5 JUNE 2008
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) for minutes (28) to (31) and minutes (33) to (44) and minutes
(47) to (52)
Mr S Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair for minutes (45) to (46)
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
M R E Birch
Miss P E Ford
Mrs B McGoun
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Miss L Walker
P J Willcox
Development Control Committee (West) Members for Minute (32)
J A Wyatt (Chairman) for minute (32)
Mrs A R Green
Mrs P Bevan Jones
J H Perry-Warnes
J D Savory
Mrs A C Sweeney
R Combe (substitute for P High)
Mr G Jones – Gaunt Ward
Mrs A Moore – North Walsham (North) Ward
Mrs A Tillett – Poppyland Ward
Officers:
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr J Chinnery - Locum Solicitor
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr P Cason - Housing Development Officer
Mr Goodwin - Internal Drainage Board
(28)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from H C Cordeaux, Mr P High and Mrs B
McGoun. One substitute Member attended as listed above.
(29)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 May 2008 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(30)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
5 June 2008
(31)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Councillors declared interests, the details of which are recorded under the minute
of each item concerned.
APPLICATION CONSIDERED BY THE COMBINED COMMITTEE
(32)
HAPPISBURGH – 20080484 – Construction of one
accommodation; Church Farm Barns Blacksmiths Lane
unit
of
holiday
All Members declared a personal and non-pre-judicial interest issue in the application
because they had been emailed for and against it. In addition, Councillor Miss L
Walker declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the application because
the applicants were acquaintances of hers, and Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones
declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest because she was the Founder and
Director of Excel 2000 which helped people with disabilities of all types.
The Combined Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ report regarding the
conversion of a building which is contrary to Local Plan policy in view of the amount
of rebuilding required.
Public Speaker
Mr Munday (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported a letter of objection which had been previously
reported verbally to the Development Control Committee (East).
Councillor Miss L Walker, the local Member, pointed out that the application was for
the provision of disabled facilities, of which there was a very low level in North
Norfolk, and she considered that developers should be encouraged to supply this
type of accommodation.
Whilst Members had sympathy for the application, some considered that this should
be refused because it was contrary to policy, a considerable amount of rebuilding
was required and there were other barns which could be converted which were not
contrary to the Local Plan. Approving this application may set a precedent.
Councillor M Baker pointed out that whilst there were barns available for conversion,
the conversion process required specific items for disabled people and was therefore
an expensive process and he considered that approval of the application was unlikely
to create a precedent.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 7
That this application be approved subject to appropriate conditions
including that the conversion complies with national disability
standards.
Councillor Mrs S Arnold asked that the use of the accommodation by disabled people
be monitored.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
5 June 2008
ITEMS CONSIDERED BY DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST)
(33)
MUNDESLEY – 01/071/DEV6/07/010 – The installation of an illuminated sign in a
Conservation Area without the benefit of Advertisement Consent; 32 High
Street
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ report requesting authority to
prosecute for display of an illuminated sign without the benefit of Advertisement
Consent in a Conservation Area.
RESOLVED
To authorise prosecution proceedings.
(34)
The Graham Allen Award for Conservation and Design
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ report outlining the need to
establish a Working Party to act as the judging panel for this year’s Graham Allen
Award for Conservation and Design and to agree the proposed dates for the judging
and presentation of the awards.
RESOLVED
1.
That Members nominate a total of nine Councillors from West and East
Development Control Committees to form the Graham Allen Award
Working Party, one of whom will be elected Chairman.
2.
That the dates for judging of entries and presentation of the awards be
accepted.
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.
(35)
ERPINGHAM - 20080608 - Construction of all-weather, multi-use playing area
(including car parking and floodlighting); adjacent to The Village Hall The
Street for Erpingham Parish Council
This application was withdrawn.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
5 June 2008
(36)
HAPPISBURGH - 20080537 - Erection of single-storey extension; Cottage
adjacent The Post Office The Street for Mr Chaney
Councillor Miss L Walker declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the
application because the applicant was a personal friend and worked for the same
company as her. Miss Walker left the room during this item.
