5 MARCH 2009
Minutes of a meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST) held in the
Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when there were present:
Councillors
H C Cordeaux (Chairman)
J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman)
B Cabbell Manners
Mrs A R Green
P W High
S C Mears
T H Moore
J H Perry-Warnes
J D Savory
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs G M D Lisher - substitute for Mrs P Bevan Jones
M J M Baker - Holt Ward
Mrs L M Brettle - Glaven Valley Ward
Mrs H T Nelson - Sheringham South Ward & Portfolio Holder for Tourism
Officers
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr G Lyon - Acting Development Control Manager (West)
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Miss J Medler - Senior Planning Officer (West)
Mrs C Bye - Environmental Protection Officer
Mr S Case - Landscape Officer
(255) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones. One
substitute Member attended the meeting as shown above.
(256) MINUTES
Councillor Mrs A R Green was incorrectly recorded as local Member for Great
Snoring under Minute (243) of the meeting of 5 February 2009.
Subject to the above, the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 February
2009 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
(257) ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(258) DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors H C Cordeaux, Mrs A R Green and J H Perry-Warnes declared an
interest, the details of which are recorded under the minute of the item concerned.
Development Control Committee (West)
1
5 March 2009
(259) BRISTON – Tree Preservation Order (Briston) 2008 No.14 Turkey Farm,
Norwich Road
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in respect of a Tree
Preservation Order (TPO) at the above site.
Public Speakers
Mr Chambers (Briston Parish Council)
Mr Reger (objecting)
Mr Serne (supporting)
The Landscape Officer stated that the purpose of the Tree Preservation Order was to
protect amenity and ensure appropriate management. The trees under threat formed
part of the most important section of woodland. Some trees had already been
removed by EDF Energy and it would not help to remove more trees.
Councillor J A Wyatt, the local Member, referred to the previous history of odour
complaints. He stated that there had been no odour complaints since the tree belt
had been planted. He considered that odour problems could recur if the trees were
removed. He proposed that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the Tree Preservation Order was
unnecessary bureaucracy and that the matter could be resolved by discussion. He
suggested deferral for one month to allow discussions to take place.
The Landscape Officer outlined the difficulties he had had in respect of negotiations
on this matter, which resulted in the serving of the Tree Preservation Order.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that in his opinion confirmation
of the Order would not prevent future discussions and negotiations in respect of the
trees. Confirmation of the Order would mean that the Council could negotiate from a
position of strength.
It was proposed by Councillor P W High, seconded by Councillor J A Wyatt and
RESOLVED by 8 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
That Tree Preservation Order (Briston) 2008 No.14 Turkey Farm,
Norwich Road be confirmed as served.
(260) STODY – 20071823 – Continued use of part of dwelling as one unit of holiday
accommodation; 1 Green Farm Barn The Green Hunworth for Mrs P A
Hoskison
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports in respect of this application
for the continued use of part of dwelling as one unit of holiday accommodation which
had been referred back to the Committee for further consideration at the request of
the local Member.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Parish Council objected to this
application on grounds of lack of parking spaces on the site and impact on the village
green.
Development Control Committee (West)
2
5 March 2009
Councillor Mrs L M Brettle, the local Member, stated that she shared the Parish
Council’s concerns with regard to parking on the village green. She referred to the
Committee’s previous decision to approve this application. She stated that she did
not support the application.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the decision was not
made until the decision notice was issued. However, the previous resolution should
be borne in mind and Members should reflect on what had changed since that
resolution.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that the Committee had visited the site since the
previous resolution. He considered that the applicant had not helped the situation as
the garage was currently used for storage and therefore unavailable for parking
purposes.
Councillor J A Wyatt added that the car parking spaces currently offered by the Stody
Estate were not guaranteed. He proposed refusal of this application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners noted that the Highway Authority had no objection and
proposed approval of this application in accordance with the recommendation of the
Head of Planning and Building Control.
Councillor P W High seconded Councillor Wyatt’s proposal for refusal of this
application.
