5 SEPTEMBER 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs L Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
E Seward – substitute for Mrs A C Sweeney
P Williams – substitute for P W High
Officers
Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell – Planning Policy Manager
Mr G Lyon – Team Leader Enforcement and Special Cases
Miss T Lincoln – Senior Planning Officer
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner – Housing Enabling Team Leader
Mr D Mortimer – Development Control Officer (Highways)
(68)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W High and Mrs A C
Sweeney. There were two substitute Members in attendance.
(69)
MINUTES
The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 1 August were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(70)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a planning application at Blakeney, reference
PF/13/130937. The reason for urgency was to expedite the processing of the
application by undertaking a site inspection given local concerns raised in respect of
the proposal.
(71)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the
items concerned.
Development Committee
1
5 September 2013
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.
(72)
CROMER - PF/13/0247 - Erection of 145 dwellings with access road, public
open space and associated works; Land west of Roughton Road for Norfolk
Homes Ltd
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as they were all
acquainted with Councillor B Cabbell Manners, whose family trust owned the
application site.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report. There were no updates to report.
In response to a question by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that she understood that the recreation area drained to the attenuation
pond.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the hedge would be removed and reinstated between the site and the
footpath as required by the Highway Authority.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he was impressed with the design of the dwellings
and pleased that desperately needed affordable housing would be provided. He
proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the concerns regarding affordable housing
and landscaping had been resolved and supported this application.
Councillor E Seward expressed concern at the reduction in on-site renewable energy
on the grounds of viability, which he understood was due to the price paid by the
developer for the land. However, if renewable energy were to be reinstated it would
be at the expense of the affordable housing element.
Development Committee
2
5 September 2013
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the footpath would be safer if it were inside
the hedge. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Highway Authority would
not adopt the footpath if it were behind the hedge. The Planning Policy Manager
added that the Highway Authority would not maintain the hedge. Public safety would
not be compromised as there were adequate visibility splays.
In answer to a question by Councillor P Williams regarding the installation of
renewable energy technology in the affordable units, the Planning Policy Manager
explained that the Housing Association would negotiate separately on this matter. It
would not be required by planning conditions but this would not prevent delivery by
another mechanism.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application,
subject to no new grounds of objection following readvertisement as a
departure, the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and (subject to
any minor revisions) the imposition of the conditions listed in the
report.
(73)
CROMER - LA/13/0823 - Installation of
(retrospective); 7 The Gangway for Mr R Price
replacement
garage
doors
All Members declared that they were acquainted with the applicant.
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P Williams
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(74)
EAST BECKHAM - PF/13/0772 - Installation of a 10.15mw solar development;
Land at Hall Farm for TGC Renewables Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Anmer (supporting)
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) explained the area which was
proposed to be developed for the solar farm and that which formed part of a gravel
extraction proposal being determined by the County Council as a minerals
application. He stated that the applicant had confirmed that the solar farm would
take precedence over gravel extraction and the solar farm would be at the end of its
life by the time the phased gravel extraction would reach the area of the solar farm.
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in this application as he was a
Member of the Norfolk County Council Minerals and Waste Committee. He had not
been aware that the matter would be raised prior to the commencement of
consideration of this item.
Development Committee
3
5 September 2013
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that, in response to
concerns raised by the Highway Authority regarding the suitability of the access for
large vehicles, the applicant had agreed to use smaller vehicles to deliver equipment
to the site. The Highway Authority now had no objection to the proposal subject to
the imposition of conditions. There would be few vehicle movements following
completion of the construction phase.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that in response to the
concerns of the Norfolk Historic Environment Service, the applicant had agreed to
carry out a geophysical survey of the site and a condition would be added to require
the survey to be carried out.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that the Public Rights
of Way Officer had commented that proposed hedging around parts of the solar farm
should ensure that they do not create a tunnelling effect along the public footpath.
The applicant’s response was awaited. The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special
Cases) recommended the imposition of a condition to ensure the footpath is not
adversely affected, as required by Norfolk County Council.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that landscape
mitigation proposals would overcome the concerns raised by the Landscape Officer.