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
The Chairman read out a statement from the applicant who had by this time left the
meeting.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C Sheridan, seconded by Councillor S Partridge
and
RESOLVED
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(37)
the
HICKLING - 20080576 - Conversion of barn to single unit of holiday
accommodation; Plummer's Farm Barn Pockthorpe Loke Stubb Road for G A
Tallowin and Co
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant was keen to work with the
Environment Agency in order to submit further information in support of the
application and she suggested that consideration of it could be deferred in order to
allow this to happen.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred in order for the
applicant to work with the Environment Agency and submit further
evidence in support of the application.
(38)
KNAPTON - 20080647 - Erection of two-storey side extension, rear
conservatory, detached garage and alterations to roof; The Old Station Paston
Road for Mr K Lawrence
Mrs S Arnold declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the application
because she and her late husband had considered purchasing the property in 1979.
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr K Lawrence (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had no objections and
that Environmental Health had pointed out the potential contaminated land and asked
for an advisory note to be included on this issue if the application was approved.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
5 June 2008
Councillor G Jones, the local Member, referred to human rights implications and
pointed out that there would be no visual impact on neighbouring homes because
most properties were several hundred metres from the site. In addition, the Parish
Council had no objections to the application. He believed that many people were of
the view that these type of buildings enhanced villages and there was a need to
preserve railway buildings. The application also concerned a family and he
considered that it was important to look at the ability of a family to live in a village.
Some Members considered that the proposals were in character with and would
enhance the appearance of the existing building, whilst other Members were
concerned over the scale of the proposed extension which made the existing building
subordinate.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith and seconded by Councillor S Partridge that
the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of
Planning. Upon being put to the vote, this was lost by 2 votes to 6 with 1 abstention.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S Arnold, seconded by Councillor Miss P Ford and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved.
(39)
NORTHREPPS - 20071895 - Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of site
for residential development and retention of two units to include retail
convenience store; Shrublands Farm Church Street for Cherryridge Poultry
Limited
Councillor Mrs A Tillett declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the
application because she was an ex-employee of Cherryridge Poultry Limited.
Councillor P Willcox declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the
application as he had a business connection with the former business.
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr R Houghton (supporting)
The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that amended proposals
and a plan had been received from the agent. This was for 33 new dwellings
together with conversion of the existing frontage building to incorporate a
convenience shop. Twenty-eight of the proposed new dwellings would be within the
existing Local Plan development boundary, 40% of which would be affordable. The
remaining 5 new dwellings were outside the development boundary but in an existing
developed part of the site and all would be affordable, amounting to almost 50% of
the development being affordable. The remaining area was as previously proposed,
ie an open space. The applicants were also prepared to consider contributing
towards highway enhancements within the village and on New Road towards the
A149. No financial viability report had been submitted, but costs associated with site
remediation and decontamination had been provided.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
5 June 2008
Councillor Mrs A Tillett, the local Member, queried the suggested numbers of daily
movements of cars and HGVs to and from the premises when it was in operation, as
she considered that these would have only been at maximum periods of production
and the normal numbers would be at least half of those. Should Members approve
the application, she requested that the reed bed and waste treatment plant on site be
utilised and that the issue of light pollution be considered as this was in an Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. She welcomed the local lettings policy and that there
would be some employment on site.
The Development Control Manager responded to Members’ queries regarding issues
relating to S.17 of the Crime and Disorder Act, open space provision and traffic
generation.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C Sheridan, seconded by Councillor S Partridge
and
RESOLVED
That the Head of Planning be authorised to approve this application
subject to:
(40)
1.
Highway improvements in the centre of the village and on New
Road to be agreed by the Highways Authority.
2.
Completion of a S.106 agreement to secure the provision of 16
affordable units (5 of which are subject to the local lettings policy),
and financial contributions towards education, library and fire
hydrant as required by Norfolk County Council.
