DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

8 NOVEMBER 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) (in the Chair for minutes (130), (131) & (135)-(141))

M J M Baker

Mrs A R Green

R Shepherd

B Smith

Mrs P Grove-Jones

P W High

Mrs A C Sweeney

Mrs V Uprichard

R Reynolds J A Wyatt

Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for J H Perry-Warnes

N Smith – substitute for Mrs L M Brettle

Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward

K E Johnson

– Cromer Town Ward

Mrs A M Moore – North Walsham West Ward

R Oliver

– Sheringham South Ward

R Stevens – Stalham and Sutton Ward

P Terrington – Priory Ward

Mrs H Thompson – Cromer Division, Norfolk County Council

T FitzPatrick - observer

Officers

Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management

Mr A Mitchell – Development Manager

Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager

Mr P Godwin – Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager

Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer

Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer

Mr S Case – Landscape Officer

Mr M Wood – Retail Consultant

Mr S Coleman – Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)

(121) CHAIRMAN’S STATEMENT

The Chairman read to the Committee a news release by the Leader of the Council in response to Parliamentary criticism that it is one of the slowest authorities in determining major planning applications, made during a House of Commons debate on the proposed Growth and Infrastructure Bill on 6 November.

The press release made the point that 96% of all planning decisions were dealt with within the Government’s targets. Major applications, by their nature, had a significant impact and tended to be controversial. The criticism was based on performance data from the previous year. Shortcomings had been recognised and measures put in place to address them, which had led to improvements in performance in the current year. These changes were the beginning of a programme of continuous improvement to ensure that speed of decision-making was combined with the

Council’s already high quality of decision-making on planning matters. There had been only one appeal against major decisions in the past 18 months.

Development Committee 1 8 November 2012

The Council had a good track record of working positively with developers to bring forward major schemes, which were complex and required careful negotiation with many agencies to bring them to fruition. The Council tried to seek long-term solutions which benefited the community as a whole, rather than refuse applications to meet arbitrary targets.

Planning was a high priority service for the Council and its performance would continue to be monitored carefully.

(122) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs L M Brettle and J H Perry-

Warnes. There were two substitute Members in attendance as shown above. An apology had also been received from Councillor J D Savory, local Member for Priory

Ward, who was unable to attend because of illness.

The Chairman informed Members that she had visited Councillor J H Perry-Warnes to pass on their good wishes. He was making good progress and hoped to return to

Council duties in the near future.

The Chairman had to leave the meeting for another appointment before the conclusion of business. The Vice-Chairman took the Chair for minutes (130), (131) &

(135)-(141).

(123) MINUTES

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 18 October 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(124) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished to bring before the Committee.

(125) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

All Members declared interests, the details of which are given under the minute of the item concerned.

All Members had received many representations on a number of applications on the agenda.

(126) Horning - Tree Preservation Order 2012 No 7, Land at rear of Cedar Close,

Lower Street

The Committee consider ed item 1 of the Officers’ reports in respect of confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) to protect several individual trees and two groups of trees at the above site.

Public Speaker

Mr C Gardener (objecting)

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones read to the Committee an email from Councillor Mrs B

McGoun, the local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting. She requested the removal of T13, T20 and a sycamore in G1 from the Order as requested by the owners.


An email had been received from the Chairman of Horning Parish Council supporting

Councillor Mrs McGoun’s views.

The Landscape Officer stated that he had no objection to the removal of the beech tree (T13) provided it were replaced elsewhere. It would be advisable for the owners to obtain an engineer’s report in respect of the impact of the removal of this tree on the garage. He stated that a TPO did not prevent appropriate management of the trees.

Councillor P W High supported the local Member’s views and stated that her views appeared to reflect the general feeling in the village.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor B Smith and

RESOLVED unanimously

That Tree Preservation Order 2012 No. 7 be confirmed subject to the removal from the Order of T13, T20 and a sycamore in G1.

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.

