8 MARCH 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)
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
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
N D Dixon - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Miss B Palmer - The Raynhams Ward
P Terrington - Priory Ward
K E Johnson - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
(219) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor J H Perry-Warnes. There was
one substitute Member in attendance as shown above.
The Chairman reported that Councillor Norman Smith had had a heart attack and the
Committee wished him well.
(220) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 9 February 2012 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the inclusion of a
declaration of personal interest by Councillor R Reynolds in Minute 209 as he was an
electrician.
(221) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(222) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minutes of
the items concerned.
Development Committee
1
8 March 2012
(223) WEYBOURNE - PF/09/1270 - Installation of buried electrical cable system in
connection with off-shore wind farm: land from Weybourne to Great Ryburgh
for Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd
Appeal reference: APP/Y2620/A/12/2170245
The Planning Legal Manager explained that there would be no opportunity for public
speaking on this matter. It was outside the scope of the public speaking provisions
as the matter did not involve consideration of a planning application or confirmation
of a Tree Preservation Order.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports which requested the
Committee to give further consideration to its representations following the decision
of Full Council on 22 February 2012 not to make funds available to defend the appeal
in this case.
The Planning Legal Manager emphasised that this was not an opportunity for the
Committee to reconsider the application or the planning merits of the case as the
application had been determined and the Decision Notice had been issued. He
outlined the options for the Committee to consider, as set out in the report. He read
to the Committee an extract from the advice of Counsel in respect of the risk of costs
being awarded against the Council.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that since preparation of the report the date for
the Inquiry had been moved back to 24 May 2012. The Inspector had agreed that
the Inquiry would take 6 working days. He referred to a letter received from the
applicant’s Solicitors which was appended to the report, which sought reasoning for
the Committee’s decision and put the Council on notice that preparation of the case
would commence on 12 March, following the Committee’s decision as to how it
wished to proceed.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the suggested conditions appended to the
report and recommended strongly that the Committee resolve not to defend the
appeal and invite the Inspector to allow the appeal and grant planning permission,
but reserving the right to submit representations on conditions to be imposed and to
respond to any claim for costs made on behalf of the appellant.
Councillor D Young, Member for High Heath Ward, asked if there were any mature
hedgerows other than those already identified that should be subject to horizontal
directional drilling (HDD). He also asked where the watercourses were addressed in
the conditions and what impact would occur prior to reinstatement of watercourses
which were trenched. He requested a definition of “practical completion” as there
was scope to keep the trenches open.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that he would need to consider
these issues further before responding.
Councillor Mrs A R Green expressed disappointment with the recommendation not to
defend the appeal. She referred to the opposition to the application in her Ward.
She considered that it would unacceptable to reopen trenches and disturb
agricultural land for a second time if approval were given for stage 2 of the project,
and the Council should therefore make representations at this stage. She
considered that all ancient hedgerows should be replaced like for like with mature
plants. She requested that these matters be made the subject of additional
conditions. She referred to the letter from the applicant’s Solicitors appended to the
report and considered that the area of land which would be affected would be in
excess of the 17 hectares quoted in that letter.
Development Committee
2
8 March 2012
Councillor P Terrington, Member for Priory Ward, considered that the appeal would
be defendable on landscape grounds, particularly in respect of the crossing of
watercourses. He considered that all watercourses should be crossed by HDD. He
considered that the objectors had made a compelling case in terms of impact on the
local agricultural economy. He considered that questions in respect of soil heating
had not been sufficiently answered.
Councillor Terrington considered that it was unlikely that Members had the expertise
to defend the appeal. The Council would be liable for costs if the case were lost and
the Council had already voted against defending the case on costs grounds. He
considered that the Council did not have the capability to deal with very complex
issues such as major infrastructure projects. The Inspector could take a much wider
view of the issue than the Council. He referred to a review by National Grid in
respect of connections in the East Coast regions and an offer by Triton Knoll to allow
Dudgeon to connect at Bicker Fen in Lincolnshire. He considered that the Council
should have defended the appeal and should not simply invite the Inspector to
approve the application. However, he considered that the Inspector should be asked
to give careful consideration to possible offshore routes, to refuse stage 2 and to
impose conditions where possible to protect the landscape.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that clear evidence to substantiate reasons for
refusal was essential to defend any appeal. The Council was clearly at risk of an
adverse award of costs. He referred to the Government’s circular relating to costs,
reference 03/2009.
Whilst the Committee was not bound to accept the advice of
Officers, they had given a clear and unequivocal recommendation of approval and for
this reason the Officers could not defend the appeal. Therefore the Committee was
recommended to invite the Inspector to approve the application subject to conditions.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle stated that the Parish Councils in her Ward had supported
the application and she supported the recommendation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that if Members of the Committee
volunteered to present evidence on the Council’s behalf it was likely that they would
be questioned on their qualifications and expertise. In the absence of such authority
the Inspector would give little weight to their evidence. He supported option 2 subject
to tightening up of the conditions, in particular to ensure that work on the heavier
soils in the Ryburgh and Stibbard area was restricted to prolonged dry periods only.