Officers considered there were no grounds for refusal on cumulative impact grounds
relating to wind energy and gravel extraction proposals.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) recommended approval of this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including those
relating to landscape mitigation, landscape management and biodiversity
enhancements, the carrying out of a geophysical survey and retention of the public
footpath as required by Norfolk County Council.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) read to the Committee the
views of Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney, the local Member, who had raised a number
of concerns regarding access, visual and landscape impact, further proposals for
another solar farm nearby, lack of benefits for local people and loss of agricultural
land. She had requested refusal on overdevelopment and highway grounds.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that he had spoken to the applicant who had
confirmed that smaller vehicles would be used. However, he considered that large
vehicles were no bigger than agricultural vehicles with a trailer. He suggested that
access to the site be taken from Gibbet Lane.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that if the site were
accessed from Gibbet Lane it would necessitate crossing a meadow. This would
leave a permanent scar across an attractive landscape and create a visual impact
where there would otherwise be none.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed approval of this application in accordance
with the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard sought assurance that CCTV cameras would not impact
on any residential dwellings in the light of problems that had occurred elsewhere.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that this issue had been
carefully considered and the applicant was willing to accept a condition to ensure that
the scheme was acceptable.
Development Committee
4
5 September 2013
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones regarding the electricity
which would be generated and its benefits locally, the Team Leader (Enforcement
and Special Cases) stated that the electricity produced by the solar farm would feed
into the Grid.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that the land was mainly marl and flint which was
difficult to farm and required much irrigation. He considered that this was a good site
for a solar farm, which was preferable to wind turbines. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that no lighting should be allowed whatsoever.
He stated that the site was proposed to be accessed via a narrow mediaeval lane
with vertical banks full of wild flowers. He considered that lorries would destroy the
banks and their flora and fauna. He expressed concerns regarding the routing from
the A148 into the site as a whole. He considered that drivers would opt to go through
West Beckham village in preference to the official route. He did not support the
comments regarding biodiversity, which he considered would be altered given the
impact on light levels. He questioned why Officers considered it necessary to have
renewable energy in this location when they had recommended that it was not
necessary on sites at Cromer and Wells.
The Development Manager stated that the reason for the recommendations at
Cromer and Wells had been explained. This application had to be considered on its
own merits. The planning issues had been dealt with in the report and the
application had been dealt with correctly.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to paragraph 98 of the National Planning
Policy Framework which stated that for applicants for energy development should not
be required to demonstrate the need for renewable energy. Government advice was
clear.
In response to a question by Councillor P Williams, Mr Anmer stated that
approximately £10,000 per annum would be paid into the community.
Councillor R Reynolds explained that electricity would be available locally if there
was a need. However, if there was a need for the amount of electricity which would
be generated by the solar farm in the local area it would necessitate larger cables
and pylons. He sympathised with Councillor Baker’s comments regarding the route
and requested that further consideration be given to this matter. He asked whether
the solar farm would be connected to the National Grid by overhead or underground
cables.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the solar farm would
be connected to existing overhead cables.
At the request of the Chairman, Mr Anmer explained that the construction phase
would last for three months. The target date for the generation of electricity was the
end of March 2014.
The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that the developer originally
proposed to use vehicles of a similar size to agricultural vehicles, but the Highway
Authority had negotiated for smaller vehicles to be used. Monitoring would be carried
out and highway repairs carried out after construction if necessary.
Development Committee
5
5 September 2013
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include those relating to landscape mitigation,
landscape management and biodiversity enhancements, the carrying
out of a geophysical survey, retention of the public footpath as required
by Norfolk County Council, construction traffic including maximum
vehicle size and no lighting.
(75)
FAKENHAM - PF/13/0553 - Erection of first floor side extension; 2 Mission Lane
for Mr P Joy
Councillor Mrs A R Green, Councillor Miss B Palmer and Councillor R Reynolds
declared a personal interest in this application as the objectors were friends. They
vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this application.
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss Bradshaw (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the views of Councillor J Punchard, a local
Member, regarding loss of light and overlooking.
In response to a question by Councillor P Williams regarding changes to planning
policy introduced by the Government, the Senior Planning Officer stated that this
proposal would still require planning permission as it was a side extension.
Councillor P Williams considered that it would be acceptable if the east-facing
window were hung on the left hand side as it would not open towards the neighbour.
With regard to concerns raised by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Development
Manager explained that when assessing applications against Design Guide criteria
for window to window distances a subjective view was taken as to how the proposal
related to the neighbour.
