8 SEPTEMBER 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)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High*
S J Partridge
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
* Councillor High was called away urgently shortly after the commencement of the
meeting.
N Smith - substitute for B Cabbell Manners
R Smith - substitute for R Shepherd
S Ward - substitute for R Reynolds
Mrs B McGoun - St Benet Ward
T FitzPatrick - Cabinet Member for Business Enterprise and Economic Development
K Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell - Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr J Shaw - Senior Engineer, Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(94)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, B Cabbell
Manners, R Reynolds and R Shepherd. There were three substitute Members in
attendance as shown above.
(95)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(96)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
On behalf of the Committee, the Chairman stated that all Members had received
communications in respect of planning application 20090966 at Ryburgh.
Development Committee
1
8 September 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.
(97)
RYBURGH - PF/09/0966 - Erection of 2 silos construction of lorry park with
wash bay, associated surface water balancing pond, bunded fuel tank, storage
container, office, staff car park and associated earthworks and landscaping;
Land at Crisp Maltings, Fakenham Road for Crisp Malting Group Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Alan Smith (Ryburgh Parish Council)
Mr Leslie Brantingham (objecting)
Mrs Barley Wilson (objecting)
Mr Matthew Champion (objecting)
Mr Alan Irvine (supporting)
Mr Euan MacPherson (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that 18 further letters
of representation had been received, seven of which had come to his attention a
short while before the meeting and which he had not had time to consider in detail.
Most of the additional correspondence reiterated matters which had been raised
previously. However, additional matters had been raised in respect of drainage and
the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). He referred to two
petitions received, one in support and one from Protect the Wensum opposing the
development. He indicated that a further email had been received stating that the
Protect the Wensum petition now contained a total of 1,083 signatures.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported the position regarding
consideration of the Habitats Directive, as transposed into national law by the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. He reminded the
Committee that Natural England (as the appropriate nature conservation body) had
considered that subject to the proposed mitigation there would not be a likely
significant effect on the River Wensum Special Area of Conservation as a result of
this proposal and it considered that an Appropriate Assessment was not required.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Town and
Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1999 had now been superseded by the Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 which
Development Committee
2
8 September 2011
came into force on 24 August 2011. However, it was considered that the new
Regulations contained no significant changes which would have a significant impact
on the consideration of this application. Natural England had previously advised that
an EIA was not required in this case. A further email had been received from an
objector who had questioned the reliability of the comments from Natural England
and had stated that it was a matter for the Local Planning Authority to determine the
environmental impact issues. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
reported that solicitors acting for the Ryburgh Village Amenity Group (RVAG) had
asserted that the Council had failed to comply with its duties under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive. However, despite an
invitation to respond, the Council still awaited a response from the solicitors stating
the reasons for their conclusions regarding the likely significant environmental
impacts.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) drew the Committee’s attention
to matters relating to highway impact considerations, lighting, visual amenity and
hours of working.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that Environmental
Health was investigating two recent noise complaints and also complaints relating to
vehicle movements. He considered that the investigation of these complaints had no
significant bearing on the determination of this application.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a further letter had
been received from an objector which had raised a number of issues in respect of
drainage. The Internal Drainage Board (IDB) had confirmed that it would be
necessary for Crisp Maltings to obtain consent to discharge into the watercourse. It
was considered that the conditions requested by the IDB would help mitigate the
drainage issues raised by the objector.
The Development Manager requested that the Committee considers its view as to
whether it agreed with the Officers’ view in respect of the Environmental Impact
Assessment Directive and the Habitats Directive. The application could not be
determined at this meeting in the event that the Committee considered that
development was EIA development. If that were the case an Environmental
Statement would be required. Having considered the Officer’s report and the issues
outlined in the presentation by the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases),
the Committee indicated its agreement with the Officers’ view by 9 votes to 0 with 1
abstention.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, Cabinet Member for Business Enterprise and Economic
Development, referred to the strong manifesto commitment given by the current
administration to jobs and business. He stated that this business had been
established for over 150 years and provided quality jobs, supported jobs and
economic benefits for farmers and also helped to support jobs which supported the
farming industry. He considered that the Council should be striving as much as
possible to protect jobs in the current economic climate and it was particularly
important to protect jobs and businesses in this area.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, stated that she would prefer to hear
other Members’ views prior to speaking and that she had come to the meeting with
an open mind in respect of this application.
Development Committee
3
8 September 2011
In response to a question by Councillor S J Partridge, the Senior Highway Engineer
stated that the Highway Authority considered that the number of HGV vehicle
movements would decrease. There was no evidence that the proposal would cause
an increase as suggested by the objectors.
Councillor N Smith referred to an email he had received from a resident of Ryburgh.
He stated that he had visited the site. He considered that it was irresponsible of the
objectors’ solicitors not to have responded in respect of the environmental impacts.
He stated that the Maltings had been in existence for many years and he considered
that the village had grown because of it. He considered that many of the dwellings
had been built within the past 30 years. He stated that the Maltings was visible to
any potential purchaser. He stated that the village was thriving and questioned
whether this would be the case without the Maltings. In respect of concerns relating
to environmental issues and river pollution, he considered that Natural England and
the IDB were experts in these matters.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she was a Member of the Broads IDB.
