8 DECEMBER 2011
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners (Vice-Chairman)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
J A Wyatt
N Smith - substitute for J H Perry Warnes
P Terrington - substitute for S J Partridge
T FitzPatrick - Walsingham Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
P W Moore - North Walsham East Ward
Mrs A M Moore - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr M Ashwell - Planning Policy and Property Information Manager
Mr J Williams - Team Leader (Major Developments)
Mr G Lyon - Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer
Mr D Higgins - Principal Engineer, Norfolk County Council (Highways)
(161) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Perry-Warnes and S J
Partridge. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above.
(162) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2011 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(163) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(164) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors T FitzPatrick (local Member), Mrs A R Green, P W Moore (local Member)
and R Reynolds declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of
the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
8 December 2011
(165) NORTH WALSHAM - ENF/10/0187 - Material change of use of former Anglian
Water Sewage Works
Councillor P W Moore declared a personal interest in this matter as he lived on
Manor Road, which was close to the site.
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest in this matter as he knew the
proprietor at the time of the original application in 2008.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports seeking approval to defer
the formal time period for compliance with the above Enforcement Notice.
Councillor P W Moore, the local Member, referred to the planning history of this site.
He stated that the Planning Inspector had refused to extend the period of compliance
with the Enforcement Notice. He considered that there was no reason why the
Committee should override the Inspector’s decision. He referred to the strong
highway reasons given by the Inspector in dismissing the appeal against the refusal
by Norfolk County Council of permission for change of use to a waste transfer
station. He considered that the Company should be able to find a suitable site to
park its lorries while the new site was being developed. He considered that the
safety of local people was the main concern. He considered that if the Company
failed to leave the site the matter could be referred to the Courts and it would take
longer to eliminate the danger.
The Principal Engineer stated that he had been the Highway Authority witness at the
public inquiry and had raised very significant concerns in respect of the poor highway
network and size of the lorries. The Inspector had agreed that the situation was
unacceptable. The Principal Engineer considered that the highway situation had not
improved since the appeal and the public had put up with the situation for long
enough.
The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that there was a 40week construction period before the Company could move into the new premises at
Cornish Way.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the Inspector’s decision should not be
overruled and suggested that the Company could run the business from its site in
Great Yarmouth pending completion of its new premises.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
1.
That the request to defer the time period for compliance with the
Enforcement Notice be refused; and
2.
That in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice, the
Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence
prosecution proceedings.
Development Committee
2
8 December 2011
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.
(166) BODHAM - PF/11/1164 - Extension and conversion of former barn to provide
residential dwelling; Land off Rectory Road, Lower Bodham for Mr B Shrive
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Shrive (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local
Member, supported this application. He had requested that a plaque be erected on
the building to commemorate the RAF Station at Bodham.
Councillor N Smith supported the views of the local Member. He considered that
there were material considerations such as provision of employment which
outweighed the policy objections. He proposed approval of this application which
was seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green.
In answer to a Member’s question, the applicant stated that he was a
telecommunications consultant specialising in rural broadband and the business
would be based at the property.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that this application ticked all the boxes except in
terms of the substantial rebuilding which would be required. He considered that
there were precedents for the proposal. He had been advised by a builder that it
would be possible to incorporate the remains of the building into the dwelling.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle supported the Officer’s recommendation. She considered
that the proposed dwelling would be an intrusion into the Countryside.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the ruinous condition of the building and its
location which was clearly in the Countryside. He considered that if the proposed
dwelling were allowed, it would lead to suburbanisation of the site and destroy the
character of the area.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that there were substantial areas of wall
remaining, the concrete block structure was not a major part of the building and that
modern methods of construction could tie the existing walls into the building. He
referred to conflicting statements in the Officers’ report with regard to the historic or
architectural value of the ruins in the landscape.
Development Committee
3
8 December 2011
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposed dwelling would be a new dwelling in
the Countryside and would not enhance the landscape.
The proposal for approval was put to the vote and declared lost with 4 Members
voting in favour and 10 against.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 4
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(167) CROMER - PF/10/1448 - Variation of Condition 3 of planning ref: 01/1800 to
permit retail of multi electrical products; Unit E, North Norfolk Retail Park, Holt
Road for Bennetts Electrical
Councillor R Reynolds declared a non-prejudicial interest as he owned a small
electrical business.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
All Members had received a telephone call from the objecting spokesperson.
