4 JULY 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
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
E Seward – substitute for J A Wyatt
P Williams – substitute for P W High
B Cabbell Manners – Cromer Town Ward
Mrs H P Eales – The Runtons Ward
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
Mrs A M Moore - North Walsham West Ward
N Smith – Erpingham Ward
G Williams – Worstead Ward
A Yiasimi – Cromer Town Ward
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs K Brumpton – Planning Assistant
(26)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and J A Wyatt.
There were two substitute Members in attendance.
(27)
MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 30 May and 6 June 2013 were
approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
(28)
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 appointment of a Vice-Chairman for the
next meeting of the Committee as she would be absent and Councillor R Reynolds,
the Vice-Chairman, would chair the meeting. The reason for urgency was to ensure
that support for the Chair was in place for the next meeting.
Development Committee
1
4 July 2013
(29)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs S Arnold, E Seward and Mrs V Uprichard declared interests, 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.
(30)
ALDBOROUGH - PF/13/0135 - Erection of two-storey and single-storey side
extension; Greenside, The Green for Mr P Clark
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs R Elliott (Aldborough Parish Council)
Mrs Chrison (objecting)
Mr P Clark (supporting)
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, stated that a compromise had been suggested
to him which would involve the applicant relocating the extension. He referred to the
Human Rights Act. He stated that he wished to listen to the debate before
commenting further.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that, having seen the site, it was evident that the
extension would result in loss of sunlight to Fox Cottage from early afternoon. He
had no objection to an extension to Greenside in principle, and stated that there was
ample room in the garden to build an extension to the south-west. He proposed
refusal of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that an acceptable compromise could be reached
by moving the proposed extension forwards. He considered that the proposed wall
would be imposing on Victoria Cottage. He seconded the proposal.
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on the grounds that the proposed
extension would result in a loss of light and potentially overbearing
effect on the dwellings to the north and north-east, contrary to Policy
EN4 of the Development Plan.
One Member abstained from voting.
Development Committee
2
4 July 2013
(31)
AYLMERTON - PF/13/0430 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 99/1235 to permit an additional three seasonal caravans; Moorland
Park, Holt Road for Mrs E Field
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this
application as she was acquainted with Mrs Field through playing golf. She remained
in the Chair for this item.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs E Field (supporting)
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, stated that there would be no increase
in the number of touring caravans.
She disputed the Highway Authority’s
assessment of the number of additional traffic movements and the impact on the flow
of traffic on the A148. She stated that there was a large car park partway along the
access track so vehicles could pull in if necessary to assist movement along the
track. She considered that it was important to support sustainable tourism. She
requested that this application be approved.
Councillor B Smith stated that small businesses should be supported. He could not
envisage that three seasonal caravans would make any difference and visitors could
arrive in a private car. He proposed approval of this application, which was
seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
Councillor P Williams suggested widening the entrance to allow a vehicle to enter in
the event of another vehicle waiting to exit. He supported this application.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) reiterated his objection to this
application. He urged the Committee to consider the 30% increase in traffic using a
sub-standard access, to the detriment of highway safety.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that the caravans were already in situ and
asked if there had been any noticeable increase in traffic movements. The
Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that he did not have this information.
Councillor B Smith considered that the visibility splays were good at the entrance to
the site. He asked if traffic accident statistics were available.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that he did not have any
accident statistics but there was a history of rear-end collisions further along the road
where traffic was waiting to turn into a signposted junction.
Councillor R Shepherd suggested that the applicant erect a sign within the site to
advise drivers to give priority to traffic entering the site.
The Development Manager advised the Committee that if it were minded to approve
this application, it may be necessary to either revoke or amend an existing Section
106 Obligation. There were also a number of concerns which had been raised by the
Highway Authority. Widening of the access could potentially address one of the
issues and be of general benefit to traffic going in and out of the site, and this would
need to be explored with the applicant. A condition would need to be included to
specify seasonal caravans.
Development Committee
3
4 July 2013
In answer to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Mrs Field confirmed that
there was sufficient land in her control to widen the access.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Corporate Director be authorised to approve this application
subject to the possible need to revoke or amend the existing Section
106 Obligation, negotiations with regard to widening of the access, and
to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including restriction to
seasonal caravans only.
Reasons: The Committee concluded that the application is supportive of
the local economy and the tourist offer of North Norfolk. It considered
that the increase in vehicle movements would be acceptable, given the
possible access improvements and 40 mph speed limit.
