6 AUGUST 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)
M J M Baker
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs M Seward
B Smith
Mrs L Walker
P J Willcox
H C Cordeaux - substitute for Mrs S A Arnold
J A Wyatt - substitute for Miss P E Ford
B Cabbell Manners - Cromer Town Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
J Lee - Suffield Park Ward
N P Ripley - Suffield Park Ward (representing The Runtons on behalf of
V Saunders)
Mrs P Bevan Jones - observer
R Combe - observer
Officers:
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
(32)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S A Arnold and Miss P E
Ford. Two substitute Members attended the meeting as shown above. The
Chairman welcomed Councillor Mrs M Seward to her first meeting of the Committee.
(33)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 11 June 2009 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman. (The meeting scheduled for 9 July
2009 had been cancelled).
(34)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which she wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a Tree Preservation Order at West Runton.
The reason for urgency was to update the Committee in respect of this matter.
(35)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs B McGoun and Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared interests, the
details of which are shown under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
6 August 2009
(36)
MUNDESLEY – Wesley Close
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports which recommended
prosecution under Section 210 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for
carrying out unauthorised work to trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
The Landscape Officer reported that the owner of the trees had been very cooperative in this matter. He stated that the owner had indicated his willingness to
employ a tree surgeon, at his own expense, to carry out remedial works to the trees if
the Committee decided to issue a formal caution as an alternative to prosecution.
The Landscape Officer answered Members’ questions regarding the ecological
importance, likelihood of recovery and future management of the trees.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor P J Willcox
That authorisation be given for prosecution under Section 210 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 for the offence of carrying out unauthorised
work to trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
Councillor S J Partridge proposed that the owner be formally cautioned. Councillor M
J M Baker seconded the proposal subject to the owner being required to employ a
tree surgeon to carry out remedial works.
The Landscape Officer advised that the owner should be required, at his own
expense, to commission and submit for approval a report by a qualified tree surgeon
in respect of the necessary works and future management.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by
Councillor M J M Baker
That a formal written caution be served on the owner of the affected
trees and that the owner be required at his own expense to commission
and submit for approval a report by a qualified tree surgeon in respect
of the necessary works and future management of the trees.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 6 votes to 2 and,
on being put as the substantive proposition, it was RESOLVED accordingly.
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
6 August 2009
(37)
CROMER - 20090584 - Continued use of former hotel as residential dwelling;
The Bath Hotel Promenade for Dr and Mrs Connell
Councillor Mrs B McGoun declared a personal interest in this application as she
knew Dr Connell.
All Members had received a large number of letters in respect of this matter.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Read (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Boyce (objecting)
Dr Connell (supporting)
The Development Control Manager advised the Committee to consider this
application on the basis of current adopted planning policy and other relevant
planning considerations. He stated that Policy EC8 was the most relevant policy in
this case and explained in detail the policy issues.
The Development Control Manager reported that 67 additional letters of support had
been received in respect of this application, 36 of which were duplicate letters.
Additional reasons for support other than those already referred to in the report were
that it would be foolish in the current economic climate to expect the building to be
reopened as a hotel or public house, and use of the building as a public house would
impact upon on the peaceful environment of the promenade. He also reported that
22 additional letters of objection had been received mostly on similar grounds as
listed in the report but also raising concerns regarding the appearance of the building
and expressing affection for the Bath House when it was a hotel.
The Development Control Manager referred to the previous comments of the
Economic and Tourism Development Manager in support of the recent application for
a Certificate of Lawful Use of the building as a dwelling. Further comments had been
received in respect of this application which were read to the Committee. The
Economic and Tourism Development Manager had now changed his views and
recommended that the applicants be required to provide evidence of a marketing
exercise in respect of the property as a hotel/public house. The Development
Control Manager stated that he could not recommend that a marketing exercise be
carried out as there was no planning policy requirement in this case.
The Development Control Manager referred to a letter from Cromer Preservation
Society referring to the ownership of the Bath House by Tribeca Trading Limited.
Whilst this was not relevant to considering the merits of the application, the agent
had confirmed that the company was wholly owned by Dr and Mrs Connell and the
relevant notice had now been served on the company. He referred to a letter from
the applicants responding to the letter from the Cromer Preservation Society and also
a letter from Mr Read, both of which had been sent to Committee Members.
