6 JULY 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
Miss C P Sheridan
Mrs S Stockton
Mrs A M Tillett
Mrs J Trett
S K Welsh
Mrs C M Wilkins
P J Willcox
S J Wright
J A Wyatt
R Combe - substitute for C A Fenn
B G Crowe - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Ms V R Gay - observer
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
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 H C Cordeaux, C A Fenn,
Miss P E Ford, Mrs B McGoun, J H Perry-Warnes, J D Savory, Mrs A C Sweeney
and Mrs S L Willis. Two substitute Members were in attendance as listed above.
(2)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(3)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins declared an interest, the details of which are recorded
under the minute of the item concerned.
(4)
Morston Village Design Statement
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.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports which proposed that the
Council adopts in part the Morston Village Design Statement as approved policy for
planning purposes. The views of the Committee were sought in order for the matter
to be considered at a Cabinet meeting on 10 July 2006.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
6 July 2006
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager introduced the report and
outlined the purpose of the Village Design Statement (VDS) and the background to
its production. He commented on individual aspects of the VDS, some of which
could not be supported as they were covered by existing policies, were premature in
terms of the Local Development Framework, or were inappropriate. He emphasised
that the VDS should not be used as a lobbying document but should be a design
statement for use in the development control process. It could not be used as
supplementary planning guidance but could help to support planning decisions in the
event of an appeal.
Councillor B G Crowe, the local Member, supported the views of the Conservation,
Design and Landscape Manager in respect of the VDS. He considered that a copy
should be given to all existing residents and ‘incomers’ so that they were aware of it.
It was proposed by Councillor B G Crowe, seconded by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the Cabinet be informed that this Committee supports the approval
of those elements of the Morston Village Design Statement that are
identified in the report as 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.
(5)
Appraisal of the Village of Plumstead for Consideration as a Conservation Area
The Committee considered item 2 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. The views of the Committee were sought in
order for the matter to be considered at a Cabinet meeting on 10 July 2006.
Most Members of the Committee had been lobbied on this matter. A letter from the
Chairman of Plumstead Parish Council had been circulated to a number of Members
at his request.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager explained the background to this
matter and the criteria for assessment and referred to current guidance from English
Heritage. He stated that, based on the criteria, officers did not consider that
Plumstead should be designated a Conservation Area. He stated that whilst officers
had been as objective as possible it was a subjective issue and emphasised that the
recommendation not to designate it as a Conservation Area had been based on the
criteria and guidance and not because of resource implications. Existing policies and
designations were in place which would protect the village and the recommendation
did not mean that Plumstead was not considered to be important in terms of its
character and setting.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to a letter that had been received
from the Chairman of the Parish Council expressing concern that he had found out
that the matter was being reported to the Committee through the local press, that
refusal of Conservation Area status would not protect the village from inappropriate
development or damage to the natural environment and that the reasons for refusal
related to resource implications. He had also referred to individual buildings and
groups of buildings that were valued by the community for their historic importance
and had suggested that consideration be given to designating those areas if
Conservation Area status could not be given to the whole of the village.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
6 July 2006
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager responded to the contents of the
letter. He stated that the issue of planning controls and the gradual change of
buildings was a major issue that was not only related to Plumstead. There was a
regional and national problem in terms of the interpretation of planning policy. There
were policies and design guidance in the Local Plan but these did not prevent people
from altering their properties and even within a Conservation Area it was possible to
carry out some of the works which were of concern to Plumstead Parish Council. He
reiterated his comments that the recommendation was based on the criteria and not
on resource implications.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated that Church Street was
the most important area of the village in terms of its character and referred to the
listed buildings in that area. In response to a suggestion that the Council did not
value the historic environment he stated that it was one of the Council’s key priorities
in its emerging Corporate Plan to protect the natural environment and built heritage
of North Norfolk.
Councillor B G Crowe read to the Committee the comments of Councillor J H PerryWarnes, the local Member, who had referred to the historic buildings in the village
and considered that it would be a travesty not to designate the village as a
Conservation Area.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins requested a site inspection.
She stated that
Conservation Area status would not offer as much protection of the residents of
Plumstead anticipated and that it could cause problems for some people. She
considered that some Conservation Areas had been ruined since their designation by
infill and other development.
Councillor R Combe considered that the best form of protection for the important
buildings would be to list them and asked if it would be possible to persuade English
Heritage to list more of the buildings. The Conservation, Design and Landscape
Manager stated that anybody could apply to English Heritage to have a building
listed. It was also proposed to draw up ‘local lists’ of buildings which were not
considered worthy of full listing but were nevertheless important locally. This would
provide a useful mechanism for the engagement of the local community in the
historic environment.