Public Speaker
Mr Farrow (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Economic and Tourism Development
Manager supported this application and the growth of the North Norfolk Retail Park.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager recommended approval
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including limiting the floor area for
sales of non-bulky goods to that shown on the submitted plan.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, stated that Cromer had attracted a number
of major retailers. There was evidence to suggest that the out of centre stores
complemented the town centre and there had been increased footfall in the town
during the year. He stated that Bennetts was located close to Argos, Homebase and
Morrisons and it would be unfair to restrict one business when the others did not
have such restrictions. He urged the Committee to support this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that refusal would
remove choice for the consumer. He proposed approval of this application as
recommended.
In answer to a question by Councillor P W High, the Senior Planning Officer
explained why restrictions had originally been placed on the retail park.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had been a member of the Development
Control Committee (East) when the application was passed. The Committee had
raised concerns regarding the impact on the town centre and the condition was
imposed to stop people buying smaller items out of town. He did not support the
removal of the restriction.
Development Committee
4
8 December 2011
Councillor N Smith asked for a definition of bulky goods and white goods.
Councillor J A Wyatt asked what restrictions applied to Argos. He considered that
this application should be deferred until this information was available.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that Cromer had been struggling until Argos
opened. Since then, more trade had been retained in the town as people did not
need to go to Norwich. He considered that people now went into the town centre.
Bennetts had originally been located at the opposite end of the town and he
considered that it could be argued that the current store was closer to the town
centre. Argos sold goods from its catalogue without restriction and he considered
that competing shops should be able to do the same. He considered that Cromer
was now prospering because it had welcomed “blue chip” companies.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that permission was granted for
Argos without the bulky goods restriction. The retail floor space was restricted given
that it was a different type of retail operation and there was a desire to attract the
company to the town at that time.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 5 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including limiting the floor area for sales of nonbulky goods to that shown on the submitted plan.
(168) HOLT - PO/11/0978 - Development of approximately 85 dwellings, access,
public open space and associated infrastructure; Land off Cley Road and
Woodfield Road for Landform Holt Limited
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Dann (Holt Town Council)
Mr Kent, Mr White, Mrs Wharf and Mr Shepherd (objecting)
Mr Pagano (supporting)
The Team Leader (Major Developments) reported that an amended Site Parameters
Plan had been submitted which omitted the layout of open space on the site together
with references to building heights. English Heritage had no comments to make on
this application.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) referred to two letters which he understood
had been sent to Members by local residents. A further letter had been received
from one of the correspondents in respect of highway issues and requesting a limit
on the number of dwellings to be served from Cley Road and on the development as
a whole, issues regarding construction traffic, landscaping and Human Rights.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that the report referred to evidence
before the Inspector including a traffic impact assessment. This was incorrect and
should refer to an accessibility statement. A traffic impact assessment had been
submitted with the current application and had been considered by the Highway
Authority.
Development Committee
5
8 December 2011
The Principal Engineer stated that in the opinion of the Highway Authority a very
good package of mitigation measures had been put forward.
In response to a comment made by an objector, the Planning Policy and Property
Information Manager explained the circumstances that had led to the allocation of
H01. It had originally been put forward by the District Council as a preferred option,
but in response to consultation the Council had decided not to proceed with
allocation of the site particularly given the concerns in respect of highway issues and
impact on town centre congestion, and had instead proposed a site at Gresham’s
School. However, at the examination the developer had persuaded the Inspector
that H01 was the better site and the Inspector had recommended that H01 be
allocated rather than the Gresham’s School site. The Inspector had failed to carry
out further local consultation on the amendment, for which the Inspectorate had
apologised. The Council had to take some responsibility as it had adopted the
allocation on the recommendation of the Inspector. However, the current planning
application had been through extensive public consultation by the applicant and the
Council. The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager stated that the issue
for the Committee to consider was whether or not the details of the scheme as put
forward were acceptable.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that this was a difficult application for
local Members, who both understood the situation and were aware of the problems,
particularly in respect of Cley Road. He requested confirmation that a traffic
management plan would be required in respect of Cley Road and the site itself to
alleviate the problems.
