30 JUNE 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
B Smith
P J Willcox
J A Wyatt - substitute for S J Partridge
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Mr S Hems - Environmental Health Manager
Mr J Chinnery - Locum Solicitor
Mrs T Armitage - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mrs F Callaghan - Conservation and Design Officer
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
Mr P Cason - Development Officer (Housing)
Mr D Higgins - Senior Engineer, Major Developments (NCC Highways)
(53)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M R E Birch, S J Partridge,
Miss C P Sheridan and Miss L Walker. One substitute Member attended the meeting
as shown above.
(54)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 June 2008 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(55)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(56)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors M J M Baker declared an interest, the details of which are recorded under
the minute of the item concerned.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
30 June 2008
(57)
ALDBOROUGH CONSERVATION AREA:
MANAGEMENT PLAN
CHARACTER APPRAISAL
AND
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports seeking agreement for the
adoption of the Aldborough Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management
Plan (June 2008) for statutory planning purposes and as a material consideration in
the planning process.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained that the production of
Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plans was a corporate aim
for the Council. Their purpose was to define the character of the Conservation
Areas, provide a basis for planning decisions and to take a proactive approach to the
enhancement of the Conservation Area.
The Conservation and Design Officer explained the key issues arising from the
Appraisal and the Management Proposals which resulted from it.
Councillor P J Willcox, the local Member, thanked the Conservation and Design
Officer for her hard work on the report. He stated that the public meeting had been
well attended and he was pleased to see that some of the views expressed by the
residents had been taken up. He stated that any affordable housing which was built
within the Conservation Area should be of a suitably high standard.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that if the document were
approved it would become a material consideration in dealing with planning
applications and pre-application discussions and would require any development to
be of a high standard and respect its setting.
Councillor Willcox stated that density of development and number of dwellings were
important issues. He considered that as development density increased, the
conservation value decreased.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
and
RESOLVED unanimously
1.
That the final draft of the Aldborough Conservation Area Character
Appraisal & Management Plan (June 2008) be formally adopted by the
Council for statutory planning purposes and as such be a ‘material
consideration’ in the planning process.
2.
That the proposed boundary changes as recommended in the draft
Appraisal document be adopted and publicised in accordance with the
Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
3.
That further reports be brought before the Committee relating to
specific proposals contained in the above document, eg introduction of
Article 4(2) directions.
4.
That Officers prepare improvement programmes in respect of the above
as appropriate and seek budgetary provision for their implementation.
Development Control Committee (East)
2
30 June 2008
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.
(58)
HOVETON - 20080777 - Erection of 18m wind turbine; Hoveton Old Hall Stone
Lane Ashmanhaugh for Mr M Woodfine
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr McLintock (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that the Countryside Officer had no
objection to this application.
Councillor N D Dixon, the local Member, had requested that this application be
brought before the Committee but was not present at the meeting to give his views,
nor had he submitted his views in writing. Councillor M J M Baker referred to
paragraph 13.3 of the Planning Protocol which stated that Ward Members were
expected to attend meetings at which such ‘called in’ applications were discussed
and considered that it was good manners to do so. Councillor Mrs S A Arnold added
that the applicant had had to spend money to get his agent to represent him at this
meeting.
Councillor Mrs Arnold requested a presentation to Members in respect of wind
turbines. The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Council’s
Environmental Policy Officer would be giving a presentation to Members and he
would ask her to cover this topic.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objections being raised by
National Air Traffic Services and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
30 June 2008
(59)
MUNDESLEY - 20080808 - Demolition of single-storey dwelling and stables and
erection of eight two-storey dwellings; 17 Marina Road for Mrs P Smith
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Lawson (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that no objections had been received
from the Parish Council or Environmental Health.
The Development Control Manager stated that the refusal of application 20071338
was subject to appeal. He read to the Committee extracts from the Inspector’s report
in respect of an appeal against refusal of a planning application at Overstrand within
the 100 year erosion zone. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector had supported
the precautionary approach.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, stated that he was not opposed to development
on this site. However, there were unresolved technicalities and he considered it
necessary to decide whether the application should be determined under existing
policies or emerging policy.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reminded the Committee that the
previous application had been considered together with other similar applications.
