31 JULY 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
M J M Baker
M R E Birch
Mrs B McGoun
Miss C P Sheridan
B Smith
Miss L Walker
P J Willcox
B Cabbell Manners - Cromer Town Ward
K E Johnson - Cromer Town Ward
J Lee - Suffield Park Ward
R C Price - Waxham Ward
E Seward - North Walsham North Ward
E C Stockton - Waterside 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
(73)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Miss P E Ford. There were no
substitute Members in attendance.
(74)
MINUTES
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 30 June 2008 were approved as
a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(75)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which she wished
to bring before the Committee.
(76)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members declared interests, the details of which are recorded under the minute of
the item concerned.
Development Control Committee (East)
1
31 July 2008
(77)
MUNDESLEY CONSERVATION
MANAGEMENT PLAN
AREA:
CHARACTER
APPRAISAL
AND
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports seeking agreement for the
draft Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals for
Mundesley to be approved for public consultation purposes.
Councillor B Smith, a local Member, thanked the Conservation and Design team on
the work that had been carried out and considered that the appraisal was a very fair
account of the situation.
It was proposed by Councillor B Smith, seconded by Councillor S J Partridge and
RESOLVED
(78)
1.
That the Draft Mundesley Character Appraisal and Management
Proposals incorporating the proposed boundary changes and Article
4(2) directions outlined in the report be approved for public consultation
purposes.
2.
That following consultation, the amended Mundesley Conservation and
Management Proposals be brought back before Committee for final
adoption.
CROMER – 20080405 – Application for Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing
Use as Single Dwellinghouse; The Bath House, The Promenade for Dr and Mrs
B C Connell
All Members declared a personal interest in this application as Dr Connell was known
to them in his capacity as a County Councillor.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ report in respect of an application
for a Certificate of Lawfulness for use of these premises as a single dwellinghouse on
the basis of the evidence submitted.
Public Speakers
Mrs Thompson (Cromer Town Council)
Mr Boyce (objecting)
Dr Connell (supporting)
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that additional petition
sheets containing approximately 300 signatures objecting to the conversion of the
property to residential use had been received. However, the petition had to be
disregarded as it was not relevant to the application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. A
letter had been received from Solicitors acting on behalf of the applicants requesting
that Members be reminded that this was not an application for planning permission
and the matter had to be determined on the evidential base and not planning policy.
The letter referred to Circular 10/97 and dealt with matters contained in the report.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that Members could not take
into account matters of planning policy or the controversial nature of this application.
The Committee had to consider the evidence as to whether the premises had been
used as a dwelling for four years. He referred to the legal background to this case
which was set out in the report. The burden of proof was with the applicants and the
Development Control Committee (East)
2
31 July 2008
balance of probabilities test had to be applied. If the Committee was satisfied that
the premises had been used as a private dwelling for four years the application must
be approved.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager referred to the summary of evidence
in the report and drew attention to Appendix 1 to the report in which the applicant
responded to points which were raised under scrutiny of the Council Tax records.
The Locum Solicitor had taken the view that the evidence was cogent and
documentary evidence had been submitted whilst the opposing view was largely
conjecture and not backed up by evidence. Any issues which related to planning
policy had to be disregarded. He strongly recommended approval of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners, a local Member, stated that he had met the applicant.
He stated that the Bath House was one of the most public buildings in Cromer and a
local landmark. He considered that a planning application for residential conversion
would have been refused. He stated that at the time of the regeneration scheme the
applicants had publicly stated that the building would remain a public amenity. He
referred to a series of telephone calls which confirmed that the applicants were not
living in the property and considered that this application should be refused. He
considered that if Members felt compromised by this application it should be referred
to the Secretary of State.
Councillor K E Johnson, a local Member, stated that he had no reason to doubt the
integrity of the officer who had made a note of a telephone call on 10 August 2004
which stated that the applicants had not moved into the property. He stated that
there would be a judicial review if this application were approved.
