9 MAY 2013
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE held in the Council Chamber,
Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs S A Arnold (Chairman)
R Reynolds (Vice-Chairman
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W High
Miss B Palmer
J H Perry-Warnes
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
P Williams – substitute for Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs H P Eales – The Runtons Ward
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett – Poppyland Ward
T FitzPatrick – Walsingham Ward
B Hannah – Sheringham North Ward
D Young – High Heath Ward
Officers
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
(264) CHAIRMAN’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Chairman congratulated Councillor R Reynolds on his appointment as ViceChairman of the Committee. She welcomed Councillor Miss B Palmer to her first
meeting as a Member of the Committee.
(265) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney. There was
one substitute Member in attendance.
(266) MINUTES
The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 21 March and 11 April 2013 were
approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.
(267) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(268) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker and R Shepherd declared interests, the details of which are
given under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Committee
1
9 May 2013
(269) HOLT ENQ 12/0277 - Premier Stores, 2 Market Place
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this matter as
he was the Managing Director of a company with commercial interests in Holt.
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports concerning the display of
advertisements at Premier Stores, 2 Market Place, Holt and possible enforcement
action.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, stated that he had had recent conversations
with the owner of the building and the business operator.
The Development Manager outlined the alterations which would be needed to make
the development acceptable.
However, Officers had been unable to reach
agreement on this matter with the store operator and owner.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager referred to the Holt Conservation
Area Appraisal document, in which the building had been identified as having a
negative effect on the Conservation Area prior to the installation of the current shop
front. He considered that the impact on the Listed Building was substantial in terms
of its appearance, being totally out of character. Officers had tried to negotiate with
the tenant and the owner to reduce the impact. Authority was sought to take
enforcement action if necessary, but prior to serving the Notice a further attempt
would be made to reach a compromise. It was considered necessary to remove the
vinyl sheeting, replace the fascia and remove or replace the box sign.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, supported the Officer‟s recommendation.
However, he proposed that service of the Enforcement Notice be delayed by a month
to allow a voluntary solution to be sought, bearing in mind this was a business which
was operating in difficult economic times.
Councillor M J M Baker, also a local Member, declined the opportunity to speak on
this matter.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard seconded the proposal.
Councillor P Williams stated that the operator should have sought permission prior to
installing the shop front. He supported Councillor High‟s request for an additional
month but considered that there should be no further moratorium beyond that.
RESOLVED unanimously
That Officers continue to negotiate with the owner and occupier of the
building for a further period of one month to seek their voluntary
agreement to undertake the works outlined in the report, and, if
necessary, the Head of Development Management be authorised to
serve a Listed Building Enforcement Notice to secure the works
outlined in the report with a compliance period of three calendar months
from the effective date of the Notice.
Reason: In order to protect the character of the Grade II Listed Building
and the surrounding Conservation Area and to ensure compliance with
Policy EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
Development Committee
2
9 May 2013
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Where appropriate the Planning Officers expanded on the planning applications;
updated the meeting on outstanding consultations, letters/petitions received objecting
to, or supporting the proposals; referred to any views of local Members and
answered Members‟ questions.
Background papers, including correspondence, petitions, consultation documents,
letters of objection and those in support of planning applications were available for
inspection at the meeting.
Having regard to the above information and the report of the Head of Development
Management, the Committee reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(270) CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/0927 - Erection of first floor rear extension,
installation of first floor front balcony, removal of pitched roof and installation
of solar panels and screens to provide roof terrace and erection of attached
garage to facilitate conversion to single dwelling; Marshlands & Travellers
Rest, Coast Road for Mr S Scamell-Katz
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speaker
Mrs F Gray (supporting)
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that there was an ongoing
challenge in trying to achieve a contemporary approach to architecture whilst
reflecting the local character and the local setting. He had contended with this issue
throughout his time at the Authority and now sought the views of the Committee as to
how Members saw the future for the design of new dwellings in North Norfolk. He
emphasised the importance of considering context and setting, particularly where
schemes were making individual „architectural statements‟, as was the case with the
current application. In this instance, he considered that the proposal was acceptable
because of the way in which it fitted into the landscape and the site‟s backcloth.
Councillor D Young, the local Member, supported this application. With regard to
concerns regarding the “picture frame” on the front of the building, he considered if it
were removed the building would be featureless. He urged the Committee to
approve this application.
Councillor M J M Baker‟s view was that the design of the building was inappropriate
and would not preserve or enhance the Cley Conservation Area. He considered that
the building should be relevant to North Norfolk, its architecture and heritage.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes supported the Officer‟s recommendation.