3.
The Parish Council being reconsulted on the latest amended plans
4.
The imposition of conditions to include reserve matters, open
space/play equipment, land contamination, lighting, highway works,
drainage, and other conditions considered necessary by the Head
of Planning.
NORTH WALSHAM - 20071817 - Erection of six two-storey terraced dwellings;
site at Avenue Road for Stapletons (Tyre Services) Limited
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Wexler (North Walsham Town Council)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a response was still awaited from the
British Pipeline Agency. Concerns had been expressed over the design of the
proposed houses and the colours had now been amended to reflect the terraced
houses opposite.
It was reported that Councillor Ms V Gay, a local Member, was happy with the
recommendation.
Some Members considered that the development should be for a smaller number of
houses. It was, however, pointed out that a smaller development of larger houses
were less likely to be affordable. There were also concerns over the increased traffic
which the development would lead to.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
5 June 2008
It was proposed by Councillor S Partridge and seconded by Councillor Miss C
Sheridan to accept the Officer’s recommendation.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Miss P Ford and duly seconded
that the application be refused and an amended plan be requested for a smaller
development which incorporated chimneys.
Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was carried by 5 votes to 4 and on being
put as the substantive vote, it was
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4
That this application be refused on the grounds of design and
overdevelopment.
(41)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080512 - Erection of three two-storey dwellings; 28
Bacton Road for Mrs D Miller
All Members declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the application
because one of the objectors was an Officer of the Council. In addition, Councillor
Mrs A Moore declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest because she had been
lobbied by a neighbour and the applicant. Councillor Miss P Ford declared a
personal and non-prejudicial interest because she had been approached by the
applicant.
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Wexler (North Walsham Town Council (objecting))
Ms K Sullivan (objecting)
Mr J Pardon (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that a further letter of objection
had been received from nearby residents. He considered the scale of proposed
building would be out of character with the street. The agent, who was aware of the
recommendation in the report, was contemplating an amendment to the application.
The Senior Planning Officer suggested that delegated authority could be granted to
approve an amended scheme, although he was not aware what this might be.
A statement from a local Member, Councillor E Seward, was read out. He had been
approached by the residents of 28 neighbouring houses who were concerned about
overshadowing from the proposed development. He considered the application
should be refused.
Councillor Mrs A Moore, also a local Member, stated that it was unlikely that the
owner would be able to sell the house as it was because of its condition and that
redevelopment was the only answer. She asked whether approval could be granted
in principle and Officers given delegated authority to accept a negotiated design for
two dwellings with a lower roof line.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss P Ford and seconded by Councillor Miss C
Sheridan that the application be refused.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor P Willcox and seconded by
Councillor S Partridge that the application be deferred. Upon being put the vote, it
was lost by 4 votes to 5.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
5 June 2008
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4
That the application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
(42)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080556 - Erection of four two-storey dwellings; Honeysuckle
Cottage Long Lane for Mr M Hardingham
All Members declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the application
because they had received letters on this matter.
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Ms Primrose (Southrepps Parish Council)
Mr Wingate (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that amended plans had been submitted
revising the design of the pair of semi-detached properties on the frontage of the site
and increasing garden areas.
Councillor Mrs S Arnold, local Member, concurred with the Parish Council that there
were too many buildings. The new layout was slightly more acceptable but would still
impact on the houses to the south. The Parish Council was very concerned over
traffic coming out of this road. She requested either that the application be refused
or a site meeting take place.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and to allow readvertisement and
reconsultation of the amended plan.
(43)
SUTTON - 20080297 - Erection of three dwellings and garages; Rustic House
The Street for Mr and Mrs P Cutting
Councillor S Partridge declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application
because the applicants were know to him, and he left the room during discussion
thereof.
