1 AUGUST 2013
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
Councillor R Reynolds (Chairman)
Councillor R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mr P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mr J Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for Miss B Palmer
E Seward – substitute for V Uprichard
N Smith – substitute for B Smith
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader Enforcement and Special Cases
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
(48)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S Arnold, M Baker, Miss
B Palmer, B Smith and Mrs V Uprichard. There were three substitute Members in
attendance.
(49)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 4 July 2013 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(50)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a prior notification from a District Councillor.
The reason for urgency was because as a prior notification, planning permission was
not required and there was a time limit of 42 days to deal with it. It was agreed that
this would be taken at item 10 of the agenda.
Development Committee
1
1 August 2013
(51)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor E Seward 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 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.
(52)
BACTON - PF/13/0093 – Retention of enlarge gated vehicular access and timber
shed, the Pightle, the Street, Edingthorpe for Mr N Breaks
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor R Shepherd noted that the shed was light in colour. He proposed approval
of the application if a darker stain was applied.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that she was concerned about the chimney.
There did not appear to be a need for it. The Senior Planning Officer said that it was
being used as an amenity site and there was a small stove within the shed to provide
year-round warmth.
Councillor P High considered that highways would have been his main concern. He
was satisfied that access to the site was suitable. He seconded the proposal to
approve the application with the condition that a darker stain was applied to the shed.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to conditions, including the
application of a darker stain on the external timber of the structure and
not to be used for overnight accommodation.
(53)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0042 – Construction of replacement roof with increased
height and side facing dormer window to provide first floor habitable
accommodation; 1 Birch Court for Mr & Mrs Gaskins
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Gibbs (objecting)
Development Committee
2
1 August 2013
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that the original owner of the property
had now sold it and moved out. He considered that the proposed changes would
increase the value of the property and decrease the availability of affordable homes
in the village. He concluded by stating that neighbours had purchased their
properties on the understanding that there was a covenant in place that would not
allow an extension of the roofline. He proposed refusal of this application.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there were no
conditions in place requiring the property to be an affordable dwelling. He added that
the Committee should also consider permitted development rights. These could be
used without the need to apply for planning permission.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that the neighbouring properties would be
overlooked and this could be considered to be in breach of their human rights. She
supported refusal of the application.
Councillor Mrs A Sweeney agreed with the previous comments. She considered that
the neighbouring properties were very close to the applicants.
Councillor P High considered that the garden adjacent to the site was very narrow
and this could cause problems with access if building work was undertaken.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds sought clarification on the maximum height for
installation of the roof lights in the roof. She added that if the glass could be obscured
there would be no chance of overlooking neighbouring properties. The Senior
Planning Officer said that the proposed rooflights could not go any higher than 1.7m
above floor level due to the way the roof would be constructed. The Team Leader
(Enforcement and Special Cases) said that it would be difficult to install the rooflights
without raising the roofline. He added that if the application was refused the applicant
could appeal due to the existence of permitted development rights.
Councillor N Smith stated that scaffolding would need to be installed on the driveway
to undertake the work and this could cause problems with access. He added that
neighbours had improved their properties without altering the roofline.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that it was a straightforward application. He
responded to two of the issues raised. Regarding covenants, he said that
enforcement of these was a civil matter. The erection of scaffolding on a
neighbouring property was also a civil matter.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reiterated his earlier comments
regarding permitted development rights. He said that the impact of raising the roof to
accommodate the rooflights was not unacceptable. He did not feel that there were
sufficient grounds for refusal.
It was proposed by Councillor N Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions
That the application be refused.
Reasons: The Committee concluded that the two proposed rooflights in
the eastern elevation were contrary to Core Strategy Policy EN4 and
were considered to have a significant detrimental overlooking effect on
neighbouring properties.
Development Committee
3
1 August 2013
(54)
MUNDESLEY – PF13/0658 Erection of storage shed; 5a Paston Road for Mr M
Pocock
This application had been withdrawn.
(55)
NORTH WALSHAM – PF/13/0191 – Erection of single-storey extension,
installation of cladding and conversion and extension of cart-shed to annexe
and garages; Orchard Barn, Aylsham Road for Mr Schonhut
Councillor E Seward declared a personal interest in this item as he was a member of
North Walsham Town Council.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports. The Senior Planning
Officer reminded the Committee that this application had been subject to a site visit.
She advised the Committee that a further condition had been added requiring that
details of the disposal of surface water should be submitted to the planning authority.
Public Speakers
Mr M Schonhut (supporting)
Councillor E Seward stated that as flooding had been a concern when this
application had come before the Committee previously, it would be beneficial if the
Environmental Protection Officer could speak on this issue.
The Environmental Protection Officer stated that there had been some concerns
regarding flooding but these should be resolved by the approval of PF/12/0871 which
required an attenuation pond. He said that the history of the site was not clear and
did not support all the complaints that had been raised. He concluded by stating that
he agreed with the additional condition regarding the disposal of surface water.