Councillor J Lee, Member for Suffield Park Ward, stated that he was Chairman of the
Planning Committee of Cromer Town Council. He stated that he had grave concerns
regarding this application from the outset. There had been assurances that the
premises would reopen but this had not happened. He considered that the loss of
the Bath House as an amenity would be a grave injustice. The Town Council had
serious concerns regarding the evidence which stated that the premises had been
lived in for four years.
In answer to a question the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the
test was whether the premises been used exclusively as a dwellinghouse for four
years. There was evidence that the Old Lookout and other property in London
owned by the applicants had been let to other people.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun requested comments on the payment of domestic Council
Tax, which did not commence until October 2006. The Planning Legal and
Enforcement Manager stated that for part of the four year period the applicants had
not paid Council Tax. There were some notes on the Council Tax records in this
respect which had been put to the applicants. It was for Members to consider if they
were satisfied with the applicants’ response which was contained in Appendix 1 to
the report. In his opinion, the balance of probabilities was in favour of the applicants.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that there was evidence on both sides and
proposed deferral to seek Counsel’s opinion. This was seconded by Councillor Miss
C P Sheridan.
Councillor M R E Birch was satisfied that the officers had given sufficient
consideration to this matter. He considered that it was unnecessary to seek
Counsel’s opinion and that this application should be approved.
Development Control Committee (East)
3
31 July 2008
In answer to a question the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager confirmed that
the Council would have to pay for further legal advice if the matter was to be referred
to Counsel.
Councillor M J M Baker referred to human rights issues and considered that it would
be undemocratic to approve this application when the community was so opposed to
it. The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that if this application were
deferred he would request specific advice on human rights issues.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2
That consideration of this application be deferred to seek Counsel’s
opinion on the evidence and also human rights issues.
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.
(79)
HICKLING - 20080487 - Erection of village hall; The Recreation Ground Stubb
Road for Hickling Parish Council
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mrs Chapman (Hickling Parish Council)
Mr Bunton (objecting)
Councillor E C Stockton, a local Member, stated that he had brought this application
to the Committee to allow local objectors to air their views. He considered that this
development was essential to ensure the future viability and vitality of Hickling.
Councillor S J Partridge, a local Member, supported Councillor Stockton’s comments.
He also agreed with the objector’s concerns regarding highway safety. However, the
Highway Authority had not objected and he considered that refusal on highway
grounds would be overturned on appeal.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan expressed sympathy for the objector’s concerns.
However, she supported this application.
Development Control Committee (East)
4
31 July 2008
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer stated that any lighting should be
low-key downlighting and this would be controlled by a planning condition.
Councillor Miss L Walker suggested that passing places be provided along Ouse
Lane. The Chairman stated that this was a matter for the Highway Authority to
consider.
Councillor M R E Birch asked if Anglian Water could be requested to address
problems with sewage. This was however a Building Regulations matter.
Councillor S J Partridge considered that this development could put pressure on
Anglian Water to resolve the sewage problem.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(80)
HICKLING - 20080486 - Erection of two detached two-storey dwellings; Old
Bowling Club Mallard Way for Hickling Parish Council
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mrs Chapman (Hickling Parish Council)
Mr Bunton (objecting)
Councillor E C Stockton, a local Member, stated that he had brought this application
to the Committee to allow local objectors to air their views. He considered that this
development was essential to ensure the future viability and vitality of Hickling.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that this development was intended to fund the
provision of the new village hall. In response to concerns raised by the objector
regarding overlooking, he stated that there was a fence and hedge between the site
and the objector’s dwelling, and that dormer windows were proposed which were
lower than those proposed on an earlier application for three dwellings which had
been withdrawn. He proposed approval of this application.
