8 JUNE 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)
S J Wright
R Combe - substitute for J A Wyatt
B G Crowe - observer
B J Hannah - observer
Mrs H T Nelson - observer
Officers:
Mrs E Duncan – Legal Services Manager
Mr A Mitchell – Development Control Manager, West
Miss T Munro – Community Safety Officer
Mr S Oxenham – Head of Planning and Building Control
(1) APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T H Moore, J D Savory, Mrs S
L Willis and J A Wyatt. Councillor R Combe was substituting for Councillor J A Wyatt.
(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
Councillors declared interests, the details of which are recorded under the minute of the item concerned.
(4) SHERINGHAM – 20030991 – Demolition of buildings, including dwellings and erection of A1 retail foodstore with associated access, car parking, services and landscaping, Land at Cromer Road for Tesco Stores Limited
Councillors made a declaration of interests. They had all received a letter from
Richard Hewitt.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports advising Members of the appellants’ agents’ request to hold the Inquiry in abeyance pending the submission of a new application.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 1 8 June 2006

The application had last been considered at the Joint Development Control
Committee on 13 April 2006 and the decision was recorded in the Minutes of that meeting. Subsequently the agents had sought the agreement of the Planning
Inspectorate to have the appeal held in abeyance for a period of six months to allow a second application to be made and determined.
The Development Control Manager (West) had also received a letter of objection from Richard Hewitt which he reported, recommending that Members did not agree to the agents’ request. However the Officer recommendation remained the same.
The Legal Services Manager emphasised that the original planning decision had not been flawed. Any internal inquiry would not be looking at the planning decision but at the circumstances of the land agreement with Tesco and advice subsequently given to Members. The Planning Inspector would look purely at Planning grounds, eg retail, highways, sequentially preferable sites. In reply to a question from Cllr C A
Fenn she replied that the appeal would be based on the application as previously submitted. If a new application was made and was significantly different, it would be considered on merit at the time. Cllr Fenn proposed that the Committee should agree to the Officers’ recommendation.
Cllr A M Tillett expressed concern about the wording of the agents’ letter, especially the bracketed phrase ‘ in a positive manner’ . In support, Cllr B Cabbell Manners and
Cllr B G Crowe were concerned that agreeing to the agents’ request would prevent further consultation with the local community. The Legal Services Manager explained that a second application would go through the full planning process including new consultations and there would be fresh opportunities for interested parties to record their objections. In reply to the concerns of some Members regarding the procedure of the meeting on 13 April she reminded them that it had been in public session and followed correct legal procedures.
Cllr Miss C Sheridan asked a question concerning an item that had been discussed at the meeting of 13 April under Private Business. it was
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Item: Question from Cllr Miss C Sheridan
Definition of paragraphs:
Paragraph 3: Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information).
The question was answered by the Legal Services Manager and it was
RESOLVED
To continue the Meeting in Public Business
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 2 8 June 2006

The Officer’s recommendation was discussed. The Council did not have powers to entertain a re-submission if an application was the same, only if it had been to appeal and the appeal had been dismissed. At the meeting on 13 April the Committee had indicated that it would have approved the application. The only way the Council could regain jurisdiction was by considering a new application. If the Committee did not agree to the Officer’s recommendation, the appeal would continue but the Council could incur additional costs.
Cllr Mrs J Trett said that agreeing to the recommendation was sensible and would allow time for the process to be completed in detail. Cllr R Combe pointed to the
Council’s good record regarding appeals. Officers had advised that the Council would not win an appeal on this application and their advice should be respected.
It was proposed by Cllr C A Fenn and seconded by Cllr H C Cordeaux that the
Committee should agree to the recommendation. It was proposed by Cllr B Cabbell
Manners and seconded by Cllr Mrs A M Tillett that the Committee should not agree.
A recorded vote was taken at the request of Cllr B Cabbell Manners. 11 Members voted in favour of the Officer’s recommendation, 6 Members voted against and 1 abstained as follows:
For: Mrs S A Arnold, D Corbett, H C Cordeaux, C A Fenn, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs S
Stockton, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mrs J Trett, Mrs C M Wilkins, P J Willcox, S J Wright.
Against: B Cabbell Manners, Miss P E Ford, Mrs A R Green, J H Perry-Warnes, Miss
C P Sheridan, Mrs A M Tillett.
Abstain: N P Ripley.
A substantive vote was proposed by Cllr C A Fenn and seconded by Cllr H C
Cordeaux. A recorded vote was taken at the request of Cllr B Cabbell Manners. 11
Members voted in favour of the Officer’s recommendation, 6 Members voted against and 1 abstained as follows.
For: Mrs S A Arnold, D Corbett, H C Cordeaux, C A Fenn, Mrs B McGoun, Mrs S
Stockton, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mrs J Trett, Mrs C M Wilkins, P J Willcox, S J Wright.
Against: B Cabbell Manners, Miss P E Ford, Mrs A R Green, J H Perry-Warnes, Miss
C P Sheridan, Mrs A M Tillett.
Abstain: N P Ripley.
RESOLVED
To agree to the request to hold the Planning Inquiry in abeyance for a period of six months and that the Planning Inspectorate be informed accordingly.
(5) Change to Secondary Planning Legislation, Including Requirements for Design and Access Statements
The Committee considered item 2 of the Officers’ reports summarising changes to secondary legislation affecting the Planning Service coming into force in May and
August 2006.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 3 8 June 2006