He
considered that the proposed dwelling would be an improvement and stated that
there was a variety of architectural styles in the surrounding area. He asked if people
would be able to walk over the entire roof structure or be confined to the pergola
area.
Development Committee
3
9 May 2013
The Senior Planning Officer stated that although there would be access for
maintenance of the solar panels, it was intended that people would remain within the
pergola area.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor B Smith considered that the proposal would enhance the area and whilst it
would be distinctive, the building would also be recessive. He seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposal was an excellent
replacement for a drab, uninteresting building. She considered that there was a need
to be progressive as well as to preserve the area.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the building would fit in well with the
surroundings. However, he considered that the balcony frame was too dark and
requested that it be toned down in colour.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that whilst she did not particularly like the design, it
was an improvement on the existing. She also considered that the balcony frame
should be more recessive.
The Development Manager requested delegated authority to discuss the colour of
the frame with the agent. With regard to the pergola, he stated that it had been
designed to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbours. He suggested an additional
condition to require the pergola to be retained in its approved form to prevent loss of
privacy.
In response to a question by Councillor P Williams, Mrs Gray stated that there was
no provision for an electricity supply to the pergola and any illumination would be by
natural light or candles.
With the approval of his seconder, Councillor J H Perry-Warnes amended his
proposal to take into account the above comments.
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to negotiations in respect of the colour of the
balcony, the imposition of conditions as listed in the report, the
retention of privacy protection measures to the pergola and to prevent
lighting on the rooftop pergola.
(271) CLEY-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/12/1219 - Erection of two-storey replacement
dwelling and detached studio/annexe; Arcady, Holt Road for Mr & Mrs M
Warren
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speaker
Mrs E Warren (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had no objection to the
amended plans. The Landscape Officer had no objection to the amended plans
subject to conditions. The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this
application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
4
9 May 2013
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager reiterated his previous
comments regarding context and setting with regard to modern buildings in the
landscape and in Conservation Areas.
Councillor D Young supported this application. He considered that views of the
building would be restricted. He asked what the Officers‟ position would be in the
event of refusal and subsequent appeal.
The Development Manager stated that the position on appeal would depend on the
reasons for refusal.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that a modern building would be appropriate for
the site, but the proposed building in its current form would detract from the buildings
around it. He expressed particular concern with regard to the views from the Green
and the public house. He considered that further consideration should be given to
the façade. He considered that the building had the appearance of a modern school
building. He proposed refusal of the application, which was seconded by Councillor
M J M Baker.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to the height of the proposed front wall and the
need for it to be well buttressed.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that the area was one of the most beautiful parts
of Norfolk and would be destroyed by the proposed building.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard requested a condition to tie the annexe to the building.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle referred to the need for appropriate design, rather than
hiding the building. She considered that the annexe was of an appropriate design
but the main building was not.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that if the application were to be approved,
there should be further consideration given to the eastern elevation.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that whilst she was in favour of modern design,
she considered that the proposed building was ugly.
Councillor P Williams considered that the colour of the cladding was important in
terms of how visible the building would be. He considered that dark cladding would
be an eyesore.
The Development Manager stated that design was a subjective matter. Whilst
Officers had taken the view that the proposal was acceptable, given the subjective
nature of the issue and the criteria raised by the Conservation, Design and
Landscape Manager, it would be possible to defend refusal on design grounds.
Members had expressed concerns regarding inappropriate design in terms of form,
height and materials and as a result it could be contended that the proposal would
fail to preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that it was for the Committee to make a decision
and the majority of Members who had spoken had expressed concerns. The
relevant Core Strategy policies were EN4 and EN8.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor M J M Baker and
Development Committee
5
9 May 2013
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 2
That this application be refused on grounds that the design of the
proposed dwelling by reason of its inappropriate form and materials
would fail to preserve or enhance the Cley Conservation Area, contrary
to Policies EN4 and EN8 of the adopted Core Strategy.
(272) FAKENHAM - PF/12/1299 - Variation of Conditions 2, 7 and 8 of planning
permission reference: 11/0344 to permit revised design and siting of dwelling
and to regularise the removal of the existing hedge along the eastern
boundary; Land to rear of 75 Norwich Road for Mr J Hammond
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speakers
Mr R Hewitt (objecting)
Mr J Hammond (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor S
Ward, a local Member, reiterating his previous comments in respect of this
application. Councillor J Punchard, a local Member, had confirmed that he had no
objection to this application.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that he had supported this application at the last
meeting. He had listened carefully to the comments made and continued to support
this application.
