3 AUGUST 2006
Minutes of a joint meeting of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEES (EAST &
WEST) held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am when
there were present:
Councillors
D Corbett (Chairman)
Mrs S A Arnold
B Cabbell Manners
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Mrs A R Green
Mrs B McGoun
J H Perry-Warnes
N P Ripley
Miss C P Sheridan
Mrs A C Sweeney
S K Welsh
Mrs C M Wilkins
J A Wyatt
R Combe - substitute for Miss P E Ford
Ms V R Gay - observer
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Ms C Batchelar - Conservation and Design Officer
Mr G Alexander - Senior Planning Officer
Mr R Young - Senior Planning Officer
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Miss P E Ford, J D Savory,
Mrs A M Tillett, Mrs J Trett, P J Willcox and Mrs S L Willis. One substitute Member
attended the meeting as stated above.
(2)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to the Morston Village Design Statement. The
reason for urgency was to make comments to Cabinet on this issue following a visit
by some Members of the Committee since the last meeting.
(3)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared an interest in Minute 5, the details of which are
recorded under that minute.
(4)
APPRAISAL OF THE VILLAGE OF PLUMSTEAD FOR CONSIDERATION AS A
CONSERVATION AREA
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in response to an approach
by Plumstead Parish Council requesting that the village of Plumstead be considered
for designation as a Conservation Area. This matter had been deferred from the
previous meeting to undertake a site visit in conjunction with the Cabinet.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
3 August 2006
The Chairman stated that he had received two e-mails from Mr Ramsbotham, who
had also sent an e-mail to all Members. He had also been handed a copy of an email by Mr Ramsbotham which was addressed to Councillor J H Perry-Warnes as
local Member, containing comments which he had wished to make at this meeting
but could not as he was not allowed to speak. The Chairman read to the Committee
the contents of that e-mail., which raised concerns regarding the officer’s report and
set out reasons why Mr Ramsbotham considered Plumstead should be designated
as a Conservation Area.
The Chairman referred to an e-mail from Mr Keasley, a resident of Plumstead, who
objected to the designation of the village as a Conservation Area. This had been
circulated to all Members.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained that the reasons for
recommending that Plumstead should not be designated as a Conservation Area
were based on the criteria laid down by English Heritage and not on the resource
implications. He referred to the lack of cohesiveness in the interrelationship of the
buildings and spaces and the elements of the village and did not consider that the
village met the criteria. He referred to Government advice in PPG15 which required
the Authority to be mindful of the implications of designation, which could have a
substantial impact on the residents in terms of permitted development rights etc.
Designation of a Conservation Area had to be followed by proper management,
which would have implications for the Council.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that there were elements
of the village which were very attractive and which were already protected by other
legislation, such as the listed buildings. The whole village was covered by the
Countryside designation in the Local Plan and there was no intention to change the
designation under the Local Development Framework.
Councillor H C Cordeaux referred to concerns raised by Mr Ramsbotham in respect
of trees and hedges. He stated that hedges over 100 years old were protected by
the Enclosure Act and that any trees that were under threat could be protected by
Tree Preservation Orders.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan suggested that the Parish Council should request spot
listing of any buildings that were not already listed and which they considered to be of
sufficient merit.
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the local Member, considered that Plumstead was
unique and should be preserved and enhanced. He referred to enhancement work
that had already been carried out. He stated that many Norfolk villages had areas
which were separated from the main settlement. He considered that there were no
reasons why Plumstead should not be designated.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that there were many
villages where the pattern of development was strung out but it was necessary to
consider if they had any historic or relevant connection or cohesiveness. In the case
of Plumstead, it was considered that this cohesiveness was not apparent.
Councillor Ms V R Gay stated that she was disappointed at the lack of protection
Conservation Area status gave to buildings and she considered that listing was a
better form of protection. She referred to proposals to introduce local listing which,
although it would not provide full protection, would offer recognition of the importance
of buildings to local people.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
3 August 2006
It was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED by 10 votes to 1 with 3 abstentions
That Cabinet be informed that that the Joint Development Control
Committees recommend that the village of Plumstead is not designated
as a Conservation Area.
(5)
Morston Village Design Statement
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter
of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared a personal interest in this item as she was a
friend of Godfrey Sayers, who had drawn up the Morston Village Design Statement.
This matter had been considered at the previous meeting when the Committee
resolved to inform the Cabinet that the Committee supported the approval of those
elements of the Morston Village Design Statement that were identified in the report to
that meeting as being compliant with the Council’s policies for the control of
development as Council Policy and be used to support the District Council in its
capacity as Local Planning Authority when considering applications for development.
