19 MARCH 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)
Mrs S A Arnold
Mrs B McGoun
Miss C P Sheridan
P J Willcox
Mrs P Bevan Jones - substitute for Miss P E Ford
B Cabbell Manners - substitute for B Smith
J Lee - Suffield Park Ward
N P Ripley - Suffield Park Ward
Officers:
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 P Took - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer
(210) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, M R E Birch,
Miss P E Ford, B Smith and Miss L Walker. Two substitute Member attended the
meeting as shown above.
(211) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 19 February 2009 were
approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(212) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(213) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared an interest, the details of which are shown
under the minute of the item concerned.
(214) MUNDESLEY - 01/071/DEV6/07/005 – 32 High Street
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ report requesting authority to
prosecute for non-compliance with Enforcement Notice requiring the removal of an
unauthorised flue within 6 months of the effective date of the Notice.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
19 March 2009
In answer to a question the officers explained that the recommended action was the
end of the process. The owner of the business had been informed of the need to
obtain planning permission for external alterations when planning permission was
given for the change of use of the premises to a hot food takeaway.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 4 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to initiate
legal proceedings against the occupier of 32 High Street, Mundesley
under Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as
amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, for failure to
comply with the Enforcement Notice served on 29 October 2007.
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.
(215) CROMER - 20081650 - Erection of replacement hospital buildings; Cromer and
District Hospital Mill Road for NNUH NHS Foundation Trust
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in this application as he
was Chairman of the Cabbell Park Trustees and members of his family had been
founding members of the hospital.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Gold (objecting)
Miss Blakeley and Mr Bissonnet (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that an application had been received for a car
park for construction workers and staff which would be dealt with separately from the
hospital application. Counsel’s opinion was still awaited in respect of ecological
issues but it was considered unlikely that officer’s understanding on this matter would
change.
The Development Control Manager considered that this application presented a
dilemma. It was important to have a fit for purpose hospital for the 21st century.
However, there were concerns in respect of the layout, character and design of the
Development Control Committee (East)
2
19 March 2009
building and landscape treatment. The architects had had to work to a brief which
kept the hospital running during construction work and retained the temporary renal
unit in situ. He questioned the need to retain the renal unit in its current position
given the temporary nature of the building and the review of renal services in Norfolk
which could result in relocation elsewhere in the County. He considered that there
would be a clear opportunity for improvement if it were not for the requirement to
retain the renal unit. He requested Members’ support for the recommendation for
deferral to negotiate revisions to the scheme.
Councillor J Lee, a local Member, referred to the length of time it had taken to get to
this stage. He recognised that given an undeveloped site the design of the building
would be different. However, the design of the building was constrained by the site
and the need to retain the renal unit. He considered that it was imperative to retain
the unit to save patients having to travel to Norwich for treatment. He acknowledged
that the proposed building was not ideal but urged the Committee to support the
application to enable the project to proceed.
Councillor N P Ripley, also a local Member, was anxious that the project should
proceed without further delay. He was concerned that if the Council required the
relocation of the renal unit the opportunity could be lost. He considered that the
design was adequate and would fit well into its surroundings. In response to
concerns raised by the objector he requested that measures to reduce the effects of
flooding be investigated. He considered that there should be plenty of planting.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer explained that amendments had
been made in response to discussions regarding flood risk and the Environment
Agency had raised no objections subject to conditions.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that given the current economic situation
money should not be wasted on a ‘landmark’ building which could result in a possible
reduction in services. He stated that he personally liked the design of the building
and considered that it was capable of delivering healthcare for his family. He
supported the local Members and proposed approval of this application. This was
not seconded.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun expressed concern for the residents to the south east of
the building. She referred to the consideration that had been given to the effect on
bats and stated that local residents would also be very much affected by the
proposal. However, she considered that the local Members’ views were important.