It was proposed by Councillor R Reynolds, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green
and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including the retention and maintenance of the existing
hedgerow along the northern and western boundaries at a minimum
height of 2.5m from ground level and the compliance with the
Arboricultural Implications Assessment document, with the exception of
the retention of the eastern boundary hedge.
(273) OVERSTRAND - PF/13/0110 - Erection of detached two-storey dwelling and
garage; 5 Cromer Road for Mrs Crick
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speaker
Mr A Tuck (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that further consultations had been carried out
with regard to drainage issues. The Environment Agency considered that the risk
from sewage and run-off would be low and had raised no objection to the use of
soakaways in this location. The Coastal Engineer and Environmental Protection
Team had no objections. The Senior Planning Officer advised that refusal on
drainage grounds would not be sustainable. He recommended approval of this
application subject to the imposition of conditions as listed in the report.
Development Committee
6
9 May 2013
Councillor Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, supported the Parish Council‟s
objections. She considered that its knowledge of the dynamics of the coast was
pivotal in this application. She considered that no further pressure should be put on
the cliff. She expressed concern at the cumulative impact of individual new
dwellings. She considered that any further water entering the cliffs would exacerbate
the rotational slump. She referred to the work being carried out by the Council on its
part of the Norfolk Flood Strategy, and views expressed by the Coastal Engineer.
She did not support this application.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that he understood that waste water from surrounding properties
discharged to the foul sewer. He was unsure as to surface water drainage
arrangements but considered it would be discharged to soakaways.
In response to a question by the Chairman regarding the percentage of surface water
which could be mitigated, Mr Tuck stated that it was difficult to quantify. He stated
that surface water would run off the plot regardless of whether or not there was a
dwelling on the site. On other sites, tanks had been installed to capture the water for
reuse and a large amount of water could be captured in this way.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that grey water collection should be considered
as it worked very well in Sutton which was prone to flooding.
In response to a question by Councillor P Williams, Mr Tuck confirmed that foul water
would be discharged to the main sewer.
Councillor B Smith proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by
Councillor R Reynolds.
The Chairman requested that the surface water management offered by Mr Tuck be
incorporated.
The Development Manager suggested that a SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage
System) condition be imposed which would incorporate some of the measures that
had been mentioned.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include those contained in the report and a
SUDS condition.
(274) RUNTON - PF/13/0017 - Conversion of barn to ground floor agricultural storage
and sea food outlet, first floor living accommodation; Brick Kiln Farm, Cromer
Road, West Runton for Mr & Mrs Matthews
Councillor R Shepherd declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this application
as Mr Pert, who was speaking on the application, was a personal friend.
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speakers
Mr J McAdam (objecting)
Mr Pert (supporting)
Development Committee
7
9 May 2013
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that, in addition to the
landscape impact, in his opinion the building was not of architectural or historic
interest and did not meet the standard required for conversion.
Councillor Mrs H P Eales, the local Member, stated that she had little to add to the
report and supported the objector‟s views. She referred to the framework developed
by the Council to protect the landscape and requested that the Committee refuse this
application. She questioned how landscaping of a field could be made to appear
natural. She expressed concern at the loss of spaces between towns and villages.
Councillor R Reynolds considered that the site would be highly visible in a very
sensitive area and expressed concern regarding the façade of the building. He
proposed a site inspection which was seconded by Councillor R Shepherd.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the applicants intended to sell their seafood products for consumption on
the premises or to take away.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that the building was already there and would
deteriorate unless it was demolished or used. He supported the site inspection.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that the proposal was totally inappropriate.
She considered that it could not be effectively screened and would be visible over a
long distance.
Councillor M J M Baker requested that the applicant be requested to produce an
artist‟s impression of the finished building when the application is reconsidered
following a site inspection.
Councillor B Smith stated that this application did not conform with Development Plan
policy. He proposed an amendment to refuse this application, which was seconded
by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
Councillor P Williams considered that the application could be considered as a form
of farm diversification without the residential element.
The amendment was put the vote and declared lost with 3 Members voting in favour
and 10 against.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
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.
(275) SEA PALLING - PF/12/0961 - Conversion of agricultural storage building to
residential dwelling; The Old Pavilion, Old Playing Field, Waxham Road for Mr
P Brown
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers‟ report.