(32)
CROMER - PF/13/0111 - Erection of thirty-five retirement apartments with
communal facilities; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road
for McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr S Eastwood (Cromer Town Council)
Mr A Boyce (objecting)
Ms L Matthewson (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a contribution of £3,722 had been offered
in lieu of on-site affordable housing. Whilst there was a considerable shortfall in
provision, the Strategic Housing Manager had raised no objections on viability
grounds.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Landscape Officer considered that bats
were not utilising the building for roosting. However, a full protected species report
was still required to allow the information to be fully assessed.
A lengthy rebuttal letter had been received from the applicant’s agent in respect of
the comments of English Heritage and the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager regarding the heritage value of the site. The Senior Planning Officer
outlined the main points which had been raised in the letter. The views of English
Heritage and the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had been sought
regarding the letter. English Heritage had been unable to provide a full response in
the time available, but had commented on a number of specific points and
maintained its view. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager concurred
with the view that the Heritage Statement submitted was inadequate and this was in
its own right a reason for refusal.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to refuse this application
subject to the receipt of a full protected species report and on the grounds that the
applicant has failed to adequately assess the significance of the heritage assets
contrary to the requirements of paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy
Framework, and furthermore, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance either the
Development Committee
4
4 July 2013
character or appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area and is not suitably
designed for its context, contrary to Policies EN4 and EN8 of the Core Strategy. It
would result in harm to the character, appearance and significance of the
Conservation Area contrary to Paragraphs 134 and137 of the NPPF and this is not
considered to be outweighed by the public benefits in this instance.
The Development Manager explained that there were two related applications, firstly
a planning application which also involved demolition of the building, and secondly,
an application for Conservation Area consent for demolition which clearly would be
informed by the Committee’s decision on the planning application.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager referred to the Council’s
objectives in relation to jobs, housing and economic development, which needed to
be balanced against the environment and quality of the built heritage, with guidance
from the National Planning Policy Framework. Irrespective of the inadequacy of the
information supplied, it was necessary for the Committee to consider if harm would
be outweighed by the public benefit. He referred to the Conservation Area Appraisal
and Management Plan for Cromer and the local listing of the building. He stated that
the Committee’s decision was important as any building which was approved to
replace the existing would stand for many years. Officers were not implying that
redevelopment or renewal could not take place, but it had to be equal to, if not better
than, the existing building. He advised the Committee that the best approach was to
refuse the current application and negotiate with the developer for a better scheme.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that if this application
were refused and subject to appeal, the Inspector would take into account that
English Heritage did not consider the building of listable quality, and therefore local
listing was irrelevant. He stated that the building was an amalgamation of
architecture from the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s, of which there were many examples
around the country.
He considered that the site was ideal for retirement
accommodation as it was close to public transport, shops and the town’s facilities.
Development of this nature would release other housing and allow people to continue
living in their own homes for longer. With regard to design, this was a subjective
matter and he did not consider that it would cause harm. The proposal was similar to
other development nearby. Whilst he considered that the mass of the proposal was
large, he accepted that it was necessary to enable the scheme to work. He
requested that Officers be given delegated authority to approve the application as it
would be beneficial to Cromer, create employment, would not spoil the area given the
surrounding modern development and would free up other housing.
Councillor A Yiasimi, a local Member, stated that the site was the first view people
had of Cromer on arrival by train and he considered that the proposal would not say
“welcome to Cromer”. He considered that the scheme needed to be improved. He
supported Councillor B Cabbell Manners’ view that the housing scheme would be
good for Cromer, but considered that Officers should work together with the
developer to achieve a better design.
Councillor R Shepherd supported Councillor B Cabbell Manners’ comments with
regard to heritage. However, he considered that the design needed to be more
sympathetic. He proposed that the Officers be given delegated authority to approve
this application subject to negotiating a more sympathetic design.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered that the height of the development was
excessive, the entrance should be moved further away from the junction and he did
not favour the flat-roofed design. He seconded the proposal.
Development Committee
5
4 July 2013
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that the site was derelict and did not provide a
warm welcome in its current state. She considered that it would be an opportunity
missed if the proposal were not approved.
Councillor R Reynolds supported the general design of the building, although he
considered that the roof design could be improved. He also expressed reservations
regarding the subdivision of the adjacent police houses and considered that the
proposal should be extended to incorporate all of the police houses if possible.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that there would be no provision of
local facilities and a minimal contribution towards affordable housing arising from this
development.
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposed development was too large, too
cramped on the site and overbearing. He did not support the false façade and flat
roofed design. He considered that the affordable housing contribution should be
reconsidered. As an amendment, he proposed delegated refusal of this application
as recommended. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advised the Committee to refuse
this application as recommended. Officers could then negotiate with the developer
for a more appropriate design. He stated that local listing was a material
consideration which the Inspector would consider in the event of an appeal. In
answer to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, he stated that the applicants had not
taken up the opportunity to hold pre-application discussions with Officers with regard
to this application.