It was proposed by Councillor P Williams, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the east-facing window
being hung on the left hand side and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including those listed in the report,
(76)
FELBRIGG - PF/13/0896 - Erection of conservatory (revised scheme); Driftway
Farm, The Driftway for Mrs J Oliver
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as the Deputy Leader of
the Council was related to the applicant.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no response had been received from the
Parish Council.
Development Committee
6
5 September 2013
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J H PerryWarnes and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved.
(77)
HORNING - PO/13/0741 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; Land adjacent 2
Cloverhill, Letheringtons Lane for Mr R Kalynuk
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs M Kalynuk (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer stated that if this application were approved it would be a
departure from policy unless there were other material considerations.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun, the local Member, spoke in support of this application.
She stated that the development of the site would complete the original development
proposals for the land, the proposal would sit well within the village setting and
services were available. She considered that the site provided an easy connection
with the village and riverside for a wheelchair user. She referred to the Disability
Discrimination Act. She expressed surprise that the Officer’s report considered that
the needs of the applicant were not sufficiently material to allow a departure from
policy. She urged the Committee to consider the applicant’s needs.
Councillor P Williams stated that he knew the area well and considered that
additional traffic movements would have no impact. He considered that a bungalow
should be allowed on this site which had historically been intended for development.
He proposed approval of this application.
The Chairman reminded the Committee that this application was contrary to policy.
She stated that Committee should be mindful that a number of applications had been
approved in the past where there had been very similar circumstances and, although
she was not suggesting that it was the applicants’ intention to do so in this case, the
dwellings had been put on the market shortly afterwards.
Councillor E Seward considered that there were no other planning objections to this
application other than the line drawn by the Council. He seconded approval of this
application given the siting of the proposed dwelling in the context of the village and
taking into account the circumstances of this particular applicant.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had every sympathy with the applicant but this
was not up to the Committee to decide policy. He considered that it would be better
to allow this application to be decided on appeal and he supported the Officer’s
recommendation at this stage.
Councillors M J M Baker and R Shepherd supported Councillor Reynolds’ views.
The Development Manager advised that consideration of policy was for another
forum. The proposal related to a dwelling in the Countryside and in the Officers’
opinion personal circumstances were insufficient to justify overriding the policy.
Development Committee
7
5 September 2013
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard asked if it would be possible to impose a condition to
require occupation by the applicants for a length of time before the dwelling could be
sold.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that it would be possible to impose a personal
condition but such a condition would cause difficulty if the applicants needed to
obtain finance as banks would not finance a dwelling which could not be sold on the
open market.
The proposal for approval of this application was put to the vote and declared lost by
4 votes to 5 with 3 abstentions.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions
That this application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
(78)
LITTLE SNORING - PF/13/0207 - Erection of first floor extension, including
raising height of roof, one and a half storey rear extension, single-storey front
extension and single-storey side/rear extension; 6 Thursford Road for Mrs
Amos
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Verrall (Little Snoring Parish Council)
Mr Amos (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from the
occupiers of 4 Thursford Road confirming that they had no objection to this
application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green, the local Member, proposed a site inspection which was
seconded by Councillor R Reynolds.
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.
(79)
SEA PALLING - PF/13/0838 - Change of use of land (part retrospective) to
gypsy/traveller site for a maximum of four caravans and erection of two sheds;
The Works, Church Road for Mr R Leveridge
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Miss C Sheridan (supporting)
Development Committee
8
5 September 2013
The Senior Planning Officer reported the further comments of the agent in respect of
highway issues, traffic movements and the five-year supply of land for gypsies and
travellers. The agent had confirmed that the touring caravans would be standard
touring caravans which would be towed by a car or four-wheel drive vehicle. The
agent had indicated that the applicant would accept a temporary personal permission
to allow the concerns raised by the Highway Authority and local residents to be
monitored.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that whilst the Officer’s recommendation
remained one of refusal on highway grounds, the Committee could consider possible
temporary permission.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, referred to the discrepancy between the
Highway Authority’s assessment of traffic movements and the agent’s assessment.