Councillor Mrs A Green sought clarification on the cladding of the building. The
Senior Planning Officer said that it would be on the lower floor only and would be in a
natural larch finish. Councillor Mrs A Green proposed approval of the application.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he had previously had concerns regarding flooding
of the site but was satisfied that these had been addressed. Regarding the issue of
surface water, he said that the installation of two soakaways on the northern side of
the property would ensure the problem was resolved. He proposed approval of the
application subject to the condition that two additional soakaways were installed.
Councillor E Seward stated that the building should be brought back to life. He
supported the approval of the application.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A Green, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including a condition agreeing proposed surface
water disposal.
Development Committee
4
1 August 2013
(56)
SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0662 - Erection of rear conservatory, 16 South Street for
Mr B Farrow
The Chairman stated on behalf of the Committee that Members were acquainted with
the applicant, Mr B Farrow, as he was an employee of North Norfolk District Council.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports. The Senior Planning
Officer explained that this item was before the Committee for consideration as the
applicant was an employee of North Norfolk District Council.
Councillor R Shepherd, local Member stated that he had no objections to the
application. He proposed approval.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J Perry-Warnes
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
(57)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0408 – Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation; Damson-Lea,
Horning Road, Lyngate for Mrs C Tunstall-Turner
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Tunstall-Turner (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Committee had previously resolved to
refuse this application under Policy H09. It was now brought back to the Committee
with detailed comments from the Planning Policy and Property Information manager
The Committee noted that the local Member had submitted comments in support of
the application.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones sought advice on whether the appearance of the
double garage could be improved. The Senior Planning Officer said that the doors
could be replaced with side-hung timber doors and the gable could be brought
forward to reduce the long, sweeping roof. Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed
approval subject to the imposition of conditions to improve the appearance of the
garage.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds agreed with Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones
comments. She queried how close local amenities were to the property. The Senior
Planning Officer advised that there was a primary school, church and public house in
the village and although the property was outside the main village it was not
sufficiently removed to make access to amenities difficult.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stressed to the Committee that
if they approved the application they must make clear as to whether the proposal
complied with policy. He added that other material considerations could be taken into
account, such as the proximity to local amenities, which may justify departure from
Development Committee
5
1 August 2013
policy. It was important to be able to differentiate between this and other proposals.
He recommended refusal due to the proposal not complying with Policy H09 in that
the building did not meet the quality test set out in that policy as being worthy of
retention.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds proposed approval of the application subject to
the imposition of conditions to improve the appearance of the garage doors and the
gable.
The applicant confirmed that he was prepared to alter the frontage of the property if
required to.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager explained to the Committee
that there were several factors that needed to be taken into consideration including
the location of the building, the substantial size of the property and whether it was
worthy of retention. He added that the policy test was subjective but the Committee
must demonstrate that they had taken it into consideration.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that technically the property was not compliant
with Policy H09. He said that it was important to look at the Core Strategy first before
any other material considerations. He advised the Committee to consider whether the
property was in a sustainable location and to consider the National Planning Policy
Framework and whether there was an unmet housing need in the area.
It was proposed by Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including the submission of enhancement
proposals to the front elevation which could include the installation of
timber, side-hung garage doors.
(58)
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
FRAMEWORK UPDATE
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers‟ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from April to June 2013, covering
the turnaround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes and Land Charges
searches received.
(59)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(60)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(61)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(62)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
6
1 August 2013
(63)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(64)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(65)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered Agenda item 9:
RESOLVED unanimously
That a site inspection be arranged in respect of the following
applications:
EAST BECKHAM – PF/13/0772 – Installation of a 10.15 MW solar farm
development for TGC Renewables Limited
SEA PALLING – PF/13/0838 – Continued use of land as gypsy/traveller
site for a maximum of four caravans; The Works, Church Road for Mr R
Leveridge
(65)
URGENT BUSINESS - PRIOR NOTIFICATION FROM A DISTRICT COUNCILLOR
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter
of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
A prior notification had been received from a District Councillor. The Development
Manager explained that this did not require planning permission and there was a time
limit of 42 days to deal with it. The issue was therefore time-critical.
The Planning Legal Manager informed the Committee that the Council’s Planning
Protocol required applications from Members to come before the Committee. Officers
were seeking delegated power to deal with the issue in the event of a neighbour
objection.
RESOLVED unanimously
That delegated power be given to the relevant officers to deal with
any objections relating to this matter
(66)
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 paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Development Committee
7
1 August 2013
(67)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 12 of the Officer’s exempt report updating the
situation previously reported concerning the Schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 June 2013
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
The meeting closed at 11.10am
Development Committee
8
1 August 2013