(127) CROMER - PF/12/0532 - Construction of skate park facility; Land at The

Meadow, Meadow Way/Hall Road for Cromer Skate Park

The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.

Public Speaker

Mr E Land (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that six additional letters of support had been received in respect of this application. The Conservation, Design and Landscape

Manager (Landscape) had no objection subject to conditions. The applicant had confirmed that the skate park would be located to the west of the ditch. Whilst the objections of local residents had been carefully considered, no objections had been received from consultees and the application was therefore recommended for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, considered that the current proposal was a good compromise and supported the application.


Councillor Mrs H Thompson, County Councillor for Cromer, stated that the County

Council owned part of the land on which the skate park would be situated and supported the application. She stated that the skate park would be conveniently sited for children to access by public and private transport, accessible by the emergency services and would not obstruct the Wea ver’s Way. With regard to noise concerns, it would be sited further away from dwellings than the previous proposal.

She considered that the skate park would be a valuable asset for young people.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that the current scheme was much improved from the previous proposal. He proposed approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Councillor B Smith stated that there was a very good skate park in his Ward and the children who used it were very well behaved, noise levels were very low and concrete was the best material for construction. He seconded the proposal.


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

(128) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0887 - Conversion of bed & breakfast lodges to veterinary surgery; Toll Barn, Heath Road for Toll Barn Veterinary Practice

Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, declared a prejudicial interest in this application and left the Council Chamber while the matter was debated.


Public Speaker

Mr J Crisp (objecting)

Miss F Bethell (supporting)

A number of appendix pages relating to this application were missing from the printed agenda due to a printing problem. The Senior Planning Officer précised the information contained in the missing pages. The Development Manager asked if the

Committee was satisfied it could proceed on this basis or whether the application should be deferred.

The Committee confirmed that consideration of this application should proceed.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had proved that the later permission 03/1592 was extant and covered the footprint of the proposed veterinary surgery. She referred to a letter which had been sent to Members by the applicant in respect of other sites that had been considered and details of an “out of hours” emergency service and emails which had been received from the applicant’s Solicitor and Highway Consultant. Members confirmed they had received this correspondence.

In relation to the additional information from the applicant’s Traffic Consultant and from the applicant, the Highway Authority had confirmed its previous views.


The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter of support had been received from

North Walsham Chamber of Trade. She read to the Committee an email received from Councillor E Seward as Chairman of the Leadership of Place regeneration project in support of this application. A further letter of support had been received in respect of this application.

Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that she had received representations from the applicant and objector. She stated that there was strong support for this application from a number of organisations in the town. She supported this application and considered that it was an appropriate business, waste issues had been addressed, traffic mitigation measures had been offered, there could be benefits for the town and the site currently had permission for bed and breakfast accommodation.

Councillor M J M Baker proposed approval of this application.

Councillor R Shepherd considered that the visibility splays in both directions were more than adequate. He seconded the proposal.

Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the proposal would be beneficial for

North Walsham in terms of increased competition. She stated that signage had been installed in recent months which meant that drivers were aware there may be vehicles going into and out of the lane. She stated that she had friends who lived in

Heath Road who had never seen an accident or had a near miss at the junction. She suggested that additional signage may be beneficial in warning that vehicles may be exiting the site.

Councillors Mrs A R Green and Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones supported this application.

The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained in detail the Highway

Authority’s reasons for objecting to this application. In response to Councillor Mrs V

Uprichard’s comments, he stated that signs had been erected but people did not necessarily take notice of them. There was an accident record at the junction. He stated that the site was not in the town centre and customers of the business would not walk to the site.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that this business would increase the volume of traffic on the B1150 even if it were located in the town centre.

Councillor B Smith asked the Development Control Officer (Highways) to comment on the braking distance of vehicles travelling at 50mph as he considered that drivers coming from the Westwick direction would have ample time to brake in the event of a vehicle turning into the site.