The Development Control Manager stated that this application complied with
planning policy and considered that the fact that the building had not been used as a
hotel or public house for ten years was a relevant planning consideration. He
recommended approval of this application as stated in the report.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
6 August 2009
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, referred to comments made by Dr Connell
relating to his intention to let rooms to visitors and asked why the application was
being discussed. He supported the comments of Cromer Town Council and Cromer
Preservation Society. He referred to an earlier application for the conversion of the
Mayfair Hotel in the town for which a marketing exercise had been required. In that
case marketing had been successful and the hotel continued to trade successfully.
He considered that a marketing exercise should be carried out in respect of the Bath
House if the application were not refused outright.
The Development Control Manager explained that this application was clearly for a
dwellinghouse. In the event of approval, the applicants would be able to let out no
more than 50% of the bedrooms for bed and breakfast without requiring a further
change of use. He stated that the application for conversion of the Mayfair Hotel had
been considered prior to adoption of the Core Strategy.
Councillor J Lee, Member for Suffield Park Ward, supported the views of Councillor
Johnson, Cromer Town Council and Cromer Preservation Society.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, stated that whilst the building had not
operated as a hotel for 10 years it was always understood locally that it would be
brought back into public use. He considered that it would be a huge loss for Cromer
if this application were approved.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that it was difficult to find reasons to refuse this
application and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the
officer’s recommendation.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun referred to the closure of two hotel/public house facilities in
her Ward. Tourist facilities had been lost as a result but serviced accommodation
was still being sought in the Broads villages. She considered that the Core Strategy
could have prevented their loss. She expressed concern that prime tourist sites were
treated in this way. She stated that the promenade was a tourist facility and should
not be used for housing. She considered there were good reasons to refuse this
application and that the property should be marketed to be sure that it was not viable
as a hotel.
In response to questions regarding marketing tests and policy issues by Councillor P
J Willcox, the Development Control Manager explained the requirements of Policy
EC8 and stated that the first two tests were met, therefore there was no requirement
to undertake a marketing exercise. The applicants could be requested to do so but
the Committee could not insist upon it. He considered that ‘the area’ referred to in
the first test of Policy EC8 extended further than the promenade and therefore there
were many more such facilities in Cromer. The development boundary of Cromer
included the whole of the seafront area.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that this application was unnecessary and no
change of use was required as the applicants were intending to continue to let some
of the rooms. He considered that it was not a ‘former hotel’ as stated in the
application description.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that whilst the applicants
appeared to be proposing to let out rooms it was not the purpose of this application.
Change of use to residential would not prevent the applicants from letting out rooms
provided no more than 50% of the bedrooms were let.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
6 August 2009
The Development Control Manager explained that the last permitted use of the
building was as a hotel. This application was retrospective as the building was
currently being used as a dwellinghouse.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that there was no point in undertaking a
marketing exercise and no reason to refuse the application. He referred to a
marketing exercise that had been undertaken in respect of Green Farm at Thorpe
Market which had failed.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor S J Partridge
and
RESOLVED by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
the
Councillor Mrs M Seward did not take part in discussion or voting on this matter as
she had left the room during consideration of this matter after being stung by a wasp.
(38)
RUNTON - 20090663 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; plot, St Andrews
Lower Common East Runton for K Monaghan and G Baker
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Hipkin (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council objected to this
application on grounds that the design, construction and materials were out of
keeping and the building would have an impact on the neighbours. Comments had
also been made regarding drainage.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the drive width had been clarified and there
would be no problems with emergency vehicle access. He recommended approval
of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Councillor N P Ripley, on behalf of Councillor V R Saunders, the local Member,
referred to the objector’s concerns regarding land ownership and asked whether it
would have a bearing on this application.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed building would fit into the
land identified on the submitted plan as being in the applicants’ ownership.
Councillor Ripley considered that the proposed building was an innovative design.
He stated that there was a mix of building designs in the village. He supported the
application in principle.
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that the proposed building looked tight on the
site and suggested a site inspection.
In response to a question by Councillor Mrs B McGoun regarding local
distinctiveness, the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that the
building had no local distinctiveness but he considered that the architect had come
Development Control Committee (East)
5
6 August 2009
forward with a good scheme in terms of its context and setting. The proposal was
not harmful to the Conservation Area and he considered that this type of design
approach should be supported in the right place.
