3 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)
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Terrington - substitute for M J M Baker
J D Savory - Priory Ward
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mrs T Armitage – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
(256) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M J M Baker. There was one
substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
(257) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 April 2012 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to:
Minute 244 – Sheringham PF/12/0079 – amend to read “Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney asked whether it would be possible to erect a small bungalow …..”
Minute 246 – Stiffkey PF/11/1257 – Councillor R Reynolds‟ comments - amend to
read “He stated that the occasional accident had occurred in the village but, as far as
he was aware, none had occurred at this site.”
(258) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(259) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs A R Green, J Perry-Warnes, R Reynolds and P Terrington declared
interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of the items concerned.
Development Committee
1
3 May 2012
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.
(260) FAKENHAM - PF/12/0247 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; 39
Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
close to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(261) FAKENHAM - PF/12/0301 - Erection of cart shed (revised design incorporating
side extension); 41 Sculthorpe Road for Hall and Woodcraft Construction Ltd
Councillor R Reynolds declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he lived
close to the site. He vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
application.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers‟ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(262) HELHOUGHTON - PF/12/0091 - Variation of Condition 6 of permission
reference: 03/2055 to permit permanent residential occupation; 1 & 5 Wood
Farm Barns, Broomsthorpe Road for Mr J Nunn
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers‟ reports.
Development Committee
2
3 May 2012
Members expressed concern that the dwellings could become second homes, but
noted that there was nothing that could be done to prevent such use.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to secure a commuted sum of £30,000 towards the provision
of affordable housing.
(263) HOLT - PF/12/0123 - Change of use from B1 (offices) to C3 (residential); Nelson
House, 2 White Lion Street for Mr J B Shrive
Councillors Mrs A R Green and J Perry-Warnes declared personal interests as they
were acquainted with Mr Shrive. The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that such
an interest did not require the Members concerned to vacate the Council Chamber.
Members stated that they had received correspondence from Mr Shrive. The
Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that the receipt of correspondence
did not constitute an interest.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Shrive (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the recommendation in the report should
refer to C3 and not C1.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, read to the Committee an email he had
received from Councillor M J M Baker, also a local Member. Councillor Baker was
concerned that approval would set a precedent, but supported approval of this
application if Officers were satisfied that a special case could be made as, in his
opinion, residential use was the best way to secure the preservation of the building‟s
appearance. Councillor High supported this view. He considered that the historic
value of the building was paramount and would not support any use other than
residential. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal. He considered that a precedent
would not be set because this was a unique case given the building‟s historic use as
a dwelling prior to the applicant‟s ownership, the preservation of the building by the
applicant and its historical significance both to the town and the nation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that, in the future, town centres would
become residential with businesses relocating out of town, as had happened in the
USA. He considered that it was important to retain the building as a single dwelling
and it should not be converted into flats.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the building had a
small garden area. The car parking area was currently rented by the applicant, but
there was no requirement for car parking provision in a town centre location.
Development Committee
3
3 May 2012
The Development Manager confirmed that the application related to a single
dwelling. Subdivision of the building into flats would require a separate planning
application which would be considered on its merits. He stated that residential use
was acceptable in town centres as a mix of uses; however this building was located
within the primary shopping area where residential use was not acceptable under
Policy SS5. However, it appeared that Members considered that the special
character of the building was primarily residential and such use would help to
preserve that special character. It was necessary for the Committee to consider very
carefully its reasons for approval in order that a precedent would not be set.
It was not considered to be a significant policy departure when weighed against other
policies and material considerations.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee in respect of its reasons for
approving this application.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Reasons: The building is currently in use as an office and therefore
approval of this application would not result in the loss of a shop;
residential conversion is considered to be the best way to preserve the
future of this iconic Listed Building; and the building was formerly a
dwelling and has retained its garden.
