10 MARCH 2016
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
R Reynolds (Chairman)
R Shepherd (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S Butikofer
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
N Coppack
Mrs P Grove-Jones
Mrs V Uprichard
P High
N Pearce
S Shaw
N Smith
Mrs A Green – substitute for P Rice
Mrs M Prior – substitute for B Smith
Ms V Gay – North Walsham West Ward
B Smith – Mundesley Ward
R Stevens – Stalham & Sutton Ward
Mrs S Arnold – Portfolio Holder
Officers
Mrs N Baker – Head of Planning
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal Manager
Mr G Lyon – Major Projects Manager
Mrs S Ashurst – Development Manager
Mr J Williams – Major Projects Team Leader
Miss J Medler – Development Management Team Leader
Mr D Watson – Development Management Team Leader
(210) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S Hester and P Rice.
Councillor B Smith was present in his capacity as local Member for Minute (216) and
had appointed a substitute for the meeting as he had to leave early. Two substitute
Members attended the meeting as shown above.
(211) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2016 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(212) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None.
(213) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Minute
218
Councillor:
R Shepherd
Development Committee
Interest
Knows the applicants very well and had dealt
with the neighbours. He spoke on this matter
but did not vote.
1
10 March 2016
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 Officers’ report, the Committee
reached the decisions as set out below.
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(214) CROMER - PF/15/1365 - Refurbishment of various elements of the Cromer West
Promenade, including the Art Deco Cafe, the Anglian Water pumping station and
the adjacent Edwardian Chalets.; Sites on West Promenade, Cromer, NR27 9HE
for North Norfolk District Council
The Committee considered item 1 of the Officers’ reports.
Councillor N Pearce considered that the proposed development was good although he
was concerned with regard to the materials to be used for the Art Deco café, the
maintenance of vegetation and potential to attract rats. He asked if the possibility of
land slips had been considered.
The Development Management Team Leader stated the design team would have
considered land stability and that the existing concrete hardstandings would be used
where possible. He would raise Councillor Pearce’s concerns regarding maintenance
of vegetation with the appropriate department.
In response to questions by Councillors Mrs P Grove-Jones and Mrs A ClaussenReynolds, the Head of Planning explained that the cleansing and maintenance of the
proposed toilets was not a planning issue. She undertook to contact the Council’s
Property Team with regard to this issue and forward the response to Members.
Councillor R Shepherd proposed approval of this application in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning. Councillor N Smith seconded the proposal.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the Development
Management Team Leader stated that the timescale for the works would be
approximately three years.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions relating to:



Development Committee
Approved plans and details
External materials and colours
Railing/balustrade design
2
10 March 2016



Details of proposed play equipment and any above-ground art
installations
Details of the proposed ramp to the Edwardian chalet building
Archaeology
(215) NORTH WALSHAM - PF/15/1010 - Hybrid Proposal- Full planning permission for
erection of 100 dwellings and outline planning permission for 0.89 ha of
commercial space; Land to the East of Norwich Road, North Walsham for Peter
Foster Tofts, Annette Patricia Tofts & James Nicholls, Persimmon
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr C Spearing (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that the Highway Authority considered that
there was insufficient pedestrian demand to justify a signalled pedestrian crossing
and, in the longer term, alternative pedestrian routes would be available through the
adjacent development. Certain works would be undertaken to the Yarmouth
Road/Norwich Road junction following receipt of Section 106 contributions in
association with this development and the Hopkins Homes development. Works
would be completed following receipt of a further contribution in association with the
remaining part of the allocation.
The Major Projects Team Leader reported that further amended plans had very
recently been received which included some of the design amendments requested by
the Committee and Conservation and Design Officer. He displayed the amended
plans and indicated the amendments to the layout and house types. The developer
had stated that the affordable housing was ‘tenure blind’ with house types being the
same as the market housing. He considered that the scheme had been improved
although some issues had not been addressed. The applicant’s agent had indicated
that he would be willing to give further consideration to addressing some of the
suggested amendments.
The Major Projects Team Leader requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to further design amendments in liaison with the Council’s
Conservation and Design Officer and subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions and completion of a Section 106 Obligation. The application would be
brought back before the Committee if satisfactory amendments could not be achieved.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, welcomed the Section 106 contributions and
appreciated the efforts of the Conservation and Design Officer and developer with
regard to the proposal. She had been unable to consider the revisions to the proposal
in detail. She was disappointed that some of the Conservation and Design Officer’s
suggestions had not been taken up by the developer. She requested that this
application be deferred to secure more changes to the proposal and suggested that
the Committee visit the site again.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that Officers had been quite successful in securing
changes to the proposal and had gone almost as far as they could. He proposed
delegated authority to approve the application as requested by the Major Projects
Team Leader.