He considered that the Highway Authority had not taken into account that there
would be no vehicle movements when the applicants were travelling and attending
events, which would reduce the average number of movements per day. He
supported a temporary permission and stated that the applicants owned the site and
were not moving into the area from elsewhere.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that if temporary permission were granted it
should specifically exclude business use. He asked if the Council had any liability if
permission were granted for residential use of a site with no utilities connected.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that if the application were approved the
applicants would install a private sewage treatment plant and make arrangements for
collection of waste. These issues would be covered by condition. He understood
that there was a water supply on site which was yet to be found. The Council could
not insist on the provision of a water supply but could insist on drainage.
In response to a question by the Chairman, the Planning Legal Manager confirmed
that payment of Council Tax would be necessary to secure a wheeled bin collection.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the site was tucked away. She noted
the applicants’ intentions with regard to waste disposal. She proposed temporary
permission personal to Mr Leveridge and Mr Cutting.
The Development Manager and Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee with
regard to possible conditions. The Planning Legal Manager confirmed with the public
speaker that there was no intention to run a business from the site.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That this application be approved for a temporary period of three years,
personal to Mr Leveridge and Mr Cutting and their immediate families,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include
landscaping, waste disposal, foul drainage, sewage and no business
use.
Reason: The Committee has concluded that the potential vehicle
movements will be unlikely to substantially increase and there will be no
business use of the site.
Development Committee
9
5 September 2013
(80)
SOUTHREPPS - PF/13/0400 - Erection of two-storey replacement dwelling;
Bishops Mead, Chapel Road for Mr M Goss
The Chairman vacated the Chair to speak from the floor as local Member.
Councillor R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Paterson (objecting)
Mr Goss (supporting)
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, stated that the Development
Committee was not the right forum to make policy. There had been a dwelling on the
site which was now derelict. The applicant had tidied up the site. It was an aim of
the Council to provide more dwellings in the District. The site was surrounded by
housing, in a Conservation Area, was not fit for any other purpose and a dwelling
would tidy up the site. The applicant was proposing to use materials from the original
dwelling. She supported this application.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the test of abandonment had to be applied. The dwelling had
clearly been abandoned and could not be occupied.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard stated that the proposal was contrary to policy. The site
appeared to be large and there was a risk that if this application were approved it
could lead to a further application for another dwelling. She proposed refusal of this
application as recommended.
Councillor E Seward stated that whilst he had sympathy with this application, it was
clearly contrary to Policy SS2. Councillors Councillor R Shepherd and Councillor J H
Perry-Warnes expressed similar views.
The Development Manager stated that there was no dwelling to replace, the
application was contrary to policy and there would be many similar sites in the
Countryside. He reminded the Committee of its earlier decision to refuse a new
dwelling in the Countryside at Horning.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle seconded the proposal for refusal.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s
recommendation.
Development Committee
10
5 September 2013
(81)
WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/13/0730 - Removal of Condition 20 (sustainable
construction - code level 3 requirement) and variation of Condition 21 (to
provide 10% renewable energy in lieu of 20% requirement) of planning
permission ref: 13/0007 (123 dwellings and public open space); Land off Two
Furlong Hill and Market Lane for Hopkins Homes Limited
Councillor P Terrington declared a personal interest as he was a board member of
Homes for Wells, a housing trust, which had objected to the application.
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr G Anthony (Wells Town Council)
The Planning Policy Manager stated that the developers would need to comply with
the requirements of Part L of the Building Regulations if the condition were lifted.
The applicant had confirmed that a Housing Association had made an offer for the
affordable dwellings. It was understood that the specific Housing Association would
have its own requirements for energy efficiency.
The Planning Policy Manager reported that in response to readvertisement of the
amended proposal, the Town Council maintained its objection. A further third party
objection had been received.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that there was a requirement in the National
Planning Policy Framework to consider scheme viability. Reluctantly he stated that
in this case there were no grounds to recommend refusal and this was further
hampered by a recent Council decision to introduce an Incentive Scheme.
Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, stated that there were strong feelings locally
with regard to this application. He could not understand where the additional costs
had come from to make the scheme unviable and added that house prices were now
rising. He expressed concern that the interest from a registered social landlord
(RSL) was not guaranteed and if the developer could not find a willing RSL the
houses would be sold on the open market. He suggested that this application be
approved but if the developer could not deliver the affordable homes the remainder of
the development should be built in accordance with the original permission.
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, expressed concern that the developer had
paid too much for the land and was now using viability as a vehicle to alter the
development bearing in mind the recent approval.
