22 JANUARY 2009 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST)

22 JANUARY 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:

Mrs S A Arnold

M J M Baker

Councillors

Mrs C M Wilkins (Chairman)

Miss C P Sheridan

B Smith

P W High - substitute for S J Partridge

K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward

Mrs A M Moore - North Walsham North Ward

P W Moore - North Walsham East 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 I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)

Mr S Case - Landscape Officer

Miss K Witton - Landscape Officer

(180) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

An apology for absence was received from Councillor S J Partridge. One substitute

Member attended the meeting as shown above.

(181) MINUTES

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 18 December 2008 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(182) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS

The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished to bring before the Committee.

(183) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Miss P E Ford, B Smith, Miss L Walker and Mrs C M Wilkins declared interests, the details of which are shown under the minute of the item concerned.

(184) North Walsham – Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham) 2008 No. 11 Former

HL Foods Factory, Norwich Road, North Walsham

The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ report in respect of the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order at the above site.

The Landscape Officer reported that North Walsham Town Council had no objection to the Order. A further letter had been received on behalf of the landowner disputing that the Order had been correctly served.

Development Control Committee (East) 1 22 January 2009

The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that it had been thought that the objectors’ concerns had been addressed but a further letter had been received. He considered that there was nothing in the objector’s further letter that changed his view.

The Landscape Officer recommended that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification. The Landscape Officer read to the Committee the comments of

Councillor Ms V R Gay, the local Member, who supported the confirmation of the

Order. Councillor Ms Gay stated that the trees had considerable financial value and were considered highly by North Walsham residents for their visual value. Protection of the natural environment was one of the most important corporate aims and North

Walsham had already lost many trees in recent years.

It was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker and

RESOLVED unanimously

That Tree Preservation Order (North Walsham) 2008 No. 11 at the former

HL Foods Factory, Norwich Road, North Walsham be confirmed without modification.

(185) 01/074/DEV6/05/011 – 1 Fairview Road, North Walsham

The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports requesting authority to prosecute for non-compliance with an Enforcement Notice requiring the demolition of an unauthorised garage and the removal of all materials from site within six months of the effective date of the Notice.

Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, referred to the history of this matter and explained that he had assisted the owner of the garage with his appeal against the enforcement notice in his capacity as his local Member. He was not in favour of the retention of this building and considered that the owner should implement his planning permission for an alternative structure.

The Chairman stated that she had been lobbied by local residents who were opposed to the retention of the existing garage.

Councillor Miss P E Ford, a local Member, supported the recommendation.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor Mrs B

McGoun and


That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to commence legal proceedings against the occupier of 1 Fairview Road,

North Walsham under Section 179 of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990, as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, for failing to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice served on him on 2 February 2006.


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.

(186) CROMER - 20081671 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission

20011800 to permit sale of pets and pet supplies; Unit C North Norfolk Retail

Park Holt Road for Crown Properties Ltd

The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.

Public Speaker

Mr Sowerby (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a total of 250 letters had now been received in respect of the need to protect existing shops.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicant had undertaken a further sequential assessment in respect of the availability of two stores in local town centres. However, the applicant considered that neither of the stores were suitable because of the lack of an adequate delivery area, lack of customer car parking to allow for collection of bulky goods and both would be more attractive to non-bulky goods retailers. They would not be economically viable for a bulky goods pet supply store. The Senior Planning Officer supported the conclusions and recommended approval of this application.

Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, expressed concern at the possible impact on the viability of the town centre. He referred to concerns that had been raised in

Cromer and beyond. He stated that he had been lobbied by the owner of an existing pet shop in Cromer. Councillor Johnson was concerned that this shop could become vacant but as the former MFI unit was currently vacant it was a difficult issue. He considered that the only benefit to this application was the opportunity to replace jobs that had recently been lost in the retail sector.

Councillor Miss C P Sheridan considered that the proposed use would cause less damage to the town centre in this location than if it were located within the town centre itself.

It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Mrs B

McGoun and

RESOLVED with 8 Members voting in favour

That this application be approved.


(187) SCOTTOW

1) 20081568 - Conversion of former RAF buildings to Category C prison and erection of buildings to provide ancillary accommodation; RAF Coltishall

Tunstead Road for National Offender Management Service

2) 20081556 (Broadland District Council reference) - Conversion of existing buildings to provide accommodation for a Category C prison (Class C2A); the construction of new buildings to provide ancillary accommodation for a prison; the erection of a 5.2m high security perimeter fence; the erection of internal security fences; security lighting columns and CCTV poles; the demolition of existing buildings; the construction of a new access road onto Hautbois Road; landscaping and various minor works

Councillor Miss P E Ford declared a personal interest in this application as she was a

Member of the Board of the Douglas Bader Centre.

Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared a personal interest as she had encouraged

English Heritage to schedule some of the monuments on the draw down of the air base.

Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest as he was a former member of the

RAF and had been stationed at RAF Coltishall for several years.


Public Speakers

Mr Hannah and Mr Davies (objecting)

Mr Cawkwell and Mr Manton (supporting)

The Development Control Manager confirmed that the two applications were identical, although greater detail had been given in the description by Broadland

District Council. He reported that confirmation had been received that the previous permission had been quashed by the Court. Whilst the lack of a Flood Risk

Assessment (FRA) had been the only ground of challenge to be conceded by this

Council, the other grounds had been addressed as far as possible. Counsel had been consulted.

The Development Control Manager reported that Natural England had no objection.

Environmental Health had no objection to the lighting proposals but had recommended noise conditions and an odour control condition in respect of the kitchen building. Following a meeting on site, the Environment Agency had requested minor amendments and clarification in respect of the FRA. However, the

Environment Agency had no major concerns as there would be less run-off as rainwater harvesting was proposed.

The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve application 20081568 subject to the completion of the required Section 106 obligations, receipt of an amended FRA to be agreed by the Environment Agency and Environmental Health, the amendment of condition 2 to refer to the latest plans, the deletion of condition 28 and replacement with two conditions to require full details of sewage proposals to be agreed and installed prior to the first prisoner being accommodated, and to require surface water drainage to accord with the revised

FRA subject to it being agreed by the Environment Agency and Environmental


Health, and the reasons being amended to include corrections to Broadland District

Council’s policies. He also requested delegated authority to approve Broadland application 20081556 subject to the completion of the Section 106 obligations, receipt of an amended FRA and amendments to conditions and reasons as above.

Councillor Miss L Walker expressed concern at the proximity of the proposed prison to the Douglas Bader Centre, adequacy of the screening, integrity of the security fence and isolation of the prisoners from their families. She questioned whether this location was right for a prison.

Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that any windows overlooking the Douglas

Bader Centre should be obscured and fixed shut, a screening fence between the

Centre and the prison and there should be no access whatsoever for prisoners to the area near the Centre. She requested that the trees in the community woodland be of a good size and hoped that public access to the community areas did not fail because of the need for planning permission for the access road. She requested that the access road be dealt with as soon as possible.

The Development Control Manager explained that there would be an internal security fence which would restrict the movement of prisoners within the site and they would be unable to reach the edge of the site. He understood that there would be no unsupervised access for prisoners outside the internal fence and no external movement of prisoners whilst children were in the playground.

The Landscape Officer explained he had worked with the Ministry of Justice and their landscape contractors in detail. Mature trees would be planted in the area between the prison and the Douglas Bader Centre which would create an instant barrier.

However, the community woodland would be planted with younger trees which would establish better. He considered that this was one of the best planting schemes he had worked on and was very good mitigation for the loss of the existing trees.

The Development Control Manager stated that the Section 106 obligation in respect of the landscaped areas required the areas to be offered to the District Council once they were completed for a nominal fee with maintenance costs being paid for fifteen years. There was also a clause to require the provision of access. The Ministry of

Justice did not wish to retain the community areas but the Council would not take over the land until all work had been carried out and the access had been provided.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Baker the Chairman agreed to sign and date all approved plans if permission were granted.

Councillor Miss P E Ford proposed the officers’ recommendations but did not agree with the view that the windows overlooking the Douglas Bader Centre should be obscured. However, following representations by another Member she reluctantly accepted this as part of the proposal. This was seconded by Councillor Miss C P

Sheridan.

Councillor Sheridan expressed concern at family isolation and asked if the suggestion to provide a bus service from Norwich had been agreed. The

Development Control Manager stated that this was included in the travel plan which had been submitted with the application.

In answer to a question the Chairman stated that a task group would be reformed to consider the use of the remaining buildings and land at the airbase.


Councillor P W Moore, Cabinet Member for Resources, expressed concern with regard to future financing of the landscaped areas and community woodland. The officers explained that there would be a 15 year maintenance agreement, after which time it was considered that these areas would be self-maintaining. There was an opportunity for commercial use of the woodland. However, the Council was not obliged to take ownership of these areas, in which case the Section 106 obligation would require the owners to maintain them.

