10 JANUARY 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)
E Seward (Vice-Chairman)
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
P J Willcox
V R Saunders - The Runtons War
Mrs A M Tillett - Poppyland Ward
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
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
(187) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Miss L Walker. There were no substitute
Members in attendance.
(188) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2007 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(189) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(190) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
(191) Cromer – Tree Preservation Order (CROMER) 2004 No. 20. Site at former Coal
Yard, Holt Road, Cromer
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ report which requested that further
consideration be given to the Committee’s decision to serve a Replanting Notice at
the above site.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
10 January 2008
The Landscape Officer informed the Committee that R G Carter had now signed a
written caution and had amended their procedures to ensure that similar problems
did not occur in the future. He explained the consequences of the caution.
The Landscape Officer explained the difficulties in maintaining large trees on such an
exposed site. He stated that it was necessary to obtain a good quality replanting
scheme which would be visually attractive both now and in the future. It was likely
that large trees would require replanting every 6-12 months. He had discussed a
scheme with Indigo Landscapes which would more effectively screen the
development in the long term.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that it was sensible to
have a scheme which included smaller trees in larger quantities. There was indeed a
problem with management of semi-mature trees in an exposed location and that a
more viable landscaping scheme should be negotiated.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that it was a matter of principle and that
acceptance of the suggested course of action would give out the wrong message to
other developers. She accepted the Landscape Officer’s comments regarding the
long term sustainability of larger trees on the site. However, she still considered that
the developer should be required to plant larger specimens in the first instance.
The Landscape Officer stated that a replanting scheme had to be sound. The
developer had appealed to GO-East in respect of the scheme requested by the
Committee on arboricultural grounds. He considered that GO-East would uphold the
appeal as larger trees would be likely to die. However, the decision would be made
after the planting season and a year would lapse before replanting could commence.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun accepted the Landscape Officer’s comments and
requested that all trees should be of top quality. She requested that a press release
be issued to make it clear that the Council would not tolerate incidents such as that
which had occurred at this site.
In answer to a question, the Landscape Officer explained that Anglian Water had
failed in its duty to notify the Council of work that would affect protected trees.
However, current drainage legislation allowed Anglian Water to override a Tree
Preservation Order and trees could be removed or damaged without penalty. A
replanting notice had been served on Anglian Water in respect of other trees it had
been permitted to remove.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that the situation concerning utilities was
double standards and requested that the Government be lobbied on this matter.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager confirmed the situation regarding
utilities. He stated that Anglian Water had taken the opportunity during development
of the site to carry out flood alleviation works to rectify a significant flooding problem.
He understood the views of the Committee with regard to large trees but stated that
in landscape terms smaller trees would establish better and result in a better
outcome in the future. The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager added
that younger trees would grow faster and have a greater impact within 7-8 years than
the suggested semi-mature trees. He stated that the Council had a working
relationship with statutory undertakers and the Conservation, Design and Landscape
Service was continuously working with them and through a Countywide Forum to
improve liaison on such matters.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
10 January 2008
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested that the Committee’s gratitude to the Landscape
Officer in obtaining a signed caution be minuted.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to a company which supplied large trees for
schemes around the UK and overseas. He stated that it was possible to replant
large trees and it had been successfully carried out overseas. He considered that
the suggested action might be premature as there was a possibility that GO-East
could support the replanting scheme requested by the Committee.
The Landscape Officer considered that GO-East would not support the replanting
scheme as requested by the Committee. Given its location, the scheme suggested
by Indigo would succeed, whereas a scheme using larger trees would fail.
Councillor M R E Birch requested that Anglian Water be warned that failure in the
future to inform the Authority of its intention to remove trees would be referred to a
higher authority. He also requested that the caution be publicised.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that he would prefer general
publicity aimed at developers regarding their obligations in respect of protected trees.
Councillor Miss P E Ford requested assurance that the trees would be maintained.
She suggested that if the Committee were minded to accept the Countryside Officer’s
recommendation the developers be requested to enter into an agreement for a
contribution towards a community project in Cromer equal to the difference in the
cost between the proposed scheme and a scheme using large trees.
The Landscape Officer stated that there would be a strict maintenance programme
and a root drenching system would need to be installed. He suggested that the
developers be contacted to suggest that they might wish to support a community
project to re-establish community relations and recompense for these actions.
Councillor P J Willcox accepted that the large trees would probably die but
considered that there was room for negotiation over the size of the trees to be
planted. He considered that the Landscape Officer should be encouraged to be as
forceful as possible in achieving a planting scheme which would be suitable for the
site.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That Officers be authorised to negotiate a revised and suitable planting
scheme to include trees which will have a more immediate impact, and
that the developers be asked to consider offering a community benefit
as a goodwill gesture.
(192) 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’ report explaining the introduction of
the new standard planning application forms and seeking agreement, for consultation
purposes, on a local list of validation requirements applicable to North Norfolk.
The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that Development
Control Committee (West) had requested that Norfolk Landscape Archaeology and
Norfolk Coast Partnership be consulted on the local list.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
10 January 2008
In response to comments from Members, the Development Control Manager
explained that applicants would be required to provide utility assessments when
submitting applications. It was not appropriate to consult utility providers on the local
list.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins requested that applications include a street scene.