Councillor M R E Birch referred to the objector’s concerns regarding loss of light and
considered that the development should be single storey. He proposed refusal of
this application.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officer explained that the basic amenity
criteria in respect of rear garden depth and window to window distances were met
and he considered that the development would not result in loss of light to the
objector’s dwelling. He considered that the development would not have an impact
on the objector’s garden or conservatory except for some shadowing at times in the
winter.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
Development Control Committee (East)
5
31 July 2008
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 1
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to the completion of a Section 106
Obligation to ensure that funds from the disposal of the site go towards
the new village hall development, and subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(81)
HICKLING - 20080576 - Conversion of barn to single unit of holiday
accommodation; Plummer's Farm Barn Pockthorpe Loke Stubb Road for G A
Tallowin and Co
Councillors S J Partridge, Miss C P Sheridan and P J Willcox declared personal
interests as they were the Council’s representatives on the Internal Drainage Board.
The Committee considered item 5 of the officers’ report.
Public Speaker
Mr Goodwin (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the applicant had supplied further
information as requested by the Environment Agency. An email had been received
from the Environment Agency stating that it was satisfied that the building was not at
risk from flooding. The only outstanding issue related to safe access and egress in
the event of flooding of the surrounding area. The agent considered that residents
would be better to stay in the building.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to final confirmation from the Environment Agency that it is satisfied with the
flooding issues.
The Chairman reported that Councillor E C Stockton, a local Member, had left the
meeting but had indicated that he supported this application as it would help the
economic wellbeing of the village.
Councillor S J Partridge, a local Member, stated that the applicants had been given
the wrong advice in respect of the requirement for a sequential test. PPS25 stated
that the sequential test would not be required for change of use of an existing
building. He expressed concerns regarding inconsistency by the Environment
Agency and considered that the advice of the Internal Drainage Board should be
heeded. He supported this application.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that in his opinion there were
no Human Rights issues which would prevent approval of this application.
Councillor S J Partridge proposed approval of this application subject to appropriate
conditions, without reconsultation with the Environment Agency. This was seconded
by Councillor Miss L Walker.
The Development Control Manager suggested that the Environment Agency be
requested to recommend conditions. However, the Committee did not agree with this
suggestion.
Development Control Committee (East)
6
31 July 2008
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(82)
NORTH WALSHAM - 20080830 - Erection of eight two-storey dwellings; land
rear of 45 Happisburgh Road for Mr M Neale
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr E Seward (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Roper (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that nine letters of objection had been received
from nearby residents. The further comments of the Highway Authority were awaited
in response to the further information submitted by the applicant.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to no objection from the Highway Authority in respect of the access
proposals.
Councillor Miss L Walker considered that a smaller number of single-storey dwellings
would be appropriate for this site.
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker
That this application be refused on grounds of unacceptable layout and loss
of privacy.
The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that the development
had been designed to meet the Council’s guidelines in terms of distance from the
boundaries and adjacent dwellings. He suggested a site inspection.
Councillor S J Partridge stated that he had no objection to the development of the
site. However the height of the buildings was an issue.
As an amendment, it was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by
Councillor M R E Birch
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow negotiations
for single-storey development.
On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried by 6 votes to 2 and
on being put as the substantive proposition it was RESOLVED accordingly.
Development Control Committee (East)
7
31 July 2008
(83)
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
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr E Seward (North Walsham Town Council)
Mr Alflatt (supporting)
Mr Eburne (supporting)
The Development Control Manager referred to public concern regarding highway
safety, which should not be compromised in this case. He stated that the Landscape
Officer considered that the replacement of the hornbeam trees with other trees
further back on the site was acceptable.
The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that the applicant was
now offering 33% affordable housing, made up of 70% rented and 30% shared
equity. The District Valuer considered that 40% affordable housing would result in a
profit level significantly below accepted industry norms which would make the
development unviable. Officers considered that 33% was acceptable in this case.
Open space provision would be subject to condition but the exact location would be
subject to a future reserved matters application. The applicants had also agreed to
contribute £75,000 towards off site provision.
This was acceptable to the
Countryside and Parks Manager and would be put towards the development of the
Trackside Park which had been identified for enhancement as part of the LDF
process.
The applicants were proposing 10% renewable energy which was considered to be
appropriate at the present time.