The Committee had taken the policy decision to consider those applications against
emerging policy. The approach had been supported on appeal by the Planning
Inspector and there was a real risk of inconsistency if the Committee were to change
its view on this application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that options should be explored which would
make use of the land for its remaining lifetime, rather than blight the land for many
years to come.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that a strategic approach was
being considered by the Coastal Management Team. It was important to find a use
for such land. He recommended that this application be refused but suggested that
discussions take place with the landowner to find a temporary use for the site.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford
and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control, and the applicant be
invited to enter into discussions for a possible alternative use for the
site.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
30 June 2008
(60)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080134 - Erection of one hundred and forty-nine
dwellings, (forty of which are sheltered), sixty-bed care home, ten employment
units and convenience store; Hopkins Homes site Norwich Road for Hopkins
Homes Limited
Councillor M J M Baker declared a personal interest in this application as his
Company owned land adjacent to the site. However, he considered that this would
not affect his judgement of the application.
The Chairman stated that all Members had received a letter from the applicants.
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Cllr E Seward (representing North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Houghton (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the binding report in respect of the Core
Strategy had been received from the Inspector. The report was still being considered
by the officers but the Core Strategy had been declared sound. There was no
presumption in the revised Housing Land Supply Statement that the Council should
consider housing on sites which had not previously been identified for housing use.
However, the current proposal was for a mixed development. The two main issues
for consideration were whether the proposal would undermine employment policy
objectives and whether the site was suitable and sustainable for housing
development.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the District Valuer considered that the
figures contained in the applicant’s affordable housing statement were realistic and
that 30% affordable housing was reasonable in this case.
A revised plan had been received which indicated the removal of two hornbeam trees
with compensatory planting along the Norwich Road frontage. Whilst the trees were
attractive, their removal would have clear highway benefits. If the application were
approved conditions would be imposed to require a high quality landscape scheme
along the frontage.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that given the mix of development proposed and
the potential for job generation, employment provision and the provision of affordable
and market housing in a sustainable location, it was considered that the scheme
offered sufficient benefit to justify a departure from policy. She advised the
Committee that if Members required further feedback on the Core Strategy this
application should be deferred. However, the officer recommendation was for
delegated authority to approve this application subject to the completion of a Section
106 Agreement to secure infrastructure payments and affordable housing provision,
and the imposition of appropriate conditions to include issues to be addressed at the
reserved matters stage, landscaping, and conditions required by Environmental
Health and the Environment Agency.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, reported that Councillor M R E Birch, also a
local Member, could not support this application until the concerns raised by the
Town Council had been addressed. She also did not support the application as it
stood. She gave great weight to issues raised by the Emergency Planning Officer in
respect of the nearby condensate tanks. She also expressed concerns regarding the
Development Control Committee (East)
5
30 June 2008
shortfall in affordable housing, loss of an employment site, the impact of the
convenience store on the viability of the town centre and loss of trees. She
considered that 20% renewable energy technology should be achieved on this site.
Councillor Miss P E Ford expressed concern at the proximity of the condensate tanks
and requested that careful consideration be given to layout to avoid having only
affordable or lower cost housing located near the tanks. She expressed a preference
for the site to be redeveloped for employment purposes, but accepted that there was
an economic downturn and the site would be expensive to clear. She considered
that negotiations should take place for more affordable housing on the site, but given
the economic factors this should be between the 30% being offered and 45%. She
proposed delegated approval subject to negotiations for more affordable housing, a
Section 17 report, more open space provision, 20% renewable energy, the
completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions.
In answer to a question regarding infrastructure, the Senior Planning Officer
explained that Anglian Water had no objection. EDF Energy required a contribution
towards off-site infrastructure works. There was capacity in local schools to
accommodate the development. Local doctors and the Primary Care Trust had been
consulted as part of the Local Development Framework and had raised no objection
in terms of the identification of North Walsham for further growth.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that the site was a good business area being close
to the railway station, but she considered that the proposal was a perfect template to
provide housing to enable people to remain in the community as they became older.
However, she referred to the difficulty in securing affordable housing even when
business was good for developers. She questioned the projected number of jobs put
forward by the developers. She was concerned at the limited amount of open space
and considered that a financial contribution for off-site provision would not help the
residents of this development. She was concerned at the loss of trees and
questioned whether proper consideration was being given to the future. On balance,
she considered that the area should be retained for business and she was therefore
opposed to this application.