The Cabinet had considered this matter and resolved to undertake a visit to Morston
prior to further consideration and a number of Development Control Committee
Members had also joined the visit.
Councillor D Corbett referred to views expressed following the visit that the Morston
Village Design Statement (VDS) should be endorsed and recommended to new
residents before they submitted any planning applications. He stated that the
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager was concerned and requested that
he explain his views.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that this matter had been
reported to the last meeting when the Committee considered a comprehensive
report. There were parts of the VDS which concurred entirely with existing and
emerging policies but other aspects of it did not. A recommendation had been made
that parts of the VDS which concurred be supported and approved. He advised that
it would be dangerous to adopt the whole document as the LDF, including all land
use policies, was in the process of consideration. The VDS was excellent in terms of
bringing people together to value their village. In terms of design guidance for
development control purposes there was little in the document in terms of criteria or
detail. However, those parts of the VDS which concurred with the Council’s policies
could be used as supporting evidence for planning appeals.
The Chairman recommended that no change be made to the views expressed to
Cabinet from the previous meeting.
RESOLVED
That the views expressed at the previous meeting remain unchanged.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
3 August 2006
(6)
Changes to Outline Planning Application Rules and Design and Access
Statements
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports which provided further
details of important changes to the development control system coming into force on
10 August 2006.
The Head of Planning and Building Control outlined the changes that were to be
made in respect of outline planning applications and the introduction of Design and
Access Statements. He considered that there would be problems but that it should
lead to better quality outcomes.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins asked if it would be possible to insist on the submission
of a street scene.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that it would be necessary to
explain the context of the site and he considered that it would be difficult to do so in
some cases without a street scene.
The Chairman considered that the Authority should be able to request a street scene
if it were required.
Councillor C A Fenn asked how local distinctiveness could be defined. The
Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained that it depended on
context of the proposed building with its surroundings.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan asked how green building fitted in with local
distinctiveness and how green building could be promoted.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that in ‘designated areas’
where Design and Access Statements were required, the siting, context, scale and
form criteria would be considered in the same way as any other application. He was
concerned that sustainable design could have an impact on local distinctiveness and
on North Norfolk in the long term.
Members commented that building design had evolved over time and that it was
possible to have innovative design that would be distinctive to the present time. It
was suggested that consideration be given to carbon neutral design.
In answer to a question the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the
new requirements did not affect permitted development rights. The requirements
would only apply if a planning application were required.
The new requirements had no direct link with enforcement. Conditions could be
imposed which were enforceable. The Head of Planning and Building Control had
been requested to consider the Council’s enforcement policy and a report would be
brought to a future meeting on this issue.
In general, the Committee welcomed the new legislation.
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report be noted.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
3 August 2006
(7)
Development Control Performance
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports setting out Development
Control performance figures for the quarter ending 30 June 2006 and comments on
matters relating to the Planning Delivery Grant.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that consultation papers had been
received in respect of the Planning Delivery Grant. Part of the grant would be paid
on achievements to date, with 40% being paid in respect of performance from now
until March 2007. Targets were being set for plan making and e-planning.
For the three years from 2008, it was proposed to replace the Planning Delivery
Grant with “Housing and Planning Delivery Grant”, which would be based on setting
and meeting housing targets through the LDF instead of on development control
performance. A major part of the grant would be based on housing delivery.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that a disadvantage of the
new scheme could be a perception that the Authority was motivated by money to
delivery housing schemes that would not otherwise be promoted.
The Head of Planning and Building Control had been requested to contribute to a
report to Cabinet on the consultation documents, and he suggested that a report be
brought to the joint meeting of the Development Control Committees in the week
prior to the Cabinet meeting. He was concerned that development control
performance would not feature in the new proposals, although it could allow a more
considered view to be taken on planning applications. Whilst the Government’s
proposal to continue to provide resources was welcomed, the Council may be
penalised by having lower results as the District was not a housing growth area.
The Committee agreed that a report be considered on this issue prior to the Cabinet
meeting.
RESOLVED
That the quarterly performance figures be noted and efforts to maintain
high levels of performance be supported.
(8)
NORTH NORFOLK CORE STRATEGY AND SITE SPECIFIC PROPOSALS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENTS (DPDs): PREFERRED OPTIONS REPORTS
Members received a presentation on the preferred approaches to the Council’s
formulation of new strategic and development control policies, and to the allocation of
sites for specific types of development.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Core Strategy Development Plan
Document (DPD), set out a replacement for the development strategy contained in
the current Local Plan.
