140.
5 APRIL 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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds - substitute for B Cabbell Manners
E Seward – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
B J Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
J D Savory - Priory Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
K E Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
(237) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners and Mrs P
Grove-Jones. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
(238) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 March 2012 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(239) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A planning application at Wells-next-the-Sea, reference PF/12/0212.
2.
A planning application at Worstead, reference PF/12/0356.
In both cases the reason for urgency was to expedite processing of the applications
by undertaking a site inspection.
Development Committee
1
5 April 2012
141.
(240) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of
the items concerned.
(241) THE TOWN & COUNTRY PLANNING (TREE PRESERVATION) (ENGLAND)
REGULATIONS 2012
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ report in respect of new
Regulations regarding Tree Preservation Orders.
The Landscape Officer answered Members’ questions in respect of the new
Regulations.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
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.
The Development Manager reported that there was nothing in the new National
Planning Policy Framework which would significantly affect any of the applications
before the Committee at this meeting.
(242) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/0115 - Erection of replacement barn and stables; 35
Trunch Road for Mr Bonham
The Planning Legal Manager stated that the applicant was known to Officers and
some Members as he was a former colleague. However he was not aware of any
prejudicial interests.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Vale (objecting)
Mr J Bonham (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Trunch Parish Council had also been
consulted and its comments were awaited. She stated that the application site was
approximately 0.25 ha and not 0.125 ha as stated in the report (page 5).
Development Committee
2
5 April 2012
142.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the contents of two letters which had been
received from an agent acting on behalf of the objectors which raised a number of
points including the processing of the application, accuracy of the applicant’s
submission, statements made in the Officer’s report, lack of response to points made
in an objector’s letter and reconsultation on the amended plan. In response, the
Senior Planning Officer stated that the site notice had been posted 9 days after
registration of the application, which was not considered to be unreasonable, the
District Council was not aware of when Parish Council meetings took place, Trunch
Parish Council had now been consulted, the amendments were minor in nature and a
full response had now been sent to the objector. Officers considered that the
application had been dealt with correctly.
In addition, the Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received
from the applicant who considered that the Officer’s report addressed satisfactorily
the concerns raised by the objectors. He had requested that there should be no
deferral for a site inspection as this would delay the project by a year.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to no objection from Trunch Parish Council and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Councillor B Smith stated that the site was outside the village boundary and did not
comply fully with adopted Core Strategy Policy SS2.
He considered that
photographs could be misleading and therefore proposed a site inspection.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application related to a countryside
pursuit and the building was well-designed and compatible with the location. He
considered that there was no justification for a site inspection. He proposed approval
of this application subject to retention of the hedge which subdivided the site. This
was seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
Councillor J A Wyatt seconded Councillor Smith’s proposal for a site inspection.
On being put to the vote, the amendment for a site inspection was declared lost with
5 Members voting in favour and 6 against.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested a condition in respect of lighting.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 4
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objections being received from
Trunch Parish Council and to the imposition of appropriate conditions
including that the development should only be used for private
purposes ancillary to the use of the land, demolition of the existing
stables concurrently with the first use of the approved stables, those
required by the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager,
retention of the dividing hedge, materials and lighting.
Development Committee
3
5 April 2012
143.
(243) SALTHOUSE - PF/12/0098 - Erection of side extension; Havelock Barn, 4 Manor
Farm Barns, Cross Street for D & M Hickling Properties
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, considered that taken in isolation the
proposed extension would be reasonable. However, there had been objections to
the proposal and previous applications on grounds of overdevelopment. There had
been incremental growth of the development as a whole over a period of time.
However, he considered that the development was not dissimilar to that in other
villages in terms of its density. He suggested a possible site inspection, although
some Members were already familiar with the site.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including the use of matching materials.
(244) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0079 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he
was the applicant and left the Council Chamber during consideration of this item.
All Members were acquainted with the applicant as he was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs W Bryan (objecting)
Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, stated that 21 Abbey Road was an iconic
building in Sheringham which originally stood in a large plot. He expressed concern
at the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring properties
and overdevelopment of the site. He proposed that this application be refused.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that approval would lead to more infilling in this
part of Sheringham which would destroy the ambience of the area. He seconded the
proposal.
Whilst Members expressed concern at the impact on the neighbour to the north of
the site, the Development Manager advised the Committee that in his view refusal on
grounds related to that impact would be difficult to substantiate.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney asked whether it would be possible to erect a small
bungalow on the site. The Development Manager stated that any application would
be considered on its merits.