In answer to a question the Environmental Health Manager explained that an incident
involving the condensate tanks was likely to result in evacuation of the site on a
precautionary basis.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold stated that there was no interest in developing the site for
business. She was concerned at the loss of trees and open space provision. She
considered that negotiations should take place for more on-site open space with play
equipment. She stated that the affordable housing should be of equal quality to the
market housing. She seconded Councillor Ford’s proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was often the case that open space was
supplemented by off-site provision. This was however a matter that would be
negotiated at reserved matters stage.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Housing Corporation
required affordable housing to meet standards which were higher than standards set
for market housing. Layout would be considered at reserved matters stage.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that insufficient consideration had been given to
the preservation of the protected trees and suggested that the access be moved to
allow the retention of the hornbeams
Development Control Committee (East)
6
30 June 2008
The Senior Engineer, Major Developments stated that the access was in the
optimum position and it would not be possible to move the access point.
It was suggested that the issues raised by Members should be explored and the
application brought back to the Committee for consideration. Councillor Miss Ford
withdrew her proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor M J M Baker, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That consideration of this application be deferred to negotiate in respect
of affordable housing provision and possible alternative access to
enable retention of the hornbeams, to seek a layout for consideration
which includes open space and to seek comments on 20% renewable
energy.
(61)
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 5, 6 and 7 of the officers’ reports.
The Development Control Manager reported that the applicants had revised the sales
price of the dwellings and the developers’ percentage profit under option 2 set out in
the exempt appendices to the report would reduce accordingly. He requested
delegated authority to approve these applications subject to the completion of a
Section 106 Agreement to secure four of the new dwellings as affordable housing
In answer to a question by the Chairman, the Housing Development Officer
explained the protracted negotiations that had taken place with the applicants in
respect of the affordable element of the scheme and why he considered that four
affordable dwellings were acceptable in this case. He considered that the two-bed
market dwellings that would be created by the subdivision of the existing dwellings
would be affordable to people who wanted to buy a starter home. He considered that
if this application were refused the applicants would simply refurbish the large threebedroomed dwellings as they stood as it would not make commercial sense to offer a
higher number of affordable dwellings.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun stated that she had questions regarding the figures given
in the exempt appendices.
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 it involves the likely disclosure of exempt
information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as
amended) to the Act.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
30 June 2008
The Housing Development Officer answered Members’ questions in respect of the
figures contained in the exempt appendices to the report. He stated that the District
Valuer had been consulted an in general the figures provided by Annington were
found to be reasonable.
The press and public were readmitted to the meeting.
Councillor M J M Baker considered that the proposal would amount to a substantial
change in policy.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 3 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions
That consideration of these applications be deferred to seek
independent verification of the figures in the development appraisal
submitted by the applicants.
(63)
SCOTTOW - 20080705 - Conversion of former RAF buildings to Category C
prison and erection of buildings to provide ancillary accommodation; former
RAF Coltishall Tunstead Road for National Offender Management Service
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Ewing (Skeyton Parish Council)
Mrs Rix (Buxton with Lammas Parish Council)
Mr Manton, Mr Gough, Mr Cawkwell and Mr Freer (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that Broadland District Council was a
consultee on this application. It had resolved to raise no objection to this application
subject to NNDC having regard to the comments set out in the report to its Planning
Committee and to a routing agreement.
The Development Control Manager reported that the Highway Authority had no
objection subject to a number of conditions in respect of highway and access
improvements, directional signage, car and cycle parking, a travel plan and
construction traffic measures. A further letter of objection had been received from a
third party requesting a public inquiry into the development and referring to a number
of Freedom Of Information Act requests that had been made to the Ministry of
Justice. No representations had been received from Scottow or Westwick Parish
Councils. A copy of a letter of objection from Belaugh Parish Council had been
received in respect of proximity of the prison to dwellings, integration of staff and their
families into the community and in the Broads National Park.
The Development Control Manager reported the comments of the Economic and
Tourism Development Manager, who considered that whilst there could be some
claims that the proposal could change the image of the area as a tourist destination,
overall there would be economic and job creation benefits.
The Development Control Manager reported that in mitigation for the loss of trees the
applicants had proposed two new areas of tree planting in the form of a memorial
garden and managed woodland. Future maintenance and access would be secured
Development Control Committee (East)
8
30 June 2008
through Section 106. Additional landscaping belts were proposed adjacent to the
sensitive site boundaries. It was suggested that an evergreen conifer hedge be
planted between the Douglas Bader Centre and the security fence. A Section 106
Obligation would also include a commitment to the provision of a wind turbine in the
future, and to ensure that the prison would remain a Category C prison only.