She referred to the modular design of the building and hoped that it could be adapted
to accommodate changing needs, in particular the reintroduction of wards. She
considered that the design was not very uplifting.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer stated that no objection had been
received from residents directly behind the proposed building. However, objections
had been received from nearby residents.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that the project should not be delayed because
of bats. However, if there was a legal requirement to defer she suggested that bat
boxes be erected in the remaining trees as soon as possible to encourage the bats to
use them. She considered that it was imperative to retain the renal unit. She
referred to parking issues. She supported the application in principle but had
concerns regarding the rear of the building.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
19 March 2009
In answer to a question regarding design and local distinctiveness, the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager acknowledged that it was difficult to create a
distinctive style in the locality. However, he considered that the designers should
have picked up building styles and themes found in North Norfolk. He considered
that the reuse of some of the stonework etc was tokenism. He was distressed that
the Health Trust did not wish to create a landmark building. He stated that this was a
key building for Cromer and North Norfolk and should be something that residents
could be proud of. He considered that even if the basic form and character of the
building could not be changed, there was an opportunity to make it more interesting
and improve the landscaping and parking areas. He stated that it was necessary to
defer this application given the legal requirement to resolve the biodiversity and
protected species issues.
The officers answered members’ questions regarding Design Guide requirements in
respect of separation distances and issues regarding traffic management.
In answer to a question regarding the flooding and the protection of trees, the
Landscape Officer explained that the majority of the trees to be removed were
poplars which were suited to wet conditions and took up a large amount of water.
These trees were located in the south east corner of the site which was very boggy.
They had not been assessed for possible protection. However, there was a row of
poplars in an adjacent garden which would be retained. The Holm Oaks on the front
of the site, which were to be retained, were of higher amenity value.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan proposed the officer’s recommendation for deferral
which was seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that a decision to approve this application without
dealing with the protected species issues could leave the Council open to legal
challenge. He considered that deferral of this application could deliver a new hospital
faster than if it were approved at this meeting.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager confirmed that the Authority could be
open to legal challenge if this application were approved. He stated that there were
other reasons for deferral in addition to protected species and urged the Committee
to accept the officer’s recommendation.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that deferral could result in the loss of the
facility. He considered that delegated approval could be given subject to the receipt
of the survey.
The Development Control Manager stated that an amended scheme could potentially
be brought back before the Committee prior to receipt of the bat survey, when the
Committee would be able to give delegated authority to approve subject to that
survey. The applicants accepted the need for further survey work and had indicated
that they did not envisage this to be a problem.
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 1
That consideration of the application be deferred and that the applicants
be requested to:
• Address issues raised in the NHS Design Panel report.
• Reconsider the retention of the renal unit.
• Reconsider the layout, design and landscaping of the proposal.
• Undertake necessary further protected species surveys at the site.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
19 March 2009
(216) WICKMERE - 20090052 - Conversion of garage to habitable accommodation
and erection of timber garage block; Park Farm House Wolterton Park
Wolterton for Michael McNamara
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mr McNamara (supporting)
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, referred to an approved application at
Antingham referred to by Mr McNamara which he considered to be identical to this
application. He considered that there were inconsistencies in planning. He stated
that he had been lobbied on this application but remained open minded.
Councillor S J Partridge questioned the need for a study and garaging for three cars
in connection with a holiday conversion. However, he considered that the Antingham
decision and the recommendation on this application were incongruous. He was
minded to approve the application.
The Development Control Manager advised the Committee with regard to the
relevant policies. He stated that Members could use their judgement as to whether
or not refusal was justified. He advised the Committee not to make direct
comparisons with the Antingham application. However, he could understand the
applicant’s point of view. In answer to a question he confirmed that the holiday
restriction could be safeguarded.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include a holiday use restriction.
Reason: The Committee considers that the application complies with
the relevant policies of the adopted Core Strategy.
(217) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ report.
(218) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ report.
(219) NEW APPEALS
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ report.
(220) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ report.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
19 March 2009
(221) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ report.
(222) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ report.
The meeting closed at 11.40 am.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
19 March 2009