It was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by Councillor Miss C P

Sheridan and

RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1

That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve application reference 20081568 submitted to this Council, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation, the receipt of an amended Flood Risk Assessment to be agreed by the Environment

Agency and Environmental Health, the approved plans to be signed and dated by the Chairman of the Committee, and to the imposition of the conditions set out in the report, subject to the amendment of condition

2 to refer to the latest amended plans, the deletion of condition 28 and its replacement with conditions to require full details of the sewage proposals to be agreed and installed prior to the first prisoner being accommodated, and to require surface water drainage to accord with the revised Flood Risk Assessment, and an additional condition to require the first floor windows overlooking the Douglas Bader Centre to be obscurely glazed and non-opening. Also that the reasons be amended to include corrections to Broadland District Council’s policies.

It was proposed by Councillor Miss P E Ford, seconded by Councillor Miss C P

Sheridan and

RESOLVED by 8 votes to 1

That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the planning application first submitted to Broadland District

Council, but since delegated to North Norfolk District Council to determine (Broadland District Council reference 20081556), subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation, the receipt of an amended

Flood Risk Assessment to be agreed by the Environment Agency and

Environmental Health, the approved plans to be signed and dated by the

Chairman of the Committee, and to the imposition of the conditions set out in the report, subject to the amendment of condition 2 to refer to the latest amended plans, the deletion of condition 28 and its replacement with conditions to require full details of the sewage proposals to be agreed and installed prior to the first prisoner being accommodated, and to require surface water drainage to accord with the revised Flood

Risk Assessment, and an additional condition to require the first floor windows overlooking the Douglas Bader Centre to be obscurely glazed and non-opening. Also that the reasons be amended to include corrections to Broadland District Council’s policies.


(188) WALCOTT - 20081662 - Removal of condition 3 of planning application reference: 20021117 to permit residential occupancy; White Farm Barn North

Walsham Road Happisburgh for Mr Kinsey

Councillor Miss L Walker declared a personal interest in this application as she knew one of the supporters.


Public Speaker

Mr Kinsey (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer reported that a total of twelve letters of support had been received, together with a letter recommending deferral pending a review of Policy 29.

He stated that it was impractical to defer consideration of the application at this stage as it could be some time before the policy was reviewed.

The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager referred to the support for this application which had been publicly expressed in recent newspaper reports by

Councillor Miss Walker, the local Member. He advised that Councillor Walker could speak on this application as local Member but should not make a proposal or vote on this matter. He also advised that the comments made by Mr Kinsey in respect of a local estate agent should be disregarded as this was a civil matter.

Councillor Miss Walker referred to the history of this matter and the policy issues.

She stated that the building had an important relationship to the village and considered that the holiday occupancy condition should be lifted. She referred to an email she had received from a chartered surveyor stating that his company had proved that holiday conversions were not viable and that it had been tested on appeal. She referred to the other barns in the locality and stated that each case should be considered on its merits. She stated that the family had a strong tie with the community and referred to Mr Kinsey’s involvement with the inshore lifeboat.

She considered that their youngest child’s development could be hampered if the family was required to move. She considered that a Section 106 obligation would resolve this issue and prevent a precedent being set.

The Development Control Manager explained that policy HO9 which had been proposed under the Core Strategy had intended to make barn conversions more permissive in terms of distance from settlements. However, the Inspector did not accept the policy and saved Local Plan policy 29 therefore remains in the Core

Strategy. It was intended to review the policy but because of other work it was unlikely to be reviewed for at least a year.

The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the possibility of a Section

106 obligation had not been explored with the applicant. He explained that there could be difficulties if the property was mortgaged and requested the opportunity to discuss the matter with the applicant if the Committee was minded to support this application.

Councillor Miss C P Sheridan considered that this was a very difficult application and stated that there were many examples where applications had been refused in the most dreadful of personal circumstances. She stated that although she would like to support this application it was against policy and she therefore proposed that this application be refused. This was not seconded.


Councillor Mrs S A Arnold expressed concern that many beautiful barns would be left to collapse if they were not converted to holiday accommodation. She referred to the coastal erosion problem in Happisburgh. She considered that the family was making a huge contribution to the local community. She proposed that the possibility of a

Section 106 obligation be investigated given Mr Kinsey’s connection with the inshore lifeboat.

