1 OCTOBER 2009
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST) held in the
Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
Mrs C M Wilkins (Chairman)
S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S Arnold
M J M Baker
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs M Seward
B Smith
Mrs L Walker
P J Willcox
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
E Seward - North Walsham North Ward
Officers:
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
(64)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Miss P E Ford. There were no
substitute Members in attendance.
(65)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 3 September 2009 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(66)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(67)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs M Seward declared an interest, the details of which are given under
the minute of the item concerned.
(68)
NORTH WALSHAM: Derelict and dormant sites (complaints from North
Walsham Town Council)
Councillor Mrs M Seward declared a personal interest in the site at 48/50 Bacton
Road as she was a resident of Bacton Road.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports which listed a number of
sites in and around North Walsham which are the subject of complaints from the
Town Council.
Public Speaker
Mrs Rose (North Walsham Town Council)
Development Control Committee (East)
1
1 October 2009
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager referred to publicity regarding this
matter and stated that there was no suggestion that the town was an industrial
wasteland. Its public spaces were very well maintained. The Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager outlined the legal issues with regard to the service of notices
under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and stated that both
he and the Development Control Manager (East) had inspected the sites in question.
Most were secure and surrounded by temporary security fencing. Some of the sites
were being reclaimed by nature with weed growth and self-sown buddleia. The Town
Council had suggested the use of weedkiller on these sites. However this was not
considered to be a sustainable method of control given the benefits to wildlife
provided by the plants.
The Development Control Manager outlined the planning issues related to these
sites. He confirmed that demolition was currently taking place on the HL Foods site
as part of a 9-month programme of demolition for the whole site.
Councillor E Seward, a local Member, referred to a site at 4 Market Street which had
been cleared using Section 215 powers. This had subsequently prompted action on
behalf of the developer. He stated that whilst it was sometimes considered that
development was not taking place because the Council was reluctant to grant
planning permission, it was in fact the case that some of the sites in question had
planning permission but no development had taken place. He stated that vegetation
on some of the sites caused problems for people with hay fever and asked that the
vegetation be pruned back if it was not desirable to use weedkiller. He requested
that each site be considered on its own merits and that appropriate powers be used
to resolve the issues. In addition to the sites listed in the report he referred to the
former General Trailers site on Cromer Road where the steel framework of the
former factory buildings remained.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager confirmed that a planning application
had been submitted for the Market Street site. However in the event of planning
permission being granted there was no guarantee that development would take
place. He referred to the General Trailers site and explained that the owner did not
want to remove the steelwork as it was the intention to re-use the buildings for
warehousing in the future.
Councillor Mrs M Seward read the comments of Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local
Member, who had left the meeting for another appointment. Councillor Ms Gay
welcomed any action that could be taken and considered it was unfortunate that most
of the sites in question were on gateways into the town. These sites had been
discussed with officers on a number of occasions. She supported biodiversity and
did not agree with the spraying of poison. With regard to her own views, Councillor
Mrs Seward considered that if the image and feel of the town were improved local
residents would feel better about the town.
Councillor Mrs L Walker stated that the Council’s duty under Section 17 of the Crime
and Disorder Act should not be forgotten. There was potential for vandalism and
illegal use of such sites. She requested that substantial fences be erected around
the sites if they were to be mothballed.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the temporary fencing that
had been erected was substantial and designed for security. However, if sufficient
clips were not used to connect the mesh panels they became loose. He stated that
insecure fencing was a health and safety matter. Section 215 notices could not be
used to require secure fencing to be erected.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
1 October 2009
Councillor Mrs B McGoun suggested that Community Service could be used to clear
some of the sites.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that whilst the sites were unsightly the matter had to
be approached with a degree of realism in the current economic climate. If action
was too heavy handed it could place an unnecessary burden on small developers
and result in jobs being lost. He stated that the mesh panels were secure if erected
properly and he considered that the site owners should be requested to do so. He
suggested that flower seeds could be scattered on the sites as a temporary measure
to improve their appearance. He considered that it was not economically feasible to
remove rubble from the sites if it was the intention to reuse it on the site at a later
date. He stated that sites were not being developed due to the current economic
disaster which was beyond the developers’ control and it was unfair to add to the
burden.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that the sites would remain undeveloped for a
number of years. He suggested that developers should be offered incentives to find
an alternative use for the sites in the short term, such as temporary car parking or
play areas which would be of benefit to the town.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that planning permission
would be required for a material change of use of the land, although land could be
used for certain purposes for 28 days per year without requiring permission.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins considered that the worst of the sites was the Railway
Station Yard and requested that rubbish and a derelict portable building be removed.