He also supported Councillor Terrington’s comments regarding the crossing of
watercourses by HDD. He proposed that option 2 be accepted subject to tightening
up of the conditions.
Councillor R Reynolds referred to his support of the two small farms which would be
affected by the cable route. He considered that subject to the suggestion regarding
timing of the work, the conditions had addressed some of the concerns and to refuse
would involve the Council in additional costs. He seconded the proposal.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that evidence of soil disturbance which occurred 2000
years ago could still be seen from the air and therefore there was clear evidence to
support the reasons for refusal. He expressed concern at the impact on tourism,
agriculture and the local population. He was also concerned at the additional
disturbance in the event of phase 2 taking place. He expressed doubt with regard to
the comments of the applicant’s soil expert with regard to soil management. He
considered that the appeal should be defended.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Council’s soil expert
considered that the soil could be managed in an acceptable way. He stated that
condition 20 was intended to limit the time the trenches could be open and was a
positive effort to reduce the amount of time the soil would be disturbed.
Development Committee
3
8 March 2012
Councillor B Smith supported the views which had been expressed, and considered
that many of the conditions had addressed some of the concerns. He referred to
excavations that had taken place in respect of the gas pipeline where the soil had
recovered well. He considered that any inconvenience would be for a short period.
Councillor R Shepherd supported the proposal. He asked if, in the event of HDD
failing, whether the applicant could erect pylons as this would be undesirable. He
also asked whether the conditions would still apply in the event of the applicant
obtaining all permissions and selling them on.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that the benefit of planning permission went
with the land, together with the burden of conditions.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the proposal was for a trench
system with a number of HDD points. Whilst Members may wish to increase the
number of HDD points, pylons did not form part of this application and would require
another planning permission.
Councillor Mrs A R Green proposed an amendment to request the Inspector to
consider an alternative route. This was not seconded.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that the appeal involved reasons for refusal
put forward by the Committee. The objectors could request the Inspector to consider
this issue but the Council could not.
The proposal was put to the vote, and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 3
That the Council does not defend the appeal and requests the Inspector
to allow the appeal and grant planning permission, but reserves the
right to submit representations on conditions to be imposed in
accordance with the schedule contained in Appendix 1 of the report,
subject to further amendments, and to respond to any claim for costs
made on behalf of the appellant.
At the request of Councillor B Cabbell Manners and Councillor R Reynolds, with the
agreement of the Chairman, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposal
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs L M Brettle
B Cabbell Manners
N D Dixon
Mrs P Grove-Jones
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Against the proposal
(11)
(3)
Development Committee
Abstentions
M J M Baker
Mrs A R Green
P W High
(0)
4
8 March 2012
Following a short break, the Committee reconvened to discuss the amendments
which it wished to make to the schedule of conditions.
In response to concerns raised by Councillors Young and Terrington regarding the
impact of the work on the watercourses and concerns regarding contamination, the
Landscape Officer advised the Committee that HDD was an invasive process which
required a large working area either side of the drill site. It was standard practice
with smaller watercourses to dam the watercourse and pipe the water to maintain
flow during trenching works. This would maintain ecological and wildlife habitats
through the site. These methods would form part of the ecological mitigation
management plan which was required by a condition. Pollution prevention controls
would be put in place to prevent contamination.
With regard to the definition of “practical completion” which had been raised by
Councillor Young, the Planning Legal Manager suggested that condition 20 be
clarified by the words “practical completion means for the purposes of this condition,
the installation of a physical connection of the northern end of the cable to the landfall
of Stage 1 of the Dudgeon Offshore Windfarm and connection of the southern end of
the cable in the Breckland District to a substation connected to the national
transmission line and installation of all Stage 1 cabling in between.” Councillor
Young supported this suggestion.
In answer to a question by Councillor Baker, the Planning Legal Manager stated that
the developers would not be requested to comment on the proposed conditions.
They would be put forward to the Inspector and the developers would also have the
opportunity to submit their proposed conditions.
Councillor Young requested that the time period allowed for commencement be
tightened and asked if a time period could also be set for practical completion. He
queried “appropriate consents” which were not listed or defined.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that the commencement
period be reduced to three years. He explained that “appropriate consents” meant
consents for all elements of the project. He suggested that a note be added to
condition 3 to define this.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that he would take on board the suggestion of a
time limit for practical completion.
It was agreed that no further amendments were necessary in respect of the HDD
points.