(264) LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 - Conversion and extension of barns to provide hotel
with swimming pool, restaurant and bar facilities, conversion of barn to four
residential dwellings and erection of five holiday dwellings; Land at Glass
Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr J Hope (Langham Parish Council)
Mr P Allen (supporting)
Mr I Johnston (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) briefly outlined the background
to this case and the differences between the proposed scheme and that which had
been implemented under PF/06/0770. He updated the Committee on the following
issues:
Highway safety – the Highway Authority did not support a 20 mph speed restriction
on North Street as requested by the Parish Council as traffic did not adhere to the 30
mph currently in place. Further reduction would require physical features to reduce
traffic speeds and the Highway Authority considered that the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager was unlikely to support such features. However, it was for
the Committee to decide whether to request the Highway Authority to reconsider its
view.
Foul sewage – the views of Anglian Water were still awaited.
Development Committee
4
3 May 2012
Section 106 Obligation. On the basis of the information submitted by the applicant it
was not considered that a viability report should be sought in respect of the
affordable housing contribution. With regard to letting days, it was clear that the
restriction in the Section 106 Obligation would affect the applicant‟s ability to secure
funding from the bank and therefore the applicant had requested permission for the
letting days to refer only to the barn units.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee an email
which had recently been received from the applicant in respect of concerns raised in
the report relating to road safety, foul sewage, viability and economic issues.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that there were a number
of outstanding issues which he considered could be resolved. An amended plan had
been received which had addressed the design issues raised by the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to resolution of traffic management issues,
variation of the Section 106 Obligation, clarification of foul sewage issues with
Anglian Water and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, acknowledged the Parish Council‟s concerns
with regard to highway safety and considered that discussion was needed with the
Highway Authority in order to resolve the issue regarding the speed limit. He referred
to the amount of traffic that had been generated when the site was used by Langham
Glass. He referred to the primary school in North Street which drew in children from
a wide area who arrived by car. However, he considered that the situation could be
managed. He considered that many benefits would accrue from redevelopment of
the site in terms of employment, economic benefits and regaining a village shop. He
had concerns in respect of the number of parking spaces and requested that this
issue be considered carefully. However, his principal concern related to the
affordable housing and he considered that the applicant should be requested to
provide affordable housing or a contribution towards provision of an affordable
housing scheme for the village.
Councillor P Terrington supported the views of Councillor Savory and the Parish
Council. He considered that the number of parking spaces within the site should be
reconsidered, together with possible on-street parking restrictions. He considered
that affordable housing should be provided within the village and suggested that a
minimum of one-third (8 units) would be appropriate.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners also supported the provision of 8 units in the village
and considered that it would be preferable to provide housing for people who wished
to live in the village rather than 23 holiday dwellings. He considered that the
proposed scheme would be an important boost to the economy.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the application under
consideration did not include market housing and made no offer of affordable
housing. The remaining cottages were outside the current application. The
suggestions which were being put forward would either require a new application or a
major amendment of the current application.
Development Committee
5
3 May 2012
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Johnston commented on the suggestions put
forward by Members. He explained the rationale for the current proposal. He
referred to discussions he had had with Officers regarding an alternative scheme
which would allow the units to the east of the site to be sold on the open market in
exchange for a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing in Langham
and further contributions towards village facilities.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that if it wished to approve
such a proposal, the Committee should indicate that it is minded to support the
suggestion in principle but request an amended scheme which would be subject to
reconsultation. This would be a significant change to the current application, and
whilst it would raise policy issues, he confirmed that the units could be built under the
approved scheme as holiday units.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners proposed that consideration of this application be
deferred to the next meeting but in the meantime, Officers negotiate the provision of
21 market dwellings in place of the 21 holiday units previously approved, conversion
of four barn units to holiday homes and an affordable housing contribution based on
8 affordable dwellings to be provided in the village.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed that the Head of Planning and Building Control be
authorised to approve the application subject to resolution of traffic management
issues, variation of the Section 106 Obligation, clarification of foul sewage issues with
Anglian Water and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
The Chairman invited the Chairman of the Parish Council to comment on the
suggestion put forward by the applicant. Mr Hope stated that he had some
reservations as a previous affordable housing scheme in the village had caused
concern in the village as the dwellings had been let to people from outside the
village. He stated that there would be a need for consultation within the village on
this suggestion. There was also an issue as to whether there was a suitable site for
eight affordable dwellings.