The Committee considered item 12 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr A Tilley (Sutton Parish Council)
Mrs J Cutting (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that the Parish Council had been invited
to give evidence of flooding in the area; photographs of which were shown to the
Committee. Many of the photographs were from 1993. A recent photograph, taken
in June 2007, showed flooding opposite the site; the Council’s Environmental Health
Department had been contacted about this at the time. The proposal shown on the
plan was to pipe water around the site and into the ditch at the rear. The pipe
diameter had been increased from 450mm to 600mm and the IDB had confirmed that
this was acceptable and that its installation would be monitored. Water harvesting
measures were proposed.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
5 June 2008
Councillor Miss C Sheridan, local Member, considered that the proposed works
would not alleviate the problems of flooding and that the site would become
overdeveloped should the application be agreed to. The site visit and local
knowledge had shown the site to be boggy. She proposed that the application be
refused.
Mr Tony Goodwin of the IDB explained the flood risk in the area and the measures
which had been and could be taken to address this. The IDB was satisfied that the
proposed development would not lead to an increase in flood risk.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C Sheridan and seconded by Councillor Miss P
Ford to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment and being out of
character. Upon being put to the vote, the proposal was lost by 3 votes to 4, using
the Chairman’s casting vote, with one abstention.
It was proposed by Councillor P Willcox, seconded by Councillor M Birch and
RESOLVED by 4 votes to 3, using the Chairman’s casting vote, with one abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions including materials, drainage, access, provision
of parking and turning and flood resistance and resilience measures.
(44)
THORPE MARKET - 20080532 - Conversion of hotel and outbuildings to nine
dwellings, erection of two semi-detached dwellings; Green Farm Hotel Cromer
Road for Mr and Mrs Lomax
Councillor Miss L Walker declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the
application because the applicant was known to her because he had business
interests in Happisburgh.
Councillor Mrs S Arnold declared a personal and non-prejudicial interest in the
application because she knew the applicants.
The Committee considered item 13 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr D Futter (supporting)
Mr Lomax (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer explained that there were two issues concerning the
application; the first was the loss of the hotel, the second was the provision of
affordable housing. She read out the response from the Economic Development
Manager who commented that hotels accounted for half of the total bedspaces within
the District. There were 50 hotels in the District and the Green Farm Hotel was one
of 29 hotels with more than 15 beds and one of nine with three stars. There were
currently no budget hotels or five star hotels. Two and three star hotels may find it
difficult to compete in the future. There was a need to ensure the hotel stock was
protected in order to ensure tourism continues to play an important role in the
economy of the District.
In respect of planning policy, the Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant
and the agent had submitted relevant supporting information. This indicated that the
hotel had been marketed for two years, initially at £1.75m and subsequently at
£1.6m. The response from the market had been very poor, with few viewings.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
5 June 2008
Substantial information had been submitted by the applicants and their accountant on
the state of their business. It suggested that existing business was in a poor state, in
spite of investment. Since April 2008, five full time staff had been laid off.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that in respect of the viability of the hotel use,
the financial information gave a partial view. In respect of marketing, the business
has been for sale for two years, and although there had been no independent
verification of the price, the marketing undertaken appeared to be a realistic test of
market interest. On balance, the Senior Planning Officer considered that a refusal on
the basis of loss of hotel use would be difficult to defend.
The proposed development related to 11 dwellings, and applying Policy 58 seven
should be affordable. The Council’s Development Officer had stated that this raised
the issue of viability and that in relation to this application a commuted sum towards
off site provision was sought equivalent to 40%. On this basis a sum of £240,000
was sought. The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had submitted a
feasibility calculation, on the basis of which he was offering £100,000 as a commuted
sum toward affordable housing. The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Hotel
was a listed building and located within a Conservation Area. The Council’s
Conservation Officer had initially raised concerns over the proposal for two new
buildings. In response to this concern, an amended plan had been submitted which
comprised two single storey dwellings which were now considered broadly
acceptable. Outstanding concerns remained relating to the sub-division of the
primary listed building.
