SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT TO
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) – 4 DECEMBER 2008
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the
paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is
considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save
where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
1.
LANGHAM – 20060770 - Conversion and extension of buildings to provide
hotel and village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages; Former
Glass Factory North Street for Avada Country Homes
The Committee is asked to give further consideration to this application in the light
of changes to Development Plan Policy following adoption of the North Norfolk
Core Strategy on 24 September 2008, which occurred prior to receiving the further
advice from the Council’s appointed consultants.
Background
At the meeting of Development Control Committee (West) on 27 March 2008 it was
resolved that the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to approve the
application for conversion and extension of buildings to provide a 30-bed hotel and
village shop and erection of twenty-three holiday cottages at the Former Glass
Factory, North Street, Langham.
This delegated approval was subject to:•
•
•
further satisfactory clarification from Strutt and Parker regarding the points raised
in David Forsdick’s further Advice of 17 March 2008 in consultation with the
Council’s Counsel’s advice;
subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to include tying together
the freehold of the cottages with the hotel, a phasing agreement, agreement on
the number of letting days, and to include highway improvements to include
vehicle activated signs, a 20 mph speed limit along North Street and;
the imposition of appropriate conditions to include protected species mitigation
measures, all windows facing Langham Hall to be obscure-glazed and fixed, a
requirement to undertake an archaeological survey and the removal of permitted
development rights.
Copies of the Committee Report, Appendices and Minutes of 27 March 2008 are
attached at Appendix 1 along with copies of the Committee Report and minutes of
the meeting of 16 August 2007.
Strutt & Parker, who were instructed by the Council to assess the enabling
development argument put forward by the applicant, have been asked by the Council
to re-consider their appraisal in light of the comments that had been submitted by an
objector’s solicitors and their Counsel’s advice pursuant to the resolution of 27 March
2008. A copy of Strutt & Parker’s latest report has now been received, dated 18
November 2008, which is attached at Appendix 2.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
4 December 2008
Strutt & Parker conclude at paragraph 3.1 that:“Having reviewed the decision we are satisfied that our original conclusion that the
holiday cottages are required so as to facilitate this development was the correct one.
We should point out that since November 2006 the economy and hotel market have
deteriorated significantly; particularly so in recent weeks due to the global banking
crisis and poor immediate economic outlook. We believe that if we were carrying out
the same exercise today the scheme would be financially non-viable. We are of the
opinion that when stability returns to both the banking sector and the economy our
original conclusion will still apply: that the holiday cottages are required so as to
facilitate the development.”
In respect of the proposed planning conditions and S106 Agreement, detailed in the
earlier resolution by Committee, both of these have been drafted by officers in
consultation with the applicant and are awaiting any final decision to approve.
Following the Committee resolution of 27 March 2008, the Council has sought advice
from Counsel to establish whether the delegated decision to approve should be
exercised by Head of Planning and Building Control. In response, Counsel has
referred to a case (R(on the application of Erine Kides) v. South Cambridgeshire
District Council, 2002) in which paragraph 126 states:
“In practical terms, therefore, where since the passing of the resolution some new
factor has arisen of which the delegated officer is aware, and which might rationally
be regarded as a “material consideration” for the purposes of section 70(2), it must
be a counsel of prudence for the delegated officer to err on the side of caution and
refer the application back to the authority for specific reconsideration in the light of
that new factor. In such circumstances the delegated officer can only safely proceed
to issue the decision notice if he is satisfied (a) that the authority is aware of the new
factor, (b) that it has considered it with the application in mind, and (c) that on a
reconsideration the authority would reach (not might reach) the same decision”.
Counsel refers to this case because a change in Development Plan Policy has
occurred since the delegated authority was granted. The new policies, now in force
following adoption of the North Norfolk Core Strategy on 24 September have
superseded the policies of the former saved North Norfolk Local Plan for
development plan purposes, against which the application had previously been
assessed.
In making its decision, the Committee needs to consider whether the policies
contained within the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy now outweigh the
considerations at the time of the last resolution to grant planning permission made on
27 March 2008.
The most significant change in planning policy affecting the application site is the loss
of Langham village development boundary and the de-designation of the village
employment area. As such, under new Core Strategy Policy, the site is located within
the Countryside Policy Area (SS2).
It is not considered that there are material changes in policy that would significantly
affect consideration of matters relating to highway safety (CT5, CT6), impact on the
Area or Outstanding Natural Beauty (EN1) or the impact on the Conservation Area
and listed buildings (EN8). However, Policies EN4 and EN6 would have required the
applicant to consider sustainable construction and energy efficiency in the design of
the development. Nonetheless the applicant had previously proposed a number of
energy efficiency measures as part of the application which officers consider have
gone some way to meeting the new requirements relating to Policy EN6.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
4 December 2008
Whilst the twenty-three new build holiday cottages would still be considered contrary
to adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, as was the case when determining the
application previously, It is considered that the enabling development argument put
forward to justify the development to ensure, in part, the preservation of the listed
buildings and the viability of the scheme still remains the overriding consideration in
this instance. Notwithstanding the change in policy it is still considered that the
benefits of the scheme outweigh the policy objections to the proposed development
on a former village employment site subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions and the finalisation of the Section 106 Agreement.
In balancing the new material considerations that have arisen, it is considered that
Committee should also take into account:
1. The report commissioned by the Council in respect of the “enabling development”
argument put forward by the applicant to justify the provision of twenty-three
holiday cottages;
2. The resolution made by Development Control Committee (West) on 27 March
2008 to delegate approval to the Head of Planning and Building Control and at
which it was considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the policy
objections to the proposed development on a former village employment site
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions and the imposition of a Section
106 Agreement.
3. The resolution made by the Combined Development Control Committee on 10
April 2008 regarding the determination of planning applications “on-hand” upon
recent of the final binding report in respect of the adopted North Norfolk Core
Strategy; and
4. Article 6 of schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the right to a fair civil
determination)
Committee must also take into account the fact that the delays in determining the
application since 27 March 2008 have been through no fault or delay on the part of
the applicant.
Summary
The proposal has been considered against Development Plan policies (i.e. Planning
Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 13, PPG 15, PPG 16, Planning Policy Statement (PPS)
9, PPS 23, Saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policies 4, 10, 13, 17, 18, 36, 37, 39, 42,
126, 127, 153 and Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies SS1, SS2,
SS4, SS5, SS6, Saved North Norfolk Local Plan Policy 29, EN1, EN2, EN4, EN6,
EN8, EN9, EN13, EC2, EC5, EC7, EC9, CT2, CT5, CT6).
Whilst the policies contained within the LDF Core Strategy are material
considerations, the application was submitted before receipt of the Inspector’s
binding report and discussions with the applicant were well advanced to the extent
that a resolution to approve had been made by the determining authority with only
matters of clarity and detail outstanding at the time of the Committee resolution of 27
March 2008. Whilst the policies against which the proposal had been assessed have
been superseded, the applicant is entitled, in accordance with Article 6 of the Human
Rights Act 1998, to expect their application to be determined fairly. As such, even in
light of the identified material consideration (adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy),
approval of the application, subject to the imposition of conditions and finalisation of
the Section 106 Agreement, is considered to be justified, proportionate and in
accordance with planning law.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
4 December 2008
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval subject to the finalisation of the Section 106 agreement and subject
to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
Source: (Geoff Lyon, Extn 6226 – File Reference 20060770)
Development Control Committee (West)
4
4 December 2008