The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that a vehicle would need 160m to brake safely. He stated that there was no objection in terms of visibility from the

Westwick direction. However, there was an objection in terms of traffic coming from the North Walsham direction and additional traffic movements on the main distributor route.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that this was a difficult and locally controversial application. It appeared that Members were minded to approve the application contrary to the views of the Highway Authority on grounds related to economic and community benefit.


The Development Control Officer (Highways) stated that the Highway Authority objections in respect of the passing bay had not been taken into account.

The Development Manager suggested that any approval should be subject to further discussions with the Highway Authority regarding conditions and the passing bay.

Councillor M J M Baker expressed concern that unelected Officers would decide the conditions to be imposed on the permission. He considered that these matters should be dealt with during discussion of the matter.

The Development Manager explained that the Officers had made a clear recommendation of refusal and did not know which way the Committee would vote.

He was happy to discuss the detail of the conditions if the Committee so wished. In response to a further comment from Councillor Baker, he explained that applicants had a right to appeal any conditions they considered were unreasonable.

It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor R Shepherd and


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include those required by the Highway

Authority and discussions regarding the visibility splay.

Reasons: the Committee is mindful that the facility would benefit the local community, support the local economy and provide employment and job opportunities which, on balance, the Committee considers would outweigh the highway safety concerns.

(129) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/0931 - Erection of replacement single-storey/twostorey rear extensions and insertion of windows to front elevation; 21 Station

Road for Mr & Mrs N Dyke


Public Speaker

Mrs C Martin (objecting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter in support of this application had been received from the applicants’ agent.

Councillor Mrs A M Moore, a local Member, considered that the proposed extension would result in considerable loss of light to the neighbour and would be overdevelopment of the site. She requested a site inspection.

Councillor Ms V R Gay, also a local Member, considered that the extension would be overbearing, cause loss of amenity for the neighbour and set a precedent in the area.

She supported the request for a site inspection.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, seconded by Councillor B Smith and


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.


(130) PLUMSTEAD - PO/11/1281 - Erection of agricultural worker's dwelling; Land at

Range Farm, Plumstead Road for Mr R Perry-Warnes

The Vice-Chairman chaired the meeting for this item.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that she was substitute for Councillor J H

Perry-Warnes who would have had to declare an interest in this application as the applicant was related to him. She would therefore take no part in the debate and abstain from voting on this application.


Councillor P W High stated that he had spoken to the Parish Council and visited the site. The main concern related to the potential for selling the property independently but he was happy that this could be prevented by condition.

It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor R Reynolds and


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include restricting occupancy to an agricultural worker; approval of layout, scale, design, access and appearance at reserved matters stage; and compliance with level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

(131) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1026 - Retention of detached garage; Wykeham, Morley

Road North for Mr S Meakin


Public Speaker

Mr Meakin (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the garage had replaced an earlier building which had been moved elsewhere on the site.

Councillor R Oliver, a local Member, considered that on balance the garage was overdevelopment. He referred to the retrospective nature of this application but understood why the applicant considered that it was within permitted development.

Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, stated that the application had been called in because of the local opposition to it.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor P W High and


That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including restricting the use of the garage to ancillary residential use to Wykeham and removing permitted development rights for the insertion of windows in its northern, southern or western elevation.


(132) SHERINGHAM - PF/12/1063 - Erection of one and half-story dwelling (resubmission); Land adjacent 21 Abbey Road for Mr J Perry-Warnes

All Members declared a personal interest in this application as the applicant was a fellow Councillor.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds stated that she was substitute for Councillor J H

Perry-Warnes who was the applicant in this case. She would therefore take no part in the debate and abstain from voting on this application.


Public Speakers

Mrs W Bryan (objecting)

Mr Jonathan Perry-Warnes (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that two further letters of objection had been received in respect of the size of the proposed dwelling, proximity to the boundary of

19 Abbey Road, overlooking, density and design.

Councillor R Oliver, a local Member, considered that the current application had not addressed the concerns raised in respect of application PF/12/0079 and requested that it be refused.