The Chairman expressed concern at the lack of a street scene drawing bearing in
mind that the site was within the Conservation Area.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor H C Cordeaux
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(39)
SUFFIELD - 20090625 - Retention of brick and flint court yard walls and
perimeter fencing; Cooks Farm Rectory Road for D and M Hickling Property Ltd
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared a prejudicial interest in this application and
vacated the Chair and the Council Chamber during consideration thereof.
Councillor S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that a complaint had been
made against Councillor Mrs Wilkins by the applicants which had not yet been
determined. He had therefore advised her that it would not be appropriate for her to
be present during consideration of this application. He would read out a short
statement on her behalf.
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Hubbard (Suffield Parish Council)
Mr Edmonds (objecting)
Mrs Hickling (supporting)
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager read to the Committee a statement
prepared by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member. She had requested that
this application be considered by the Committee as she disagreed with the officers’
interpretation of Policy EC2. She referred to the planning history and the proportion
of new build in the conversion scheme, and considered that the additional new build
gave the development an urban appearance. The previous open aspect of the site
had changed. She considered that the walls and fencing failed to protect or enhance
the character of the buildings and setting and failed to protect the amenity and
character of the area. She requested refusal of this application.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that he had previously raised the question of
enforcement and building control in this case, and requested an investigation into
how the matter had been allowed to progress so far. Since then, the walls had been
erected. He considered that the officers were to blame for the situation and there
was no alternative but to propose approval of this application. He requested an
investigation into this matter.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
6 August 2009
Councillor Mrs L Walker considered that the applicants had a total disregard for the
planning system and proposed refusal of this application with enforcement action.
Members expressed concern at the lack of action that had been taken in this case.
Councillor P J Willcox referred to discussions taking place with regard to the review
of Policy 29. He considered that as the barns were for holiday use it was important
for people to have enclosures for children to play and for security as they would not
know their neighbours. He considered that the post and rail fence was not a problem
as the hedge would grow. He considered that the other walls and fences would not
have a great effect from distant views.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager responded to the concerns expressed
by Members. He stated that part of the issue in this particular case was that fences
could be erected quickly.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor H C Cordeaux
That this application be approved.
On being put to the vote, 3 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 3 against
with 1 abstention, which was RESOLVED on the Chairman’s casting vote.
(40)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
(41)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
(42)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
(43)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
(44)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
(45)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(46)
QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
The Development Control Manager presented the quarterly performance report
which had been published in the Members’ Bulletin (issue 509 - 15 July). The
Committee noted the report.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
6 August 2009
(47)
WEST RUNTON - Tree Preservation Order, Renwick Park
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.
Consideration of this matter had been deferred at the meeting of the Committee on
16 April 2009. The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that there had
been developments in this case since the agenda for this meeting went to print.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that the development of
Renwick Park had received permission many years ago and the area in question was
the last part of the site to be developed. It had come to the attention of the
Landscape Officer that trees had been removed. An emergency Tree Preservation
Order was served to protect some of the trees and an area of woodland. The
developer of the site had challenged the Order and opposed its confirmation.
Meetings had been held on site in respect of this matter. The developer had given
an undertaking that no work would be carried out to the protected trees until an
arboricultural report had been completed.
The Landscape Officer reported that the meeting had been positive. He considered
that the developer was willing to work with the Authority. Under the circumstances
he considered that it would not be necessary to confirm the Tree Preservation Order.
It would still be possible to serve a further TPO if necessary. He stated that it would
be preferable to protect the trees by way of planning conditions imposed on a future
planning permission in respect of this site.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager recommended the Committee to note
the situation and agree that it is not necessary to confirm the Order given the
circumstances of this case.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, duly seconded and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the situation be noted and it is agreed that it is not necessary to
confirm Tree Preservation Order 82/784 given the circumstances of this
case.
(48)
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
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 paragraph 6 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
6 August 2009
(49)
PLANNING ENFORCEMENT SCHEDULE OF CURRENT CASES
The Committee considered item 11 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 June 2009.
RESOLVED
1.
That the contents of the report and the annexed Schedules of Current
Enforcement Cases be noted.
2.
That the cases where compliance has been achieved be removed from
the first Schedule.
The meeting closed at 12.40 pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
6 August 2009