10 APRIL 2008
Minutes of a special meeting of the COMBINED DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there
were present::
Councillors
H C Cordeaux (Chairman)
Mrs P Bevan Jones
B Cabbell Manners
Miss P E Ford
Mrs A R Green
P W High
S C Mears
J H Perry-Warnes
E Seward
B Smith
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs C M Wilkins
J A Wyatt
Observers
Mrs L M Brettle
R Combe
Ms V R Gay
Mrs H T Nelson
Mrs A M Tillett
Officers
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Ms J Fisher - Planning Policy Manager
Mr M Ashwell - Senior Planning Officer (Policy)
Mrs P Wake - Senior Planning Officer (Policy)
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
Miss F Davies - Enabling Officer
(1)
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
RESOLVED
That Councillor H C Cordeaux be appointed as Chairman for the
meeting.
(2)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, M J M Baker,
T H Moore, J D Savory, Miss C P Sheridan and P J Willcox. There were no
substitute Members in attendance.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
Combined Development Control Committee
1
10 April 2008
(5)
Adoption of North Norfolk Core Strategy and Arrangements for Handling
Planning Applications
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers report in respect of the likely
timetable for adoption of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy and the
suggested process for determining planning applications which are ‘on hand’ on the
date of its approval.
The Senior Planning Officer (Policy) outlined the timetable for the adoption of the
Core Strategy. He stated that the Core Strategy would gain more weight in
determining planning applications as it went through the process leading up to
adoption. The current Local Plan would remain the legally approved document
during the period between the receipt of the Inspector’s Binding Report and formal
adoption of the Core Strategy by the Council. Applications on hand would be dealt
with on a case-by-case basis having regard to the individual circumstances of each
application.
The Committee discussed how applications should be handled during the
changeover period. There would be a number of applications which had been
subject to lengthy negotiations under the Local Plan but which would determined
following adoption of the Core Strategy. The Head of Planning and Building Control
stated that there would be a finite list of applications which were caught in this
situation. It would be necessary for officers’ reports to clearly explain the weight
being attached to the relevant policies.
Councillor E Seward emphasised the need for a clear audit trail with regard to the
policy framework against which applications were determined.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer explained that there was a need
for a degree of flexibility in some cases and setting a rigid cut-off date would remove
the flexibility to determine those applications. Such cases would be, for example,
where a bat survey was pending which could only be carried out at certain times of
the year.
Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones suggested that a simple leaflet be produced for the
public to explain the procedures.
The Planning Policy Manager stated that changes would have minimal effect on
smaller householder applications. The biggest impact would be in villages where
there would no longer be a settlement boundary. Parish Councils had been informed
of the impact of the changes. There would be publicity when the Core Strategy was
adopted and a seminar would be held for Parish and Town Councils.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that outstanding applications should be
brought to Committee as soon as possible to clear the backlog, even if it meant that
decisions were delegated.
In answer to a question by Councillor Mrs A R Green in respect of objections to the
Core Strategy raised by landowners in respect of public access to sensitive areas of
the Wensum Valley, the Senior Planning Officer (Policy) explained that changes had
been made to the wording to require the landowners’ consent. However, the
objectors had not agreed to the proposed amendment.
Combined Development Control Committee
2
10 April 2008
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, seconded by Councillor S C Mears
and
RESOLVED unanimously
1.
That the Committee endorses the following:
1. Applications determined prior to receipt of the final binding report will
be determined in accordance with the Local Plan with an appropriate
degree of weight attached to the Core Strategy as a material
consideration.
2. All applications submitted after receipt of the final binding report will
be determined in accordance with the policies of the Core Strategy
unless there are material considerations that would suggest otherwise.
3. For all applications ‘on hand’ upon receipt of the final binding report
there will be presumption that they will be determined in accordance
with the Core Strategy although for a short time some weight will
continue to be attached to the Local Plan where in the Council’s opinion
this is justified by the provisions of Article 6 of schedule 1 of the Human
Rights Act (the right to a fair civil determination).