The Development Control Manager referred to the issue regarding residential
development on this site. The amount of employment had been increased from the
original proposal and it was considered that the mixed development as now proposed
was acceptable. He referred to the public consultation that had been undertaken in
this respect.
With regard to the proximity of the development to the condensate tanks, the
Development Control Manager stated that the condensate site had not been
identified by the Health and Safety Executive as a hazardous installation. However,
the HSE’s computer model had been used for this development. The residential area
was within the outer zone and the model did not advise against residential
development in that zone. The Emergency Planning Officer had expressed concern
with regard to the strain on resources if the site had to be evacuated. However, this
was not a sufficient reason to refuse this application.
The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve this
application as set out in the report.
Councillor M R E Birch, a local Member, stated that he was concerned at the strain
on the emergency services in the event of evacuation. He was pleased to see that
highway safety along Norwich Road was being taken seriously as the proposal would
result in a tremendous increase in traffic. He considered that there was an
Development Control Committee (East)
8
31 July 2008
opportunity to secure a relief road which would help bring jobs back to the area.
requested that health services at GP level be enhanced and the hospital
upgraded to include an A&E suite. He stated that the Town Council owned
Trackside Park site and considered that the applicants should negotiate with
Town Council.
He
be
the
the
Councillor E Seward reported the comments of Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local
Member. She considered that the weaknesses of the application outweighed its
strengths. She gave great weight to the concerns of the Emergency Planning Officer
and the Operational Commander for Norfolk Police. There would be a substantial
number of vulnerable people and she considered that it would be a difficult site to
evacuate. She considered that off-site open space provision was not a substitute for
on site provision. She considered that the amount of affordable housing was
insufficient, renewable technology should be a minimum of code 2 for market housing
and code 3 for affordable housing and there was no need for a convenience store
when shops in the town were already boarded up and there was another
convenience store nearby. She deplored the loss of the hornbeam trees which were
a feature in the landscape.
Councillor Seward, Member for North Walsham North, stated that he was a member
of the Town Council. He considered that this proposal would impact on the whole
town. He remained of the view that it was potentially a suitable development but the
Committee had to form a view on the risk from the condensate site with regard to the
sheltered housing. He stated that the Town Council wanted more affordable housing
but the District Valuer’s comments had to be borne in mind. With regard to health
provision, the Committee had previously been informed that an increase in
population would attract higher funding. He was pleased that additional car parking
was being proposed for the railway station and that the proximity of housing to the
station and the town centre would reduce the need for car use. He did not support
the inclusion of a convenience store on the site as shops were already boarded up in
the town centre and it would introduce unfair competition. He requested that
stringent conditions be imposed in respect of replacement trees to ensure that there
was a positive gain over time.
Councillor Miss L Walker considered that there must be a way to resolve the issues
regarding the trees and requested that this matter be investigated. She considered
that the shop should be removed from the development and more facilities provided
for residents of the houses and sheltered accommodation, such as a sitting out area.
She requested more affordable housing for rent.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that this application was contrary to Core
Strategy. This site was the only employment site in North Walsham which did not
have a bridge on its access route. She considered that this application did not look
to the future when a site may be needed close to the station. She proposed refusal
of this application on grounds that the proposal was contrary to Core Strategy policy
SS10, the site was identified for retention as an employment area and affordable
housing was well below the Core Strategy requirement of 45%. This was seconded
by Councillor M R E Birch.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan supported the proposal. She considered that the
applicants had listened and had improved the scheme. The site could either remain
derelict or provide a balance of employment and a high proportion of rented
accommodation. She considered that it was difficult to impose open space on the
site and the applicants had offered £75,000 for off site provision as requested. She
considered that 33% affordable housing should be accepted.