A letter from the applicant had been emailed to Members confirming that there were
no proposals to extend the prison beyond the proposed boundaries, the site had
been chosen as there were buildings to convert, junction improvements had been
agreed with the Highway Authority and the new access road would be in place before
prisoners were brought in to the facility. The applicant considered that the link road
to Scottow was not justified in terms of highway impact and environmental cost. The
applicant had made comments regarding the contribution made by the protected
trees and considered that their replacement would have a wider community benefit.
The Development Control Manager stated that the main issue was whether the
Committee considered that the replacement planting was sufficient to mitigate the
loss of the existing trees. If so, he recommended delegated approval subject to the
completion of a Section 106 Obligation to secure renewable energy in the form of a
wind turbine, future provision and maintenance of planted areas, restriction to a
Category C prison only and conditions including highways, landscaping, materials,
lighting, noise levels, delivery hours, conditions recommended by Environmental
Health and other appropriate conditions required by the Head of Planning and
Building Control.
The Locum Solicitor advised the Committee that in Human Rights terms it was
necessary to balance the need for the prison with safeguarding the surrounding
environment.
The Landscape Officer reported that planting schemes had been received in respect
of the memorial garden and community woodland. He considered that the scheme
for the memorial garden was good as it placed cherry trees in a position where the
public could see them and visit. He considered that the families of the people
concerned should have input into the scheme. He had reservations about the
planting scheme for the community woodland. Approximately 60 trees would be
replaced, whereas 158 trees would be lost, and the proposal would result in the loss
of the significant avenue of trees along the road. Discussions were taking place with
the Ministry of Justice and he was confident that an acceptable scheme could be
agreed which would include more woodland planting to the north of the site.
The Chairman stated that she had been present at Parish Council meetings in her
Ward when this application had been discussed and mixed views had been
expressed.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold stated that she did not object to this application in
principle, but considered that the loss of the trees was undesirable. The trees were
important in the landscape and some had been planted as a memorial to RAF
personnel who had died. She stated that the removal of the trees would have an
impact on carbon emissions. She suggested that some of the trees be retained for
two years to assess whether they could be managed for the benefit of the prisoners.
She stated that no wildlife survey had been carried out. She requested comments in
response to the Ministry of Justice’s comments on the maturity of the protected trees.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
30 June 2008
The Landscape Officer stated that the Council assessed trees against British
Standards. The Ministry of Justice survey was considered to be flawed as it failed to
include reference to the historic landscape. He considered that the trees were of
high enough quality to warrant a Tree Preservation Order given their historical value.
The Ministry of Justice had referred to the age of the trees. However, the Tree
Preservation Order required the replacement of failed trees so that the historical
value was not lost.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun questioned the rationale for the loss of the trees. She was
concerned that it was simply a case of the Ministry of Justice ticking a box on all
applications to say there would be no trees. She had no objection to the prison in
principle.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to comments from the Ministry of
Justice regarding trees within secure establishments, which set out reasons why they
were not suitable.
Councillor M J M Baker questioned the need for the prison and considered that the
problems with the increase in the prison population could be solved without causing
vandalising the area and its history. He stated some of the prison staff had already
been appointed and was concerned that this application was a fait accompli.
Councillor P J Willcox did not object to the concept of the prison but he was unhappy
with the box profile roofs and considered that brick facing should be used throughout
the site. He considered that the proposed community woodland swamped the view
along the road and suggested that a wildlife meadow be planted in that location. He
suggested that a woodland be planted at the end of the runway of at least an equal
size to the prison site, which would provide some carbon payback. He proposed
delegated approval subject to negotiations with regard to the community woodland
and design of buildings. This was not seconded.
Councillor Miss P E Ford stated that she supported the application in principle but
opposed the removal of any trees unless it was essential to do so. She considered
that the retention of the trees would be beneficial in terms of ecology and to people
within the prison. She requested that the applicants work closely with the Landscape
Officer to retain as many trees as possible, and to include a prison garden within the
scheme. She referred to the employment benefits of the scheme.