Councillor R Shepherd, a local Member, considered that little had changed from the previous application. He expressed concern at loss of amenity to the resident of 19

Abbey Road. He proposed refusal of this application, which was seconded by

Councillor J A Wyatt.

The Development Manager referred to the reasons for refusal of PF/12/0079, one of which related to the unacceptable loss of amenity space for 21 Abbey Road. He stated that the garage to 21 Abbey Road had since been removed and requested that the Committee consider whether or not that reason remained relevant.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the garden was just about adequate for the size of the dwelling and suggested that the proposal was in compliance with the

North Norfolk Design Guide.

The Development Manager stated that the relationship with the property to the north had not changed.

It was proposed by Councillor R Shepherd, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and

RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions

That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal would result in a cramped form of development which would be out of keeping with the pattern and form of development; have a poor relationship with the existing dwelling; and it would be unduly overbearing and result in a loss of light to the dwelling to the north.


(133) STALHAM - PF/12/0787 - Retention of solar panels; 129 High Street for Mr J

Dace

Councillor N Smith declared a personal interest in this application as he was acquainted with the applicant through the Association of Small Businesses.


Public Speaker

Mr J Dace (supporting)

Councillor R Stevens, a local Member, read to the Committee an article published in the Daily Telegraph regarding climate change. He supported this application as it would reduce the use of fossil fuel. He stated that the applicant had invested heavily in Stalham.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, a local Member, stated that she was torn between energy conservation and preventing further degradation of the town. She considered that the applicant should have been informed of the need for planning permission by the installers of the equipment.

The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the panels were visible and it was necessary to consider conservation and heritage issues as well as sustainability issues. There were a number of important buildings within the Stalham

Conservation Area and the High Street. It was a question of balancing these competing issues and he was fully supportive of the sustainability objectives of the

Council. He considered that the proposal was contrary to adopted Core Strategy

Policy EN7 as well as EN8. He stated that the Authority took a broad and balanced approach to policy implementation in order to ensure that the quality and character of towns and villages was retained. If the erosion of Conservation Areas continued there would be no alternative but to consider their de-designation.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the best way to ensure the preservation of important buildings was to use them. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor N Smith.

Councillor B Smith stated that neither the structure of the building or its roof were being altered and the panels could be removed when they were life-expired without harm. The panels were facing the sky rather than the street. He supported the application. He referred to design of the adjacent shop front.

The Development Manager stated that the only powers the Council had to deal with the adjacent shop advertisement was a discontinuance notice. However, this was not an issue that could be dealt with under this application.

The Development Manager stated that following considerable thought and discussion

Officers had made a balanced recommendation towards refusal of this application.

However, he understood why Members may wish to take a different view.

The proposal was put to the vote and it was


RESOLVED by 10 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That this application be approved on grounds that the Committee has accepted that the environmental and climatic issues outweigh the perceived detriment to the Conservation Area.

At the suggestion of the Chairman it was agreed to request Full Council to write to the Government requesting that consideration be given to powers to protect our heritage from inappropriate development such as the adjacent shop front.

(134) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0418 - Erection of retail store and associated parking; Polka Road Caravans, Polka Road for Anglia Regional Co-Op Society and Lindum Group

Councillor P Terrington (local Member) declared a personal interest in this application as a resident of Wells, he had received many representations both in favour and against the proposal and his brother had made representations in respect of this application.


Public Speakers

Mr Levett and Mr R Hewitt (objecting)

Mr T Partridge, Mrs J Trett, Mrs C Gates and Mr J Beattie (supporting)

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) set the context of this case and outlined the main issues. He reported that Wells Town Council now supported the application in the light of a recent application to build a filling station adjacent to this site. The Town Council indicated that it would not support an application for a supermarket on the Freeman Street (Ark Royal) site. The Team Leader

(Enforcement and Special Cases) explained that the application site was out of the town centre and the sequential test required sites closer to the town centre to be considered.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) reported that a response had been received from parties who were interested in purchasing the Freeman Street