Development Control Committee (East)
9
31 July 2008
Councillor S J Partridge reiterated concerns regarding the policy issues. He stated
that the applicants had bought the site at a speculative price but it was the Local
Planning Authority which was expected to bear the loss of value. He stated that the
tax relief for clearing contaminated land was 150% and that this would be a gain for
the developers which could be used to provide affordable housing. He considered
that if permission were given, the applicants could mothball the scheme until the
market conditions improved and he requested that a clawback clause be included in
the event of an increase in profits. He stated that other authorities had done so.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that clawback would have to be
investigated as part of the Section 106 obligation.
Councillor M J M Baker stated that extra heavy standard trees, as were proposed to
replace the hornbeams, were only two inches in diameter at one metre above
ground. He requested that the trees be replaced with semi-mature specimens.
Councillor P J Willcox considered that there was insufficient parking provision
proposed for the railway station. He referred to the Highway Authority’s comments
regarding the inadequacy of a right hand turning lane and suggested that a
roundabout be installed which could include the hornbeams in the centre, thus
creating an attractive entrance to the town.
In response to a question the Development Control Manager reiterated the advice
and comments regarding the condensate site. He stated that when this application
was last discussed the Environmental Health Manager had informed the Committee
that the site would be evacuated as a precautionary measure.
Councillor B Smith stated that condensate was loaded into tankers for transportation.
He considered that this posed a danger which had not been taken into consideration.
Whilst there had been no recorded leaks he considered that this matter should be
taken into account.
Councillor M R E Birch questioned why a blast wall had been required between the
tanks and the car park if there was no danger.
As there had been a number of reasons put forward for refusal of this application, on
the advice of the Head of Planning and Building Control, the Committee first voted on
the principle of refusal of this application as put forward by Councillor Mrs B McGoun
and seconded by Councillor M R E Birch. This was RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2.
The Committee then considered the further reasons put forward for refusal during the
course of discussion.
RESOLVED
That this application be refused on grounds that the proposal is
contrary to Core Strategy policy SS10, Local Plan and Core Strategy
policies on affordable housing and unacceptable loss of the hornbeam
trees which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders.
Development Control Committee (East)
10
31 July 2008
(84)
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
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared a personal interest in this application as she
was a Member of CETAG (Coltishall Eco-Town Action Group).
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Williams (objecting)
Mr Manton, Mr Cawkwell, Mr Tricker and Mr Smith (supporting)
The Development Control Manager reported that two further letters of objection had
been received in respect of this application. He referred to the letter from the
Governor Designate included in the appendices to the report in respect of the
reasons for requiring the removal of the trees and which gave assurance that it was
not a ‘tick box’ exercise.
A letter had been received from Buxton with Lamas Parish Council referring to the
memorial cherry trees, which suggested that an appropriate location would be in the
RAF Cemetery at Scottow. This would be forwarded to the Ministry of Justice for
consideration but the site was outside its control.
Discussions had recently taken place with the applicants regarding additional tree
planting. It was not considered appropriate to include the memorial garden in the
woodland area at the end of the runway. It had been provisionally agreed that there
would be a clause in the Section 106 Obligation to require the planted areas to be
offered to the District Council for a nominal fee, with a contribution towards future
maintenance being made by the Ministry of Justice. The agreement would include
provision for future maintenance and management of those areas if the Council
declined the offer. It would be beneficial to the Council to acquire these areas
provided that public access could be secured. The Ministry of Justice had indicated
that there was a likely solution to the access issues. This would be agreed during
discussion on the Section 106 obligation. A total of 12 hectares of woodland was
being offered which represented a significant contribution to mitigate the loss of
trees. The Landscape Officer was satisfied with the proposals.
Revised plans had been received in respect of materials. All new buildings would
have a brick finish. However, it was still proposed to use profiled metal sheeting as
roofing material for the new buildings for security reasons.
An ecological survey had been received which indicated some bat presence within
the secure area. The Ministry of Justice was working with consultants in respect of
mitigation measures. These would be submitted shortly if this application were
approved.
The Development Control Manager requested delegated authority to approve this
application as stated in the report subject to future maintenance of the areas of
landscaping in woodland being secured by a Section 106 obligation instead of a
condition, and subject to the Council’s Landscape Officer being satisfied with
proposed mitigation measures in relation to protected species, which may need to be
subject to a condition.