RESOLVED by 7 votes to 2 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused on grounds of lack of car parking
provision in accordance with adopted standards, which may encourage
parking on the village green.
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.
Development Control Committee (West)
3
5 March 2009
(261) EDGEFIELD - 20090073 - Retention of replacement livestock building; Blackhall
Farm Chapel Hill for G W Harrold and Partners
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a prejudicial interest in this application as his
nephew is the tenant and vacated the Council Chamber during consideration of this
matter.
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from the
applicant’s agent stating that following a complaint from the occupier of Blackhall
Farm the security lighting had been removed and replaced with motion sensitive
lighting. The number of pigs that could be housed was similar to the number housed
in the previous buildings. The applicant had indicated that there would be no
increase in vehicular movements.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Highway Authority had no objection to
this application. Environmental Health had been reconsulted with regard to the
security lighting.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
subject to no objection being received from Environmental Health in respect of the
security lighting and subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include the
use of the security lighting.
It was proposed by Councillor J D Savory, duly seconded and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to no objection being received from
Environmental Health in respect of the security lighting and subject to
the imposition of appropriate conditions to include the use of the
security lighting.
(262) HOLT - 20081565 - Erection of workshop and display building and use of land
for display and manufacture of timber buildings; The Poultry Farm Cley Road
for Thaxters Custom Made Buildings Ltd
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Lucy Spink (objecting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environmental Protection Officer had
no objection subject to the imposition of conditions. A traffic study had been
submitted. The Highway Authority had raised no objection subject to the imposition
of conditions. A letter had been received from the Holt Chamber of Trade which
raised no objection subject to retail use being restricted to the applicant only and no
parking on the highway. The comments of the Planning Policy Manager were
awaited.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to refuse this application
as set out in the report.
Development Control Committee (West)
4
5 March 2009
The Acting Development Control Manager reported that the Economic and Tourism
Development Manager supported this application.
Councillor P W High, a local Member, supported this application.
Councillor M J M Baker expressed surprise that the Highway Authority had no
objection to further commercial development in the New Street/Cley Road area. He
stated that there were traffic problems at the junction. He stated that parked vehicles
along Cley Road and New Street made it impossible to drive from the King’s Head to
the cemetery without pulling in to allow other traffic to pass. He expressed concern
at the height of the proposed building, the mainly retail nature of the business and
potential traffic generation. He considered that there was no desire for retail outside
the town centre. He questioned whether the proposed development was appropriate
in close proximity to the cemetery.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that the application should be approved given
the number of jobs involved. She considered that there would be little traffic. She
requested that strict controls be placed on noise and odour.
Councillor Mrs G M Lisher was concerned at noise disturbance to visitors to the
cemetery.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney expressed concern in respect of highway issues,
particularly during the summer.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that the LDF Working Party had decided not to
allocate a nearby site at Peacock Lane for development on grounds that it did not
wish to encourage more traffic. He stated that there was a large site to the north of
the A148 which had been proposed for allocation for employment use.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs A R Green, seconded by Councillor Mrs A C
Sweeney
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of appropriate
conditions.
The Acting Development Control Manager stated that if Members were minded to
approve this application it should be referred to a Combined meeting of the
Development Control Committees.
On being put to the vote, 4 Members voted in favour, with 4 against and 2
abstentions. The proposal was declared lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.
It was proposed by Councillor J D Savory, seconded by Councillor Mrs G M Lisher
and
RESOLVED by 5 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to refuse
this application on grounds of conflict with Countryside development
policy, adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
detriment to the appearance of the Conservation Area and subject to
any further issues raised by outstanding consultees.
Development Control Committee (West)
5
5 March 2009
(263) HOLT - 20090002 - Conversion of stable to two-storey dwelling and erection of
two two-storey dwellings; rear of 27 High Street for C T Baker Limited
This application had been withdrawn.