Councillor Ms M Prior considered that the type and spread of affordable housing
across the site was good. She seconded the proposal.
Development Committee
3
10 March 2016
In response to a question by Councillor N Smith, the Major Projects Team Leader
stated that if approved, a condition would be imposed to require compliance with
Policy EN6 with regard to renewable energy. A reasonable number of dwellings in the
proposed scheme were oriented with living areas facing south.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that it was a pity the developer had
not put the current proposal forward to start with. However, what had been achieved
demonstrated the strength of the Committee. She considered that this application
should be approved provided the Conservation and Design Officer’s comments were
taken on board.
Councillor P W High supported delegated approval but requested a report outlining
any further changes which had been achieved.
The Head of Planning advised that the terms of the decision needed to be clear and
the Committee should either give delegated approval or defer this application. She
suggested that if delegated approval were given an update could be circulated to
Members. Councillor High supported this suggestion.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to further design amendments in liaison with the Council’s
Conservation and Design Officer and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions and completion of a Section 106 Obligation.
(216) PASTON - PF/15/1198 - Demolition of accommodation Block B, swimming pool
and laundry. Use of land to station 21 holiday lodges, reception building,
wardens accommodation together with realignment of internal roads and
associated landscaping.; Mundesley Holiday Centre, Paston Road, Mundesley
for Mundesley Holiday Village Ltd
The Committee considered item 3 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr N Bardswell (Paston Parish Council)
Mr Smith (supporting)
The Major Projects Manager reported that contrary to the statement on page 25 of the
report, a small section of the site was within the Coastal Erosion Zone. An updated
layout plan had been requested which was anticipated shortly. If approved, an
occupancy condition would be required in respect of the warden’s accommodation.
Councillor B Smith, the local Member, stated that his concerns regarding landscaping
had been addressed. He was concerned regarding the exit from the site onto the
C634 in the Mundesley direction. His concerns regarding drainage and sewerage had
been addressed. He requested that the chalets should be low key in colour. He
welcomed the proposal and considered it would be good for Paston.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that most issues had been addressed.
proposed approval of this application as recommended.
He
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds considered that the scheme was sympathetic
provided neutral colours were used.
The development would bring the
Development Committee
4
10 March 2016
accommodation up to 21st century standards and meet people’s expectations of
holiday accommodation. She requested that landscaping be carried out as soon as
possible and that a maintenance condition be imposed.
The Major Projects Manager stated that much of the landscaping had been
completed. A condition would be imposed to ensure that landscaping was retained
and maintained. With regard to highways, the Highway Authority had raised no
objection subject to visibility splays being secured and it was not proposed to lower
the speed limit.
Councillor Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds seconded the proposal to approve this
application.
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
conditions including those relating to surface and foul water drainage,
highway matters, contamination, landscaping, colour of the lodges,
lighting and any other conditions considered appropriate by the Head of
Planning.
(217) RUNTON - PF/15/1373 - Extensions to annexe; 2 Garden Cottages, Felbrigg
Road, East Runton for Mr and Mrs Huish
The Committee considered item 4 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Huish (supporting)
Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the local Member, stated that she had spoken to both the
applicants’ son and the neighbour and both had made relevant comments. She stated
that the property had an existing annexe which could benefit from updating. However,
she was concerned that a new dwelling could be created as no link was shown
between the annexe and the existing house. She considered that the proposed
extensions would have an overbearing impact and cause overshadowing and loss of
light to neighbouring dwellings. She considered that the proposal was contrary to
Core Strategy Policy EN4. She requested refusal of this application.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there were no planning reasons on which to
refuse this application and proposed the Officer’s recommendation. This was
seconded by Councillor Ms M Prior.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs S Butikofer, the Development
Management Team Leader explained that the proposed extension was approximately
10m from the adjacent dwelling. The Design Guide basic amenity criteria were for
guidance and the proposal was not contrary to policy.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report.
Development Committee
5
10 March 2016
(218) SHERINGHAM - PF/15/1767 - Erection of two-storey extension to side and first
floor extension to rear of dwelling; 14 Hadley Road for Mr & Mrs Fish
Councillor R Shepherd declared that he knew the applicants very well and had dealt
with the neighbours. He would speak but not vote on this matter.
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr S Howes (supporting)
Councillor R Shepherd stated that he was not totally satisfied that the requirements of
Policy EN4 had been met. Although the footprint of the extension was not much larger
than the existing extension, the mass of the extension was much larger. The proximity
of the extension to the fence left little room for maintenance. He considered that the
extension would block light to the neighbouring property.
Councillor P W High referred to other extensions to dwellings in Hadley Road. He
proposed approval of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs P GroveJones.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the
report.
