14 MAY 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)
Mrs S A Arnold
R Combe
Mrs B McGoun
B Smith
Mrs L Walker
P J Willcox
R C Price - substitute for Miss P E Ford
N P Ripley - substitute for S J Partridge
B Cabbell Manners - Cromer Town Ward
G R Jones - Gaunt Ward
J Lee - Suffield Park Ward
Ms V R Gay - observer
Officers:
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer
Mr P Clarke - Environmental Protection Officer
Mr D Mortimer - Development Control Officer (NCC Highways)
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, Miss P E Ford,
S J Partridge and Miss C P Sheridan. Two substitute Members attended the meeting
as shown above.
(2)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 16 April 2009 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs B McGoun, Mrs C M Wilkins and P J Willcox declared interests, the
details of which are shown under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
14 May 2009
(5)
CROMER – 20080405 – Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing
Use as Single Dwellinghouse; The Bath House, The Promenade for Dr and Mrs
B C Connell
Councillors Mrs B McGoun and Mrs C M Wilkins declared a personal interest in this
application as they were acquainted with Dr Connell.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Read (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Boyce (objecting)
Ms Sharples (supporting)
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager gave a detailed presentation of the
relevant issues both in support of and against the case. He emphasised that this
application should be determined on the balance of probabilities and that neither the
planning issues nor the identity of the applicants could be taken into account.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager read in full a report of an inspection
for Council Tax purposes by Mr Addy which was undertaken in June 2005. He
reported that further evidence in respect of utility accounts had been received and
forwarded to Mr Read of Cromer Town Council.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager updated the Committee on the
contents of the following correspondence that had been received since the
publication of the report:
1. Email from Councillor Mrs H T Nelson dated 13 May 2009 and response from the
Council’s Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager.
2. Email from Mr Boyce, Cromer Preservation Society dated 8 May 2009 raising a
number of issues in respect of statements made by the applicants. The Planning
Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that Dr and Mrs Connell’s 2008
statement was appended to the 31 July 2008 report and included in Appendix 1.1
to the report to this meeting.
3. Email from Dr and Mrs Connell’s Solicitors dated 7 May 2009, questioning Mr
Read’s authority. Cromer Town Council had subsequently confirmed that Mr
Read was authorised to deal with the matter on the Town Council’s behalf.
4. Email from George Debenham and Margie Guppy of Theo’s Gallery dated 12
May 2009 in support of this application.
5. Letter from Mr and Mrs Murphy dated 12 May 2009 in support of this application.
6. Email from Mr Read dated 13 May 2009 enclosing comments by D M Read in
opposition to this application which had been sent to all Committee Members.
7. Email from Mr Read dated 12 May 2009 enclosing inspection report by Mr Addy
and table of information which contradicts the applicants’ case.
8. Letter from Mr John Morgan dated 11 May 2009 in support of this application.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that he had spoken briefly to
Counsel having sent him a copy of this report and Mr Read’s detailed opposition
notes. Counsel remained of the opinion that the case was finely balanced and had
advised that whilst it was appropriate for the Planning Legal and Enforcement
Manager to express a view on the evidence, the decision was a matter for the
Committee.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
14 May 2009
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that he concurred with the
view that the case was finely balanced. However, in his view the applicants had not
proved their case on the balance of probabilities given the inconsistencies in the
evidence and declarations. He was concerned in respect of Dr Connell’s nomination
papers and the utility bills and considered that Mr Addy’s report could not be
reconciled with the building then being habitable. He advised that if the Committee
was convinced by the explanations given by the applicants it should grant a
Certificate of Lawfulness, but if not, the application should be refused.
In response to a question raised at the meeting in July 2008 regarding Human
Rights, the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager advised that the Human Rights
issue was not the most critical issue in consideration of this application, but in the
event of refusal it would be relevant to the consideration of any further action.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, considered that given the
contradictions, inconsistencies and conflicting evidence in this case a reasonable
person would say that in all probability the applicants had not been living in the
property. He referred in particular to electricity and water usage. He requested that
this application be refused.
Councillor J Lee, Member for Suffield Park Ward, thanked the Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager for his hard work in this case. He referred to the views of Mr
Read and the Cromer Preservation Society and considered that there was insufficient
evidence to support the applicants’ case. He requested that this application be
refused.
Councillor Mrs L Walker stated that it was a criminal offence to sign a statutory
declaration knowing it was false. She considered that the applicants would be foolish
to put themselves in a position where they could be taken to court and she therefore
believed them. She referred to a visit by Savills which commented on the work that
had been undertaken. She considered that on the balance of probabilities the
applicants had used the building as a dwelling since 2003.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun explained how she had weighed the evidence and stated
that on balance she supported the application.
Councillor R C Price considered that the Committee should have faith in the officers
and referred to Mr Addy’s report and the record of telephone calls made to the
Council Tax section by Mrs Connell. He stated that there had been nominal use of
electricity and considered that the dehumidifiers referred to by the applicants would
have used electricity. He considered that there was nothing to persuade him that the
certificate should be granted.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that if no electricity was being used during the
winter months it was likely that nobody would be in residence. He supported refusal.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
That a Lawful Development Certificate be issued as on the balance of
probabilities the Committee is satisfied that the applicants’ case is proven.