(264) HOLT - 20090053 - Use of land for siting of Victorian Gallopers; North Norfolk
Railway, Holt Station Cromer Road High Kelling for Miss Jones
Councillor H C Cordeaux declared a personal interest in this application as he was a
member of the Kelling Hospital Appeal but stated that he had been advised that he
could speak and vote on this matter. He vacated the Chair to allow him to speak as
local Member for High Kelling.
Councillor J A Wyatt (Vice-Chairman) in the Chair.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson declared a personal interest as she was Chairman of
North Norfolk Museums Committee.
The Committee considered item 6 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr Bedford (High Kelling Parish Council)
Mr Wiley (objecting)
Mr James (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee the comments of NHS Norfolk
and Norfolk Community Health Care expressing concern regarding the level of noise
from the organ, noise nuisance and impact on patient care and requesting clarity in
respect of days of operation. An additional letter had been received from North
Norfolk Railway confirming that it did its utmost to meet concerns of local residents
and would do its best to prevent nuisance. The Gallopers were considered to be a
significant attraction to support the railway.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicant’s noise consultant had
responded to noise complaints in respect of the whistle, which was similar to that
used by the railway and was sounded only at the start and finish of the ride. The
consultant had submitted further information in respect of the rolling stock acoustic
barrier and plans had been submitted to indicate the location of the barrier.
The Senior Planning Officer read to the Committee additional comments from the
Environmental Protection Officer in respect of the further information submitted by
the applicant’s noise consultant. She did not wish to restrict the use of the whistle or
impose noise limits. She considered that conditions would be sufficient to control
noise and that Environmental Protection powers were sufficient to investigate any
complaints.
The Senior Planning Officer requested delegated authority to approve this application
for a temporary period of one year subject to conditions to ensure that the rolling
stock is kept in position during the operation of the gallopers and other appropriate
conditions.
Development Control Committee (West)
6
5 March 2009
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that the site affected residents in High Kelling, rather
than Holt. At his request a recording of the organ was played to the Committee. He
considered that the relocation of the gallopers and placing of the rolling stock would
reduce the noise but it was not ideal because of the gaps between and underneath
the rolling stock. He stated that Pine Heath Ward had been unoccupied during the
previous operation of the gallopers and there had therefore been no complaints in
that respect. He considered that the continuous repetition of the noise would be
terribly intrusive for local residents and patients on Pine Heath Ward. He reiterated
the comments of NHS Norfolk with regard to the interference with the care
environment and impact on patients’ recovery and care. He considered that
temporary permission was inappropriate as it would be difficult to move the gallopers
once they were in place. He proposed refusal of this application which was
seconded by Councillor P W High (local Member for Holt).
Councillor M J M Baker (local Member for Holt) stated that he had received no direct
complaints regarding the gallopers.
Councillor S C Mears expressed concern at the impact on patients, based on his
professional knowledge. He was also concerned at the reliance on moveable objects
to screen the noise.
In answer to a question the Environmental Protection Officer stated that she was not
aware of how the applicant’s noise consultant intended to control the noise of the
whistle. However, the Council had powers to investigate complaints and seek to
resolve issues both formally and informally. She had serious concerns regarding
grounds to refuse this application on the basis of the technical and acoustic
information that had been presented. She stated that predicted noise levels within
Pine Heath Ward had been estimated and they were well below acceptable noise
levels not only for day time but also at night. She stated her view that it would be
difficult to present technical evidence in support of refusal in the event of an appeal.
She offered to answer any queries and discuss her comments in further detail.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners considered that the gallopers would be too close to the
hospital. He considered that the effectiveness of the noise attenuation should be
tested for the 28 day permitted development period.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, Portfolio Holder for Tourism, referred to the excellent
work done by the North Norfolk Railway and the historical association the gallopers
had with the area. She considered that the officers could be trusted to negotiate to
minimise any disturbance and hoped a resolution could be found. She stated that
whilst trains were of interest to adults, the gallopers were more interesting for
children.