The Development Control Manager stated that the national list referred to the
adequacy of plans and made reference to adjacent properties.
Following discussion it was
RESOLVED
That the requirements referred to in Appendix 1 to the report be agreed
as forming this Council’s list of local requirements for consultation
purposes and that consultation is undertaken in accordance with the
arrangements referred to in the report, subject to Norfolk Landscape
Archaeology and The Civic Trust being added to the list of consultees in
addition to those requested by Development Control Committee (West).
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.
(193) COLBY - 20071583 - Conversion of barn to one unit of holiday accommodation;
Barn rear of Poplar Farm North Walsham Road Banningham for Colin Read
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an amended plan had been received which
reduced the number of windows. He requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to prevent future
use of the land and buildings to the rear of the site for the accommodation of farm
livestock, and subject to the imposition of the conditions listed in the report and an
additional condition in respect of wildlife issues.
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, stated that the access was very poor and
would be dangerous for holidaymakers who did not know the road. He was
concerned that the proposed Section 106 Agreement would isolate the farm
buildings. He considered that the farm buildings would eventually be subject to a
Section 215 notice and stated that asbestos was present. He proposed refusal of
this application on grounds of poor access and insufficient detail in respect of
potential environmental health issues.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
10 January 2008
The Development Control Manager advised against refusal in the absence of an
objection from the Highway Authority and suggested that the Committee visit the site.
Councillor E Seward stated that there had been a number of applications where the
views of the Highway Authority conflicted with the Committee’s views.
The Chairman stated that representatives of the Highway Authority had met with
Members in the past to explain their views. She suggested that a further meeting be
arranged for the benefit of new Members. The Committee requested that the
Highway Authority be invited to discuss these issues and also requested information
on the number of cases where Members’ views were at variance with those of the
Highway Authority.
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Member, Chairman of the
Parish Council and a representative of the Highway Authority be invited
to attend.
(194) NORTH WALSHAM - 20071843 - Variation of agricultural occupancy restriction
(condition 2 of planning permission reference 940830); Mokes End Skeyton
Road for Mr T Culling
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Town Council objected to this
application.
The Development Control Manager reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant’s agent objecting to a statement in the report that if the proposed variation
were to be allowed there would be no justification in restricting a further application to
remove the condition entirely to allow other persons unconnected with agriculture to
occupy the dwelling. The officers accepted that any future application would be dealt
with on its own merits but stood by the sentiments of the statement.
Councillor M R E Birch, a local Member, referred to the personal circumstances of
the applicant. He considered that a Section 106 Agreement could be used to cover
the applicant’s needs.
Councillor Miss P E Ford asked if it was possible for the applicant’s cousins, Mr and
Mrs Cann, to live with him as his guests. She referred to the difficulty in obtaining
planning permission for agricultural dwellings and did not wish to lose this dwelling
for future agricultural use. The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that
Mr and Mrs Cann would not be dependents of Mr Culling if they were to live with him
as his guests.
Councillor E Seward referred to the policy issues involved and stated that policies
should serve people and that humanity should take precedence.
He proposed
approval of this application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that the applicant was ‘moving the goalposts’
and had done so in the past. She was concerned that approval of this application
would set a precedent that would cause difficulties in the future.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
10 January 2008
Councillor M J M Baker considered that it should be possible to suspend the Section
106 Agreement in respect of agricultural occupancy for Mr and Mrs Cann’s lifetime to
allow them to remain in the dwelling following the applicant’s death.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the applicant’s agent was
objecting to the wording of the alternative condition that had been suggested to him.
The possibility of a Section 106 Agreement had not been explored with the applicant.
Whilst the applicant satisfied the agricultural occupancy condition, Mr and Mrs Cann
did not and there would be difficulty if the applicant died. He advised the Committee
to refuse this application as recommended. Alternatively, the application could be
deferred to explore a possible Section 106 Agreement, although he did not
recommend that the Committee did so. He was concerned that a precedent could
be set for similar applications in the future.
Councillor E Seward withdrew his original proposal and proposed deferral of this
application to explore a possible Section 106 Agreement. This was seconded by
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by
Councillor Mrs B McGoun
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of
the Head of Planning and Building Control.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared lost with 2 Members voting in
favour and 7 against.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested that any negotiations in respect of this matter be
without prejudice.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to explore with the
applicant on a without prejudice basis a possible Section 106
Agreement which would allow Mr and Mrs Cann to remain in the
dwelling following the death of Mr Culling.