2.
(6)
That an explanatory leaflet be produced in respect of the arrangements
for handling planning applications during this period.
Validation procedures for the new standard national planning application
forms – adoption of a list of local requirements for North Norfolk District
Council
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers reports which recommended
changes to the proposed ‘local list’ of requirements to accompany the newly
introduced standard planning application forms.
Councillor Miss P E Ford considered that an Open Space Assessment should be
included in the list of local requirements. She referred to the impact of the lack of
play spaces on mental health.
The Development Control Manager stated that open space was on the Government’s
list of requirements. He considered that pressure on open space was more
applicable to large urban areas than it was to the District. The Authority would still be
able to reject applications for housing on areas of open space if necessary.
Councillor Miss P E Ford stated that there was a possibility that Paston College could
be relocated onto existing open space and therefore she considered that it was
appropriate.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins supported Councillor Miss Ford. She stated that lack of
access to open areas was important and although there appeared to be a great deal
of open space in the District, much of it was not accessible to the public.
Councillor Ms V R Gay expressed concern that the requirement for a tree survey
could lead to developers clearing unprotected trees from sites prior to making a
planning application.
Combined Development Control Committee
3
10 April 2008
The Development Control Manager explained that there had always been a danger
that trees would be cleared from development sites. In the past the Council had tried
to pre-empt this by serving Tree Preservation Orders in appropriate cases where
officers were made aware that a site could come forward for development. He
considered that it was important to include a tree survey on the list of requirements.
The Development Control Manager clarified the reason for inclusion of items on the
list in response to Members’ questions.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by Councillor Mrs C M
Wilkins and
RESOLVED unanimously
(7)
1.
That, subject to the inclusion of a requirement for an Open Space
Assessment, the local list of requirements for validation of planning
application forms as set out in the report be put forward for formal
adoption by the Council.
2.
That officers review the local requirements which are applicable to each
standard application form in the light of representations received, but in
accordance with that referred to in the Validation of Planning
Applications - Guidance for Local Planning Authorities - DCLG
December 2007.
3.
That officers review and amend the content and format of the guidance
notes to accompany the local list taking into account the
representations referred to in the report.
Sheringham - Appeals By Tesco Stores Limited
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager updated the Committee on the
current position regarding appeals by Tesco Stores Limited.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that the Inspector’s PreInquiry meeting had been held on 2 April. He outlined the key dates for the
submission of documents and the correlation with the adoption of the Core Strategy.
The Inquiry would commence on 1 July 2008 and three weeks had been allocated.
The Inspector had agreed that the Inquiry would be held in the Council Chamber at
these offices, but there was a possibility that an evening session could be held at the
Community Centre in Sheringham. The main issues that the Inspector would be
considering were retail impact, design and highways. The Inspector would also be
considering matters raised by third parties, to include loss of housing and facilities
and whether there were preferable sites for the store. The Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager outlined the procedures that would be followed during the
inquiry process. He stated that James Strachan had been appointed as the Council’s
Barrister. Mr Strachan had been involved with this case from an early date and had
advised the Council in respect of conditions. Consultants would be engaged to deal
with the retail, design and highway issues.
Councillor Ms V R Gay formally thanked the Planning Legal and Enforcement
Manager for the work he had put into this case.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson thanked the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager on
behalf of Sheringham Members.
Combined Development Control Committee
4
10 April 2008
(8)
Affordable Housing
The Enabling Officer updated the Committee on the programme for the evening
workshop: The affordable housing challenge - the role of Members - to be held on 22
April 2008. She encouraged Members to attend the workshop.
Councillor R Combe stated that he had been requested by Councillor C Stockton to
encourage Members to attend. He stated that there was an increasing credibility gap
between Housing staff and Members and the workshop was a sincere effort to get
Members involved from an early stage in all affordable and sheltered housing
development.