The Housing Strategy Team Leader explained that the terms of the Section 106
Obligation with regard to no RSL taking on the affordable housing element was
standard and not specific to this application. A viability assessment had not been
provided when the original application was submitted as the scheme was fully
compliant with the requirements. In answer to a question by Councillor P Terrington,
she confirmed that 22 of the 40 affordable dwellings would be provided for rent for
free (no cost) if there was no RSL available to take the full affordable provision.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard expressed concern that a developer of this size did not
know the value of land. She stated that the Council was under pressure to provide
homes but it had to be careful that those homes were fit for the 21st century.
Development Committee
11
5 September 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to a similar proposal by the same developer
in Stalham which had been withdrawn given forthcoming changes in legislation. She
expressed concern that this application had been submitted so soon after the original
approval and considered that it was a ploy to gain permission then seek to amend it.
In response to concerns raised regarding affordable housing, the Development
Manager stated that this application did not relate to affordable housing. It related to
a variation of conditions in respect of sustainable construction. There was no
intention to change the affordable housing requirement.
The Development Manager stated that if this application were refused the applicant
could apply successfully under the Housing Incentive Scheme to remove the
condition.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed approval of this application.
In response to questions by Councillor M J M Baker, the Planning Policy Manager
explained that this application had been submitted prior to introduction of the
Incentive Scheme. The Incentive Scheme required development to start on site and
would be a fallback if this application were refused. The application under
consideration did not commit the applicant to commence development.
The Development Manager added that if this application were refused the applicant
could apply under the Incentive Scheme with no requirement for renewable energy at
all.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that if this application were approved, the
applicant could bank the land for the future. He proposed refusal of this application
on the basis of the short and long-term interests of Wells regarding the delivery of
affordable housing.
Councillor B Smith seconded Councillor Perry-Warnes’ proposal to approve this
application.
In response to a question by Councillor R Reynolds, the Planning Policy Manager
explained that in terms of sustainable construction, Code level 3 mirrored Part L of
the Building Regulations. However, Code level 3 required additional measures such
as water butts, bat boxes etc.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that it was dealing with difficult
policy issues and also commercial interests. He referred to the scenarios set out in
the report appraisal. If refused, there could be a delay, affordable housing could be
reduced and the applicants could then apply under the Incentive Scheme to achieve
its objective.
In response to a question by Councillor E Seward, the Planning Policy Manager
stated that the mechanism in the Housing Incentive Scheme to release developers
from the requirement to provide affordable housing only applied to the east of the
District and therefore would not apply to this site.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 5
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to the expiry of the current period of readvertisement, no new
grounds being received following reconsultation and subject to the
following amended condition:
Development Committee
12
5 September 2013
1. At least 10% of the energy required by the development shall be
secured from decentralised and renewable or low-carbon energy
sources, using the measures listed in table 8.1 of the Energy
Assessment submitted with the application. Prior to the commencement
of construction, full details of how this is to be achieved, including
details of physical works on site, shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be
implemented in the construction unless otherwise agreed in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
It was further agreed that the Chairman would write to the applicants expressing the
Committee’s disappointment that it had been put in a difficult position with regard to
this matter.
(82)
APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 11 of the Officers’ reports, and a further matter
which the Chairman had determined should 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.
RESOLVED
That the Committee undertakes the following site inspections and that
the local Members and Chairmen of the Parish Councils be invited to
attend:
BLAKENEY – PF/13/0828 – Erection of two and half storey replacement
dwelling; Three Owls Farm , Saxlingham Road for Mrs K Cargill
BLAKENEY – PF/13/0937 - Erection of two-storey extension, alterations
to single-storey element to include rooflights and bay window, insertion
of dormer windows, rooflights and window to existing two-storey wing;
Quay Cottage, The Quay for Mr and Mrs Bertram (urgent business)
TRUNCH – PF/13/0600 – Conversion of former garage to one dwelling at
Trunch Garage, 5 Chapel Road, Trunch for Mr G Payne of Trunch
Garage.
TRUNCH – PF/13/0602 – Demolition of workshop/stores and erection of
B2 (vehicle repair/MOT) workshop on land at Builders Yard, Bradfield
Road for Mr G Payne of Trunch Garage.
(83)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(84)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(85)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
13
5 September 2013
(86)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(87)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers’ reports.
(88)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 1.40 pm
Development Committee
14
5 September 2013