Development Committee
4
5 April 2012
144.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
result in a cramped form of development which would be out of keeping
with the pattern and form of development; have a poor relationship with
the existing dwelling with an unacceptable loss of amenity space to that
dwelling; and it would be unduly overbearing and result in a loss of light
to the dwelling to the north.
(245) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0160 - Retention of balcony and installation of
screening; 31 Beeston Road for Mr H Ahrens
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Baldwin (objecting)
Councillor B J Hannah, a local Member, expressed concern at the design of the
balcony, loss of privacy and intrusive impact on the neighbour. He considered that
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 should be taken into account. He
was concerned that drinking and associated noise could occur near to the
neighbour’s bedroom window. He considered that there was ample room in the
garden for sitting out without causing blight to the neighbours’ lives.
The Development Manager read to the Committee the comments of Councillor R
Smith, a local Member, who requested refusal on grounds of non-compliance with
adopted Core Strategy Policies EN2, EN4, and EN8 in terms of design, build quality
and location. He considered that the design was not sensitive to the local context
and did not enhance the surrounding area. Furthermore, the development would
infringe on the neighbouring property, and blight the occupants’ outlook and quality
and enjoyment of life. He considered that the amended design would not resolve the
privacy concerns and would be out of keeping with the area.
In answer to a question by Councillor M J M Baker, the Development Manager
explained that the proposal now submitted sought to overcome the grounds on which
the Inspector had dismissed an appeal against refusal of a previous application to
retain the balcony.
Councillor R Shepherd expressed concern at the design of the balcony and
considered that the amended scheme would not prevent noise disturbance. He
proposed refusal of this application.
The Planning Legal Manager requested the Committee to authorise enforcement
action in the event of refusal of the application. He stated that the applicant would
have the right to appeal against both the refusal of the application and the
enforcement notice.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to comments by Councillor Hannah in respect
of Section 17. He advised the Committee against refusal on this ground as there
would need to be evidence to support it.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and
Development Committee
5
5 April 2012
145.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
balcony is inappropriate in the Conservation Area, has an overbearing
and intrusive impact on the neighbouring dwellings, has potential for
noise and disturbance and loss of privacy and related policy grounds.
It was further
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to serve
an Enforcement Notice to require the removal of the unauthorised
structure within three months of the effective date of the Notice for the
reasons stated in the decision notice.
(246) STIFFKEY - PF/11/1257 - Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation; Red
Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Lawrence (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the amended plans had been mislabelled
and the proposal remained as six units. The agent had confirmed that air source
heat pumps would not be used.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager still had some reservations regarding the design, however significant
improvements had been made and on balance he considered that the proposal was
acceptable in design terms. However, he maintained his objection in respect of
impact on the Conservation Area, AONB and landscape character.
The Highway
Authority’s objection also remained.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal on grounds related to the impact
of the proposal on the Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and
landscape character and on the highway grounds stated in the report.
In response to a comment, the Development Manager stated that he was unsure at
this stage whether it would be possible to mitigate the concerns regarding the scale
of the building, such as lowering the ground level.
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, stated that the height of the building was a
concern, however the adjacent bungalow already set a precedent. He stated that
public houses had to diversify to survive. The Red Lion had already established a
good reputation and there was potential to attract additional business through the
letting of the proposed accommodation. He considered that the business was an
asset to the local economy. He considered that the design was acceptable.
Although he acknowledged the comments of the Highway Authority he was not
aware of any accidents, a 20mph speed limit was in force and the narrowness of the
road provided natural traffic calming. Regarding the shortfall in parking spaces, car
parking at the site was self-regulating and there was no on-street parking in the
village. Guests were likely to leave their vehicles at the site and use the coastal
Development Committee
6
5 April 2012
146.
paths and local transport. He requested that the Committee consider whether, on
balance, the economic benefits outweighed the landscape concerns in this case.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he was concerned about the environment but this
was a tourist area and local businesses needed trade to survive. He considered that
the visual intrusion would be minimal and would be outweighed by the economic and
tourism benefits. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had previously lived in the village for many
years but did not know the proprietors of the business. Whilst he supported the
application, he was concerned that the view from the public right of way could be
compromised. He asked if it would be possible to lower the roof line so that it was
level with that of the adjacent bungalow. He considered that traffic was selfregulating and it would not be possible to speed through the village. He stated that
the occasional accident had occurred in the village but, as far as he was aware, none
had occurred at this site. He seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal subject to
amendment to reducing the height of the roof. Councillor Baker accepted the
amendment to his proposal.