(195) NORTHREPPS - 20071711 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and erection
of five dwellings; Sunnyside Norwich Road Cromer for Glaramara Estates
Limited
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Miss Callaghan (Northrepps Parish Council)
Mr Sanders (objecting)
Mr Jones (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council’s comments related to
the originally submitted plan. The Parish Council had not yet considered the
amended proposals. Cromer Town Council now had no objections in respect of the
access provided that the Highway Authority was satisfied. The Highway Authority’s
comments on the submitted access details were awaited.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
10 January 2008
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to no further planning grounds of objection being received from the Parish
Council, no objection from the Highway Authority and subject to the imposition of the
conditions listed in the report.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett, the local Member, stated that the site was close to a
difficult corner, which would be exacerbated by the new development taking place
opposite this site. Her main concerns related to traffic movements. She requested a
site inspection, preferably at a time when the road was busy with school traffic.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold asked if the dwellings were affordable. She referred to
drainage and sewerage issues. She was surprised that Anglian Water had not been
consulted and considered that drainage issues would be raised more frequently as
sites became more densely developed.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the proposed dwellings were market
dwellings and that current policy did not require the provision of affordable housing in
this case. He explained that Anglian Water was only consulted at its request on
developments of twenty or more dwellings.
He considered that foul sewerage
would not be a problem on this site. With regard to surface water drainage, details
would be sought in respect of soakaways and hardstandings.
Councillor Miss P E Ford requested details of bin storage.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, duly seconded and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Member and Chairman of
the Parish Council be invited to attend.
(196) RUNTON - 20071731 - Change of use from A1 (retail) to a5 (hot food takeaway);
32 Cromer Road West Runton for Mr S Wong
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Hayes (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received in
support of this application. She stated that given the nature of the surrounding area
the times of opening should be amended to between 8.00 am and 11.00 pm.
Councillor V R Saunders, the local Member, stated that he had been concerned at
the originally proposed closing time. He remained concerned with regard to the
proximity of these premises to residential properties and possible extraction
equipment, noise and fumes.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stated that there were no reasons to refuse this
application and that the issues of concern to the local Member and objecting
spokesperson would be dealt with by Environmental Health. She suggested that a
closing time of 10.00 pm might be appropriate given the residential nature of the
surrounding area. This was supported by Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
10 January 2008
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested that a condition be imposed to prevent the
business from operating until such time as suitable ventilation and extraction
equipment is installed to minimise odour. She asked if the applicants had considered
how they would deal with possible litter problems.
The Development Control Manager stated that condition 2 could be amended as
requested. The onus was on the applicants to put forward proposals for ventilation
and extraction equipment. In response to a concern raised by Councillor B Smith he
stated that the positioning of any external equipment would have to be considered
carefully particularly since the site is in the Conservation Area. No proposals had
been put forward in respect of litter control.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to a hot food takeaway premises in Holt which
closed at midnight. There were no problems with litter or odour. He considered that
a 10.00 pm closing time was unreasonable and would make the business unviable.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stated that she had reconsidered the proposed closing
time and now considered that 11.00 pm would be reasonable.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control subject
to the amendment of condition 4 to require the premises to close to the
public at 11.00 pm.
(197) SUTTON - 20071870 - Erection of four dwellings and garages; Rustic House
The Street for Mr and Mrs P Cutting
This application had been withdrawn.
(198) TUNSTEAD - 20071717 - Erection of two dwellings; Hall Farm Cottage Market
Street for Ms C Lee
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Phelan (objecting)
Ms Lee (supporting)
At the request of a Member the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the dwellings
shown on the indicative drawings were single-storey height at the eaves, with
accommodation in the roof.
Councillor Miss P E Ford requested that possible light pollution be minimised.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the application was in outline with details of
access and siting only.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the application should have been submitted
as a full application given the locally controversial nature of the proposals.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
10 January 2008
In response to Members’ comments in respect of the design of the proposed
dwellings, the Development Control Manager explained that the detailed design of
the dwellings shown on the plan was indicative. However, condition 4 restricted the
eaves and ridge heights of the dwellings and prevented any first floor windows in the
north elevations.
Councillor P J Willcox referred to the drainage problems which were highlighted at
the site inspection. He queried the responsibility for maintenance of the ditch.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he did not know who owned the ditch, but if it
belonged with the existing dwelling it would remain in the ownership of the new
dwellings. Details of future maintenance could be sought as part of the drainage
details required under condition 10.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun requested the inclusion of grey water recycling in the
development. The Development Control Manager stated that there was no policy at
present which required grey water recycling.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that the parking provision was inadequate for
the size of the dwellings.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor P J
Willcox and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved in accordance with
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
the
(199) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
RESOLVED
That consideration of the following application be deferred to allow an
inspection of the site by the Committee and that the local Member and
Chairman of the Parish Council be invited to attend:
NORTHREPPS - 20071895 - Demolition of buildings and erection of
thirty-eight dwellings and retention of two units to include retail
convenience store; Shrublands Farm, Church Street for Cherryridge
Poultry Limited
(200) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(201) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ reports.
(202) NEW APPEALS
The Committee considered item 12 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
10 January 2008
(203) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(204) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 14 of the officers’ reports.
(205) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee considered item 15 of the officers’ reports.
(206) QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
Members noted the quarterly performance report which had been published in the
Members’ Bulletin (issue 431).
The Head of Planning and Building Control requested Members’ continued cooperation in moving applications through the system as quickly as possible.
The meeting closed at 1.25 pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
10 January 2008