4 SEPTEMBER 2014
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)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
Mr E Seward
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
E Seward (substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones)
N Smith (substitute for Mrs A Green)
P Terrington (substitute for Miss B Palmer)
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mr C Board – Senior Planning Officer
Mr S Coleman – Highways Officer (NCC)
(72)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs A Green Smith and Mrs P
Grove-Jones. Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above.
An apology had been received from Councillor P Williams who was unable to attend
the meeting to present his comments in respect of Ludham PF/14/0664.
(73)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 07 August 2014 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(74)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(75)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All members declared an interest in respect of Blakeney – PF/14/0785 as they had
received a lot of additional information from the applicants and objectors prior to the
meeting. Mr B Smith declared an interest, the details of which are given under the
minute of the items concerned.
Development Committee
1
4 September 2014
(76)
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.
(77)
BACTON - PF/14/0582 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection of
one and a half-storey dwelling with attached garage and garden shed;
Woodlands, Mill Road, Edingthorpe for Mr & Mrs Derby
Councillor B Smith stated that he had spoken to the applicants and objectors
regarding this application.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Murray (objecting)
Mr J Derby (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council considered that the
amendments to the scheme were minor in nature and that further amendments were
needed to reduce the size of the windows. The Parish Council therefore maintained
its objection to the scheme. The results of a shading analysis were shown to the
Committee indicating that shading would be similar to the existing building.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, expressed concern regarding the size of the
building and its impact on Bacton woods and the open countryside. He considered
that it would not sit well in its location due to its overall size. He added that he had
concerns about the reflection from the glass during the daytime and light pollution at
night and the impact this could have on foraging birds. He proposed refusal of the
application due to massing, design and overall scale of the building. No seconder
was forthcoming.
Councillor R Shepherd said that he was impressed with the design. He had some
concerns about the zinc roof and felt that pantiles would be more appropriate. He
proposed approval of the application.
Councillor P W High seconded the proposal. He said that he liked the design and in
his opinion it did not constitute over-development.
Development Committee
2
4 September 2014
Councillor R Reynolds acknowledged the value of the recent site inspection. He
stated that the proposed siting was improved and commented on the reduction in
shadowing. He added that zinc roofing weathered quickly.
The Chairman queried whether anything could be put in place to reduce the risk of
birds flying into the windows. The Senior Planning Officer replied that non-reflecting
glass could be used.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development
rights, and the submission of details in respect of landscaping,
materials and tree protection measures.
(78)
BLAKENEY – PF14/0785 – Demolition of dwelling and barns and erection of
two and a half storey replacement dwelling; Three Owls Farm, Saxlingham
Road for Mrs K Cargill
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Faulkner (Blakeney Parish Council)
Mr G Sayers (Wiveton Parish Council)
Mr R Hewitt (Objecting)
Mr K Schilling (Supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed dwelling would be sited some
76 metres away from the existing bungalow. A considerable amount of concern had
been raised in relation to this re-siting together with the scale, massing and design
and the impact on the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the
character and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. Whilst these
concerns were acknowledged and fully understood, they had to be balanced against
the relevant Development Plan policies and guidance contained within the National
Planning Policy Framework together with responses from statutory consultees. The
Senior Planning Officer stated that based on these considerations, it was not
considered that the proposed dwelling would result in a significant increase in scale
or detract from the special qualities of the AONB and would not harm the character
and appearance of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area. It was therefore considered
that the scheme would accord with Development Plan policy. The Senior Planning
Officer recommended approval of the application subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including the submission of a landscape and ecological
management plan and precise details of the materials to be used in the construction
of the dwelling.
Councillor Mrs L Brettle, the local Member, stated that it was vital that the landscape
of the Glaven Valley was preserved. She did not agree with the Senior Planning
Officer that it would not impact on the appearance of the surrounding countryside.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that she struggled with the concept of a
replacement dwelling as the proposed structure would be built some distance away
Development Committee
3
4 September 2014
from the original bungalow. She felt that this was a clear example of ‘creep’, and was
concerned about what would happen to the original dwelling.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes commented that the Committee had a responsibility to
look after the countryside of North Norfolk and this application was contrary to
policies H08 and EN1. He proposed refusal of the application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that members needed to weigh up the need to be fair
with the duty to comply with planning law. Considering the siting of the new against
that of the old dwelling, he felt that the new position was much better suited to the
surrounding backdrop. He proposed approval of the application.
