20 FEBRUARY 2012
Minutes of a meeting of the PLANNING POLICY & BUILT HERITAGE WORKING PARTY
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 10.00 am when there
were present:
Councillors
K E Johnson (Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold (Vice-Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners
N D Dixon
P W High
Mrs B McGoun
D Young
Officers
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr P Rhymes - Conservation and Design Officer
(20)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker and T Ivory.
(21)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 September 2011 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chairman.
(22)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Working Party.
(23)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mr B Cabbell Manners declared an interest in Minute 25 as site C14 was owned by
his children.
(24)
RUSSELL TERRACE MUNDESLEY ARTICLE 4 DIRECTION
The Working Party considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports which recommended to
Cabinet that a Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) in respect of Nos. 1-23 Russell
Terrace, Mundesley be confirmed.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners questioned whether it was reasonable to include
satellite dishes in the Direction as this was currently the only means of receiving
television signals in this part of Mundesley. He considered that they should be
treated as temporary structures.
The Conservation and Design Officer explained that the Direction would not prevent
the erection of satellite dishes, but it would allow control over where they were
located in order to minimise the impact on the terrace. The Direction could not be
applied retrospectively so the existing dishes could remain in situ.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
1
20 February 2012
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold asked whether the Council would have control over the
design of replacement windows.
She also asked if „solar panels‟ included
photovoltaics.
The Conservation and Design Officer explained that the Direction would ensure that
replacement windows matched the original design as closely as possible.
Photovoltaics would be included in the Direction.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that two rounds of
consultation had been carried out and all the residents of Russell Terrace were
supportive of the Direction.
Councillor N D Dixon referred to the reference to “porches and architectural details”
in the text of the report which was not included in the Officer‟s recommendation. He
also referred to the installation of floodlight-type security lighting which was not
referred to in the report.
The Conservation and Design Officer explained that “alterations to elevations”
included porches and architectural details. It would be necessary to carry out further
consultation if the Working Party wished to include lighting in the Direction.
It was suggested that the recommendation be amended to make specific reference to
architectural details.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED
That Cabinet be recommended to agree to the confirmation of the
Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 1995 at Nos 1-23 Russell Terrace,
Mundesley, to cover the following matters:
Alterations to elevations and architectural details
Satellite dishes
Roof and chimneys
Roof Windows
Doors and windows
Painting facades
Hardstandings and curtilage walls
Solar panels
and that formal notification of affected households be carried out and a
press release be issued.
(25)
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PROGRESS REPORT
Mr B Cabbell Manners declared an interest in Minute 25 as site C14 was owned by
his children.
The Working Party considered item 2 of the Officers‟ reports which provided a
general update in relation to the Local Development Framework and related policy
documents and the work of the Major Development Team in relation to allocated
Development Sites.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
2
20 February 2012
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that difficulties with bringing forward site
NW01 were related to the value of land in North Walsham, which was low compared
with other parts of the District.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that highway and drainage infrastructure could
cause difficulties in respect of site ST01. These issues had been identified during the
allocations process but no conclusions had been reached on these matters.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold asked if the Council had any control over timescales for
development. She was concerned that developers could commence development
and then leave the site.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager explained that the Council
had little power to require development to be completed. Developers could possibly
be encouraged to develop by public subsidy. It may be necessary to review
permissions, policies etc in relation to land-banking of sites by developers. However,
it was premature to consider these measures at this stage. Further consideration
could be given to these issues when considering the Annual Monitoring Report.
Councillor Mrs Arnold referred to planning permission in respect of the Railway
Triangle site in Cromer where the developer offered to commence the development
within a year.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that this had been
offered as a compromise to offset a lower percentage of affordable housing in the
scheme than would normally be required. However, it would still be possible for the
developer to complete the footings of the dwellings and then leave the site. It was
not possible to force a developer to build.
Councillor N D Dixon referred to the requirement to deliver a set number of dwellings,
a proportion of which should be affordable. There was a need to understand what
was driving market conditions. He stated that financial viability was the key to its
delivery. However, he considered that pump-priming would fail to achieve its
objective if delivered at a local level.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was a desire by developers to
start building but the developments had to be viable.
He considered that
development of the sites in Holt could happen quickly as values were still quite high
in that area.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that infrastructure was
expensive. It might be possible to bring forward developments by lending money to
developers to fund infrastructure works, on the basis that it would be repaid once the
dwellings were sold.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager considered there was a need
to speed up the completion of Section 106 obligations. He explained the S106
process, which commenced with developers submitting the draft obligation, and
suggested that the Council should develop standard obligations which could be
offered to developers. A great deal of time was spent in negotiations between the
Council and solicitors acting for developers.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
3
20 February 2012
Councillor D Young questioned the logic in allowing the developers‟ solicitors to
produce the first draft of Section 106 Obligations. He asked if it was possible for
obligations to be considered and agreed.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners added that Broadland Council considered Section 106
Obligations at Committee level.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager referred to a case in Holt
where the developers had put forward terms of a Section 106 Obligation as part of
the planning application but Development Committee had requested further
negotiations. Although it was possible to produce a set of standard obligations, he
considered that obligations should be tailored to each development. However, there
was scope to speed up the process but there would be resource implications.
Councillor Young considered that if a standard set of obligations was produced the
developers would have certainty as to what was expected of them.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that this matter would
be given further consideration.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
(26)
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – GROWTH AT FAKENHAM
The Working Party considered item 3 of the Officers‟ reports in respect of progress
on a Development Brief for the major development area to the north of Fakenham
and a suggested process for public consultation prior to considering its approval.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager circulated copies of a draft
brief which had been produced by the landowner.
He recommended that
consultation on the draft brief be undertaken, subject to no substantive objection by
Fakenham Town Council.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that seeking the initial views of local representatives
at Town, District and County level would provide a good basis for taking development
briefs to the next stage.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that the document
would not go out to public consultation if the Town Council raised fundamental
objections. In answer to a question by Councillor Dixon as to how Officers would
decide whether objections were substantial or not, the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager stated that the local Members were happy with the document.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun raised an issue with regard to access to the site. The
Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that the Highway Authority
may not support the proposed access route, and the document may require
amendment before it could be adopted. There may be other issues which would be
raised through the consultation process.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun and
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
4
20 February 2012
RESOLVED
That subject to no substantive objections by Fakenham Town Council,
the Draft Development Brief for land to the north of Fakenham be
subject to a 28-day period of public/stakeholder consultation including
the holding of a staffed exhibition at Fakenham.
The meeting closed at 11.35 am.
.
Planning Policy & Built Heritage Working Party
5
20 February 2012