The Principal Engineer confirmed that he had recommended a condition to require
the submission of a traffic management plan.
Councillor High considered that there were positive aspects to the scheme as parked
cars would be removed from Cley Road as a result and the double yellow lines would
be extended. The provision of 45% affordable homes on the site would be of benefit.
He considered that the timing of deliveries was crucial.
The Principal Engineer stated that timing of deliveries would normally be included as
part of a construction plan.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, expressed concern at the impact of
construction traffic on the town, particularly during the summer. He considered that
the creation of a car park for the town would obviate the need for the parking
restrictions proposed under this application. He requested that the contribution being
requested towards car parking be ring-fenced for Holt. He referred to the proposed
highway works on the Old Cromer Road and stated that the main problem was with
the speed of traffic coming from the town. He requested a flashing speed sign to be
erected near the pedestrian crossing. He referred to the proposed construction
strategy and requested that construction traffic should not be routed through the
town. He considered that there should be a maximum of 85 dwellings on the site.
He stated that the King George V Playing Field would be used by children from the
site. He considered that the developer should make a greater contribution to enable
the playing field to be brought up to modern standards, rather than make provision on
site. He also considered that this would benefit the developer.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that the additional contribution
towards the playing field should be the subject of further negotiation with the
developer.
Development Committee
6
8 December 2011
Councillor Baker requested that the Town Council also be consulted on this matter.
Whilst he did not favour development to the north of the town, he considered that
refusal of this application would be overturned on appeal and therefore proposed
approval of this application subject to the issues he had raised.
The Planning Policy and Property Information Manager and Principal Engineer
answered Members’ questions regarding projected vehicle movements.
Councillor P W High supported Councillor Baker’s request for a maximum of 85
dwellings, with only 12 being served from Cley Road. He did not wish to see
reductions in any other contributions arising from an increased contribution towards
the playing field.
Councillor R Shepherd seconded Councillor Baker’s proposal.
In answer to a question by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, the Planning Policy and
Property Information Manager explained that the requirement for minimum densities
had been removed. The proposed density was typical of estate-type developments.
He did not support a higher density to deliver more affordable dwellings.
Councillor Cabbell Manners considered that, given the proximity of the site to the
town, residents would be likely to walk into the town. He considered that the traffic
situation would have been worse if the development were south of the bypass.
The Team Leader (Major Developments) stated that it was not known at this stage
the precise level of affordable housing provision. If less than 45% a viability
assessment would be needed. If costs were increased because of increased
contributions it could impact on affordable housing provision.
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application, subject to:
1) Completion of a S.106 Obligation based on the latest draft Heads of
Terms referred to in the Officer’s report.
2) The imposition of conditions as considered necessary by the Head of
Planning and Building Control to include:
-
Submission of reserved matters for approval of layout, scale,
appearance and landscaping.
Full details relating to the construction of roads, footways,
cycleways, visibility splays, accesses and parking provision.
A construction management plan and access route.
Construction worker parking provision.
On-site wheel cleaning facilities.
Timing of off-site highway works.
Surface water drainage.
Code for Sustainable Homes compliance.
10% renewable energy provision.
Boundary treatments (including full details of security fencing
around the allotments).
Programme for archaeological investigation.
Management of open space.
Development Committee
7
8 December 2011
3) The number of dwellings on the site to be limited to a maximum of
85, with a maximum of 12 dwellings being serviced from Cley Road.
4) The contribution towards car parking to be ring-fenced for Holt.
5) Negotiations for an increased contribution towards open space
provision to be used to fund improvements to King George V Playing
Field instead of on-site provision, in liaison with the Town Council.
(169) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/11/1201 - Change of use from residential to A1
(hairdresser); 36A Vicarage Street for Mr S Marshall
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers (also speaking on LA/11/1202 below)
Mrs Belson (North Walsham Town Council)
Mrs Gunner (objecting)
Mr Marshall (supporting)
This application was considered in conjunction with LA/11/1202 below.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, stated that the rear of this building was a
historic view from the church yard and the last remaining part of old North Walsham.
