10 JANUARY 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)
M J M Baker
Mrs L M Brettle
Mrs A R Green
P W High
J H Perry-Warnes
R Reynolds
R Shepherd
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs V Uprichard
J A Wyatt
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds – substitute for B Cabbell Manners
E Seward – substitute for Mrs P Grove-Jones
P W Moore – North Walsham East Ward
Miss B Palmer – observer
Mrs A M Fitch-Tillett - observer
Officers
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Development Management
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Miss J Medler – Senior Planning Officer
(164) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners and Mrs P
Grove-Jones. Two substitutes were in attendance as listed above.
(165) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A planning application at Wickmere, reference PF/12/0277. The reason for
urgency was to expedite the processing of the application.
2.
An update with regard to an enforcement case at Cromer. The reason for
urgency was to update the Committee with regard to the latest position
following its decision at the previous meeting.
(166) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members had received many representations on a number of applications on the
agenda.
Councillor E Seward declared personal interests in Minute (171) as he was a
member of CAMRA, and in Minute (173) as he was a Member of North Walsham
Town Council.
Development Committee
1
10 January 2013
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal
interest in Minute (169) as they were acquainted with Mr Knights but had not
discussed the application with them.
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in Minute (169) as she had
dealings with Mr Knights which did not impact on this application.
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.
(167) CORPUSTY AND SAXTHORPE - PF/12/1232 - Erection of two-storey side/rear
extension; Horseshoe Cottage, The Street, Corpusty for Mr S Waller
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that no new representations had been received
following readvertisement of the amended plan. The Parish Council had confirmed
that it had no comment or objection to the amended plan. She recommended
approval of this application subject to the imposition of conditions as stated in the
report.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor P W High
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including the removal of permitted development
rights for the insertion of any first floor window or rooflight in the
southern elevation of the extension and a condition relating to the
erection of a temporary fence(s) to protect trees on site.
(168) HAPPISBURGH - PO/12/0423 - Erection of nine replacement dwellings and
reinstatement of former residential land to provide amenity land; Sites off
North Walsham Road and Beach Road for T M Trustees Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs D Burke (objecting)
Ms J Irwin (supporting)
Development Committee
2
10 January 2013
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of Councillor Mrs L
Walker, the local Member, who supported this application. In response to her
comments in support of the provision of affordable social housing on the site, the
Senior Planning Officer explained that all nine of the proposed dwellings would be
market dwellings.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Highway Authority had no objection to a
single point of access and considered that the footpath would enhance highway
safety.
Councillor R Shepherd asked if the application would be subject to a Section 106
Obligation. He considered that there was a need for the village to expand and
proposed approval of this application.
The Head of Development Management considered that there was no need for a
Section 106 Obligation in this instance as the site of the demolished dwellings had
been brought up to standard. Councillor Shepherd accepted this view.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that the requirements of Policy
EN12 had been fully covered.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the Senior Planning Officer
stated that the occupiers of the former dwellings had found alternative
accommodation. The proposed dwellings were to replace the housing stock which
had been lost.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Senior Planning Officer
considered that the alternative site which had been proposed previously had not
come forward as it was in multiple ownership.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds seconded the proposal.
Councillor P W High expressed concern that the proposed site was formerly
proposed as an exceptions site.
The Head of Development Management confirmed that whilst the site could have
been considered as an exceptions site under Policy H03, it had come forward for
consideration against Policy EN12.
Councillor M J M Baker proposed that the question be now put.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 2 with 3 abstentions
That the Head of Development Management be authorised to approve
this application subject to no new grounds of objection following
readvertisement, no Parish Council objection in respect of the further
amended plans and no objection from Norfolk County Council Historic
Environment Services following the archaeological investigation of the
site, and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Development Committee
3
10 January 2013
(169) HINDOLVESTON - PF/12/0993 - Erection of two wind turbines (14.97m to hub,
5.5m diameter blades); Blue Tile Farm, Fulmodestone Road for Mr M Knights
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds and Councillor R Reynolds declared a personal
interest in this application as they were acquainted with Mr Knights but had not
discussed the application with them.