(9)
Quarterly Performance Report
Members noted the quarterly performance report which had been published in the
Members’ Bulletin (issue 445).
The Head of Planning and Building Control updated the Committee on the annual
performance figures, which were all above the Government’s minimum target. He
emphasised the need to exceed the Government’s minimum targets so that the
Housing and Planning Delivery Grant was not reduced and requested Members’ cooperation in this matter.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the performance in respect of
appeal decisions had improved considerably over the past six months with 78%
being decided in the Council’s favour. The Council had won 100% in the last quarter.
In response to a question the Head of Planning and Building Control stated that a list
of outstanding planning applications would be drawn up when the binding report on
the Core Strategy was received.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett stated that she had observed in the past few months that
very few decisions were being made at each Committee meeting compared to the
number of applications on the agendas and urged Members to reach decisions
unless there were exceptional circumstances.
(10)
Presentation On Trees And Hedges
The Committee received a presentation on the Council’s role in safeguarding trees
and hedges in the development process by Simon Case and Kerys Witton of the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Section.
The Landscape Officers explained the legislation under which trees could be
protected.
Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) were used to protect individual trees, groups of
trees or woodlands which had amenity value or historic interest. Area Orders could
be served in an emergency but had to be reclassified at the confirmation stage.
TPOs could be served on fruit trees, although there was a common misconception
that they could not. TPOs did not cover hedges.
Trees in Conservation Areas were automatically protected and written notification
was required to carry out work to trees. Planning conditions could be imposed to
protect trees during construction and to require replacement planting or mitigation.
Combined Development Control Committee
5
10 April 2008
The Landscape Officers explained in detail the criteria for determining if a tree, group
of trees or woodland should be protected and the procedure for service and
confirmation of Tree Preservation Orders. The Local Planning Authority had to be
satisfied that it was expedient to serve a TPO in terms of threat to the tree(s), and
taking into account issues of amenity, biodiversity, importance of setting and, where
appropriate, historic value.
The Landscape Officers explained how tree health and amenity value was assessed.
Written permission from the Local Planning Authority was required to undertake work
to a protected tree. Contravention of a TPO could result in a fine. All proposed work
had to be specified and carried out to the relevant British Standard.
Conflicts inevitably arose between buildings, trees and people. However, there were
ways of mitigating or resolving those conflicts by careful consideration of siting of
new structures or carrying out maintenance works to trees to increase light etc.
Problems were often caused by lack of maintenance.
With regard to tree safety, Landscape Officers could assess the risk posed by trees
but would never say that a tree was safe. Acceptable risk was 1:10,000. A number
of factors were taken into account when assessing risk.
The effect of development on trees and other landscape features was a material
consideration when considering planning applications. Adequate provision had to be
made for trees, either by condition or service of a TPO. Landscape Officers were
consulted if trees were affected by development proposals. The Landscape Officers
explained the factors they had to take into account when considering development
proposals in respect of the trees themselves, their location in relation to the proposed
development and the overall landscape and visual appearance of the development.
Developers were required to submit an arboricultural assessment and tree protection
plan, and if necessary an arboricultural method statement was requested.
The Landscape Officers briefly explained the Hedgerow Regulations. These
regulations protected important hedgerows in the countryside but did not protect
hedges adjacent to gardens. To be classified as ‘important’ a hedgerow had to be
over 30 years old and meet one or more of 8 criteria. Permission from the Local
Planning Authority was required to undertake works to protected hedgerows, subject
to a number of exemptions. A Hedgerow Removal Notice was required if it was
proposed to remove a protected hedgerow. It was unlikely that permission would be
given to remove an important hedgerow. Most applications were received from
Anglian Water and it was very rare to receive them from landowners.
The Landscape Officers answered Members’ questions.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins thanked the Landscape Officers on behalf of the
Committee.
The meeting closed at 12.50 pm.
Combined Development Control Committee
6
10 April 2008