16 MARCH 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
Mrs S A Arnold
B Cabbell Manners
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Miss P E Ford
Mrs R R Massingham
J H Perry-Warnes
N P Ripley
J D Savory
Miss C P Sheridan
Mrs A M Tillett
Mrs J Trett
S K Welsh
Mrs C M Wilkins
Mrs S L Willis
S J Wright
J A Wyatt
Ms V R Gay - North Walsham West Ward
Mrs A C Sweeney - observer
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr J Williams - Development Control Manager (East)
Mr R Howe - Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr P Took - Senior Planning Officer (East)
Mr J Wilson - Environmental Protection Team Leader
(1)
CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING
In the absence of the Chairman, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins,
seconded by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan and
RESOLVED
That Councillor H C Cordeaux be elected Chairman for the meeting.
(2)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Corbett, Mrs A R Green,
Mrs B McGoun and T H Moore. There were no substitute Members in attendance.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee.
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillors B Cabbell Manners and J H Perry-Warnes declared interests, the details
of which are recorded under the minute of the item concerned.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
16 March 2006
(5)
NORTH WALSHAM – 20051482 – Conversion and extension of buildings to
provide 12 holiday units together with communal recreation facilities and car
parking; Ebridge Mill, Happisburgh Road for Tritec Synergy Limited
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in respect of an application
for planning permission for the conversion and extension of a redundant former mill
building to provide twelve holiday units.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that part of the site was in the Parish of Witton. The
Senior Planning Officer confirmed that Witton Parish Council had been consulted but
no comments had been received.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that the applicants had reaffirmed that the canal
area would be enhanced. Referring to concerns that the scheme would not be
developed as shown on the drawings submitted with this application, the Senior
Planning Officer stated that conditions would be imposed to require the scheme to be
developed as submitted. He stated that whilst there were policy issues in respect of
the new build element of the scheme it was considered that the merits of the scheme
in respecting the original building and enhancement of the area justified approval of
this application subject to the imposition of conditions and careful monitoring.
The Chairman considered that all new build should be kept within the footprint of the
original building and that the units should be restricted for holiday use only and not
for ‘holiday homes’.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be imposed to restrict
the use as suggested and that the applicants were happy to accept a restriction to
holiday lets only. In answer to concerns raised by Councillor B Cabbell Manners he
referred to a recent appeal decision on a site in East Ruston where the Inspector had
allowed an appeal against refusal of an application for holiday use but had imposed
restrictions on the length of occupation. The Head of Planning and Building Control
stated that issues relating to holiday accommodation and second homes would be
considered under the Local Development Framework.
Councillor Miss P E Ford, a local Member, expressed concern that the cost of
clearing the site had not been taken into account and that visitors to Bacton Woods
could be endangered by the way the site had been treated. She requested a Section
106 Agreement, access for local people and removal of permitted development
rights.
In response to concerns regarding the presence and removal of asbestos the
Environmental Protection Team Leader stated that previous site management in
respect of asbestos had not been good but he considered that this matter had been
dealt with and was confident that it could be managed in the future. Contaminated
land conditions would include removal of asbestos. Samples would be required to
ensure there would be no danger to future users of the site.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan stressed the importance of wildlife protection,
particularly in respect of voles, bats and otters. She considered that the landscaping
appeared to be rather artificial and requested that the developers work with the
Countryside Section to make it more natural and sympathetic in relation to the natural
environment.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
16 March 2006
The Senior Planning Officer explained that English Nature had requested further
survey work in respect of protected species. Landscaping details would be submitted
as part of the full application. All land in the applicants’ ownership would be subject
to landscaping conditions which would include the demolition of buildings.
Councillor Miss C P Sheridan proposed approval of this application as recommended
by the Head of Planning and Building Control subject to conditions relating to the
management of asbestos and a future landscaping scheme.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold requested that suitably equipped units be provided for
people with disabilities. The officers explained that the provision of disabled facilities
would be required under the Building Regulations.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis considered that if a viable and sustainable use could not be
found for the buildings they would continue to deteriorate and fall into disrepair. She
stated that the site was in a very prominent position and she did not want it to remain
a blot on the landscape. She considered that there was potential to gain something
from this application and emphasised that the scheme should be of the highest
quality with appropriate use of materials. She considered that the landscaping could
be stunning but did not agree that public access should be allowed for safety
reasons. She requested that the scheme progress as quickly as possible.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners referred to a case at Saxthorpe for conversion of barns
to holiday units that had been refused and questioned the difference between that
application and the current application. The Head of Planning and Building Control
explained that a balanced judgement had been made in both cases, but in the
Saxthorpe case there had not been sufficient justification to approve the application.
There was considered on balance to be sufficient justification to approve the current
application.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, Member for North Walsham West Ward, stated that there
was a historic relationship between Ebridge Mill and North Walsham and the North
Walsham Area Partnership wanted to see the restoration of the millpond. She
considered that the advantages offered by the application were the loss of HGV
traffic and restoration of a prominent building in the landscape. She considered that
an archaeological survey should be carried out. She requested that the landscaping
scheme should focus on the interests of the wildlife.