The Development Manager considered that any delegated authority to approve this
application should be subject to the applicant agreeing to amend the roof height.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Senior Planning Officer
explained the shortfall in parking spaces. Councillor Seward did not support the
Highway Authority’s view with regard to safety as the road was self-regulating, there
was a 20mph speed limit in force and he considered that there were no issues with
regard to the access. He considered that the economic benefits outweighed any
highway concerns and a sustainable business would help towards maintaining a
sustainable community.
The Planning Legal Manager gave advice on the wording of the reasons for approval
of this application if the Committee was minded to do so.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to reduction in the height of the
building to the approximate height of the adjacent bungalow and
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Reason: The Committee considered the economic benefits which would
flow from the development as it would sustain a well-established local
business which is an asset to the village, the District and the tourism
industry, and is mindful of existing jobs and the prospect of additional
employment. The Committee is conscious of the highway objection but
is aware that there is a 20mph speed limit in force and that the narrow
roads are self-regulating in terms of speed. Weighing all these issues,
the view of the Committee is that there are significant material
considerations which outweigh the landscape and highway issues.
Development Committee
7
5 April 2012
147.
(247) STODY - PF/11/1442 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
first floor side extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr
Tollett
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Crawley (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received which
showed a hipped roof at the rear. A letter had been received from Stody Estate
Limited withdrawing its previous objection on grounds that the amendment had
helped to reduce the loss of light and overbearing impact on the neighbouring
dwelling. The letter also suggested that significant improvements in the appearance
of Sunnyside Cottage would be achieved by improvements to the front porch;
however this did not form part of the proposed scheme.
The Development Manager stated that whilst this application could not be linked to
improvements to the porch, a letter could be sent to the applicant in support of the
representations and inviting discussion on the matter.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, maintained her view that the proposal
was overdevelopment of the site. Whilst the amendment had improved the scheme,
she considered that there was scope for further improvement. She asked if it was
necessary to build up to the boundary.
Councillor P W High considered that the amended design was satisfactory.
proposed approval of the application.
He
Councillor R Shepherd supported the local Member’s view. He considered that the
extension would result in loss of light to the dwelling to the west. He considered that
the design had to be right for the village and on balance was minded to refuse the
application.
Councillor Mrs Brettle proposed refusal of this application on grounds that the
proposal was overdevelopment in a Conservation Area.
Councillor B Smith considered that the footprint of the extension was far larger than
the original building and did not fit in with the surrounding development.
The Senior Planning Officer referred to Policy EN4. He stated that the extension
could not be seen from any public vantage points.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded Councillor Brettle’s proposal.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the proposal bore no resemblance to the
Council’s Design Guide.
The Development Manager referred to the comments of the Conservation, Design
and Landscape Manager in respect of the existing extensions. If approved, the only
part of the scheme which would be visible to the public would be the reconstruction at
the front.
Development Committee
8
5 April 2012
148.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the scale of the
development is excessive and would have an adverse impact on the
neighbouring dwelling by reason of loss of light and overbearing
impact.
(248) THURSFORD - LA/12/0126 - Internal alterations to first floor to provide en-suite
bathrooms; Old Coach House, Fakenham Road for Mrs A Green
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a prejudicial interest in this application as she
was the applicant and left the Council Chamber during consideration of this item.
Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal interest as he had recently carried out
work for the applicant.
All Members were acquainted with the applicant as she was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(249) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
The Chairman stated that she also had determined that two site inspections 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 in order to expedite processing of the
planning applications to which they related.
RESOLVED
That site visits be arranged in respect of the following applications and
that the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish/Town Councils be
invited to attend:
LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 & LA/12/0182 - 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
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA – PF/12/0212 – Erection of dwelling and
conversion of outbuilding to annexe; The Crown Hotel, The Buttlands
for Mr P Parker
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
Development Committee
9
5 April 2012
149.
(250) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(251) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(252) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(253) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(254) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(255) APPEAL DECISION
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.05 pm.
CHAIRMAN
3 May 2012
Development Committee
10
5 April 2012