The Senior Planning Officer cautioned the Committee as to whether Mr Kinsey’s involvement with the inshore lifeboat was a material consideration in relation to the occupation of the barn.

Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that the publicity that had been given to this case would alert others to this issue. She stated that there was a case in her ward where a family wanted to convert a barn for residential use but could not do so as it was contrary to policy. She had sympathy for the applicant’s family but questioned the fairness of approving this application but not others. She asked if it would be possible to give temporary approval to allow them to remain in the property until the policy was reviewed and to give them the opportunity to make alternative plans if necessary.

The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager considered that there was merit in the suggestion of a temporary permission. However, he suggested that a definite time period was given rather than tying temporary permission to the review of the plan so that it remained within the statutory time limit for commencing enforcement action.

Councillor M J M Baker considered that it would be common sense to approve this application given the special contribution made by Mr Kinsey to the community. He proposed approval of this application, which was seconded by Councillor P J Willcox.

The Chairman stated that if the Committee were minded to approve this application it would need to be referred to the Combined Committee.

Councillor P J Willcox stated that Policy 29 was out of step with the rest of Norfolk.

Other authorities allowed residential conversion of barns. He expressed concern at the timescale for the review of this policy. He considered that Policy 29 was unacceptable when there was a shortage of housing. He stated that White Farm

Barn was a high status, listed barn next to a farmhouse and asked why it was not part of the same curtilage.

The Development Control Manager explained that the barn had originally been within the curtilage of the farmhouse but the curtilage had since been subdivided. Both buildings were listed on their own merits. He explained the rigorous process that had been undertaken in cases where permission for residential use had been given contrary to Policy 29 and the differences between those cases and the current application. In this case the conversion was complete, it had not been subject to a marketing process and the need to protect the barn did not outweigh policy.

Councillor Miss P E Ford referred to a seminar that had been held in respect of barns, when it was generally agreed that they were expensive to convert, hard to sell and likely to collapse if left untouched because of changes in agriculture. She considered that a flexible approach should be adopted given the economic situation, coastal erosion and the difference that could be made to the community. She considered that such conversions had not been considered to be sustainable because of the additional traffic and car use, but the world was changing and a


different approach could be taken. She considered that in this case residential use was sustainable, the family were already part of the community and their children attended local schools. She supported this application. She also supported an early review of Policy 29.

As an amendment, Councillor Mrs B McGoun proposed temporary approval pending the review of Policy 29 on the grounds that refusal would have an adverse impact on the family and temporary approval would give them the opportunity to seek approval following the policy review or make alternative arrangements. This was seconded by

Councillor P W High.

The Development Control Manager reiterated his advice regarding policy and the precedent that would be set in the event of approval, particularly given the amount of publicity that this application had attracted.

The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager suggested that temporary permission be given for one year and that the Committee exerts pressure to bring forward the review of Policy 29.

On being put to the vote, four Members voted in favour of the amendment and four against. The Chairman cast her vote against the amendment and it was declared lost.

It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, seconded by Councillor P J Willcox and

RESOLVED by 6 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions

That this application be referred to the Combined Committee with a recommendation for approval on grounds that the applicant is a key worker and it is therefore important for him to live in this location and that there are precedents for the residential conversion of listed barns.

It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, duly seconded and


That this Committee requests an urgent review of Policy 29.

(189) APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR A SITE INSPECTION


RESOLVED

That consideration of the following applications be deferred to allow an inspection of the sites by the Committee and that the local Members and

Town Mayor/Chairman of the Town Council be invited to attend:

CROMER - 20081650 - Erection of Replacement Hospital Buildings;

Cromer and District Hospital, Mill Road for NNUH NHS Foundation Trust

STALHAM - 20081644 – Erection of Extensions to Store, Replacement

Filling Station and Construction of Roundabout and Revised Access and Parking Arrangements; Tesco Stores Limited, Old Market Road for

Tesco Stores Limited


(190) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

The Committee noted item 7 of the officers’ reports.

(191) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS


(192) NEW APPEALS


(193) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS


(194) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS


(195) APPEAL DECISIONS


(196) QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORT

The Head of Planning and Building Control presented the quarterly performance report.

The Committee noted the report.

The meeting closed at 1.20 pm.


22 JANUARY 2009 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST)

Related documents

Products

Support

22 JANUARY 2009 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST)

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib