Solicitor. Criticism was also expressed that the Environmental
Statement had not been updated and continued to be based on prediction rather than
evidence. Concern had also been expressed that representatives of the Council had
declined to meet representatives of the objectors. The Solicitor had put the Council
on notice that if the application were approved, it would be likely to result in an
amendment to the judicial review proceedings, which currently related to the
Council’s failure to take enforcement action. The Planning Legal Manager stated that
where planning applications are submitted, these were determined prior to
considering enforcement proceedings. The Council was defending the High Court
claim.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that as no objections had been received from the
outstanding consultees in respect of the cumulative impact of two airfields, the
application was now recommended for approval subject to the conditions listed in
part 2 of the recommendation.
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, stated that she knew the applicant
and two of the primary objectors. For the benefit of the public, she stated that she
was speaking as the local Member and did not have a vote. She considered that
there were no legitimate reasons for refusal of this application. There had been few
objections and the applicant had fulfilled the requirements of his temporary
permission. There had been no objection from the Highway Authority. She accepted
that there was a slight issue with paramotors and requested that their use be
restricted, subject to the advice of the Environmental Protection Officer.
Development Committee
12
13 October 2011
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there was no reason to refuse this application
and proposed the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs
A R Green.
Councillor B Smith stated that an airfield had been in existence for many years and
he considered that it was more appropriately located in its current position. He
acknowledged that the paramotors could cause disturbance but he considered that
this was insignificant compared to military jets. He stated that light aircraft brought a
tourism benefit to the area and the emergency services were able to use the airfield
when necessary.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he had been requested to
attend a meeting by representatives of the objectors. The meeting was being
convened to discuss a compromise with the operator of the airfield. However, he had
not considered it appropriate to attend as the issue was within the remit of the
Committee. If it was the Committee’s wish that discussions were entered into with
the operator he would do so.
The Committee voted on the three elements of the recommendation separately, and
in each case it was
RESOLVED unanimously
(87)
1.
That the Committee confirms its view that there are no likely significant
effects on any of the relevant protected sites and that an Appropriate
Assessment is not required.
2.
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of the
conditions set out in the report.
3.
That an application(s) be invited on a ‘without prejudice’ basis for the
retention of the car park works, the continued siting of a portable
building on the site for use as a café, the retention of access track
works and continued use of two buildings as hangars.
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/0864 - Installation of 1.2 metre satellite dish;
Wells Community Hall, Staithe Street for Wells Maltings Trust
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, declared a personal interest in this
application as he was the Council’s representative on the Wells Maltings Trust.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Gates (Wells Town Council)
Mr Baker (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that suggestions for positioning the satellite dish
elsewhere on the site were unacceptable to the applicant. The Town Council
supported this application. A further letter of support had been received.
Development Committee
13
13 October 2011
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, stated that the proposed site was in a car
parking area where there were other features, such as car park signage, which
detracted from the Maltings building. He stated that there had until fairly recently
been a large asbestos grain store on the site. The Maltings building was to be
redeveloped and the dish could be relocated at a later date. He considered that the
advantages to tourism and the town outweighed the disadvantages. He requested
that temporary permission be considered and suggested that the Committee visit the
site.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of five years,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include painting
the dish in a recessive colour.
Reason: The Committee considered that there are clear public and
community benefits which outweigh the perceived visual intrusion and
the structure will be temporary.
(88)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Members and Chairman of the Town Council be invited to
attend:
HOLT - PO/11/0978 - Development of approximately 85 dwellings,
access, public open space and associated infrastructure; Land off Cley
Road and Woodfield Road for Landform Holt Limited
(89)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(90)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(91)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(92)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(93)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
14
13 October 2011
(94)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(95)
CANCELLATION OF MEETING
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 Head of Planning and Building Control informed the Committee that a special
meeting of the Committee which had been arranged for 20 October was no longer
necessary and had therefore been cancelled. He reminded the Committee that the
“Good and Bad Planning” tour would take place on 27 October.
The meeting adjourned at 1.35 pm for the presentation of the Graham Allen Award
for Conservation and Design, resumed at 2.35 pm and closed at 2.55 pm.
Development Committee
15
13 October 2011