Councillor R Shepherd commented that the Glaven Valley was an iconic part of North
Norfolk and there was a need to be particularly careful when considering this
application. The importance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was very
important and should not be dismissed. He added that the siting of the proposed
dwelling was an issue and it should remain on the original site. He concluded by
saying that in his opinion, the application was in breach of policies H08, EN1 and
EN4. He seconded Councillor J Perry-Warnes’ proposal to refuse the application.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that many residents depended on tourism for their
livelihood and the impact of this proposal on the historic countryside would be
devastating. Approval could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging more
applications for modern style homes within the AONB.
Councillor N Smith referred to the Council’s Values and Vision as set out in the
Corporate Plan. He said that it was important that local communities felt empowered
to have a greater say and the views of the local parish councils should be respected.
The Planning Legal Manager asked whether there was a seconder for Councillor R
Reynolds proposal to approve the application. With no seconder forthcoming,
Councillor Reynolds withdrew his proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor J Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd
and
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 2
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The replacement dwelling by virtue of its scale, massing and siting
would materially increase the impact of the dwelling on the surrounding
countryside. The location of the dwelling further away from the retained
buildings on site would result in a detrimental intrusion into open
countryside.
The overall appearance and location would detract from the special
qualities of the Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
adversely affect the character and appearance of the Glaven Valley
Conservation Area.
The proposal was therefore contrary to policies H08, EN1, EN2, EN4 and
EN8 of the Council’s Core Strategy
Development Committee
4
4 September 2014
(79)
BRINTON - PF/14/0793 – Retention of timber buildings for use as storage; The
Hawthorns, Thornage Road, Sharrington for Mr G Riches
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr O’Kane (Brinton Parish Council)
Mr R Dubbins (objecting spokesperson)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the land adjacent to the site had now been subdivided and sold. He explained that this was a retrospective application for consent
for one small parcel of agricultural land. An area of adjoining land was subject to
enforcement action but this application site was not included within this area. He
stated that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, it was
recommended that three additional conditions should be imposed; no additional
structure should be erected, the use of the site should be limited to agricultural use
only, the removal of permitted development rights regarding caravan use.
Councillor L Brettle, the local member, stated that there were concerns locally about
the site. Approval of the application would actively encourage further sub-division of
the site and erection of buildings.
Councillor Mrs A Sweeney queried the need for a letterbox and a chimney on a shed.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the letterbox had been removed and the
chimney was connected to a woodburner sited within the tea shed.
Councillor M J M Baker commented that the views of the parish council should be
considered.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the sub-division of fields looked awful and often
led to over-development. He proposed that the application was refused.
The Senior Planning Officer advised that sub-dividing was not a planning issue as
the use did not change. He stated that the sheds were located against the hedgerow.
At issue was the visual impact and whether it was harmful and detrimental.
The Chairman proposed a site inspection. Miss B Palmer seconded the proposal.
Councillor R Shepherd agreed to withdraw his proposal to refuse the application.
RESOLVED by 13 votes with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee
(80)
ITTERINGHAM – PF/14/0786 – Installation of access steps, replacement door,
side ramp and rear ramp; Fair Meadow House, Wolterton Road for Mr & Mrs G
Applin
The Committee considered item 4 of the reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Farnell (Itteringham Parish Council)
Mrs S Wood (objecting spokesperson)
Development Committee
5
4 September 2014
The Senior Planning Officer stated that this application sought to install access steps,
replacement door, side ramp and rear ramp..
Councillor J Perry-Warnes, the local member, said that the shop was unique as a
community-run venture. The Parish Council objected to the proposal and he
therefore proposed that the application was refused.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the parish council and 17 residents objected to
the proposal and he questioned why it should go ahead if it did not have local
support.
