25 SEPTEMBER 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)
S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold
Miss P E Ford
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Miss L Walker
P J Willcox
Mrs A C Sweeney - substitute for M R E Birch
J A Wyatt - substitute for Mrs B McGoun
Mrs V R Gay – North Walsham West Ward
K Johnson – Cromer Town
P Moore – North Walsham East Ward
Officers:
Mr S Blatch – Strategic Director (Community Services)
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Planning & Building Control
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr A Mitchell – Development Control Manager (West)
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr S Hems – Environmental Health Manager
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr I Thompson - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Miss F Davies – Enabling Officer
Mr M Rayner – Norfolk County Council Highways
Mr J Blunkell – Traveller Liaison Officer, Norfolk County Council
(112) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M J M Baker, M R E Birch and
Mrs B McGoun. There were two substitute Members in attendance as listed above.
(113) MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 28 August 2008 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(114) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that there was one item of
urgent business which he wished to bring before the Committee, relating to a legal
matter regarding the planning permission for the Category C prison at RAF Coltishall.
The reason for urgency was to advise Members of an issue which had arisen relating
to the validity of the planning permission.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
25 September 2008
(115) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, Miss P E Ford, K E Johnson, P W Moore and B Smith
declared interests, the details of which are given 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.
(116) CROMER - 20080818 - Construction of short stay facilities for Gypsies and
Travellers; adjacent Council Offices Holt Road for North Norfolk District
Council
Councillor K E Johnson declared an interest as (1) an employee of the Norse Group,
a subsidiary of Norfolk County Council and (2) on behalf of all Members present, as
the landowner was a fellow Councillor.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
The Development Control Manager (West) reported that a further amended plan had
been received since the report had been prepared. This moved the site 15m to the
north-west for operational farming reasons and would require full reconsultation and
readvertisement. In addition, the site area had been calculated to include the
landscaping and was now 0.6ha in total.
Public Speakers
Ms Thompson (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Hardy (objecting)
Mr Combe (supporting)
Mr Farrow (objecting)
Mr Elton (supporting)
The Development Control Manager (West) was asked if the further views of the
Cromer Town Council had been received. He was not aware of these but Ms
Thompson had reported them orally.
The Development Control Manager (West) reported on the comments which had
recently been received from the Highway Authority (in response to the Police
Architectural Liaison Officer comments on a suggested lay-by access); Beeston
Regis Parish Council and the Norfolk Gardens Trust. It was understood that the
Development Control Committee (East)
2
25 September 2008
Police Architectural Liaison Officer suggestion regarding CCTV was withdrawn. The
agent considered it was inappropriate and not necessary but would consider the
rumble strip and amending the landscaping.
Officers considered that the planting and screening proposed were necessary given
the site’s location in the AONB and the need for reasonable privacy. The officer
recommendation was changed to omit reference to the response on the suggested
lay-by access. With regard to conditions it was suggested that they should include a
restriction on the length of stay to a maximum of 3 months.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, considered that a temporary transit site was
needed but any decision on this application should be deferred until such time as the
outcome of the Council’s appeal against EERA’s decision that the Council should find
permanent sites, was known.
The Strategic Director (Community Services) advised that EERA had adopted a
policy of a minimum of 15 permanent pitches in each of the 53 local authority areas.
The District Council’s evidence had demonstrated that the need in North Norfolk was
for short-stay provision and there was no support for permanent pitches.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan commented that the Council had undertaken extensive
consultation of all possible sites and this proposed site was considered to be the
most appropriate. She moved, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker, that the
application be approved, in accordance with the officer recommendation, as
amended.
Councillor P J Willcox suggested that the length of stay should be restricted to reflect
other policies for holiday accommodation etc and in response, officers advised that
the 3 month period reflected national advice and was the maximum.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building
Control to approve the application subject to no new grounds of
objection being received following the expiry of the re-consultation and
re-advertisement period on the amended plan, the consideration of
movement-sensitive lighting and the imposition of appropriate
conditions to include a restriction on the length of stay to a maximum of
three months.