Councillor B Smith stated that the Youth Offenders Scheme was currently looking for
projects. Whilst the scheme could not be used for moving the portakabin it might be
able to assist with general clearing and gardening.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that clearance should be the responsibility of the
landowners.
1. HL Foods site, Norwich Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that all buildings would be
demolished over the next nine months. This would result in piles of rubble which
Environmental Health had agreed could remain on the site.
Councillor Mrs M Seward expressed concern that the site was not secure and she
had witnessed young people entering the site.
RESOLVED
That the outcome of demolition works be awaited and Environmental
Health be requested to ensure that the site is secured.
2. Station Yard site, Norwich Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager requested authority to serve a
Section 215 Notice if necessary. However steps would be taken in the first instance
to negotiate clearance of the site and removal of the portakabin.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
1 October 2009
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold suggested that the site could be owned by Railtrack. She
requested that pressure be put on the landowner to sell the site on the open market if
this were the case.
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to serve a
Notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act if
necessary to require the clearance of the site and removal of the
portakabin.
3. Former Holburn Tyres site, Norwich Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that this site was well fenced,
with self-sown vegetation. He suggested that this site be monitored but that no
action be taken at this time, subject to checking the security of the fencing.
Councillor E Seward considered that this was a good site to sow seeds as suggested
by Councillor M J M Baker.
RESOLVED
That, subject to checking the security of the fencing, the site be
monitored but no action be taken at the present time.
4. Former Marricks Ropes site, Cromer Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager considered that there was no
evidence of regular trespass. There could possibly be some bat interest in the
derelict building and it was understood that there could be lizards on the site. The
site was away from residential dwellings and he recommended that no action be
taken on this site.
RESOLVED
That no action be taken on this site.
5. Former Builder’s Yard, Cromer Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that there was a substantial
chain link fence at the rear of the site, although the front of the site was not secure.
The site would be redeveloped in time. He recommended that pressure be put on
the landowner to secure the front of the site and clear the front garden of the dwelling
but otherwise no action be taken.
RESOLVED
That pressure be put on the landowner to secure the front of the site
and clear the front garden of the dwelling but otherwise no action be
taken.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
1 October 2009
6. Site at 48/50 Bacton Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that this site had planning
permission for development. Scaffolding was ready to be erected and some work
had been carried out. He recommended that this site be monitored but no action be
taken at the present time.
RESOLVED
That this site be monitored but that no action be taken at the present
time.
7. Former Howards Coachworks site, Mundesley Road
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that this site was vacant.
Buildings had been demolished and the site had been fenced. He recommended
that the site be monitored but no action be taken at the present time.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that the developer should be given an incentive to
create a temporary public open space, play area or car park rather than sow seeds
on the site.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager stated that Environmental Health and the Health and Safety
Executive required developers to keep sites secure for health and safety reasons.
RESOLVED
That this site be monitored but that no action be taken at the present
time.
8. Former Hall Lane Garage site, Hall Lane
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the buildings had been
demolished and the site was vacant. He recommended that the site be monitored
but that no action be taken.
RESOLVED
That this site be monitored but that no action be taken at the present
time.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
1 October 2009
Applications approved include a standard time limit condition as condition number 1
unless otherwise stated.
(69)
HOVETON - 20090742 - Erection of single-storey dwelling and garage; 32
Stalham Road for Mr Bygrave
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
The Committee expressed concern that the local Member, who had called in this
application, did not attend the meeting or send in his comments. There was an
expectation under the Council’s Planning Protocol that Members should attend the
Committee meeting at which a called in application was discussed. After discussion
of the appropriate action to take on this matter it was agreed to publish an item in the
Members’ Bulletin to remind Members of this requirement.
The Development Control Manager stated that Councillor Dixon had submitted
comments to the case officer when he had called in the application. He read those
comments to the Committee.
The Development Control Manager reported that an amended plan had been
received. He recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that permitted development rights for rooms in
the roofspace and rooflights should be removed to prevent overlooking of the
neighbouring property.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include removal of permitted development
rights for rooms in the roofspace and rooflights.
(70)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 3 of the officers’ reports.
(71)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 4 of the officers’ reports.
(72)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 5 of the officers’ reports.
(73)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
1 October 2009
(74)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 7 of the officers’ reports.
(75)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 8 of the officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 11.15 am.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
1 October 2009