He requested that, in the event of approval, the use be restricted to a hairdressing
salon to prevent the building being used for other A1 uses in the future, and a time
restriction imposed to ensure that the use would cease when the applicant retired.
He expressed concern that approval would not assist in the reuse of vacant units
within the town which he considered were more appropriately located. He stated that
there were very few good quality residential units in the centre of the town. He
considered that approval would detract from the integrity of the Listed Building and
be detrimental to the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings. He considered
that policy should be weighed against other material considerations and requested
that the application be refused.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that there was no policy objection to this
application. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs A R Green seconded the proposal. However, she considered that
there should be no signage erected on the building.
Councillor N Smith requested a condition to require the building to return to
residential use on cessation of the hairdressing use.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be possible to restrict
the use to hairdressing only. He would prefer to seek the applicant’s agreement with
regard to a temporary permission. As an alternative, he suggested a personal
permission.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern at the conversion of a building from
residential to retail when there was housing need and a shortage of habitable
accommodation in town centres.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R
Green and
Development Committee
8
8 December 2011
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions including a restriction to hairdressing only, opening hours
being restricted to between 1000 and 1730 on Mondays to Fridays and
between 0900 and 1600 on Saturdays, personal to the applicant and the
premises to be returned to residential use on cessation of the permitted
use.
(170) NORTH WALSHAM - LA/11/1202 - Removal of internal wall; 36A Vicarage Street
for Mr S Marshall
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
This application was considered in conjunction with PF/11/1201 above.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(171) THURSFORD - PF/11/1344 - Installation of solar panels to roof of outbuilding;
Old Coach House, Fakenham Road for Mrs A R 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 matter.
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor R Reynolds welcomed the use of a farm building to site the solar panels
and hoped that similar proposals would come forward in the future.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs P
Grove-Jones and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(172) WALSINGHAM - PF/11/0750 - Formation of parking and turning area and
erection of fencing; Land at rear of 31 High Street for Cleaves Trust
Councillor T FitzPatrick declared a personal interest in this application as he was a
resident of Walsingham and as such could use the services of the Cleaves Trust. He
was also a customer of one of the objectors.
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had commented that the
access had been in existence prior to conversion of the adjacent buildings. He
stated that whilst the concerns of the neighbours were understood, as the access
could be used in its present form there was no reason to refuse this application.
Development Committee
9
8 December 2011
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, referred to concerns raised in respect of
increase in traffic along a narrow, unmade lane, car parking being visible from the
windows of adjacent dwellings, increase in the number of cars and Human Rights
issues. He requested the Committee to consider conditions in respect of the number
of cars per house being limited to two, allocation of spaces to individual dwellings,
and prevention of the spaces being rented out or sold off to non-residents of the
dwellings.
The Chairman considered that it would be up to the Cleaves Trust to deal with the
allocation of the parking spaces.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be reasonable to limit
parking to the residential use of the dwellings, which would prevent general parking
by people using the village centre. However, it would not be possible to limit the
number of cars.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, to include restricting the use of the parking area
to the residential use of numbers 29 and 31 High Street.
One Member abstained from voting.
(173) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That a site visit be arranged in respect of the following application and
that the local Member and Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to
attend:
HEMPTON – PF/10/0329 – The erection of 5 two storey dwellings and 2
flats; site adjacent to 21 Dereham Road for Flagship Housing Group
(174) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(175) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(176) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(177) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
10
8 December 2011
(178) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
(179) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers’ reports.
(180) EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(181) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in case reference ENQ/09/0276.
The Committee considered item 16 of the Officers’ exempt report updating the
situation previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement
cases and unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 September
2011.
The Committee considered the cases listed in the Schedules and identified those
which they wished to be prioritised.
Concerns were expressed with regard to the workload of the Enforcement Team. It
was noted that some of the complaints appeared to be frivolous in nature and
Councillor M J M Baker suggested that they be brought to the Committee to consider
writing them off.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that discussion was needed
with regard to the way unauthorised signage in the countryside was dealt with.
RESOLVED
1.
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
2.
That the cases highlighted by Members be dealt with as a priority.
3.
That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed from
the Schedules.
4.
That a report be brought to Committee in respect of case reference
ENQ/09/0276.
The meeting closed at 1.00 pm.
Development Committee
11
8 December 2011