20 NOVEMBER 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)
Mrs S A Arnold
M J M Baker
Miss P E Ford
Mrs B McGoun
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Miss L Walker
P J Willcox
P W High - substitute for S J Partridge
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
E Seward - North Walsham North Ward
E C Stockton - observer
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 D Sutton - Environmental Protection Officer
Mr D Higgins - Senior Engineer, Major Developments (NCC Highways)
(147) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M R E Birch and S J
Partridge. One substitute Member attended the meeting as shown above.
(148) MINUTES
Councillor Miss P E Ford referred to minute 139 of 23 October in respect of planning
application 20081170 at North Walsham. As part of her proposal she had requested
that local residents be consulted on the position of the pedestrian crossing. This had
been recorded in the text of the minute but not in the resolution.
Subject to the above, the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23 October
2008 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(149) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were two items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee, relating to:
1.
A planning application at Bacton, reference 20081309. The reason for
urgency was to consider a site inspection prior to a report being submitted to
the next meeting.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
20 November 2008
2.
A planning application at Cromer, reference 20080818. The reason for
urgency was to consider a further objection that had been received in respect
of this application which the Head of Planning and Building Control was
authorised to approve at a previous meeting.
(150) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs S A Arnold and M J M Baker declared an interest, the details of
which are shown under the minute of the item concerned.
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.
(151) HOVETON - 20081300 - Erection of two two-storey replacement dwellings; Two
Saints Farm Cottage Tunstead Road for Legislator 1363 Ltd
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Palmer (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Councillor N D Dixon, the local Member,
supported this application.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan proposed refusal in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control. This was not
seconded.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold
and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions
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.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
20 November 2008
(152) NORTH WALSHAM - 20081351 - Erection of sixth form college; Playing Field
Station Road for Paston College
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest in this
application as she was acquainted with the Principal of the College.
Councillor Ms V R Gay (local Member) stated that she had met with and received
correspondence from applicants and objectors.
Councillor B Smith stated that he had met the architect and Principal at a recent
meeting.
Councillor E Seward (North Walsham North Ward) stated that he was a Member of
the Town Council’s Planning Committee.
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in a nearby commercial site
which he mentioned during discussion of this application.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mrs Gadsden (North Walsham Town Council)
Objecting: Mr Standing, Miss Marshall, Mrs Van Larwick,
Supporting: Mr Mayne, Mr Nicholls, Mr Thornberry
The Senior Planning Officer reported that 12 further objection letters and an objecting
petition containing 58 signatures had been received She read to the Committee a
letter from Mrs Riches outlining her objections to this application. She also referred
to a letter from Dr Knee in respect of the trees on the site.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that 14 letters of support had been received.
She outlined the comments that had been received from Heads of two primary
schools in the District. She outlined the comments of the North Norfolk Community
Partnership and Griffon Area Partnership in support of this application.
Network Rail had responded giving general advice in respect of fencing and planting.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that page 10 of the report should refer to the
provision of 120 jobs and not 180 as stated. The proposed building would at its
closest point be a minimum of 27.5m set back from the road frontage boundary and
not as stated on page 11 of the report.
The Economic and Tourism Development Manager had commented on the low
educational qualifications and skills and low numeracy and literacy levels in the
District, and the need to raise aspirations and develop skills and abilities. He
considered that a cutting-edge learning facility would strongly underpin the local
economy and link with the North Norfolk Centre for Enterprise which was being set
up in the town. The proposal would increase employment opportunities and
opportunities for local procurement. If the college did not expand it would decline as
a centre for learning as students would travel to other centres. He was concerned
that young people in the District were becoming increasingly disadvantaged in
accessing educational opportunities without travelling long distances.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
20 November 2008
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that this proposal was an
opportunity to deliver a landmark public building. He had considered the design over
a period of time and was torn in his views. However, CABE had given the building a
good rating on all levels and the Sustainability Co-ordinator had rated it as excellent
in terms of sustainability. He referred to CABE’s concerns regarding the elevational
treatment, sober appearance of the building and the desirability of having a more
‘joyful’ appearance. He considered that a quality landscape design for the site would
be vital. He accepted that it was difficult to produce a locally distinctive building given
its location and purpose. However, he considered that there was an opportunity to
discuss further the elevational treatment and landscaping at the front of the site. He
stated that in general he supported the proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the dead trees were to be retained which
resolved the issues regarding the bat survey. The Landscape Officer was now
satisfied with biodiversity enhancement proposals. The application was considered
to be compliant with the policies of the Core Strategy in respect of landscape.