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in this matter as she had
dealings with Mr Knights which did not impact on this application.
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager considered that the proposed turbines would not adversely affect the listed
buildings. He recommended refusal of this application for the reasons stated in the
report.
Councillor R Shepherd referred to the objection by the MOD and questioned why the
application had been brought to the Committee. He proposed refusal of this
application in accordance with the recommendation. This was seconded by
Councillor M J M Baker.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to the request by the Committee to consider all
wind turbine applications. She considered that those which the Officers were minded
to refuse should not come before the Committee.
The Committee noted that the Scheme of Delegation had been amended subsequent
to the Committee‟s request, but this application had been called in by Councillor B
Cabbell Manners in the interim period.
Councillor B Smith considered that wind turbines had an adverse impact on bats by
creating a vacuum which affected their ability to breathe and caused internal
haemorrhages. He considered that this was also a valid reason for refusal.
The Head of Development Management referred to the Landscape Officer‟s
comments which concluded that the proposal would not significantly affect local bat
populations.
Councillor E Seward considered that it would be helpful if NATS and MOD comments
were received sooner. It was agreed that the Head of Development Management
would write to these consultees to request an earlier response to consultation.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the proposed wind turbines would not desensitise
Air Defence radar in the vicinity of the turbines, as identified by the
Defence Infrastructure Organisation, by impacting on its ability to
provide a full air surveillance service in the area, which could have
adverse implications for public safety and security.
Development Committee
4
10 January 2013
(170) HOLT - PF/12/0713 - Siting of two mobile trading barrows; 16 High Street for
The James Hay Trustees
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Turner (Holt Town Council)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the agent had confirmed that it was
intended that the barrows should remain in situ, there was little detail regarding the
proposed use. The barrows would be removed in the event of their being
unoccupied.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, considered that the proposed barrows
would cause security issues for the bank and users of the cash machine, impede
access to the bank and cash machine, and take away a prime meeting space for the
people of the town. There was no indication as to the possible use of the barrows
and there could be issues relating to cleanliness, hygiene and possible use of a
generator. He considered that the proposed barrows would take trade away from
existing shops, which were liable for full business rates. There was a number of
residential dwellings close to the site which could suffer disturbance. He proposed
refusal of this application.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, supported Councillor Baker‟s comments and
seconded the proposal. He added that security vans arriving at the bank used the
space to pull off the road.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes considered the proposed barrows were unattractive,
unnecessary and inappropriate to the ambience of the town and would clutter the
open space. He considered that the open aspect should not be lost. He stated that
there was nowhere else for security vans to park when visiting the bank.
Councillor E Seward asked if the Police had made any comments with regard to
security issues.
The Head of Development Management referred to Policy EN5 which required
proposals to enhance the overall appearance and usability of Public Realm areas.
Members had suggested that this was not the case. He stated that the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer had not been consulted. He suggested that if the
Committee were minded to refuse this application, that the decision be delegated
subject to any comments from the Police regarding security issues. However, it
would be difficult to refuse on grounds related to amenity without the support of the
Environmental Health Officer.
In response to a question by Councillor R Shepherd, the Planning Legal Manager
stated that public health issues were subject to separate legislation.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor P W High and
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds related to Policy EN5
(Public Realm) and, subject to the support of the Police, public safety
issues and security related to the cash point.
Development Committee
5
10 January 2013
(171) HOLT - PF/12/1164 - Change of use from A4 (public house) to A1 (retail) and
two residential flats, conversion of barn to two dwellings and erection of two
one and a half storey dwellings; The Railway Tavern, 2 Station Road for
Capricorn Estates Partnership
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Turner (Holt Town Council)
Mr A Groom (objecting)
Mr R Kirby (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that 10 further letters of objection had been
received which raised similar issues to those summarised in the report. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager had no objection to the alterations to
the Listed Building and considered that the new build element would be in keeping.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, referred to the importance of the public house
to Holt. He stated that it had retained its character as a „working man‟s pub‟ for as
long as he could remember. He considered that it was possible to retain the public
house as part of a scheme, updated and suitable for all concerned. He did not
support the current application.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, stated that he would comment later in the
debate.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes referred to comments made by Mr Groom, the current
publican, and considered that there had been developments since the report was
written. He proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard referred to the Council‟s desire to preserve the
appearance of the area and considered that it should also consider how to preserve
the British way of life. She supported the comments made against this application.