Development Control Committee (East)
11
31 July 2008
Councillor Mrs B McGoun thanked the Governor Designate for confirming that the
loss of trees was not a tick box exercise and emphasised the strength of feeling at
the loss of the trees on the site. It was essential that public access was secured.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold supported Councillor Mrs McGoun and asked how the
suggested Section 106 obligation could be enforced. She stated that there were
strong feelings in the community about the name of the prison, which had not been
mentioned.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the Section 106 obligation
would require the woodlands to be offered to the Council. The offer would not be
accepted unless public access was provided. The name of the prison was not a
planning matter.
Councillor M J M Baker asked if it could be suggested to the prison authorities that
prisoners could be employed in the maintenance of landscaped areas. The Head of
Planning and Building Control stated that this was not a planning matter but a letter
could be sent to the Ministry of Justice in this respect.
In response to a question regarding Category C, the Development Control Manager
stated that it had been pointed out that Category C could change in its definition and
therefore the Section 106 obligation would refer to the current definition of Category
C.
Councillor P J Willcox suggested that a former track which ran from Scottow village
to Scottow Church be reopened between the woodland and the church. The Head of
Planning and Building Control stated the Ministry of Justice had been asked to
investigate this but the path was closed when the airfield was established.
Reinstatement would require negotiations with third parties and could not be relied
upon.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stated that visitors to the prison could have to travel
from elsewhere and signage to the prison had to be relevant but not overbearing.
Councillor M R E Birch stated that police resources in the area were limited and
requested that a vehicle be provided to cover the perimeter of the site, so that police
officers were not removed from other duties in the event of an escape
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that additional police provision
could not be delivered through the planning system.
In answer to a question the Landscape Officer stated that if the woodland belonged
to the District Council it would not be possible to serve a Tree Preservation Order as
there would be no threat to the trees. However, if ownership were declined it would
be possible to transfer the Tree Preservation Order which was on the existing trees
to the woodland.
It was proposed by Councillor P J Willcox, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application, subject to:
Development Control Committee (East)
12
31 July 2008
(85)
1.
the completion of a Section 106 obligation to secure the
maintenance of areas of landscaping and woodland to include an
option to transfer ownership to NNDC, renewable energy and
restriction to a Category C prison (as currently defined) only;
2.
the Council’s Landscape Officer being satisfied with the
proposed mitigation measures in relation to protected species,
which may need to be subject to condition;
3.
the imposition of conditions to include
• amended plans
• those recommended by the Highway Authority
• landscape/tree planting
• materials
• those recommended by the Environmental Health Officer
• any further conditions considered necessary and reasonable
by the Head of Planning and Building Control.
SEA PALLING - 20080848 - Erection of building to provide church meeting
room; Nissen Hut site Church Road for Sea Palling Parochial Church Council
Councillors S J Partridge, B Smith, Miss L Walker and R Price stated that they were
currently members of Sea Palling Parish Council.
The Committee considered item 9 of the officers’ report.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority’s comments were
based on the inclusion of the two nissen huts on the site as part of the scheme.
However, these huts were not included and the Highway Authority no longer required
additional parking or cycle facilities. A letter had been received from the agent in
respect of the proposed hours of use condition, which would prevent the use of toilet
facilities by those attending midnight mass.
The Senior Planning Officer recommended approval as stated in the report with the
exception of the hours of use condition.
Councillor R C Price, the local Member, considered that this proposal would provide
a valuable facility for churchgoers and other parishioners. He supported the officer’s
recommendation.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss L Walker, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions to include the building to be used in association
with the church, landscaping and parking provision.
Development Control Committee (East)
13
31 July 2008
(86)
SUFFIELD - 20080874 - Retention of buildings as constructed subject to
alterations to provide for a total of eight units of holiday accommodation,
erection of courtyard walls and installation of LPG tanks; Cooks Farm Rectory
Road for D and M Hickling Properties Ltd
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins vacated the Chair during consideration of this application
to allow her to speak from the floor as local Member.