The four towns of Fakenham, Holt, Cromer and North Walsham had been identified
as Principal Settlements and Sheringham, Stalham, Wells and Hoveton had been
identified as Secondary Settlements. Most of the new development would be
focused in these 8 settlements. The larger developments were proposed for the
Principal Settlements but there was no rigid approach to apportioning housing
provision.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
3 August 2006
The main change in development strategy concerned the villages. The number of
Selected Small Villages had been reduced, with 17 settlements identified as ‘service
villages’. The main reason for doing so is to reduce the number of opportunities for
infill development and thereby create opportunities for making allocations in the
service villages where a significant amount of affordable housing would be sought.
The Countryside policy would apply outside the identified settlements.
A Coastal Area Action Plan (CAAP) would be drawn up for the coastal area. This
had arisen from concerns expressed with regard to proposals in the draft Shoreline
Management Plan. Detailed proposals would be prepared in the near future which
would feed back into the Core Strategy. Some villages in the CAAP area had been
identified as Service Villages but no allocations had been made at the present time.
These could be made at a later date, depending on the nature of the CAAP
proposals.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins requested a definition of ‘service villages’ for Members’
clarification.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the methodology for
identification, which was based on existing services and facilities, would be included
in the Core Strategy. There would be an opportunity to challenge the methodology
and to delete villages from the list or promote other villages.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that concern had been expressed that the
opportunity for exceptions sites would be lost, although this was not the case. The
Senior Planning Officer stated that the rural exceptions policy would be taken forward
into the new Core Strategy. A more flexible rural exceptions policy would apply not
only to the service villages but also to a large number of other villages and hamlets
across North Norfolk. This would apply to social rented and shared ownership
housing only.
In answer to a question, the Senior Planning Officer stated that in the event of
changes to the District boundary the provisions of this Council’s LDF would continue
to cover the existing areas until such time as the documents were reviewed.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun asked if consideration had been given to the pressure that
new development would have on Wroxham Bridge. The Senior Planning Officer
stated that a small allocation for additional housing had been made in Hoveton. One
of the reasons that the village was considered suitable for limited growth was the
railway which would allow people to use public transport. He accepted that there
were problems with the bridge. The other Senior Planning Officer stated there was
likely to be less development in the area as many settlements would no longer be
Selected Small Villages.
Councillor Mrs A R Green stated that strong views had been expressed against
additional housing in Little Snoring. She had explained that it was for local people
but this raised concerns as to where they would work.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that he had attended a number of Parish Council
meetings to explain the allocations. It was apparent that all villages had different
views and there was no consensus.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold considered that there was a perception that affordable
housing would create ghettos and it was necessary to explain to people that many of
the dwellings would be occupied by working people who would contribute to the
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
3 August 2006
economy. She considered that there should be more developments designed for
older people such as the development in Blakeney. She also considered that 50%
affordable housing was too high as there was a danger that developers would not
wish to develop such sites or that the resulting housing would be substandard. She
considered that 30% would be a more reasonable proportion.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that the residents of Worstead had questioned
whether more housing was needed and whether better use should be made of
existing housing. They were concerned that occupiers of the existing affordable
housing would move into the new accommodation, leaving a vacuum to be filled by
people from outside the area.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the requirement to provide
affordable housing could force down the price of land to make the schemes viable.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that affordable housing should be
indistinguishable from market housing in terms of quality. The Head of Planning and
Building Control added that this would be a requirement of the design and access
statements and lower quality would not be accepted.
The officers outlined briefly the proposals for the towns.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that in order to achieve the number of houses
required in Cromer it was necessary to allocate greenfield sites. Whilst the
Government sought to maximise brownfield sites it was not possible to do so in this
area as it would not deliver affordable housing.
Councillor Mrs A R Green referred to the large amount of new housing which was
being proposed for Fakenham and the effect on health services. The Senior
Planning Officer stated that the Primary Care Trust had undertaken to attempt to
match housing growth with new doctors’ facilities. There would, however, be
considerable pressure on existing facilities before it would generate a new surgery.
A master plan for the site would be drawn up which would specify how many
dwellings would be needed to trigger the provision of facilities such as shops etc.
Members requested further presentations on LDF issues at future joint meetings and
also that all other Members of the Council be invited to attend.
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
7
3 August 2006