Councillor J D Savory stated that he was aware of the previous issues regarding
affordable housing. However, there were recent examples in Hindringham and Field
Dalling where affordable housing had been let successfully under the local lettings
policy to people with strong local connections. He considered that the suggestion
was interesting. He expressed concern with regard to access onto North Street for
21 permanent residences, but considered that the issues could be resolved through
negotiation.
Councillor P Terrington stated that whilst he was minded to support the suggestions,
he was concerned that it would tie the Officers‟ hands. He also stated that there
would need to be discussion with the Parish Council regarding the scheme.
The Planning Legal Manager suggested that the Committee support the Officer‟s
recommendation but also give authority to explore whether there was scope for
affordable housing to be incorporated in an amended proposal, with the applicant
providing an open book valuation on the market housing and negotiations taking
place with the Parish Council. He requested that the timescale for bringing the
matter back to the Committee and the number of affordable housing units be left
open.
Development Committee
6
3 May 2012
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the satisfactory resolution of the
traffic management issues, variation to the previous Section 106
Agreement and clarification of foul sewage issues with Anglian Water
and the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the Committee
would be minded to support in principle an amended proposal to
provide market housing in place of holiday units subject to either the
provision of affordable housing on site or a contribution towards off-site
provision subject to an open book valuation.
(265) LANGHAM - LA/12/0182 - Alterations to barn to facilitate conversion to four
dwellings; Land at Glass Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers‟ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(266) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/11/1106 - Continued use of former coal yard for
storage of boats and siting of portable office buildings; Former Coal Yard,
Maryland for Kiss Works Limited
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest in this application as his family
owned an area of land which was let to a third party for boat storage.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Nicholson (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received
indicating that Locker Room B was not being used. He reported that an email had
been received from SCIRA stating that it was renting the site, which was being used
by its sub-contractors for storage associated with the wind farm development. The
development was due to finish later in the year and the offices would relocate to
Egmere. However, the exact finish date would depend on the sea and weather
conditions.
Councillor P Terrington referred to representations he had received from the
objectors. SCIRA had worked with the objectors to resolve their concerns, but the
objectors were concerned about noise and potential problems that could arise in the
future if another occupier took over the site after SCIRA‟s departure. He requested
temporary approval restricted to use by the current occupier only for a period of one
year unless the site is vacated sooner.
Development Committee
7
3 May 2012
Councillor J D Savory stated that he had also been involved with the objectors on this
matter for some time. He stated that there had been a long history of noise
complaints prior to the current occupation of the site. He requested that hours be
restricted to between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.
The Chairman stated that she understood the office hours operated by the Company
were not the same as normal commercial office hours.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that a temporary one year
permission, restricting the use of the offices to SCIRA and its sub-contractors, was
acceptable in planning terms. In response to a comment by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard, he stated that lighting issues could be dealt with by condition under
delegated powers.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of one year,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including restriction
to use of the offices by SCIRA and its sub-contractors and a lighting
condition.
(267) WORSTEAD - PF/12/0356 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 11/0418 to permit retention of re-sited buildings, CCTV cameras and
fencing; Solar Farm, Heath Road for Renpower Investments UK Ltd
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs B Smith (objecting)
Mr Knights and Mr Meacock (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the applicant had
fitted cowls to two of the cameras and installed software which would remove images
of the gardens. However, cowls would not be effective on some of the other
cameras. The proposal was not considered to be acceptable as now submitted but it
was considered that it could be made acceptable. He requested delegated authority
to approve this application subject to satisfactory resolution of the CCTV issue in the
interests of protecting the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. If the
Committee was minded to refuse this application it would be necessary to commence
enforcement action.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee the
comments of Councillor G Williams, the local Member, who considered that the
CCTV system should be removed or replaced with a scheme which did not impact on
residential properties, or be subject to major redesign to remove or relocate cameras
1, 2, 3 and possibly 11.