Councillor Mrs A R Green considered that as there was no reason to refuse this
application it should be approved provided that the organ was turned as
recommended.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes stated that the ride could be operated for 28 days in any
case and approval of this application would be unfair on patients of Pine Heath Ward.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager advised the Committee that there
was no mechanism to impose conditions in respect of permitted development which
would allow the gallopers to be sited for 28 days. The Authority had the power to
impose conditions on a planning permission which would go a long way to
overcoming the noise objections. In respect of the proposal to refuse this application,
Development Control Committee (West)
7
5 March 2009
he stated that there was no support for refusal on grounds related to noise from the
Council’s Environmental Protection Officer which would cause difficulty at appeal.
He stated that any further advice on this matter should be taken under private
business.
The Committee indicated that it did not wish to hear advice under private business
and that any advice should be given in public.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager further advised the Committee that in
the event of an appeal it was unlikely to be dealt with by exchange of statements. An
appeal was likely to be the subject of an informal hearing or public inquiry in order
that expert advice could be tested. He reminded the Committee that it had heard
evidence from the expert appointed by the applicant and also from the Council’s in
house expert. He could see no sustainable reasons for refusal on noise grounds.
Having heard the advice, the proposition was put to the vote and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 1
That this application be refused on grounds of adverse impact on the
amenity of local residents and patients of Pine Heath Ward by repetition
of noise and inappropriate location of the roundabout next to the
hospital.
(265) SHERINGHAM - 20081716 - Erection of one and a half-storey detached
dwelling; site adjacent, 9 Knowle Crescent for Mr Cook
The Committee considered item 7 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Curlew (supporting)
The comments of Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, a local Member, who had left the
meeting prior to consideration of this application, were read to the meeting.
Councillor Mrs Nelson knew both the applicant and the neighbour. She had
inspected the site together with Councillor Mrs J P Moss, also a local Member, and
Councillor Mrs P Bevan Jones. Both Councillors Mrs Nelson and Mrs Moss had
reservations regarding this application. Councillor Mrs Nelson had requested a site
inspection.
Councillor Mrs A C Sweeney stated that the applicant had discussed the application
with her.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor T H
Moore and
RESOLVED by 9 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation
of the Head of Planning and Building Control.
Development Control Committee (West)
8
5 March 2009
(266) WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA - 20081736 - Continued use of former dwelling as
guesthouse; Boxwood Northfield Lane for Mr Ayres
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest as she owned bed and
breakfast accommodation.
The Committee considered item 8 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr Hewitt (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported that a letter had been received from Solicitors
acting on behalf of the applicant in respect of car parking and traffic movements at
the site.
Councillor J D Savory, the local Member, stated that he knew the applicant and had
spoken to him and visited the site. He stated that this was one of the most highly
regarded guest houses in the town. He considered that generally the number of
vehicle movements associated with bed and breakfast was less than with selfcatering or hotel accommodation. He considered that the parking area could be
improved by removing a sycamore tree.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners stated that there was a shortage of tourist
accommodation in North Norfolk. He proposed approval of this application which
was seconded by Councillor T H Moore.
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager reminded the Committee that the
Highway Authority objected to this application. He recommended that the Committee
visit the site.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners withdrew his proposal.
It was proposed by Councillor J D Savory, seconded by Councillor S C Mears and
RESOLVED unanimously
That consideration of this application be deferred to allow a site
inspection by the Committee and that the local Members and Chairman
of the Town Council be invited to attend.
(267) APPLICATIONS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 9 of the officers’ reports.
(268) APPLICATIONS REFUSED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
The Committee noted item 10 of the officers’ reports.
(269) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 11 of the officers’ reports.
Development Control Committee (West)
9
5 March 2009
(270) PUBLIC INQUIRIES AND INFORMAL HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12 of the officers’ reports.
(271) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 13 of the officers’ reports.
(272) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 14 of the officers’ reports.
The meeting closed at 12.05 pm.
Development Control Committee (West)
10
5 March 2009