(Ark Royal) site giving an update on their plans for the site. He explained that the proposed larger site was within two ownerships, NNDC (car park) and Enterprise

Inns (Ark Royal). The Ark Royal site alone could not deliver a supermarket. The

Chief Executive had indicated that the Council would not be closed to the disposal of the car park, but would be unlikely to agree unless alternative car parking provision were made elsewhere. Whilst the Freeman Street site was physically closer to the town centre, with greater potential for linked trips, it was unlikely to be deliverable within two years and the site had to be discounted.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that the impact test had been addressed with regard to the application site. The concerns of the existing traders were noted and the Council had to be satisfied that any development to be imposed on the town would not harm the town centre.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to a number of representations which had been received since the report was published. All

Members confirmed they had received a letter from Mr Hewitt on behalf of Leftleys.


The Retail Consultant explained the context of the impact test. He stated that in assessing impact it was necessary to consider the town centre as a whole and not just on individual traders selling food and convenience goods. In his opinion, the impact would not be significantly adverse and the proposal was therefore acceptable.

He considered that there would be a similar impact if the proposed store were sited on Freeman Street. Referring to comments in recent correspondence regarding the research undertaken by the University of Southampton, he stated that although the studies were commissioned by Tesco, the University was independent, all surveys had been independently verified and tended to corroborate other research. He considered that the number of linked trips had been overestimated by the applicant but at worst, any linked trips which would be lost to the town would be offset by linked trips from the store. He referred to a flowchart submitted by Mr Hewitt and stated that whilst other sites closer to the town centre were valid considerations, they had to be suitable and available for a proposal on a roughly comparable basis.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) stated that the Highway

Authority had no objection. The S106 contribution offered by the applicant had been increased to £70k which would pay for improved linkages between the application site and the town centre, including pedestrian access and signage. The Highway

Authority had requested bus stop provision. He was awaiting a response from the

Highway Authority with regard to mitigation and requested delegated authority in this respect.

The Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) referred to concerns raised regarding monitoring of flood levels. The Environment Agency and Environmental

Health Officer had considered this matter carefully and were satisfied that proposals were acceptable subject to conditions.

In conclusion, the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) considered that an alternative site was not deliverable within a reasonable time frame, particularly as

NNDC was not currently in a position to sell its car park, there would be minimal impact on the town centre and the proposal would comply with Development Plan policies. He requested delegated authority to approve this application as set out in the report.

In response to comments by the public speakers, the Development Manager stated that the Team Leader (Enforcement and Special Cases) had given a clear analysis of policy. Whilst an application for a petrol filling station had been mentioned, this did not form part of the application under discussion.

Councillor P Terrington, a local Member, considered that there had been no definitive assessment of need. He stated that Wells was dependent on its convenience stores, as there was a lack of professional services, comparison stores and a filling station.

He considered that there would be an impact on those stores. He considered that the proposed store was not large enough to compete with Tesco and Morrisons in

Fakenham and would not claw back trade. He disputed the retail assessment and stated that the income of the retail centre had been underestimated. He considered that case study referred to by the Retail Consultant was not appropriate as it was based on a town with very different circumstances to Wells and the data was inadequate. He stated that Wells was a destination centre for tourism with inadequate parking and requested that, if the application were approved, parking issues be addressed as part of the Section 106 Obligation.


Councillor M J M Baker referred to his experience of running a store of the size proposed and considered that the proposed store would be too small for weekly shopping and would not bring trade back to the town. He considered that no additional income would be created as it would all come from the town, and that jobs would be redistributed rather than created.

Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the proposal was a chance for residents of Wells to have the store they wanted. Town centres had to reinvent themselves. He considered that shoppers would use the store for their weekly shopping, although they would still travel to Fakenham for monthly shopping. He proposed the Officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V

Uprichard.

Councillor R Reynolds stated that he would not be in favour of the loss of car parking from the Freeman Street site. He considered that the proposed store was not far from the town and largely within walking distance of the main housing area.