Councillor S J Partridge (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
The Committee considered item 10 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Edmonds (objecting)
Mrs Hickling (supporting)
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins informed the Committee that the Parish Council
spokesperson had had to leave the meeting prior to consideration of this application.
She read his comments to the Committee.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that the Parish Council and local residents had
worked hard to reach the current position. She considered that this matter should
now be drawn to a close. She requested that conditions be imposed with regard to
external lighting. She requested that the conditions be closely monitored.
The Senior Planning Officer suggested that condition 6 set out in the report be
amended to prevent the installation of external lighting on the north and east
elevations, and that condition 13 be amended to prevent domestic use of the
wildflower meadow.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, duly seconded and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved in accordance with the
recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control, subject
to the amendment of condition 6 to prevent the installation of external
lighting on the north and east elevations, and that condition 13 be
amended to prevent domestic use of the wildflower meadow, and that
the conditions be closely monitored.
(87)
THORPE MARKET - 20080971 - Alterations to hotel to provide guest house with
owner's accommodation, conversion of outbuildings to two dwellings and
three holiday units and erection of two semi-detached single-storey dwellings;
Green Farm Restaurant and Hotel Cromer Road for Mr P Lomax
Councillor Miss L Walker declared a personal interest in this application as she was
acquainted with Mr Lomax senior.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold declared a personal interest in this application as she
knew Mr Lomax.
The Committee considered item 11 of the officers’ report.
Development Control Committee (East)
14
31 July 2008
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, the local Member, supported this application. She
considered that it was a commonsense approach to the very real problems facing the
applicant and ensured that North Norfolk retained high quality tourist
accommodation.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold, seconded by Councillor B Smith and
RESOLVED by 6 votes to 1
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(88)
TUNSTEAD - 20080628 - Erection of three dwellings; Menwyth House Market
Street for Mr A Rowe
Councillor B Smith declared a personal interest as he had spoken briefly to the
objector prior to the meeting but it had not been in connection with this application.
The Committee considered item 12 of the officers’ report.
Public Speakers
Mr Howard (objecting)
Mr Ivins (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a further letter had been received from the
neighbour reiterating his objections.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested assurance that no harm would be done to the
trees. She was also concerned at the impact of increased use of the shingle drive
on the neighbour but did not support hard surfacing.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicant had specified low noise
surfacing for the driveway. He had been requested to ensure that the surface was
also permeable.
Councillor S J Partridge referred to a statement by the neighbour that he was not
willing to provide land for the visibility splay and asked if it would affect the
application.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that the land ownership
issue was not a planning matter. Planning permission could be granted but the
development could not take place if the issue remained unresolved.
In response to a question regarding overlooking, the Senior Planning Officer
explained that the distance between the site and the neighbouring property exceeded
the minimum distance. The site was surrounded by houses so it was difficult to make
a case for single-storey development on the site.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold expressed concern that the number of trees to be removed
did not tally between the plan and the figure given by the Landscape Officer. The
Senior Planning Officer explained that the figure given by the applicant was a loose
figure and the Landscape Officer’s figure was correct.
Development Control Committee (East)
15
31 July 2008
It was proposed by Councillor S J Partridge, seconded by Councillor Miss L Walker
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 the submission of an amended
access plan and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions in
respect of landscaping, tree protection, highway issues and to require
the driveway to be surfaced with a permeable but quiet material.
(89)
APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ report.
(90)
APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 14 of the officers’ report.
(91)
NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 15 of the officers’ report.
(92)
PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 16 of the officers’ report.
(93)
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 17 of the officers’ report.
(94)
APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 18 of the officers’ report.
The meeting adjourned for lunch at 1.30 pm, resumed at 2.05 pm and closed at 3.10
pm.
Development Control Committee (East)
16
31 July 2008