She expressed concern that there could be substantial run-off from the site into the
River Wensum.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the IDB had
indicated clearly that the applicant would require consent to discharge to a
watercourse. It was a matter for the applicant to deal with. A number of conditions
had been suggested and additional conditions would be imposed in respect of land
levels. The key issue was to ensure that there would be no adverse impact on the
River Wensum. It was impossible to give a 100% guarantee that there would never
be a pollution incident but every effort had been made to ensure that all matters had
been considered and appropriate mitigation measures put in place. Officers were
satisfied that that the concerns could be addressed by appropriate planning
conditions.
Councillor Mrs Grove-Jones requested that water monitoring be carried out over a
period of time to assess whether there were any pollution issues. The Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that a condition could be added to require
monitoring to be carried out.
In response to a question by Councillor R Smith, the Team Leader (Enforcement and
Special Cases) explained how the maximum output tonnage figure of 115,000 tonnes
had been assessed.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes requested assurance with regard to lighting issues.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that whilst the lighting columns had been reduced
from 15m to 12m, they were still higher than the bund. He stated that lighting units
were available which would produce sufficient light to allow the height to be reduced
further. He considered that this would significantly improve the amenity of local
residents. He suggested that this matter could be dealt with under delegated
powers.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to the suggested
lighting condition contained in Appendix 14 to the Officer’s report, which required the
submission of a lighting scheme. He understood that 12 metre columns were
designed to work with HGVs. It was likely that more lights would be required if the
columns were lowered. He considered that it would be possible to produce a lighting
scheme which was satisfactory to all parties.
Development Committee
4
8 September 2011
Councillor Partridge considered that more lights lower on the site would still reduce
the amount of light affecting the community.
Councillor B Smith stated that Bacton Gas Terminal had 12 metre columns with lights
which shone downwards. The main problem at that site was reflected light. He
expressed concern at possible run-off of surface water from the parking area which
was on sloping ground.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the design of the
lorry park was such that the hard-surfaced area of the lorry park was designed to
store water in a heavy rainfall event. The IDB had requested that the land be levelled
to prevent overtopping in the event of heavy rainfall and requested a condition to
agree finished levels.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, referred to the concerns expressed by
the local residents who had spoken against this application. She stated that no
representations had been made in respect of fourteen previous applications, however
the current application was causing concern. She was very concerned at the scale of
the proposed development. She considered that it would be noisy with banging of
doors, lorry engines being warmed up and reversing alarms. At present, the site was
open green space which was habitat for bats, owls and birds, as well as badgers and
she considered that the noise would frighten them away and they would not return.
The site was adjacent to an SSSI and the course of the River Wensum into which
surface water would run. She stated that the proposed development would not
increase employment or output of the site and there would be little or no reduction in
lorry movements. She considered that the application had nothing to commend it.
The existing lorry park at Hempton would remain available for many years. She
considered that refusal of this application would not affect the farming industry and
the business would continue. She proposed that the application be refused as this
application was contrary to Core Strategy Policy EC3 in that the scale of the
extension to the business was not appropriate in the Countryside, contrary to Policy
EN2 as the proposal would have a detrimental impact on, and not be sympathetic to,
the landscape and contrary to Policy EN9 because of the impact on wildlife habitats.
This was seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones.
The Development Manager requested clarification of the grounds for refusal in
respect of scale and impact on landscape character. He stated that the site was
covered by two distinct landscape character types; Large Valleys and Tributary
Farmland from the adopted Landscape Character Assessment. He concluded from
Members that they considered that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on
both Landscape Character areas.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that in terms of scale the proposal would result in
the Maltings covering a larger area than the village itself.
In respect of EN9, the Development Manager stated that no objection had been
received from Natural England or the Council’s Landscape Officer in respect of
impact on protected species. He advised that this ground be withdrawn as it may be
difficult to defend.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that in the event of an appeal the Council
would be expected to produce evidence to support its grounds for refusal. Whilst he
considered that arguments could be made in respect of Policies EC3 and EN2, he
did not consider that EN9 was defensible.
Development Committee
5
8 September 2011
Councillor S J Partridge supported the Planning Legal Manager’s comments.
With the support of her seconder, Councillor Mrs Green reluctantly withdrew her
reason for refusal in respect of Policy EN9 and proposed refusal on grounds that the
application was contrary to Core Strategy policies EC3 and EN2 on grounds that the
scale of the development was inappropriate in the Countryside and detrimental to the
character of the area.
At the request of Councillor Mrs A R Green, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposition
Against the proposition
Councillor:
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
(2)
Councillor:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs L M Brettle
S J Partridge
J H Perry-Warnes
B Smith
N Smith
R Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
S Ward
J A Wyatt
(10)
There were no abstentions.
The proposition was declared lost.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including a limit on the tonnage output of malt
per annum, lighting, drainage including monitoring of water quality and
agreement on the colour of the silos, and subject to the applicant
signing a Unilateral Obligation in relation to the use of the site as
requested by the Highway Authority.
(98)
BARTON TURF - PF/11/0899 - Change of use from a mixed use of residential/A1
(retail) to residential and alterations to front elevation; Providence Place, The
Street for Mr A Cannon
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, supported the Officer’s
recommendation. She stated that whilst she was a supporter of village shops, this
shop had been closed for ten years, the boundary of Barton Turf was close to the
village shop in Neatishead and a large number of villagers lived within walking
distance of that shop.
Development Committee
6
8 September 2011
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objections from Environmental
Health and the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including details of windows to be submitted
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The meeting closed at 11.15 am.
Development Committee
7
8 September 2011