Councillor N Smith expressed concern that the proposed store would not compete with Fakenham and that the town may lose its attractiveness to visitors if shops closed down as a result of this proposal.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that there were proposals for a large housing development in Wells and the residents would need somewhere to shop. He stated that the application site was in poor condition and the proposed development would tidy it. He considered that a large amount of trade would be retained in the town.

Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds queried the proposed free parking period. She considered that three free hours would enable people to go into the town.

At the request of the Chairman, Mr Beattie stated that it was proposed to allow two hours of free parking. He considered that there was a danger that three hours would encourage people to park to go to the beach, which would prevent store customers using the car park.

Councillor Mrs Claussen-Reynolds suggested that car recognition be used to prevent abuse.

Councillor M J M Baker considered that it was unlikely that people would use the car park to go to the beach.

It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs V

Uprichard and

RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2

That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve this application, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include three hours of free parking, and subject to the completion of a

S106 Obligation to secure off site works to improve links between the proposed supermarket and the town centre and to improve bus stop provision, subject to further discussion with the Highway Authority.


(135) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT AND LAND CHARGES PERFORMANCE

UPDATE

The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports in respect of the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals for the period from July to September

2012, covering the turnround of applications, workload and appeal outcomes, together with figures for land charge searches.

The Head of Developmen t Management referred to the Chairman’s press statement which had been read at the commencement of the meeting. He stated that underperforming Councils could be placed under special measures which meant that major applications could be determined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Council had a good record on appeals, but major developments were more problematic.

There were many issues involved in considering major applications and if the Council negotiated these applications to approval, which was often the case, they took time.

The practice had been improved by involving the Planning Legal Manager at an earlier stage and requesting applicants to submit a draft Section 106 Obligation with the application. The Council could not allow itself to be taken into special measures and efficiency had to be improved. He requested that the 26-week target set by the

Government be taken on board as part of the Council’s considerations.

The Head of Development Management stated that from the following week, the

Development Management Division would be taking part in a national benchmarking exercise. A Peer Review would take place in the New Year and the reviewers would be attending the Committee meeting in February.

Councillor R Shepherd stated that the requirements would increase pressure on an already pressurised department and expressed his appreciation of the service. The

Committee supported this view.

The Head of Development Management stated that the Division would do its best to continue to deliver quality services. In answer to a question by Councillor R

Reynolds, he stated that no specific details had been received as yet regarding the

Review.

Arising from this issue, the Planning Legal Manager stated that he had an issue he wished to raise regarding Section 106 Obligations for the former Langham Glass site

(applications PF/12/0721 and PF/12/0181). He referred to the Committee’s previous decisions and explained that the applicant was happy to pay the contributions required by the District Council and the County Council, but was not willing to meet the County Council’s costs in connection with the legal agreements. As a result the

County Council had refused to negotiate further. This was an example as to why

Section 106 Obligations may take a long time to complete.

The Planning Legal Manager stated that both he and the applicant were now satisfied with the terms of the Section 106 Obligations and requested a resolution to allow completion of the agreements and issue of the permissions.

RESOLVED

That the performance report be noted.


LANGHAM - PF/12/0181 - Conversion and extension of barns to provide hotel with swimming pool, restaurant and bar facilities, conversion of barn to four residential dwellings and erection of five holiday dwellings; Land at Glass

Barn, North Street for Avada Ltd

LANGHAM – PF/12/0721 - Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission reference: 06/0770 to permit design amendments to cottages 1, 2, 3-7, 10-12, 13

& 14 and variation of condition 3 to permit permanent residential occupation;

Former site of Langham Glass, North Street for Avada Country Homes

RESOLVED

That the Section 106 Obligations be completed as agreed and the Head of Development Management be authorised to issue the relevant planning permissions.

(136) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.

(137) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(138) NEW APPEALS


(139) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS


(140) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND


(141) APPEAL DECISIONS


The meeting closed at 1.50 pm.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Products

Support

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Councillors

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib