15 MARCH 2007
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
Mrs S A Arnold
B Cabbell Manners
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Miss P E Ford
Mrs A R Green
Mrs B McGoun
N P Ripley
J D Savory
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs A M Tillett
Mrs J Trett
Mrs C M Wilkins
P J Willcox
Mrs S L Willis
J A Wyatt
R Combe - substitute for S J Wright
B G Crowe - substitute for J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs H T Nelson - Portfolio Member
Ms V R Gay - observer
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr P Godwin - Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager
Miss K Hill - Strategic Housing Manager
Mr G Linder - Senior Planning Officer
Mrs N Turner - Enabling Team Leader
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Corbett, J H Perry-Warnes,
Miss C P Sheridan, Mrs S Stockton, S K Welsh and S J Wright. Two substitute
Members attended the meeting as listed above.
(2)
CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING
In the absence of the Chairman it was proposed by Councillor H C Cordeaux, duly
seconded and
RESOLVED
That Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins be elected as Chairman for the
meeting.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
15 March 2007
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor B G Crowe declared a personal interest in Minutes 5 and 6 as he had
been involved as local Member in the pre-application discussions with the applicant
and had visited the site. He was also a member of the National Trust, English
Heritage and a former member of the AONB Partnership.
Councillor R Combe declared a personal interest in Minutes 5 and 6 as he was a
neighbour.
Councillor Mrs A R Green declared a personal interest in Minutes 5 and 6 as she
knew Mrs Carter.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in Minutes 5 and 6 as he
had been at school with Mr Carter.
(5)
LETHERINGSETT - 20061942 – Erection of two-and-a-half-storey and singlestorey extensions and conversion of outbuildings to caretaker’s flat and
construction of driveway; Hall Farm Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Carter
Councillors B Cabbell Manners, R Combe, B G Crowe and Mrs A R Green declared
personal interests in this application. Details are given under Minute 4.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that he had visited the site several weeks previously
but no plans had been available at the time.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in respect of a planning
application for planning permission for the erection of a two-and-a-half-storey and
single-storey extensions, the conversion of outbuildings to ancillary accommodation
and caretaker's flat and the construction of driveway.
Public Speaker
Mr Morris (supporting)
The Senior Planning Officer reported the contents of a response from Stephen
Hayward, Architectural Consultant, Norfolk County Council, who considered that the
addition of the new pile would enhance the building but had concerns with regard to
the subdivision of the granary building. He reported the contents of a letter of
objection which had been received from SAVE Britain’s Heritage. He summarised
the contents of a letter from the architect which had been placed in Members’ pigeon
holes.
The Conservation, Design and Landscape Manager responded to the views
expressed by the architect and the County Council’s Architectural Consultant, with
which he disagreed. He considered that there was a need to respect the character of
buildings and add to them without changing their character. He stated that the
proposal represented a major alteration to a very important historic building. The
window arrangement was part of the chronology and development of the building
and, although it was not tidy, it should be respected. He considered that the
proposals would alter the character of the building to such an extent that it could be
de-listed. He considered that some limited alteration and extension would be
acceptable. It was likely that the building would be de-listed if the proposed works
were carried out. With regard to the driveway there were concerns in respect of the
closeness to tree roots and canopies. Furthermore the setting and curtilage of the
building were important aspects which needed more consideration.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
15 March 2007
Councillor B G Crowe, the local Member, referred to works that had been carried out
by the applicants elsewhere on the estate and praised the standard of craftsmanship.
He stated that the interior of the house had evidence of dry rot and dilapidation. He
supported the views of the County Council’s Architectural Consultant. He proposed
approval of this application as recommended by Development Control Committee
(West) and considered that the history of the building should be recorded as
requested by the Architectural Consultant.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett considered that the proposal would enhance the building
and that the proposed driveway would enhance its setting. She referred to the
condition of the building and considered that it had the potential to become a building
at risk. She considered that the proposed extension was subordinate to the building.
She seconded the proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that an extension had to be subordinate both
in floorspace and visual appearance. This proposal was not considered to be
subordinate in visual terms.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that the building was in danger of losing its
integrity if this application were approved and that it would no longer be a farmhouse.
She did not support the application.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to the quality of the farm buildings. He
considered that they no longer had any agricultural use and could only be used as
curtilage buildings or part of an estate yard.
He did not want to see the farm
buildings being converted to holiday accommodation. He considered that the northeast elevation of the house had been altered so much it was no longer special. He
stated that houses and estates evolved and considered that the proposal was a good
way of moving forward.
Councillor R Combe stated that as a neighbour of the estate he had witnessed its
slow decline. He had been encouraged by the applicants’ restoration of the gardens
and buildings. He considered that purist considerations should not inhibit the long
term evolution of the building.
Councillor C A Fenn stated that in the course of his employment he had visited
Salhouse Hall and had seen that it was possible to update and preserve a building
without losing its character and chronology. He considered that this building had to
be preserved for the next generation and likened the proposal to tearing out the
pages of a history book. He did not support the application.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson, Portfolio Holder for the Built Heritage, considered that it
was of paramount importance to nurture heritage and the built environment. She had
great admiration for the way in which the applicants had restored other parts of the
estate. She referred to PPG15 and considered that it would be possible to make the
building habitable without such alteration.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis expressed concern that if this application were approved it
could set a precedent for other applications where a proposed extension to a
dwelling in the countryside was not subordinate. She was also concerned that
Section 106 Agreements could be challenged after five years.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
15 March 2007
The Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager explained that a Section 106
obligation would be enforceable but applications could be made to vary its terms.
Refusal of such an application would be subject to the right to appeal. With regard to
precedent, he stated that the decision in this case would be carefully scrutinised by
others. The Committee would have to be satisfied that the application was so unique
that approval would not set a precedent.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that he had great difficulty with this application as it
was on the whole an exciting project and would provide a better access on to the
A148. He referred to the condition of the building and the changes that had taken
place. He stated that whilst the extension would not be seen from outside the site it
was no reason to accept it. He considered that the extension to the north was
excessive and that a more sensitive approach would be possible.
In answer to a question the Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that it
could be argued that the standard of workmanship was relevant to a Listed Building
application but it should not in his view influence the outcome of a planning
application.
It was proposed by Councillor B G Crowe, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M Tillett
That this application be approved on the grounds (i) that the proposed
extensions to the existing dwelling would form part of the continuing evolution
of the estate and that the design merits of the proposal would outweigh the
concerns raised regarding the impact on the listed building; (ii) the use of part
of the 19th Century outbuildings as caretaker’s accommodation would be
acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement to
ensure that the accommodation remains ancillary to the main house and is
not sold off separately; (iii) the creation of a new access would help to frame
the development making for a more attractive approach to the main house
and would not adversely affect the appearance of the area or have a
significant impact on the Historic Park and Garden.
At the request of a Member, voting was recorded as follows:
For the proposition
Councillors:
Mrs S A Arnold
B Cabbell Manners
R Combe
B G Crowe
Mrs A R Green
N P Ripley
J D Savory
Mrs A M Tillett
P J Willcox
(9)
Against the proposition
Abstentions
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Miss P E Ford
Mrs B McGoun
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs C M Wilkins
Mrs S L Willis
J A Wyatt
(9)
(0)
The proposition was declared lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
15 March 2007
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs J Trett, seconded by Councillor C A Fenn
That this application be refused on the grounds (i) that the proposed
extensions to the farmhouse, due their scale, massing, form and design,
would not be subordinate to the appearance of the original building and
would be detrimental to the character of the Grade II listed building
contrary to Local Plan Policies 13, 35, 37 and 64; (ii) that the conversion
of the workshop/store for permanent residential use would fail to
comply with Local Plan Policies 5 and 29, in that it would be tantamount
to a new dwelling in the countryside and (iii) that the creation of the new
access would bisect the Water Garden adversely affecting the layout
and appearance of the Historic Park and Garden, whilst the creation of a
linear feature across open meadow and would not preserve or enhance
the appearance or character of the Glaven Valley Conservation Area or
Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Local
Plan Policies 20, 25 and 42.
On being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 9 against
and it was RESOLVED on the Chairman’s casting vote.
(6)
LETHERINGSETT - 20061944 – Erection of two-and-a-half-storey and singlestorey extensions, unblocking window openings and conversion of workshop
to caretaker’s flat; Hall Farm Church Lane for Mr and Mrs Carter
Councillors B Cabbell Manners, R Combe, B G Crowe and Mrs A R Green declared
personal interests in this application. Details are given under Minute 4.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports in respect of a planning
application for listed building consent for the erection of a two-and-a-half-storey and
single-storey extensions, unblocking window openings and the conversion of
outbuildings to ancillary accommodation and a caretaker's flat.
It was proposed by Councillor B Cabbell Manners, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M
Tillett
That this application be approved on the grounds that the proposed
extensions and alterations to the farmhouse would form part of the continuing
evolution of the estate and that the design merits of the proposal would
outweigh the concerns raised regarding the impact on the listed building.
On being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 9 against
and declared lost on the Chairman’s casting vote.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs J Trett, seconded by Councillor C A Fenn
That this application be refused on the grounds that the proposed extensions
and external alterations to the farmhouse, due their scale, massing, form and
design, and elevational treatment would be detrimental to the character of the
Grade II listed building and contrary to Local Plan Policy 37.
On being put to the vote, 9 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 9 against
and it was RESOLVED on the Chairman’s casting vote.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
15 March 2007
(7)
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PERFORMANCE
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ report setting out Development
Control performance figures for the quarter ending 31 December 2006 and
comments on matters relating to the Planning Delivery Grant.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis expressed her strong concerns that the requirement to meet
targets would remove the ability of planning officers to negotiate quality outcomes.
RESOLVED
That the latest performance figures be noted and the efforts to maintain
high levels of performance, particularly in the period up to the end of
March 2007, be supported.
(8)
PRESENTATION ON THE STRATEGIC HOUSING MARKET ASSESSMENT
The Committee received a presentation by Dr Richard Fordham, Managing Director,
Fordham Research on the Council’s Housing Needs Survey (HNS) and REAP’s
Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA).
Dr Fordham explained that the HNS estimated the annual need for affordable
housing in the District. The SHMA assessed the need/demand for all tenures. He
outlined the results of the survey and answered Members’ questions.
Councillor Mrs M A Craske stated that she had requested that copies of the survey
be made available for all Members and for new Members following the election.
Dr Fordham considered that the proposed target of 45% affordable dwellings was
achievable. It was a matter for developers to negotiate with landowners with regard
to the value of development land.
In response to a question the Enabling Team Leader explained the difference
between the Council’s general housing waiting list and the Common Housing
Register and the difference between referrals to Housing Association properties and
nominations for new developments and existing Housing Association properties.
Dr Fordham explained that shared ownership did not represent a genuine step on the
housing ladder as the dwellings were often more expensive than market entry
dwellings and therefore it was important to test shared ownership properties against
the usefully affordable point to ensure that shared ownership is affordable to
households in housing need. There was a problem in North Norfolk as there were
not enough shared ownership dwellings of different sizes to allow growing families to
move to larger dwellings through this form of tenure.
Members expressed concerns with regard to the lack of employment opportunities
and the need for key workers.
Dr Fordham stated that North Norfolk was a place where people chose to retire and
there was therefore a large elderly population which did not work.
The
unemployment rate was not high but the jobs were often poorly paid. It was not
possible to purchase a dwelling on average North Norfolk earnings.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
15 March 2007
Councillor Mrs M A Craske considered that in order to be sustainable it was
necessary to have enough people to do the jobs that were needed in North Norfolk.
She considered that the number of shared ownership dwellings should be increased
and the schemes advertised to attract key workers.
Dr Fordham stated that a study was being carried out in respect of new EC migrants.
Supply and demand tended to resolve problems as migrants would carry out work
not wanted by local people.
Councillor R Combe considered that the development industry should be made
aware that it would be expected to make a large contribution to the supply of
affordable housing and that Parish Councils should be asked to put forward possible
exceptions sites.
The Enabling Team Leader stated that developers were already being made aware
of the requirements through the LDF. A number of exception schemes were already
being taken forward. However, funding was needed for exception schemes and the
Authority could only work with a limited number of parishes at any one time, as
funding for such schemes is limited and it was necessary to manage the expectation
of parish councils for this reason.
In answer to a question the Strategic Housing Manager stated that the Council’s
Empty Homes Strategy had identified a number of privately-owned dwellings that
were empty. However, many of these dwellings were unavailable or were in very
poor condition. They represented a very small contribution towards meeting
identified need.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins considered that shared equity should be targeted towards
individuals as well as property and referred to the Council’s former mortgage
scheme.
The Chairman thanked Dr Fordham for attending the meeting.
The meeting closed at 12.35 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
7
15 March 2007