In answer to a question the Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager stated
that upvc replacement windows could be installed in a Conservation Area, unless the
Council took out an Article 4 Direction which would require planning permission to be
sought. He also stated that Conservation Area designation was only the first stage of
a very intensive process should an area be designated.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to the connection between Plumstead village
and Barningham Park and considered that both should be covered by the
designation.
Councillor P J Willcox asked if Conservation Area status would assist in controlling
the erection of polytunnels which he considered were blighting the landscape
throughout the country.
The Head of Planning and Building Control did not consider that it would make any
difference to the Council’s ability to control polytunnel development.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
6 July 2006
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, seconded by Councillor Miss C P
Sheridan and
RESOLVED
That consideration of this matter be deferred to allow the Committee to
visit Plumstead and that Members of the Cabinet be invited to attend.
(6)
Summary of Key Proposals in the Consultation “Preferred Options” Reports
for the LDF Core Strategy and Site Specific Proposals
The Senior Planning Officer reported on the progress to date in respect of the Local
Development Framework. He stated that the proposals had been drawn up and were
to be submitted to Cabinet. The proposals would be subject to public consultation
from 25 September to 6 November 2006. All responses received would be made
available on the internet and in the office.
In answer to a question the Senior Planning Officers stated that all responses would
be equally weighted.
The officers answered Members’ questions in respect of the timescale for making
documents available to the public and Parish Councils and the participation process
in general. Members had a very important role in raising awareness of the LDF and
encouraging public participation in the consultation process. Draft copies of the
documents had been made available on the internet as part of the agenda for the
Local Development Framework Working Party.
Councillor Ms V R Gay stated that Members had complained for some time that a link
to the Committee documents on the intranet system did not work.
The Chairman expressed concern that the flexibility of the Plan promised by
Government seemed to be disappearing. The Senior Planning Officer explained that,
once adopted, the policy context of the new plan would not be ‘flexible’ in that it
would have the weight of a statutory plan, but that the system itself was more flexible
as it would be possible to update sections of the plan as necessary.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan expressed concern that whilst the Site Specific
Proposals in respect of Stalham contained proposals about which the town was to be
consulted, the Cabinet was being asked to make a decision on a particular site at its
next meeting. She stated that Stalham Town Council was concerned about this
matter and considered that the whole of the old Station Yard site could be
compromised by the decision.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that proposals would continue to be
considered against the existing Local Plan for some time and that proposals on the
particular site in question would be assessed against the Town Centre policy.
In answer to a question the officers stated that the process for preparing Village
Design Statements and Conservation Area appraisals would be considered
separately from the LDF. There were many issues which would be best achieved
through supplementary planning documents (SPDs).
Councillor B G Crowe referred to the decision by the Council to deal with the Core
Strategy and Site Specific Proposals together. The officers gave the background to
the Council’s decision, which related to the need to secure affordable housing. The
Government had endorsed this approach, which had been taken by other authorities.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
6 July 2006
However, the Government now questioned the practicality of this approach and had
recently decided that the two documents would not be examined together. The Core
Strategy would be examined first and judged independent of the Site Specific
Proposals.
With regard to the implementation of proposals, the Senior Planning Officer
explained that many of the key site specific proposals would need to be implemented
through a master plan or development brief.
The ability to start using the emerging policies in determining planning applications
would depend on whether a submitted proposal would seriously prejudice the
preparation of the new policies and proposals, and at what stage the emerging plan
had reached. As the process progressed, more weight could be given to the
emerging policies and proposals provided that they were not subject to objections.
There would be a transition period.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that a report would be considered
by the Committee in the New Year setting out proposals for adopting part of the plan
for development control purposes.
Councillor R Combe referred to the outline proposals that would make it possible for
barns within 1km of towns to be converted to residential use. He understood that
people had been advised to resubmit applications in February.
The officers advised the Committee that there was a possibility that this matter could
be considered in the Spring if the proposals survived public consultation, but if the
matter was controversial it might not be the case.
Councillor Mrs S Stockton referred to the forthcoming election in May 2007 and
asked if it would be preferable to introduce the changes with the new Committee.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that it was a question of ownership. It had
been deliberately programmed to enable the LDF to be submitted by the current
administration prior to the election.
Councillor Mrs Stockton considered that planning should not be a political issue.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins commented that people were likely to submit planning
applications in villages which were going to be redesignated as Countryside. She
asked what would happen in the event of an appeal against refusal of an application
which had been determined under current policy if the appeal was not heard until the
new plan took effect.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that it was possible that a large number of
planning applications could be submitted if there were many people with an interest
in developing in the affected areas. Any appeals would be considered against
current Development Plan policies and other material considerations at the time of
the appeal.
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
6 July 2006