The Head of Planning and Building Control summarised the changes to the secondary legislation affecting the Planning Service. Three of the changes had come into force on 10 May 2006 and from 10 August 2006 most types of planning applications would be required to be accompanied by a Design and Access
Statement. It was a positive change leading, in theory, to better applications. It was
RESOLVED
To note the receipt of this report and in particular the coming into force of the requirement for Design and Access Statements for planning applications received with effect from 10 August 2006.
(6) Council Standing Orders
The Substitution Scheme
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports concerning a request to the
Joint Committee to give consideration to possible variation of the Council’s
Substitution Scheme prior to further consideration by the Council on 28 June 2006.
This topic had already been discussed at the meeting of Full Council on 27 February when no clear agreement had been reached. It was due to be considered by Full
Council again on June 28. The views and, hopefully a consensus, of the Joint
Committee were sought. The Chairman proposed that Appendix N would best serve the needs of Development Control Committees, with Members of the East Committee acting as substitutes for Members of the West Committee and vice versa.
Some Members considered that substitutes should always be planning Members.
This would mean that there would be no substitutes for the Joint Committee but the
Committee was large enough to function effectively even when it was not at full strength. The disadvantage of this system would be that there were no opportunity for non-planning Members to pick up experience as substitutes, but there would still be an aim to train all Members in planning. It was important that Members had such training and it increased their effectiveness as local members.
It was in the protocol for substitutes to attend site meetings. If they were unable to attend they should visit the site with an Officer, or go by themselves.
It was proposed by Cllr H C Cordeaux, seconded by Cllr Mrs S Stockton and
AGREED
That Appendix N be adopted as the model for substitution for
Development Control Committees.
(7) Development Control Performance
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports setting out Development
Control performance figures for the quarter ending 31 March 2006 and commenting on matters relating to the Planning Delivery Grant.
The Head of Planning and Building Control informed Members that the outcome of the Government’s Public Spending Review was awaited in order to establish whether the Planning Delivery Grant would be continued from 2008 onwards. If it was abolished problems would be caused for local authorities.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 4 8 June 2006

Members noted that NNDC’s appeals success was significantly higher than the national average.
It was
AGREED
To continue to support efforts to maintain high levels of performance in order to maximise the Planning Delivery Grant award for next year.
(8) Enforcement Workload and Statistics – Quarterly Report
The Committee considered item 5 of the Officers’ reports setting out details of the workload and performance of the enforcement service for the quarter ending 31
March 2006.
In reply to a Member’s question, the Head of Planning and Building Control said that now the Enforcement Section was back to a normal level of staffing there would not be a significant clear-up of old condition monitoring cases.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett expressed disappointment regarding the situation regarding condition monitoring.
The Head of Planning and Building Control said, in reply to a question from Cllr Mrs
S A Arnold, that to be pro-active rather than reactive would require a change in enforcement policy. This could be discussed at a later meeting.
It was AGREED
1. To note the contents of the Tables.
2. To write to Norman Lamb expressing the Committee’s concerns about the
Government’s failure to progress the Revision of the Planning Enforcement
System in England.
(9) Presentation By Police Architectural Liaison Officer
The Committee received a presentation by Trevor Nelson, Police Architectural
Liaison Officer and his colleague, PC Paul Willis, on the role of the planning system in Designing Out Crime.
Local Authorities had a duty to consider Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act of
1998 in every planning application. The police could give advice into planning applications, but there was no recognised audit trail to check that the advice had been taken. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer aimed to forge better relationships with local authority planning departments. From the conception to the occupation of a development there was plenty of opportunity for police input.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer considered the following and their potential for encouraging/preventing crime:
•
The layout of the development
•
Entrance and exit routes
•
Natural
•
Public Open Space
•
Parking
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 5 8 June 2006

•
Boundaries fencing
•
Front
•
Lighting
•
Locks, bolts, bars on windows and doors
•
Site
The Head of Planning and Building Control said that the police were not statutory consultees but if their comments had been made they would be considered. North
Norfolk did not have many cases where police input was applicable, but the Local
Development Framework would bring in more large housing developments. Members expressed concerns about developments with isolated play areas or elderly people housed in inappropriate locations and were assured by the Head of Planning and
Building Control that such considerations could be material grounds for refusing an application.
The Police Architectural Liaison Officer explained that the scheme ‘Secured by
Design’ covered the planning and other aspects of a development. The Chairman suggested that ‘Secured by Design’ would be a good topic for the agenda of the
Agents’ Meeting. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that from 10
August planning applications would have to be accompanied by Access and Design
Statements. The Statements should include security aspects. From 1 July new preapplication consultation processes for major applications were being introduced. It would be sensible to include the Police in these processes.
PC Paul Willis stressed the importance of Police involvement at the time of application. It was better that the applicant knew about Secured by Design at this stage, either by leaflet or website. Once a development had been completed, it became much more difficult to introduce crime prevention features. Cllr B G Crowe expressed concern that police input into all applications would create staffing problems but PC Willis was confident that sufficient resources would be made available. The link between Members and the Police was the Community Safety
Officer. It was important that necessary information was obtained from her before an application came to Committee. PC Willis offered to give Members an informal demonstration of the features that the Police looked for in a plan. It was the responsibility of Officers to consider Section 17 implications of an application before it came before Members.
Social housing should be fitted with Secured by Design features. If police advice was not taken, any resultant Anti-Social Behaviour would put extra pressure on the
Council’s resources and the resources of other agencies. In mixed developments, private dwellings could be fitted with Secured by Design features which could then be used as a selling point.
Different measures were needed in different communities. The Police gave sitespecific consideration to applications.
The Chairman thanked Trevor Nelson and Paul Willis for their contributions.
The meeting closed at 12.20 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West) 6 8 June 2006