On being put to the vote the proposition was declared lost with 3 Members voting in
favour and 4 against with 1 abstention.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor R C Price and
Development Control Committee (East)
3
14 May 2009
RESOLVED by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention
That the application for a Lawful Development Certificate be refused as
the Committee considers that on the balance of probabilities the
applicants’ case is not proven.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that it was necessary to
consider the next step. Given refusal of the application for a Lawful Development
Certificate the Committee had to consider whether or not to take enforcement action.
The planning issues which could not be taken into account under the lawful
development application were now relevant.
The Development Control Manager stated that no view so far, in consideration of the
Lawful Development Certificate, had been taken on the planning merits of the use of
the building as a dwellinghouse. He stated that there was no onus on the Council to
take further action in this case. However, there would be public expectation that
action would be taken. He advised that if a planning enforcement notice were to be
served, the most it could require would be to cease the use of the building as a
dwelling house. It could not require the building to be brought back into its former
use as a hotel or public house. Any decision had to be taken for sound planning
reasons. He referred in detail to the relevant Core Strategy policies SS5 (Economy)
and EC8 (Retaining an adequate supply and mix of tourist accommodation) and read
to the Committee an email from the Council’s Economic and Tourism Development
Manager. He advised that the use of the building as a dwellinghouse would not be
contrary to either of those policies. He also referred to paragraph 7 of Planning
Policy Guidance Note 18 which advised that “an enforcement notice should not
normally be issued solely to regularise development which is acceptable on its
planning merits, but for which permission has not been sought.” In conclusion, he
considered that there were insufficient planning reasons to justify enforcement action
in this case.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners suggested that in order to give the matter a full public
airing Dr and Mrs Connell should be invited to apply for planning permission to use
the building as a dwellinghouse.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that if a planning application
were made it would be likely to be recommended for approval based on current
policy. He considered that a way forward would be to invite, without prejudice, a
planning application which would also be without prejudice to any appeal against the
refusal of the Lawful Development Certificate. He reminded the Committee of the
time constraints applicable to enforcement action.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun expressed concern at the amount of money this case had
cost the Council taxpayer and asked whether any advice was given to the applicants
in the initial stages to submit a planning application.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained the circumstances of the
case and stated that whilst it had been open to the applicants to submit a planning
application they had not been invited to do so.
In answer to a question from Councillor P J Willcox, the Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager explained that in his view an appeal was likely to be lodged
against an enforcement notice. If a planning application was made and approved the
enforcement notice would have to be withdrawn, which could be seen as
unreasonable behaviour by the Council and could expose the Council to an award of
costs.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
14 May 2009
The Committee discussed the length of time that should be given to enable the
applicants to submit a planning application if they wished to do so. The Development
Control Manager advised the Committee to defer consideration of enforcement action
until the next meeting and in the meantime invite the applicants to submit a planning
application, without prejudice.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
and
RESOLVED
That consideration of enforcement action be deferred until the next
meeting of the Committee and in the meantime the applicants be invited,
without prejudice, to submit a planning application.
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.
(6)
ERPINGHAM - 20090303 - Construction of all-weather multi-use playing area
with floodlighting; Village Hall The Street for Erpingham Parish Council
Councillor P J Willcox declared a prejudicial interest in this application as he had
business dealings with various members of the Parish Council and vacated the
Council Chamber during consideration of this matter.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Witham (Erpingham Parish Council)
Mr Gladden (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that a letter had been received from a
local resident questioning whether sufficient car parking would be available as the
area was currently used for overflow car parking. An amended plan had been
received which addressed this issue.
The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to no new planning grounds of objection following reconsultation
and readvertisement of the amended plan and subject to the imposition of conditions
as listed in the report.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
14 May 2009
Councillor Mrs L Walker congratulated the Parish Council and the young people who
had engaged in this project.
Councillor B Smith requested that all lighting should be downlighting.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor N P Ripley and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new planning grounds of
objection following reconsultation and readvertisement of the amended
plan and subject to the imposition of conditions as listed in the report.
(7)
POTTER HEIGHAM - 20090313 - Continued use of land for siting mobile home;
Glebe Farm Marsh Road for Messrs R and B Hall
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Raburau (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an email had been received from
Councillor S J Partridge, a local Member, questioning for how long temporary
permissions could continue to be renewed. He outlined the requirements of PPS7 in
respect of agricultural dwellings in the Countryside and explained that this particular
business did not yet satisfy the criteria for a permanent dwelling as it had not been
established for three years. A further temporary permission for the mobile home was
being sought to enable the business to satisfy the criteria. He referred to a letter
from the applicants’ agent regarding the need for the mobile home.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs L Walker, seconded by Councillor P J Willcox and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved for a temporary period of three years
subject to a condition restricting the occupancy of the mobile home to
persons and their dependents being employed on the agricultural
holding.