In response to a question by Councillor Baker, the Head of Planning and Building
Control explained that if only stage 1 took place the developer would be required to
reinstate the soil. In the event of approval of stage 2 during the course of
development of stage 1, work on stage 2 could commence within one year, but if not,
the developers would not be allowed to leave the land unrestored.
Councillor R Reynolds asked if it was possible to impose a condition to ensure that
as little disturbance as possible was caused to the two small farms on the route.
The Planning Legal Manager explained that all conditions had to meet a number of
tests, in particular enforceability and precision. Such a condition would not meet
these tests.
Development Committee
5
8 March 2012
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it would be possible to add a
note to the Inspector requesting that development should be carried out in a way that
would cause the minimum disturbance to the farms.
Councillor P Terrington requested a condition to require work on stage 2, if approved,
to commence within three years otherwise a new planning application would be
required.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that an attempt had been made to address
this issue by proposed condition 3. He was unsure as to what purpose it would serve
to tie the development by such a time constraint or whether the Inspector would
accept it.
Councillor Mrs Green, supported by Councillor Baker requested that a condition be
imposed to require work on Stage 2 to commence within three years of the
commencement of work on Stage 1.
The Planning Legal Manager considered that such a condition would be acceptable
as it did not impose a requirement to submit a further application.
At the suggestion of the Head of Planning and Building Control it was agreed that
Officers would consider whether it should be included within another condition or as a
separate condition.
RESOLVED
1.
That a definition of “practical completion” as suggested by the Planning
Legal Manager be included in condition 20.
2.
That a definition of “appropriate consents” be added to condition 3.
3.
That consideration be given to a time limit for practical completion.
4.
That no additional HDD points be requested.
5.
That a note to the Inspector be added to request that development be
carried out in a way that causes minimum disturbance to the land
farmed by Mr Runciman and Mr Boesen.
6.
That a requirement for work on Stage 2 (if approved) to commence
within three years of the commencement of work on Stage 1 be
considered either as an addition to a condition or as a separate
condition.
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.
Development Committee
6
8 March 2012
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.
(224) BACTON - PF/11/1476 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to residential flat; Village
Stores, Walcott Road for Mr B Monk
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Brear (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Environmental Protection Officer
considered that whilst there was potential for noise and disturbance and odour from
the adjacent café, no complaints had been received from nearby residents and
therefore there were no grounds for objection. He recommended approval of this
application.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, expressed concern at the loss of the shop,
which was a valuable local facility and would add to the decline in businesses in the
village. He considered that the conversion of the shop would make no difference in
terms of addressing the affordable housing issue. He referred to sites that had been
allocated for housing in the Core Strategy in the village and stated that facilities were
needed for residents, otherwise it would encourage car use. He considered that the
proposal would have an impact on the other businesses in the row as they would be
separated from each other. He read an email from Councillor W J Northam, also a
local Member, referring to a representation he had received from a local resident that
the business had been run down. He considered that the property had not been
properly marketed and that the application should be refused.
Councillor Smith referred to comments he had made in the press stating that he was
not happy with the application. The Planning Legal Manager confirmed that this was
an expression of predisposition and not predetermination, therefore it was in order for
him to remain in the meeting and to vote on this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the construction of the shop unit was unlikely
to meet the sustainability criteria or standards required for habitable accommodation.
He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard.
In answer to a question, the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that a
marketing exercise was not required as the shop was not the last facility in the
village.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that sustainability was not a relevant issue in
this case.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that, whilst he considered the proposed change
of use would not be beneficial to Bacton, it was not possible to force businesses to
remain if they were not viable. He considered that there was no planning reason to
refuse the application.
Development Committee
7
8 March 2012
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised the Committee that there was a
judgement to be made as to whether or not the proposal would provide an
acceptable level of amenity for the resident. However, Officers had recommended
approval as it was considered to provide a basic level of amenity.
On the question of viability, Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones referred to the email
referred to by Councillor Smith stating that the business had been viable when the
present owner purchased it only a short while ago.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney reported that she had been contacted by a former
councillor who had received comments in support of the retention of the business
and had asked for her views to be reported to the meeting.
Councillor N D Dixon considered that the proposed conversion did not offer sufficient
amenity and supported refusal on that ground.
In response to a comment by Councillor B Smith, the Head of Planning and Building
Control stated that the motivation or actions of the applicant could not be taken into
account.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would
provide insufficient residential amenity.
(225) EDGEFIELD - PF/11/0411 - Variation of condition 2 of planning permission
reference 09/0926 to allow collection of vehicles by customers; RGC Classic
Cars, Lower Barn, Ramsgate Street for RGC Classic Cars
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst he had had no contact with the
developers in respect of this application, Mr Travers had purchased a car from him
some years ago.