An amended plan was awaited in respect of improvements to Station Road following
discussions between the applicant and the Highway Authority. Discussions were
taking place with the Estates Section regarding pedestrian access from the Victory
Swimming Pool site.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended that the Committee endorse the
conclusions in the report in relation to the key issues, but defer consideration of the
application pending the receipt of an amended plan for consideration by the Highway
Authority and to allow further discussions regarding the pedestrian access across the
Victory Swimming Pool site and discussions on design issues.
The Senior Engineer, Major Developments, gave details of the current and
anticipated traffic movements around the site. There would be a large increase in the
amount of traffic but the college was offering a significant package of improvements.
He considered that the highway objections could be overcome.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, stated that the many of the questions being
asked about this application were not planning issues. The planning considerations
related to whether the proposal would be a suitable use for the land. Her principal
concerns related to pedestrian and traffic safety on Station Road. She was also
concerned about traffic on Millfield Road where HGVs joined the traffic stream. She
considered that the scale and massing of the buildings should be reflected upon.
However, she was pleased with the green credentials and sustainability of the
building. She considered that the sports centre should be available to the public via
a formal agreement and that the traffic implications arising from public use should be
considered. She regretted the loss of a category A tree and requested that more
consideration be given to biodiversity issues.
Councillor E Seward, Member for North Walsham North Ward, endorsed Councillor
Ms Gay’s comments. He supported the concerns raised by the Town Council. He
stated that the general consensus in the town was that the college should remain in
the town and be successful. There were, however, differing views as to whether it
should remain on its existing sites or relocate. He requested evidence to prove that
the existing college could not be refurbished. He referred to the impact on existing
shops which were well-used by students and the economic impact on the town if the
college moved and the existing sites remained vacant or became derelict. He
considered that the loss of open space should be compensated by alternative
recreational facilities. He asked if the public would be allowed access to the sports
Development Control Committee (East)
4
20 November 2008
facilities in the evening and at weekends. He considered that the possibility of
development on the HL Foods site should be taken into account when considering
traffic impact. He questioned whether the proposed car parking provision was
adequate. He stated that the building would be visible above the trees.
Councillor Miss P E Ford supported the above comments. She stated that the
environment had an impact on how young people thought and felt and they were very
proud of the current college. She considered that replacement college should be
equally as good so that the students would take ownership of it and feel good about
themselves. She noted the ‘good’ rating in the CABE report and asked whether it
was good enough and why it was not rated as ‘excellent’. She also requested that
the facilities be made available for public use. She considered that the building
should have a more ‘joyful’ appearance. She proposed deferral of this application for
more information on the issues that had been raised.
Councillor Ms V R Gay reported the comments of Councillor M R E Birch, a local
Member. He had stated that the college was a major part of the North Walsham
community and a lifeline for local shops. He had requested that highway issues,
footpaths and lighting be given proper attention and the sports areas be open to the
public. He considered that the building should be sited further back onto the site and
that there should be no coach parking on Station Road.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that the proposed building was sombre and
that it should be iconic.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun seconded the proposal to defer this application. She
considered that the visual appearance of the building was identical to a 1960s school
building.
Councillor Miss L Walker asked if a one-way system could be introduced on Station
Road/Millfield Road.