(8)
SEA PALLING - 20081654 - Conversion of barn to additional bed and breakfast
accommodation; Lound Farm Hickling Road Hickling for Mrs Deane
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mrs Deane (supporting)
The Development Control Manager presented the Environment Agency’s matrix to
demonstrate an apparent anomaly in the guidance regarding the need for a full Flood
Risk Assessment and explained why the Environment Agency’s objection was not
being recommended in this instance.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
14 May 2009
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, referred to the Millard report which indicated
no flooding at this location in the event of a breach in the sea defences. He
considered that the risk of flooding was minimal. He stated that the peak time for the
bed and breakfast business was during the summer months when the risk of flooding
was at its lowest. With regard to protected species, he stated that this barn
represented only 10% of the available open farm buildings for bats and owls etc. He
stated that the only access into the barn was the large doorway and wildlife preferred
buildings with a variety of means of escape.
The Development Control Manager stated that the protected species survey was
required by legislation and he understood that the applicant and her agent accepted
this.
It was proposed by Councillor R C Price, seconded by Councillor Mrs L Walker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to a further satisfactory bat survey and
appropriate wildlife mitigation measures together with the imposition of
appropriate conditions including those suggested by the Environment
Agency.
(9)
THORPE MARKET - 20090166 - Continued use of land for siting of marquee;
Elderton Lodge Hotel Cromer Road for Mr P W Roofe
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Spencer (Antingham Parish Council)
Mr Covey (objecting)
Mr Roofe (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that the Garden History Society did not
wish to comment on this application. However, this did not signify approval or
disapproval. The Environmental Protection Officer had confirmed that he had no
objection on the basis of the proposals put forward by the applicant to play
background music in the marquee subject to a condition to require details of noise
regulation equipment. He reported that a noise abatement notice had recently been
served following an investigation into noise nuisance at the premises. However, the
Committee had to deal with the planning issues and the applicant had stated that
music would be played at a low level in the marquee.
The Development Control Manager displayed a photograph taken by an objector
which showed wedding traffic queuing to enter the access from the North Walsham
direction. The main concern of the Highway Authority was traffic queuing from the
Thorpe Market direction.
The Development Control Manager reported that Antingham Parish Council had now
been consulted on this application and its comments were awaited. He requested
delegated authority to refuse this application on highway safety grounds subject to
the views of Antingham Parish Council.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
14 May 2009
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, considered that it was vital to support
local businesses. She stated that Elderton Lodge was a quality establishment.
However, she expressed concern that the marquee did not enhance the area. She
referred to the applicant’s offer to play only background music in the marquee.
Whilst she was not happy about approving a temporary building, the needs of the
applicant were understood and she suggested a two year temporary permission on
the understanding that there would be no guarantee of permanent permission,
provided that the marquee was taken down between mid October and Easter and
subject to conditions requested by Environmental Health in respect of noise.
Councillor P J Willcox referred to the views of Erpingham and Hanworth Parish
Councils. He had concerns regarding the access but considered that most people
would be mindful of the situation. He supported Councillor Mrs Arnold’s suggestion
and requested close monitoring of noise.
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member for Antingham, expressed concern regarding
the highway issues, particularly with regard to cars queuing to enter the site. He
stated that it was not possible to improve the visibility splay and considered that it
was not safe to exit the site at the junction. He considered that temporary permission
would not overcome the highway problems and urged refusal on highway safety
grounds. He also expressed concerns regarding visual impact and noise. He
commented that the marquee was licensed to hold 120 people whereas the hotel
was only licensed for 60.
Councillor Mrs L Walker stated that 20 jobs could be at risk if this application were
refused. She considered that if the Highway Authority considered the road to be so
dangerous a reduced speed limit should be introduced. She stated that traffic would
not be queuing for long periods and not all vehicles would leave at the same time.
She asked how many accidents were associated with vehicles leaving the site. She
stated that conditions could be imposed to control noise.
The Highway Development Control Officer confirmed that two accidents had
occurred as a result of vehicles using the access, both of which were in 2006.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that hotels were the lifeblood of the tourist industry
and she supported temporary approval.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor P J Willcox
and
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application for a temporary period of two years subject to
the views of Antingham Parish Council and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the marquee to be used between
Easter and 14 October only with one week allowed either side of those
dates for erection and dismantling/removal of the structure and no
amplified music to be played in the marquee until such time as a sound
level regulatory device (noise limiter) has been installed and approved
by the Local Planning Authority.
(10)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
14 May 2009
(11)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the officers’ reports.
(12)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 8 of the officers’ reports.
(13)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9 of the officers’ reports.
(14)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(15)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 11 of the officers’ reports.
(16)
QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
The Development Control Manager presented the quarterly performance report
which had been published in the Members’ Bulletin (issue 499 - 6 May).
The
Committee noted the report.
The meeting closed at 1.25 pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
14 May 2009