(219) STALHAM - PF/15/1857 - Erection of 2 bungalows and associated works
(Revised Scheme 15/1370 refers); Land adjacent to Holly Grove, Yarmouth Road
for East Anglian Property Limited
The Committee considered item 6 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr A Presslee (supporting)
The Development Management Team Leader informed the Committee that the
proposal did not trigger an affordable housing requirement. The larch tree was no
longer relevant as it had been removed. He recommended refusal on grounds as set
out in the report with the exception of reasons relating to the larch tree and affordable
housing.
Councillor R Stevens, a local Member, stated that he had spoken to the neighbours to
the north and south of the site who had expressed support for this scheme in
preference to the approved scheme. He questioned the Human Rights assessment in
the report as the previously approved two-storey house would have a greater impact
on the neighbours’ privacy than the current proposal. He had consulted a local estate
agent who had confirmed that there was a great demand for bungalows in the Stalham
area, which was a popular area for retirement. This proposal would result in two
additional bungalows and help to address the housing shortage. The applicant had
agreed to plant trees to replace those which had been removed.
The Planning Legal Manager advised the Committee that Human Rights were material
to the Committee’s decision.
Development Committee
6
10 March 2016
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, also a local Member, supported refusal of this
application as recommended. Whilst there was a need for bungalows, she supported
the Town Council’s view that the development would appear cramped with reduced
garden space. She expressed concern regarding the impact on trees on the site. She
proposed refusal of this application which was seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard.
Councillor P W High stated that he was inclined to agree that bungalows would be
preferable. He referred to the existing permission for one house on the plot.
Councillor Ms M Prior expressed concern that the interpretation of policy appeared to
differ depending on the situation and that guidelines were blurred. She expressed
concern at the incremental rise in the number of dwellings on the site as a whole and
the lack of affordable housing provision.
A number of Members expressed a view in favour of bungalows but it was recognised
that the proposal was contrary to policy.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones, seconded by Councillor Mrs V
Uprichard and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning with the exception of reasons related to the
larch tree and affordable housing provision.
(220) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - PF/15/1761 - Erection of single-storey rear extension;
Seal Cottage, 55 High Street for Mr J Rhodes
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Tuart (objecting)
The Development Management Team Leader read to the Committee the views of
Councillor V FitzPatrick, a local Member, who was unable to attend the meeting.
Councillor FitzPatrick considered that this application should be refused on grounds
related to loss of amenity for neighbouring properties and adverse impact on
properties within a Conservation Area.
Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones considered that the proposal would appear out of place
and set a precedent for further infilling around the courtyard. She expressed concern
that the extension could be used as an additional bedroom.
Councillor R Shepherd considered that there appeared to be a good deal of
separation between the proposed extension and the neighbour’s fence. The courtyard
was not, strictly speaking, an open courtyard and the proposal would infill a private
recreation area.
Councillor P W High considered that there were no planning reasons on which to
refuse this application and proposed approval as recommended by the Head of
Planning. This proposal was not seconded.
It was proposed by Councillor N Coppack, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and
Development Committee
7
10 March 2016
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the
Committee to undertake a site inspection.
(221) PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to a number of recent appeal decisions in the
Council’s favour, summaries of which were appended to the report. He stated that the
Council had not been successfully challenged on the five-year housing land supply.
The Planning Legal Manager referred to the forthcoming review of the Local Plan.
There had been a number of applications for infill development which the Committee
had refused on policy grounds, albeit reluctantly in some cases. In the event of a
change in policy some of the applications were likely to come forward again. He
urged the Committee not to try to change policy through the consideration of
applications.
The Planning Legal Manager reported that the summary relating to Beeston Regis
PF/14/1515 contained an error in that the Highway Authority’s consultation response
had not requested refusal. The Highway Authority had requested that modifications
be made and it was on that basis that the Inspector did not find the propsal harmful to
highway safety.
Councillor R Shepherd, speaking on behalf of Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Portfolio
Holder, who had left the meeting, stated that the appeal decisions endorsed the
consistent approach of the Planning Team and Development Committee. The
Committee should be confident in its future decision making knowing that its decisions
had been upheld.
The Head of Planning reported a Court decision in respect of a prosecution brought by
the Council for the removal of protected trees at Beech House, Hayes Lane,
Fakenham. The developer had received a heavy fine which should act as a deterrent
to other developers.
Councillor Shepherd reported that Councillor Mrs Arnold considered that the Court’s
decision showed developers that flouting planning and TPOs would not be tolerated.
She wished to congratulate the Landscape Officer and everyone else involved in the
successful prosecution.
The Committee noted the report.
(222) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
(223) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
(224) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the Officers’ reports.
Development Committee
8
10 March 2016
(225) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the Officers’ reports.
(226) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 13 of the Officers’ reports.
(227) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 14 of the Officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.50 pm.
CHAIRMAN
7 April 2016
Development Committee
9
10 March 2016