(117) CROMER - 20081255 - Erection of nineteen flats and two shops; land to rear of
27 Church Street for Smart Space (UK) Ltd
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer (East) reported on the following comments which had
been received. The Town Council objected on the grounds of overdevelopment and
car parking issues; two neighbour objections had been received; the Highways
Authority were in support as the proposal would result in a net reduction in the traffic
generated and Norfolk Landscape Archaeology required a programme of works to be
undertaken. He also reminded Members that an earlier application (which had been
withdrawn) had been submitted prior to the Core Strategy being adopted, when there
had been no requirement to provide affordable housing. Although this was now a
requirement and the development did not include any element of affordable housing,
there was an argument in this case to give some consideration to the history of the
Development Control Committee (East)
3
25 September 2008
proposal. In addition, the former Local Plan did not require any parking provision as
it was a Town Centre site but the adopted LDF required 2 spaces/unit unless
accessibility and conservation interests justified a lower provision.
Councillor S J Partridge commented that the applicant had withdrawn his earlier
application and there was no guarantee it would have been approved at that time.
The Council had adopted its LDF and, therefore, should require some part of the
development to be affordable housing, particularly as this was in demand. He also
considered the design to be unsympathetic and inappropriate for the location.
Councillor Miss L Walker stated that she considered it to be overdevelopment and of
poor design.
Councillor B Smith stated that the materials were not in keeping with the location and
the design was not in context. In addition, the development should include some
affordable housing.
Councillor S J Partridge moved, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker, that the
application be refused.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building
Control to refuse the application on the grounds of over-development,
unsatisfactory design (subject to the views of the Conservation &
Design Manager) and the absence of any affordable housing provision.
(118) NORTH WALSHAM - 20080830 - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings; land
rear of 45 Happisburgh Road for Mr M Neale
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Roper (objecting)
Mr Bonham (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer (East) advised that confirmation had been received from
the applicant that he was in control of the land for the visibility splays, which satisfied
the concerns of the Highways Authority. Therefore, the recommendation was
amended accordingly.
In addition, the Development Control Manager (East) advised that North Walsham
Town Council had emailed that they were still objecting to the application as
overdevelopment and on access issues. The Planning Legal & Enforcement
Manager reported the content of a letter from a Mr Sexton of 6 St Benets Avenue
who was objecting to the application and stated that he would taking legal action
against the Council if the application were to be approved. In response, the Planning
Legal & Enforcement Manager reminded Members that the Highway Authority was
satisfied with the proposed visibility splays and, in any event, issues of land
ownership were civil matters.
Councillor Miss P E Ford moved that the application be approved, seconded by
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
25 September 2008
In response to a number of Members’ comments on the provision of the access road
prior to development commencing, the Senior Planning Officer (East) advised that
this could be a condition of the planning permission. The mover and seconder of the
proposal agreed to amend their proposition accordingly.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0
That the application be approved, subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, to include the provision of visibility splays
concurrent with the commencement of development.
(119) NORTH WALSHAM - 20081129 - County council reference: sp/c/1/2007/1011
conversion of former waste water treatment plant to liquid waste transfer
station; Sewage Works Marshgate for HFS Liquid Waste
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest as he had met the proprietor and
undertaken a site visit. Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a personal interest, on
behalf of all Councillors present, as they had been in receipt of numerous emails and
telephone calls on this application. Councillor Miss P E Ford declared an interest as
a resident of Pound Road. Councillor P W Moore declared a personal interest as a
resident of Manor Road and also stated that he is a Town and District Councillor and
the Norfolk County Councillor for the area.
The Planning Legal & Enforcement Manager declared a personal interest as he was
acquainted with Mr Mantell-Sayer in a professional capacity.