She considered that a pub and pub-restaurant were completely different and that
those who only wanted a drink were not welcome in the latter. She seconded the
proposal.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that she had worked close to the Railway Tavern
for many years and it had always been busy. She considered that it was the only
public house in the town for local people. She expressed concern with regard to
traffic and the site access.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds questioned whether Holt needed another retail
unit and asked how many shops were currently vacant.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there were very few empty retail units in Holt.
Whilst the proposal related to A1 retail, there was a possibility that it could be
occupied by the Tourist Information Centre.
The Head of Development Management reminded the Committee of the need to
consider Policy CT3: Provision and retention of local facilities and services.
Development Committee
6
10 January 2013
Councillor E Seward referred to the further developments since the report had been
written which could prove the business to be viable. He referred to paragraph 70 of
the National Planning Policy Framework which required decisions to “guard against
the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would
reduce the community‟s ability to meet its day-to-day needs.” He considered that the
application should be rejected on this basis.
In answer to questions by Councillor R Shepherd, the Officers stated that the owner‟s
obligations to carry out repairs would depend on the terms of the lease. A change of
use from public house to retail would be permitted under the Use Classes Order.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green, the Chairman stated that the
only assurance of viability had come from the current landlord.
Councillor R Reynolds stated that remaining traditional public houses in Fakenham
were used every day. He considered that such facilities should not be lost if they
could be made viable. The current landlord of the Railway Tavern considered that it
could be viable.
The Head of Development Management stated that he sensed the mood of the
meeting but there could be difficulties in defending a refusal. He recommended
deferral of this application to consider the viability information which had been
referred to by the current tenant.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor
B Smith that consideration of this application be deferred to allow consideration of the
viability information referred to by the tenant.
Councillor M J M Baker, a local Member, considered that change of use would alter
the frontage of the building, which was an integral part of the Georgian market town.
The road to the bypass was narrow, with inadequate pavements. He considered that
the building could be brought up to date and a profitable business run from it. He
considered that other drinking establishments in Holt were too expensive for many
people living in the town. He stated that the landlord had been running a profitable
business since the link with Punch Taverns had been severed. He referred to the
independent nature of the town which should be retained. He urged refusal of this
application.
The Planning Legal Manager stated that whilst the Committee could refuse this
application, there was difficulty in relation to the policy issues. No Member had
spoken in favour of the application. He advised the Committee to defer consideration
and request Mr Groom to share the figures he had referred to which may support the
Committee‟s view.
Councillor P W High stated that he understood the Planning Legal Manager‟s view
and supported deferral.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried by 9 votes to 4, and on
being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek further
information with regard to viability of the Railway Tavern.
Development Committee
7
10 January 2013
(172) MUNDESLEY - PF/12/1120 - Installation of ATM; Rays Stores, 25 Cromer Road
for Tesco Stores Ltd
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers‟ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from the
applicant‟s agent offering to put the ATM out of use outside shop opening hours by
installing a lockable screen.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, referred to the concerns of the Parish Council.
He considered that the proposal would be acceptable subject to the lockable screen
offered by the applicant‟s agent and the installation of safety bollards.
It was proposed by Councillor J A Wyatt, seconded by Councillor E Seward that this
application be approved in accordance with the Officer‟s recommendation, subject to
an additional condition to require the ATM to be securely locked outside the shop
opening hours.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that the ATM should be available outside the
shop opening hours. She asked if it could be kept available for use, subject to
reconsideration if problems arose.
The Head of Development Management advised that it would be difficult to revisit this
matter at a later date. He suggested that the operating hours of the ATM should
either be left to the store operators‟ discretion or subject to a condition.
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle considered that no condition should be imposed with
regard to operating hours of the ATM. As an amendment, it was proposed by
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, seconded by Councillor Mrs A R Green that this
application be approved in accordance with recommendation of the Head of
Development Management.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 10 votes to 2 with
1 abstention, and on being put as the substantive proposition it was
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
That this application be approved in accordance
recommendation of the Head of Development Management.
with
the
(173) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/12/1046 - Change of use from B1 (business) to D1
(place of worship/church hall); 1A St Nicholas Court, Vicarage Street for New
Life Church North Walsham
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers‟ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr I Dallean (supporting)
The Head of Development Management read to the Committee the comments of Mr
D Robertson, North Walsham Town Mayor, who was unable to attend the meeting.
The Senior Planning Officer reported further comments from the applicant requesting
the application to be determined as submitted. He reported that there were currently
13 vacant retail units in the town centre. He recommended approval subject to
conditions in respect of hours of use.
Development Committee
8
10 January 2013
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, supported this application subject to careful
consideration of the conditions to be imposed.
Councillor Mrs V Uprichard, a local Member, stated that she was not in favour of the
proposed use, there were no planning reasons for refusal and therefore she
proposed approval of this application subject to the imposition of conditions. This
was seconded by Councillor M J M Baker.
Councillor B Smith stated that the precinct had never been successful. He supported
the recommendation.
Councillor E Seward referred to recent investment in the precinct to refurbish and
repair four retail units, and the recent opening of a retail shoe shop in the precinct.
He considered that overall the retail picture of North Walsham was changing with
new development taking place. He considered that there was more that could be
done with the precinct that its history would suggest. He considered that the
application could be refused on the grounds that there the refurbishment of the retail
units would improve the footfall in the precinct.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that conditions could be imposed to restrict the D1
use to a place of worship/church hall. An hours of use restriction could also be
imposed in accordance with the applicant‟s suggested opening times.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the applicants should be given the
opportunity to open at 8.00 am.
The Chairman proposed that no restriction be placed on opening hours which was
seconded.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds, the Senior Planning
Officer stated that the church hall designation would allow the applicants to hire out
the building to other organisations.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 4
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(174) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the Officers‟ reports.
(175) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers‟ reports.
(176) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers‟ reports.
(177) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS – PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers‟ reports.
Development Committee
9
10 January 2013
(178) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS – IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers‟ reports.
(179) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers‟ reports.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that this item be considered as a
matter of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of the
Local Government Act 1972.
(180) WICKMERE – PF/12/0277 – Removal of condition 4 of planning permission
reference 00/1632 and condition 5 of planning permission reference 09/0052 to
permit permanent residential occupation; No 4, Park Farm Barns, Wolterton
Park, Wolterton for Michael McNamara Associates
The Senior Planning Officer reminded the Committee that this application had been
deferred at the meeting held on 31 May 2012 pending a decision in respect of the
review of Core Strategy Policy HO9 in the light of the National Planning Policy
Framework. Subsequent to that review, in the opinion of Officers, the proposal now
complied with the agreed Council interpretation of the requirements of Policy HO9.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application.
Councillor N Smith, the local Member, supported this application.
It was proposed by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, seconded by Councillor B Smith
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved.
(181) CROMER – ENF/10/0002 – Unauthorised installation of a shopfront and roller
shutter and display of illuminated advertisements within Cromer Conservation
Area at 57 Church Street by Iceland Foods Ltd
The Head of Development Management stated that it was resolved at the meeting on
13 December 2012 that the Committee was minded to commence prosecution
proceedings for non-compliance with the Enforcement Notice in the event of Iceland
Foods Ltd failing to submit an amended proposal for the shopfront by 10 January.
An email had been received from Iceland Foods Ltd stating that an amended design
had been produced, but a visit to the site was due to take place to ensure that it was
possible to implement the new design before submission to the Council. The
Company would not be in a position to submit the application before 15 January.
The Head of Development Management suggested that the matter be reconsidered
at the meeting to be held on 17 January when he would be able to update the
Committee further as to whether or not an application had been received.
Development Committee
10
10 January 2013
RESOLVED
That this matter be reconsidered at the meeting of the Committee to be
held on 17 January 2013.
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm.
Development Committee
11
10 January 2013