The Highways Authority had raised no objections to the application.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that concerns remained over the underprovision
of affordable housing. The Officer’s recommendation was for refusal of permission
on that basis and that a secondary ground for refusal should relate to the proposed
internal sub-division work to the listed building.
Councillor Mrs S Arnold, the local Member, spoke in support of the application. The
applicants did not have the capital to upgrade the Hotel and there were many units of
holiday accommodation being created in the area. Genuine attempts had been
made to attract a buyer, but the owners felt that there was no choice but to change.
Whilst the Council’s priority was affordable housing, the sellers’ view must be taken
into account. She asked Members to support the application.
The Housing Development Officer said that there were two issues to consider:
(1) Whether the application was suitable for on site provision. He accepted that in
this exceptional case a financial contribution was more appropriate due to the
constraints by the listed building unique design and shared amenity space.
(2) The amount of affordable housing which could be provided. Policy 56 stated that
40% affordable housing should be provided for a development of this size which
equalled £240,000 which was 4 x £60,000. The £100,000 offered by the applicants
would provide less than two units of affordable housing.
Following consideration by Members it was proposed by Councillor S Partridge,
seconded by Councillor Miss C Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 2
That this application be refused on grounds of failure to provide
adequate affordable housing and impact on the internal fabric of the
Listed Building.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
5 June 2008
(45)
WORSTEAD - 20071976 - Conversion of barn to two units and erection of twostorey dwelling; Laurels Farmhouse Front Street for Worstead Farms Limited
The Committee considered item 14 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council had objected to the
latest amendment to the application and instead suggested that a smaller property
would be more appropriate.
A response was awaited from the Economic
Development Officer.
Councillor Mrs C Wilkins, the local Member, considered that the application should
be refused because there would be a loss of employment and because it failed to
preserve the Conservation Area.
The Senior Planning Officer responded to a Member’s concern over the lack of
response from the Economic Development Officer and advised when the Local
Development Framework becomes adopted policy, this area would not be protected
for employment land. He advised that this was not the only land used for
employment in the area and he was not certain that there were sufficient grounds to
protect such a small site.
The Development Control Manager responded to Members’ questions regarding
consultation arrangements with Norfolk Landscape Archaeology.
It was proposed by Councillor P Willcox, seconded by Councillor C Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 1
That this application be approved, subject to appropriate conditions.
(46)
WORSTEAD - 20080692 - Erection of dwelling; Ivy Cottage 38 Honing Row for
Mr R Bates
The Committee considered item 15 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Anson (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that three letters of objection had been
received. These concerned the effects on privacy.
The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that since the report had
been published, there had been lengthy telephone conversations with the applicant
and the agent, followed by a letter from the agent. This concerned a grievance that
the original outline application was refused solely on highway safety grounds and it
was considered that if the access was changed there would be no other planning
objection. The applicant and agent considered that if there was an issue regarding
the lack of details provided with the application, then they should have been advised
earlier. The applicant and the agent requested a deferral in order to submit
additional details.
Councillor Mrs C Wilkins, the local Member, recalled that the application had first
been recommended for approval and now it was being recommended for refusal.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
5 June 2008
The Development Control Manager responded to a question by the local Member
that there was a provision which allowed for local planning authorities to request
further details of an outline application within 28 days, if they were not satisfied with
the clarity of the proposals.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs C Wilkins that this application be refused in
accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was not seconded.
It was proposed by Councillor P Willcox, seconded by Councillor Miss C Sheridan
and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 1
That this application be deferred so that the applicant can be invited,
without prejudice, to submit full details of the application.
(47)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 16 of the officers’ reports.
(48)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 17 of the officers’ reports.
(49)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee considered item 18 of the officers’ reports.
(50)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 19 of the officers’ reports.
(51)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 20 of the officers’ reports.
(52)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee considered item 21 of the officers’ reports.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.55 pm, resumed at 1.45 pm and closed at
3.03 pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
5 June 2008