The Development Manager stated that in principle, redevelopment of the site was
acceptable, subject to an appropriate scheme. Officers considered that the current
scheme did not meet the required standard.
The amendment was put to the vote, carried by 7 votes to 2 with 1 abstention, and on
being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 3
That the Corporate Director be authorised to refuse this application
subject to the receipt of a full protected species report for further
consideration, and on the grounds that the applicant has failed to
adequately assess the significance of the heritage assets contrary to
the requirements of paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy
Framework, and furthermore, the proposal fails to preserve or enhance
either the character or appearance of the Cromer Conservation Area and
is not suitably designed for its context, contrary to Policies EN4 and
EN8 of the Core Strategy. It would result in harm to the character,
appearance and significance of the Conservation Area contrary to
Paragraphs 134 and137 of the NPPF and this is not considered to be
outweighed by the public benefits in this instance.
Development Committee
6
4 July 2013
(33)
CROMER - LE/13/0112 - Demolition of former police station/court house
buildings; Former Police Station and Magistrates Court, Holt Road for
McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr S Eastwood (Cromer Town Council)
Mr A Boyce (objecting)
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
(34)
CROMER - PF/13/0438 - Erection of entrance canopy; Halsey House, 31
Norwich Road for The Royal British Legion
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, Councillor R Shepherd and Councillor B Smith stated
that they were members of the Royal British Legion.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs H Sihdu (supporting)
The Committee noted that the local Members, who had called in this application,
were not present at the meeting and that no comments had been received from
them.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the design was sympathetic, the building
remained visible and the canopy would be of benefit to the residents. He proposed
approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the proposal was not in keeping with the
existing building. Whilst he was sympathetic to the needs of the users, he
considered that the design should be reconsidered.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the whole of the arched entrance would be
visible if the canopy were raised.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager expressed the view that any
structure would detract from the character of the entrance to the building, even if it
were the right height and shape. Whilst he was sympathetic to the needs of the
users of the building, he considered that the proposal would be seriously damaging.
Councillor P Williams considered that the curves of the structure and existing
entrance should mimic each other and that given modern methods of construction, it
should be possible to design a canopy without the steel framework. He considered
that the application should be approved subject to an all glass design.
Development Committee
7
4 July 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposed structure was ugly and
resembled a supermarket trolley bay. She suggested that thought needed to be
given as to whether buildings or people were the most important consideration when
considering such buildings. She supported refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard supported Councillor Williams’ comments.
She
suggested that the proposed structure had the appearance of a smoking shelter.
The proposal to approve this application was put to the vote and declared lost by 2
votes to 11.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
(35)
ERPINGHAM - PF/13/0042 - Construction of replacement roof with increased
height and side facing dormer window, roof lights and gable end windows to
provide first floor habitable accommodation; 1 Birch Court for Mr & Mrs S
Gaskins
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Gibbs (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the amended site notice had now expired and
no new grounds of objection had been received. She recommended approval of this
application subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Having heard the comments of the objecting spokesman, the Chairman proposed a
site inspection, which was seconded.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(36)
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0587 - Erection of single-storey rear/side extension;
Driftway Farm, The Driftway for Mrs J Oliver
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Miss B Palmer
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including the use to remain ancillary to the
residential use of the dwelling.
Development Committee
8
4 July 2013
(37)
NORTH WALSHAM - PO/12/1436 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; 18
Aylsham Road for Mr & Mrs M L Mansfield
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that the report referred to a garage
which had been deleted from the proposal. She stated that 18 Aylsham Road was a
locally listed building and local members were anxious for assurance that such listing
would give an added level of protection. She stated that the main issue of concern
locally in respect of this application related to highway issues.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that there was an existing access and he considered
that the additional traffic arising from another bungalow would be minimal.
He
considered that the visibility at the entrance was good. However, he was concerned
at the gradient of the driveway and considered that this should be improved by hard
surfacing. Subject to this, he proposed that this application be approved in
accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor P Williams considered that vehicles should be prevented from crossing the
junction into the site from the Paston direction. He suggested that access should
only be gained from Aylsham Road.
Councillor B Smith considered that modifications to the access and splays, as
discussed with the Highways Officer, would be acceptable. He seconded the
proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the access had been redesigned to
prevent vehicles crossing the flow of traffic.