Public Speakers
Mr Mantell-Sayer (objecting)
Mr Waite (supporting)
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports. It was noted that this was
a County Council application, upon which the District Council had been consulted.
The Development Control Manager (East) reported that although the County Council
had undertaken all the consultation, North Walsham Town Council had sent their
objections direct to the District Council.
Councillor P W Moore, a local Member, stated that he objected to the proposal on the
grounds of the traffic and residential amenity issues and that this was the wrong site
for such a proposal.
Councillor Miss P E Ford, a local Member, stated her support for the officer
recommendation, due to the increased traffic which would be generated, particularly
from lorries.
Councillor S J Partridge asked how many lorry movements currently took place and
the Senior Planning Officer (East) advised that the movements were currently low (812 per day). The County Council had requested further information on historic and
projected traffic flows.
Councillor Miss P E Ford moved, seconded by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan to
support the officer recommendation. The vote was lost by 2 votes to 5.
Development Control Committee (East)
5
25 September 2008
Councillor P J Willcox then moved, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold that
consideration of the application be deferred for receipt of the Highways Authority
comments.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0
That consideration of the application be deferred and the County
Council be asked to allow an extension of time for observations to be
made until the comments of the Highway Authority had been received
for further consideration by the Committee.
(120) SKEYTON - 20081047 - Erection of 4 semi-detached two-storey dwellings and 2
single-storey semi-detached dwellings; land adjacent Highview Felmingham
Road for Broadland Housing Association
Councillor Miss P E Ford declared a personal interest as her mother owned a piece
of land which had previously been identified as a potential housing site.
The Chairman vacated the Chair during consideration of this item to speak from the
floor as local Member. Councillor S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Mumford-Smith (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer (East) reported that amended plans had been received,
in sketch form, identifying design improvements and the additional landscaping to be
provided at the perimeters and frontage of the site. He also drew Members’ attention
to the serious shortfall in the visibility splay (27m as opposed to the required 215m).
Finally, he amended the officer recommendation to delete reference to the
architectural issues as a reason for refusal.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member, commented that any development in
Skeyton fell foul of the Highway Authority requirements and this was the preferred
site of the community. She moved, seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford, that the
application be approved.
Councillor Miss L Walker commented that there were visibility concerns at the
junction but no accident record had been provided. Also, there was a need for
affordable housing.
Councillor P J Willcox queried the speed limit in the area and the Senior Planning
Officer responded that it was 60mph for which a 215m splay was required. If the
speed limit were 30mph, the requirement would be a splay of 59m which was still
twice that currently available.
The Development Control Manager (East) advised that Members needed to weigh
the need for affordable housing against the issues of concern (Highway Authority
objection and contrary to policy). The highway safety issue was a concern as there
was a stark difference in what was available at the junction, in contrast to the
Highway Authority’s requirements. It would be difficult to justify granting planning
permission in view of these strong objections. He suggested that, if Members were
minded to approve the application, then it should be deferred to enable the applicant
Development Control Committee (East)
6
25 September 2008
to investigate measures to improve highway safety at the junction. If Members
wished to approve the application as it was, then it would need to be referred to the
Combined Committee.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins moved, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker, that the
application be referred to the Combined Committee for approval.
Councillor P J Willcox moved, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, that the
application be deferred, as recommended by the officers.
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Committee were minded to approve the application in principle
but that a full decision be deferred to enable the applicant to liaise with
the Highway Authority to explore measures to overcome the highway
safety concerns.
The Committee adjourned at 12.20pm and reconvened at 1.15pm when all of the Members
listed above were present for the remainder of the meeting, with the exception of Councillor
Miss C P Sheridan.
(121) WORSTEAD - 20080902 - Change of use from agricultural storage to B8
(storage of haulage vehicles and trailers); Brockley Farm Station Road for Mr
W Davison
The Chairman vacated the Chair during consideration of this item to speak from the
floor as local Member. Councillor S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Blyth (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer (East) reported that the agent had agreed to submit an
amended plan identifying a specific area for the vehicle storage and the
recommendation had been amended accordingly, together with a condition restricting
the number of trailers to 20 and permission be granted for a temporary period of 3
years to enable monitoring of the use.