The Landscape Officer stated that he was happy to work with the Ministry of Justice
to achieve significant community woodland. He agreed that there was benefit for the
prisoners to see trees and suggested that they could be involved in planting and
maintaining the woodland.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins requested that the World War 2 Spitfire pit be
acknowledged.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, duly seconded and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek clarification of
the rationale for the loss of trees within the secure area, negotiations for
additional woodland planting and possible prison garden, and to seek
further details in respect of materials.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
30 June 2008
(64)
SOUTHREPPS - 20080556 - Erection of three two-storey
Honeysuckle Cottage Long Lane for Mr M Hardingham
dwellings;
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Chappell (objecting)
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold stated that the Chairman of Southrepps Parish Council
had registered to speak at the meeting but had to leave before this application was
considered. She read his statement to the Committee.
The Development Control Manager reported that the scheme had now been reduced
to three dwellings. Further amendments had been received since the site inspection
to indicate one of the dwellings located further back on the site.
The Development Control Manager reported that the Parish Council continued to
object strongly to the amended plans. He outlined the points of concern raised by
the Parish Council.
The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve this
application subject to no new grounds of objection being received on expiry of the
reconsultation period and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions,
including landscaping, access and materials.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, stated that she was not aware that the
scheme had been reduced to three dwellings. She was happy with three dwellings
on the site but was concerned with regard to the impact on the adjacent dwelling and
highway impact. She considered that the existing access should be used.
The Development Control Manager stated that the Highway Authority had
objection to the proposed new access as it would have better visibility than
existing access. He considered that there would be no overshadowing given
revised position of the dwelling at the front of the site. Given the concerns of
local Member, he suggested that permitted development rights be removed.
no
the
the
the
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor Mrs B
McGoun and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no new grounds of objection on
expiry of the reconsultation period and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions, including landscaping, access, materials and
removal of permitted development rights.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
30 June 2008
(65)
SWANTON ABBOTT - 20080783 - Erection of single-storey dwelling; land
adjacent The Conifers Cross Road for Mr R G J Wallace
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that she wished to vacate the Chair to speak as
local Member on this application. In the absence of the Vice-Chairman, it was
RESOLVED
That Councillor Mrs B McGoun chair the meeting during consideration
of this application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ reports.
The Development Control Manager reported that the Parish Council objected to this
application on overdevelopment, drainage and access grounds. Three further letters
and a petition containing 15 signatures had been received objecting to this
application on the same grounds as set out in the report. The Highway Authority had
raised no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, the local Member, stated that she had received
correspondence and a petition in respect of this application. She considered that
there had been no changes to the scheme since the previous refusal and the
application should be refused. She stated that there was an ongoing issue with foul
drainage and there had been repeated requests to Environmental Health and Anglian
Water to solve the problems in the area. She considered the development was
poorly designed, would be detrimental to existing dwellings and was backland
development.
The Head of Planning and Building Control advised that this application should not
be refused on drainage grounds as the applicants had submitted information in
respect of sewage disposal.
In answer to a question the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the
Local Plan policy on backland development had been eroded in recent years and
was not a ‘saved’ policy pending adoption of the Core Strategy.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, seconded by Councillor Miss P E
Ford and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be refused on the same grounds as for the
previous application, except for the drainage reason.
Development Control Committee (East)
12
30 June 2008
(66)
THORPE MARKET - 20080796 - Erection of two-storey dwelling; land at Sandpit
Lane for Mr and Mrs A A Wayte
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ reports.
The Development Control Manager reported that the Highway Authority had objected
to this application. Six further letters of objection had been received on grounds
relating to the restricted width of the plot, width of Sandpit Lane, the impact on the
outbuilding on the site and rights of access onto the lane. The objectors had
suggested a site inspection.
However, Members had recently visited the
neighbouring site and were familiar with the area. A letter had been received from
the Chairman of the Parish Council which conflicted with the views previously
expressed by the Parish Council.
The Development Control Manager recommended refusal of this application on
highway safety grounds.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, stated that she had supported the
application on the adjacent site. She did not have strong views on this application.
She stated that it was the last opportunity for development along the lane.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that the proposal would overdevelop the site.
In answer to a question the Development Control Manager stated that Thorpe Market
would no longer have a development boundary following adoption of the Core
Strategy.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs B McGoun, seconded by Councillor Miss P E Ford
and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 1
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposed dwelling
would be cramped on the plot, overdevelop the site and fail to enhance
the Conservation Area.
(67)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports.
(68)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(69)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 14 of the officers’ reports.
(70)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 15 of the officers’ reports.
(71)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
30 June 2008
(72)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 17 of the officers’ reports.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.10 pm, resumed at 1.50 pm and closed at 2.50
pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
30 June 2008