Councillor E Seward stated that Aylsham Road was an HGV route. He stated that
the access was not visible until vehicles cleared the railway bridge. He had no
objection to the site being developed, but he remained concerned regarding highway
issues.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she was also concerned regarding the
visibility of the entrance to traffic using the Aylsham Road.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4
That subject to the imposition of an additional condition to require the
driveway to be hard surfaced, this application be approved in
accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
Development Committee
9
4 July 2013
(38)
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
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs B West (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Wagstaff (objecting)
Mrs C Schonhut (supporting)
The Chairman stated that she had received comments from Councillor Mrs A M
Moore, but had been unable to print them.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that both the applicant and objector
had spoken to her in respect of this application. She referred to the drainage issues
which had been raised and considered that they needed to be resolved. She
expressed concern that the siting of the development would have an impact on the
amenity of the neighbour and suggested a site inspection.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor E Seward
and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town
Mayor be invited to attend.
(39)
NORTH WALSHAM - PF/13/0258 - Demolition of seven garages and erection of
four flats; Land at Cooper Road for Victory Housing Trust
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Robertson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr K Postle (objecting)
Miss F Davies (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Highway Authority had confirmed that it
had no objection to this application. Victory Housing Trust had indicated that
alternative car parking facilities in the vicinity of the site had been offered to existing
residents. The Crime Prevention Officer had no objection. He recommended
approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor E Seward, a local Member, referred to the acute need for one and two-bed
affordable housing in the town and surrounding parishes. This was a residential area
and therefore development was acceptable. However, he was concerned with
regard to prevention of crime and the provision of suitable alternative parking
facilities for a disabled tenant, Mr Postle. He understood that alternative facilities had
been offered but this was approximately 300 yards away from his home. He referred
to vandalism which took place in the area, particularly in relation to vehicles. He
considered that Victory Housing Trust could install CCTV to provide more
reassurance to residents. He suggested that a garage in Glebe Court would be
suitable to address Mr Postle’s needs.
Development Committee
10
4 July 2013
In response to questions by the Chairman, Miss Davies stated that one of the
garages in Glebe Court had recently become void and would be offered to Mr Postle.
Mr Postle indicated that this would be acceptable to him. Miss Davies referred to a
meeting which had been held with existing garage users. It was apparent that not all
incidents of vandalism had been reported and residents were encouraged to report
all incidents, however small. Discussions were being held with residents regarding
improvements to the replacement parking area, such as improved lighting and
marking out of parking spaces. She would take the suggestion to install CCTV back
to discuss with relevant officers.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that there was considerable need for single-bed
accommodation. From his experience as a former police officer, crime tended to
happen in cycles and he considered that if the flats were built it would discourage
crime as criminals did not like to be seen. He proposed approval of this application
which was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
The Chairman considered that the design of the building was bland and suggested
that bow fronted windows on the ground floor would improve the design. Councillors
Shepherd and Reynolds agreed to include design improvements in their proposal.
Councillor E Seward requested that it be minuted that he was pleased with the offer
to Mr Postle of a garage in Glebe Court. He also requested that the applicant work
with Officers and local Ward Members.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to minor design
improvements and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
(40)
WORSTEAD - PF/13/0408 - Removal of Condition 2 of planning permission
reference: 03/0322 to permit permanent residential occupation; Damson-Lea,
Honing Road, Lyngate for Mrs C Tunstall-Turner
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs C Tunstall-Turner (supporting)
Councillor G Williams, the local Member, referred to the quality test in Policy HO9.
He stated that the building would remain regardless of whether this application were
approved and he considered that it would provide a good quality residential dwelling.
Councillor P Williams considered that tourism should take precedence and
questioned whether the building would have been approved for permanent residential
use. He proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the building would be suitable for residential
use, but Policy HO9 was very specific. He considered that approval of this
application would set a precedent. He requested that the policy should be reviewed
in respect of cases such as this. He seconded the proposal.
Development Committee
11
4 July 2013
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2
That this application be refused on the grounds that the proposal does
not comply with Policy HO9 in that the building does not meet the
quality test set out in that policy as being worthy of retention.
The Committee also requested that Policy HO9 be reconsidered by the
appropriate forum.
(41)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(42)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(43)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(44)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(45)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(46)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
(47)
APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN FOR THE NEXT 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 Chairman would be absent from the next meeting and Councillor R Reynolds,
the Vice-Chairman, would be taking the Chair. It was therefore considered
appropriate to appoint a Vice-Chairman for the next meeting at this stage to enable
support to be provided for Councillor Reynolds at the pre-Committee meeting.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor Miss B
Palmer and
RESOLVED
That Councillor R Shepherd be appointed Vice-Chairman for the
meeting of Development Committee to be held on 1 August 2013.
The meeting closed at 1.30 pm.
Development Committee
12
4 July 2013