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal interest in this application as he had
served as a police officer with Mr Travers.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no clarification had been received in
respect of parking. He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons
stated in the report.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that if vehicles were collected by customers
there would need to be some maintenance and cleaning of the vehicles at the site.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the proposal would result in fewer vehicle
movements than if vehicles had to be delivered to another site for collection. She
proposed approval of this application. There was no seconder.
Councillor P W High stated that the road was very narrow and additional traffic would
cause problems. He proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by
Councillor J A Wyatt.
Development Committee
8
8 March 2012
Councillor R Shepherd referred to his experience of accidents on this road when he
was a serving police officer. He supported refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs Green withdrew her proposal.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 1
That this application be refused for the following reasons:
The unclassified roads serving the site are considered to be inadequate
to serve the development proposed, by reason of their poor alignment,
restricted width, lack of passing provision and restricted visibility at
adjacent road junctions. The proposal, if permitted, would be likely to
give rise to conditions detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with
Development Plan Policy CT5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Furthermore, as far as can be determined from the submitted plans, the
applicant does not appear to control sufficient land to provide adequate
visibility at the site access. The proposed development would therefore
be detrimental to highway safety, in conflict with Development Plan
Policy CT5 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(226) HOLT - PF/11/1431 - Erection of smoking shelter; The Kings Head, 19 High
Street for Mr Wilson
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, referred to representations he had received
from the local business community regarding the structure. He considered that the
design was unsympathetic and expressed concern that it had been erected without
planning permission.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, was unhappy with the design of the structure.
However, he considered that it was necessary for smokers to have somewhere to
smoke and the structure was suitable for that purpose. For that reason, he proposed
approval of this application.
Concerns were expressed by a number of Members regarding the design and size of
the structure.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the design of the structure should be
modified and that it was necessary to ensure that there was adequate provision for
disposal of cigarette ends and matches. She considered that the Committee needed
to be sensitive to non-smokers as well as smokers.
Councillor B Smith considered that the structure was intrusive and inappropriate in
terms of its colour, bulk and massing. He considered that a smaller, more compact
structure would be more acceptable.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the current philosophy
regarding extensions to such buildings was to produce a design of its own time,
rather than replicating the original. The Committee was entitled to refuse the
application and take enforcement action, or alternatively to seek improvements to the
appearance of the structure.
Development Committee
9
8 March 2012
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had no objection in principle to the erection of
a smoking shelter, but he was unhappy that it had been erected without permission
and considered that the structure was over-engineered and inappropriate.
The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that it would be difficult to alter
the framework of the structure. However, he suggested a reduction in the amount of
horizontal boarding and an increase in the amount of glazing.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application should be refused but an
indication given that the Committee supported the erection of a smoking shelter in
principle.
The Head of Planning and Building Control suggested that a note be added to the
decision notice to indicate support in principle.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney considered that the shelter should be relocated so that
smoke did not affect passers-by.
Following further discussion, it was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded
by Councillor R Reynolds and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
1.
That this application be refused on grounds of inappropriate design,
scale and massing, siting and impact on the Conservation Area and
Listed Building.
2.
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to serve
an Enforcement Notice to require the removal of the unauthorised
structure within 12 months of the effective date of the Notice for the
reasons given in the decision notice.
(227) MATLASKE - PF/12/0033 - Erection of timber garage/garden room; 19 The
Street for Ms G Rodwell
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr P Scott (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager (Landscape) had no objection to this application. He recommended
approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that her concerns had now been addressed.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
10
8 March 2012
(228) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/0079 - Erection of one and a half storey dwelling; Land
adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes
All Members were acquainted with the applicant as he was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Bryan (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an objection had been received from the
resident of a property to the rear of the site, who was concerned at the proximity of
the proposed development to her property and potential loss of light. The objector
had also raised an issue regarding a restrictive covenant on the land. However, this
was a civil matter which could not be taken into account when considering the
planning application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard
and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow an inspection
of the site by the Committee and that the local Members and Town
Mayor be invited to attend.
(229) STODY - PF/11/1442 - Erection of two-storey/single-storey rear extensions and
two-storey side extension; Sunnyside Cottage, The Green, Hunworth for Mr
Tollett
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs MacNicol (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the description of this application should
refer to a two-storey side extension and not first-floor side extension as stated in the
report.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to Mrs
MacNicol, mainly in respect of the Parish Council having not received a copy of the
application. She considered that the proposed extension was disproportionate, out of
keeping with surrounding development and would impinge on The Green. She was
concerned that if the neighbour proposed a similar extension it would create a
terrace.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
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.
Development Committee
11
8 March 2012
(230) APPLICATION RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee noted item 8 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:
STIFFKEY – PF/11/1257 – Erection of ancillary holiday accommodation
at The Red Lion, 44 Wells Road for Stiffkey Red Lion Ltd
(231) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(232) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(233) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
(234) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(235) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(236) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.45 pm.
Development Committee
12
8 March 2012