Councillor R Shepherd sought clarification on the legal requirement to provide
disabled access to public facilities.
Councillor E Seward said that the main issue seemed to be the side access.
The Senior Planning Officer advised that these were not planning matters. Issues
around rights of way and access were outside the planning application. Only the door
and steps required planning permission. He went on to state that the owner intended
to make further internal alterations to the premises to ensure access was provided
throughout the building. These alterations were not part of this planning application.
Councillor J Perry-Warnes reiterated his concerns about access to the field behind
the shop and the right of way to the adjacent house. He proposed a site inspection.
Councillor R Reynolds seconded this proposal.
The Planning Legal Manager advised that issues relating to the side access were a
civil matter. He would seek additional advice in relation to the requirements for
disabled access under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee
(81)
LUDHAM - PF/14/0664 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling; 14 Catfield
Road for Mr A Tedder
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr M Flett – parish spokesperson (objecting)
Mr P Brown (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read out a supporting statement from Councillor P
Williams, the local member. He reiterated his support for the application and said that
it should be looked upon favourably as the owner intended to rent the property to
local families. He added that there had been no accidents along this stretch of road in
the previous 5 years. He concluded by stating that the two properties should not be
allowed to fall into separate ownership to avoid any future problems over the height
of the hedge on the boundary.
Development Committee
6
4 September 2014
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Team Leader – Housing Strategy had
indicated that for the property to be classed as affordable the rent must be set at 80%
of the market value. This status could only be controlled by a s106 agreement, a
condition could not be imposed. In conclusion she had indicated that there was
demand for 1 and 2 bedroom properties in the areas. This application was for a 3
bedroom property.
The Highways Officer (NCC) stated that the County Council objected to the
application. He said that the site was considered to be too small to provide visibility
splays. The view towards the village was restricted by the neighbour’s hedge. The
level of visibility amounted to 15% of the suggested guidance. As a result, a vehicle
pulling out of the driveway would not be visible to oncoming traffic. He concluded by
stating that the parking space was very tight and would only work if everyone parked
considerately.
Councillor E Seward queried whether it was possible to apply a condition for a
dwelling to be classed as affordable housing. The Senior Planning Officer replied that
such a condition would not be enforceable. Councillor Seward went on to query the
legal position of the Council if they approved the application against the advice of the
Highways Authority. The Planning Legal Manager replied that previously the
Highways authority had been able to direct refusal of an application on highways
grounds. This was no longer the case. However, the Committee would need to state
reasonable grounds for going against the recommendation of the Highway Authority.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he agreed with the concerns of the Highways
Officer. He believed that cars travelled at around 40mph along that stretch of road.
He also had concerns that the property was oversized for the plot.
Councillor P W High agreed. He said that the proposed dwelling should be smaller,
possibly a bungalow. He did not agree with the advice from the Highways Officer. He
felt that it was not consistent with previous advice. He concluded by saying that
access to the site would work if there was more room to manoeuvre.
Councillor R Reynolds queried whether a condition could be applied to ensure the
two properties remained in the same ownership. The Planning Legal Manager
confirmed that it could not.
Mr P W High proposed refusal of the application due to the mass of the building.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded the proposal.
Mr B Smith proposed an amendment to the proposal. He proposed that the
application should be refused on highways grounds. Mr J Perry-Warnes seconded
the amendment.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared lost with 6 Members voting in
favour and 7 against.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4
To refuse the application on grounds of cramped form of development
that would not provide adequate parking and manoeuvring area within
the site.
Development Committee
7
4 September 2014
(82)
APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officer’s reports.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspection and that
the local Members and Town mayor or Chairman of the Parish Council
be invited to attend:
DUNTON – PF/14/0730 – Formation of lagoons for the storage of
digestate from anaerobic digester with connecting pipeline; land off
Helhoughton Road for Mr D Blyth
(83)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
(84)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
(85)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(86)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(87)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(88)
APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(59)
COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager reported on recent developments in the High Court
case involving the Council and the turbine site at Bodham.
The meeting closed at 12.25 pm.
Development Committee
8
4 September 2014