The Senior Engineer, Major Developments, stated that a one-way system had been
suggested but had not been pursued. It was considered likely to attract as much
objection as the current proposals. It would require a Traffic Regulation Order which
would give objectors another opportunity to object.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to the design of the building and how it might look in
the longer term. He expressed concern that more weight appeared to be given to
bats than the amenities of local residents. He stated that there was an active
commercial site nearby, in which he declared a personal interest, which generated
HGV movements and requested that it be taken into account when considering
highway safety issues as he considered that the Highway Authority was not aware of
it.
In answer to a question the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager advised the
Committee that it was for Members to decide how much weight they apportioned to
material considerations.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan considered that there was a problem with lack of open
space. She referred to the estimated number of traffic movements outlined by the
Senior Engineer, Major Developments, and stated that the number of students using
cars was unknown. She referred to the longstanding campaign for traffic calming
and a 20 mph speed limit in the vicinity and considered that this application gave an
opportunity to demand it. She considered that there should be planning gain for the
Development Control Committee (East)
5
20 November 2008
community as well as the college and suggested that funding should be set aside to
deal with rat runs, etc. She considered that sports facilities should be available free
of charge to the local community.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that the building should be sited significantly further
back on the site. He requested that consideration be given to sharing the vehicular
and pedestrian access with the Victory Pool site and extending the parking area for
the swimming pool to accommodate parking for the college.
Councillor B Smith considered that there was insufficient screening along the Station
Road frontage. He considered that the boxy appearance of the building was not
aesthetically pleasing.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred:
1.
2.
3.
4.
To await an amended plan in respect of access improvements and
the further comments of the Highway Authority.
To seek more detail and assurances on the public use of the sports
facilities.
To undertake further negotiations in respect of the design and
siting of the building and layout of the site.
To hold discussions regarding shared use of the Victory Swimming
Pool access and car park.
(153) SCOTTOW - 20070144 - Sub-division of eight dwellings to provide eight
additional dwellings; 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Hoveton Place RAF Coltishall
for Annington Homes Limited
SCOTTOW - 20070145 - Sub-division of dwellings to provide six additional
units; 53, 55 and 57 Ormesby Road and 22, 24 and 26 Hoveton Place RAF
Coltishall for Annington Homes Limited
SCOTTOW - 20070161 - Sub-division of dwellings to provide eight additional
units; 1, 3, 5, 67, 69, 71, 73, 75 and 76 Cromes Place RAF Coltishall for
Annington Homes Limited
The Committee considered items 3, 4 and 5 of the officers’ reports.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun was disappointed that no more than four affordable units
could be achieved.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve these applications subject to the completion of a Section 106
Agreement to secure the provision of four affordable units.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
20 November 2008
(154) SOUTHREPPS - 20081206 - Erection of single-storey building to house
woodchip district heating boiler; Greenways Thorpe Road for Southrepps
Development Limited
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Primrose (objecting)
Mr Robotham (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Officer was
satisfied with the flue as proposed. He recommended approval of this application
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions including the colour of the flue.
The Environmental Protection Officer explained that lowering the flue would require
mechanical ventilation which could lead to problems in the future as it became worn.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, considered that this was an exciting
project. She reported that she had received a letter from Councillor Combe stating
that his son had a similar installation and was very pleased with it. However, she
referred to concerns raised by the objectors in respect of emissions and dust and
requested more assurance that emissions would not cause health problems. She
also requested assurance that the operators would burn only virgin wood.
The Environmental Protection Officer explained how it was proposed to operate the
system and the type of emissions that would occur. He stated that the system was
designed to burn only virgin wood and other material would clog the system.
Councillor Mrs Arnold requested a condition to require monitoring of the use of the
system by Environmental Health.
In answer to concerns raised by objectors that residents had not been informed of
the application, the Senior Planning Officer explained the consultation process and
confirmed that normal procedures had been followed in this case.