Councillor P W High considered that the CCTV system was a gross invasion of
privacy and that cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11 should be relocated. He requested refusal
of the CCTV element of the proposal.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that the perceived Human Rights issue was important,
as whilst it was possible to screen out the images, the perception of being overlooked
remained. He supported Councillor High‟s comments and considered that the
application should be refused on Human Rights, Policy EN8 and crime and disorder
grounds.
Development Committee
8
3 May 2012
The Development Manager stated that a split decision could not be issued in this
case. He suggested that this application be deferred for further negotiations in
respect of cameras 1, 2, 3 and 11, but that the Committee indicate that it is minded to
refuse the application in its present form.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the installation of an alarmed gate at the
location of camera 1 would be effective as anyone who arrived to steal anything
would need to access the site by lorry.
Councillor B Smith suggested that a low beam system be installed.
Councillor P Terrington considered that the applicants should also negotiate with the
affected residents in order to seek a solution.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That a decision on this application be deferred pending further
negotiations with the applicants on a number of options to include
possible removal of camera 1 and amendment to, or removal of,
cameras 2, 3 and 11 or installation of low beam cameras.
The Committee is minded to refuse this application as currently
submitted because of the intrusive and perceived intrusive effect of the
cameras as installed on the occupiers of the adjacent residential
dwellings.
(268) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
RESOLVED
That site visit be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HIGH KELLING – PF/12/0278 – Demolition of single storey dwelling and
erection of two storey dwelling; Rosana, Vale Road for Ms Elwood
(269) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers‟ reports in respect of the quarterly report
on planning applications and appeals for the period from January to March 2011,
covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes. Figures are
also included for land charge searches.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that pre-application charges
were now in force.
Development Committee
9
3 May 2012
Councillor R Shepherd expressed his gratitude to the staff in the Planning
Department for the help they had given him since his election. The Committee
endorsed his views.
(270) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT PROGRESS REPORT
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers‟ reports outlines progress being made in
clearing the backlog of outstanding enforcement cases which had built up by the end
of 2011.
At the Development Committee meeting, the Head of Planning and Building Control
reported that there had been some slippage since writing the report as April‟s figures
showed that more new cases had been received than had been resolved.
The Development Manager explained that a number of „special cases‟ planning
applications had recently been submitted, which were within the remit of the Team
Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases). He requested that Members bear this in
mind when considering the enforcement performance.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones appreciated that it was difficult to resolve some cases,
but considered that it was necessary to be stricter in enforcing against certain
breaches of planning control to send a message to others. There was a tendency
towards leniency in some of the more difficult cases.
The Development Manager stated that the difficult cases to clear were those
involving neighbour disputes and the Council tended to become involved in cases
which were important to the people involved, but were otherwise trivial in nature. It
was therefore the intention to introduce a priority system for complaints. A Local
Enforcement Plan, as recommended in the new National Planning Policy Framework
would be prepared for consideration by Development Committee.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle expressed her gratitude to the Enforcement Officer for the
way she dealt with matters in her Ward.
(271) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers‟ reports.
(272) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers‟ reports.
(273) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers‟ reports.
(274) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers‟ reports.
(275) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers‟ reports.
Development Committee
10
3 May 2012
(276) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers‟ reports.
(277) 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.
(278) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 18 of the Officers‟ exempt reports updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of current enforcement cases
and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 31 March 2011.
RESOLVED
1. That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of
Current Enforcement Cases be noted.
2. That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed
from the Schedules.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
11
3 May 2012