Public Speaker
Mr R Hale-Sutton (supporting)
Development Committee
8
9 May 2013
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones stated that there was little development along this
road. The coast was very vulnerable and susceptible to flooding, and only a pasture
and the Marrams lay between the building and the sea. The existing flood defences
had been scoured out over the winter period. She proposed refusal of this
application in accordance with the Officer‟s recommendation, which was seconded
by Councillor R Shepherd.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on the grounds that the proposal is
contrary to the Development Plan as it fails to comply with Policy HO9
as it does not meet the test as a building worthy of retention, and Policy
EN10 as it involves redevelopment of a building for a more vulnerable
use within an area at high risk of flooding.
(276) SHERINGHAM - PF/13/0199 - Installation of solar panels; The Studio, 18 St
Peters Road for Stead Mutton Griggs Architects
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers‟ report.
The Senior Planning Officer reported the comments of Councillor B J Hannah, a local
Member, who had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of this application.
Councillor Hannah supported the proposal having read the comments of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager and the conditions to be imposed on
the permission.
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he lived very close to the site. He proposed
approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor P W High.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved in accordance
recommendation of the Head of Development Management.
with
the
(277) WALSINGHAM - PF/13/0214 - Retention of timber entrance gates; Berry Hall,
Westgate for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
WALSINGHAM - LA/13/0215 - Erection of timber entrance gates (retrospective);
Berry Hall, Westgate for Walsingham Estate Management Ltd
The Committee considered items 9 and 10 of the Officers‟ report.
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, supported the views of the Parish Council.
He stated that the timber gates blocked the view of the lower part of the Hall, which
was a historic view in a mediaeval setting. He considered that iron gates similar to
those at the other entrance to the hall would be in keeping, enhance the historic
landscape and prevent the hall being cut off from the rest of the village. With regard
to privacy, the Hall was set back from the road by some distance within a high
boundary wall.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager stated that he thought there had been previously
been a railed gate which could been seen through.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones proposed refusal of these applications, which was
seconded by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes.
Development Committee
9
9 May 2013
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager advised the Committee that this
was a Grade II* Listed building and as always there needed to be a balance drawn
between the needs of the applicant and the impact upon a heritage asset and its
setting. He considered that it would be unreasonable to refuse the application but
appreciated the views of Members.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard considered that the gates were taller than necessary and
suggested that lower gates might be acceptable to the applicant, although she would
prefer a wrought iron gate in this location.
Councillor P Williams suggested that wooden OG gates may have originally been
installed and considered that these would be more appropriate in this setting.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that the gates were acceptable as installed.
The Development Manager advised the Committee as to possible grounds for refusal
of these applications, based on the concerns which had been raised by Members. In
the event of refusal, he requested authority to serve an Enforcement Notice with a
compliance period of three months if necessary, although Officers would attempt to
negotiate an acceptable solution prior to service of the Notice.
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 3
That these applications be refused on grounds that the gates, by reason
of their utilitarian appearance, would detract from the setting and
appearance of the Grade II* Listed building and the wider Conservation
Area, contrary to Core Strategy Policies EN4 and EN8.
It was further
RESOLVED
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to serve, if
necessary, an Enforcement Notice to require the removal of the
unauthorised gates within 3 months of the effective date of the Notice
for the reasons stated above.
(278) DEVELOPMENT
UPDATE
MANAGEMENT
AND
LAND
CHARGES
PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered the quarterly report on planning applications and appeals
for the period from January to March 2013, covering the turnround of applications,
workload and appeal outcomes and land charge searches received.
(279) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers‟ reports.
Councillor P W High updated the Committee with regard to the Railway Tavern, Holt.
(280) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers‟ reports.
Development Committee
10
9 May 2013
(281) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers‟ reports.
(282) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the Officers‟ reports.
(283) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 16 of the Officers‟ reports.
(284) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the Officers‟ reports.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to a communication he had received from NOTT
regarding a challenge to the Inspector‟s decision in respect of the Bodham wind
turbine application, reference PF/11/0983. He requested an update in respect of
Counsel‟s opinion which had been sought by the Council.
The Planning Legal Manager requested that the Committee resolve to go into private
business at this point to allow him to do so.
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 paragraphs 5 and 6 of Part I of
Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.
The Planning Legal Manager updated the Committee as to the current situation with
regard to Counsel‟s opinion in respect of a possible legal challenge against the
Inspector‟s decision.
Members were unhappy that the substance of the opinion could not be revealed to
them and requested that Cabinet make a decision on this matter as quickly as
possible.
(285) PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 18 of the Officers‟ reports updating the situation
previously reported concerning the schedule of outstanding enforcement cases and
unresolved complaints more than three months old as at 30 April 2013.
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
The meeting closed at 1.15 pm.
CHAIRMAN
6 June 2013
Development Committee
11
9 May 2013