Councillor Mrs Wilkins, the local Member, stated she was in favour of limiting the
permission to 3 years and that the maximum controls should be put in place to
protect neighbours’ amenities. She moved the application be approved.
Councillor Wilcox commented that the site was currently in agricultural use which
entailed more noise and vehicles now and the proposal to move to storage would be
of benefit to the residents as it could be strictly controlled. He seconded the proposal
to approve.
Councillor Sweeney questioned the hours of operation and whether there would be
any operations on Sundays. The Senior Planning Officer (East) replied that there
would be no operations on Sundays and the hours could be stipulated in the planning
conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
25 September 2008
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning & Building Control
to grant a 3 year temporary permission subject to the receipt of an
amended plan to delineate the area to be used for the active storage and
the imposition of appropriate conditions to include hours of use (as
recommended by Environmental Health including no use on Sundays),
landscaping and use limited to trailers associated with the existing
haulage business nearby; the storage to be restricted to trailers only
and a maximum of 20 trailers at any one time.
(122) WORSTEAD - 20081167 - Conversion and extensions to the forge to provide a
residential dwelling; Forge Cottage Westwick Road for Mr D Gilligan
The Chairman vacated the Chair during consideration of this item to speak from the
floor as local Member. Councillor S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Blyth (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer (East) reported that an amended plan had been
received, which revised the position of the proposed access. In addition, the
Development Control Manager (East) advised that, since the report had been
prepared, officers had considered the matter further and amended their
recommendation to refusal. This was on the grounds that the proposal was
considered to be contrary to Policy 29 in view of the significant increase in floorspace
(40%) and the large amount of demolition to the existing garage. Further, the
division of the curtilage was considered to be contrived; the proposed dwelling
presented a poor relationship with Forge Cottage and the parking for the new
dwelling was located off the site, which encroached onto the paddock at the rear,
linked by a footpath. Finally, the views of the Highway Authority were also still
awaited.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member, stated that the site did not adjoin the
development boundary; the proposed dwelling was not subordinate to the existing
property which would also lose its small garden. She moved, seconded by Councillor
Mrs S A Arnold, that the application be refused.
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0
That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Building
Control to refuse the application, subject to the comments of the
Highway Authority on the amended plan and any objections received; as
being contrary to Policy 29 by virtue of the degree of extension and
demolition proposed and also the unsatisfactory relationship with the
amenities of Forge Cottage.
(123) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 8 of the officers’ reports.
(124) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (East)
8
25 September 2008
(125) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(126) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 11 of the officers’ reports.
(127) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports. The Development Control
Manager (East) advised the Committee that appeal nos. 20071939 and 20071764
had both been dismissed.
(128) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(129) EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the
Press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to
the Act.
(130) PLANNING APPLICATION 20080705 PF FORMER
PLANNING APPLICATION FOR CATEGORY C PRISON
RAF
COLTISHALL:
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared a personal interest as a Honorary Member of
CETAG.
The Planning Legal & Enforcement Manager reported that the Council had received
notification of an intended Judicial Review of the decision to approve an application
for planning permission for a Category C prison on the former RAF Coltishall site.
A number of criticisms of the processing of the application had been made and
Counsel had been asked to advise. In light of that advice, it had been acknowledged
that a flood risk assessment should have been submitted and considered as part of
the decision making process. As no such assessment had been submitted, the
decision had been taken that the Council must agree to a Court Order quashing the
relevant planning permission. It was anticipated that, at a later date, a revised
application, accompanied by a flood risk assessment, would be reported to the
Committee for reconsideration.
The meeting closed at 2.20pm
Development Control Committee (East)
9
25 September 2008