Four
representations had been received from members of the public.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that this was a prime example of how estates
should be developed. He considered that the proposed boiler would generate fewer
emissions than if individual heating systems were installed in each of the eighteen
dwellings.
The Committee discussed the colour of the proposed flue. Whilst it was noted that
the Parish Council had requested matt green, on the advice of the officers it was
agreed that matt grey would be more appropriate and less intrusive.
Councillor P J Willcox requested that the flue be dismantled if the boiler were to be
decommissioned in the future.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor M J M
Baker and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the flue to be coloured matt grey, the
operation of the boiler to be monitored and the flue to be removed if the
use ceases.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
20 November 2008
(155) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 7 of the officers’ reports.
(156) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the officers’ reports.
(157) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 9 of the officers’ reports.
(158) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(159) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the officers’ reports.
(160) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports.
(161) QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
The Head of Planning and Building Control presented the quarterly performance
report.
He reported that Overview and Scrutiny Committee had considered a report on
planning performance and had endorsed proposals to deal with amendments to
applications and other suggestions to improve efficiency.
The target for major applications was not currently being met. Failure to meet the
required targets would result in loss of Housing and Planning Delivery Grant.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold referred to the application for Paston College for which the
deadline was the day following the next meeting. She stated that there were major
issues involved and was concerned that if a decision had to be made quickly it might
not be right for future generations. She did not want to be pushed to make a decision
on such an important application in order to meet a target.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that it was now possible to have a
Planning Performance Agreement with an applicant to extend the 13-week period for
determining major applications. However, in return the applicants would expect their
applications to be approved and the perceived fairness of the development control
process could be called into question.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that negotiations continued during Committee
meetings and she considered that this should not occur.
In answer to a question the Development Control Manager explained that if an
application were refused the applicant could submit a further application free of
charge within one year of refusal. Similarly, if an application were withdrawn the
applicant could resubmit free of charge within a year.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
20 November 2008
The Development Control Manager stated that the Government encouraged
consultation prior to submission of an application. Some pre-consultation had been
carried out in respect of the Paston College application.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that the community did not
generally take proposals seriously unless a planning application was submitted.
Issues were always raised during the formal planning process.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold referred to the imminent submission of a planning
application for the new Cromer Hospital and requested that an early site inspection
be undertaken.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that she had determined that the following items be considered
as matters of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in her by Section 100B(4)(b) of
the Local Government Act 1972.
(162) BACTON - 20081309 - Erection of two dwellings; land adjoining St Peter’s
Court, Walcott Road for Mr R Shearwood
The Development Control Manager explained that Councillor B Smith, the local
Member, was unwilling to allow a delegated decision because of local objections to
this application and had indicated that a site inspection would be appropriate. A
report would be submitted to the next meeting but to avoid further delay he asked the
Committee to consider whether or not a site inspection should take place. He
outlined the proposals for development of this site.
The Committee discussed this matter and viewed photographs of the site.
RESOLVED
That having viewed photographs of the site it is considered that it may
not be necessary to visit the site.
(163) CROMER - 20080818 - Construction of short stay facilities for Gypsies and
Travellers; adjacent Council Offices Holt Road for North Norfolk District
Council
The Head of Planning and Building Control reminded the Committee that at its
meeting in September he had been given delegated authority to approve this
application subject to no new grounds of objection being received following the expiry
of the reconsultation and readvertisement period on the amended plan, the
consideration of motion-sensitive lighting and the imposition of appropriate conditions
to include a restriction on the length of stay to a maximum of three months.
A further letter of objection had been received from a resident of Top Common, East
Runton who considered that the revised scheme would be more visually intrusive
than the original scheme and that the approved police station should be in place prior
to the development of the short stay facilities.
Notwithstanding the further objection the Head of Planning and Building Control
recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
20 November 2008
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, had been consulted and supported the
Committee’s previous decision.
The Committee noted the further objection.
RESOLVED
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
The meeting closed at 1.10 pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
20 November 2008