Councillor Mrs A M Tillett stated that she believed in restoration and not renovation
and reminded the Committee that on many occasions Members had been told that
untidiness of a site was not a legitimate reason to approve a planning application.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins queried the impact of the proposal on the adjacent feed
merchant’s business and in particular its access and deliveries. The Officers advised
that there were no planning issues that would impact on the adjacent business and
that issues relating to access were civil issues to be resolved between the parties.
Councillor Miss P E Ford requested conditions to include clearance of the site prior to
development, removal of permitted development rights on the remaining land, a
landscaping scheme for the benefit and diversity of wildlife, an archaeological survey
if required, Section 106 Agreement and that the owner of the mill be requested to
adopt the mill pond for the benefit of the community and the holidaymakers who will
use the site.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
16 March 2006
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager advised that it was not possible to
request the developers to take action over land in which they had no interest.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Mrs S L
Willis and
RESOLVED by 14 votes to 2
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to
approve this application subject to resolution of issues raised by
English Nature, modification of the legal agreement revoking the
planning permission for the adjoining haulage use and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions to include the clearance and
proper management of asbestos, a landscaping scheme for the benefit
of wildlife, wildlife mitigation, an archaeological survey, materials,
drainage, flood protection, removal of permitted development rights and
holiday use only.
(6)
TETRA MAST AT NORTH WALSHAM POLICE STATION, YARMOUTH ROAD,
NORTH WALSHAM
HIGH COURT CASE
PENNINGTON –v1) THE FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE
2) NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL
3) AIRWAVE MM02 LIMITED
Councillor J H Perry-Warnes declared a personal interest in this application as he
was a member of Norfolk Police Authority.
Councillor B Cabbell Manners declared a personal interest in this application as he
had a Tetra mast on his land.
Councillor Ms V R Gay stated that she lived on Yarmouth Road. The Planning, Legal
and Enforcement Manager advised that this was a declaration of fact, not of interest.
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports updating the Committee on
recent developments in the High Court case relating to the Tetra mast at North
Walsham Police Station.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager outlined the background to this case
and updated the Committee on recent developments in the current legal challenge.
He informed the Committee that Airwave MMO2 Limited had now submitted to
judgment and a draft Consent Order had been issued by the Treasury Solicitor on
behalf of the Secretary of State. The Order would become effective when signed by
the Judge. The Court hearing would not now go ahead but the appeals would
instead be sent back to the Secretary of State to be reconsidered by a different
Inspector. All parties would have an opportunity to make further submissions.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that the refusal of planning
permission was now as it was prior to the decision on the original appeals and, in his
opinion, there was no planning permission for the equipment attached to the mast.
The Enforcement Notice was again live but in abeyance pending the decision on the
new appeals. In his opinion, the Stop Notice would again be in force from the date
the appeals are remitted to the Secretary of State but he stressed that this was an
officer opinion as Counsel was not currently advising the Authority in this matter.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
16 March 2006
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager reminded the Committee that the
Council was threatened with a substantial compensation claim before the earlier
decision to serve the Stop Notice. He assumed that Airwave and the Police would be
reluctant to switch off the equipment for operational and contractual reasons.
However, he recommended that the Committee noted the report and the recent
developments in the High Court case, and to instruct the officers to seek a written
assurance from Airwave’s Solicitors on behalf of their clients that upon issue of the
Court order and remission of the appeals to the Secretary of State for
redetermination, the equipment mounted on the mast will be switched off as required
by the Stop Notice previously served.
Councillor Ms V R Gay, a local Member, supported the recommendation and added
that the Council had demonstrated extraordinary support for the public in this case.
She stated that Enforcement and Stop Notices had been served and North Walsham
Councillors had made a very strong submission to the Inspector. She thanked all
those involved for their support.
Councillor Miss P E Ford supported the comments made by Councillor Ms Gay. She
proposed the recommendation of the Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager
which was seconded by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins.
RESOLVED by 14 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions
(7)
1.
That the report and the recent developments in the High Court case be
noted.
2.
That the officers be instructed to seek a written assurance from
Airwave’s Solicitors on behalf of their clients that upon issue of the
Court order and remission of the appeals to the Secretary of State for
redetermination, the equipment mounted on the mast will be switched
off as required by the Stop Notice previously served.
Development and Flood Risk – Applying the Sequential Test to Planning
Applications – Consultation on Planning Policy Statement 25
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ report in respect of the need to
revise the Council’s current approach with regard to considering development
proposals within areas subject to flood risk following the publication of draft PPS25
and new advice from the Environment Agency.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis expressed concern that PPS25 did not mention coastal
erosion and that the second generation Shoreline Management Plan had not been
produced.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that PPS25 related to flood
risk. Coastal erosion was dealt with under other Government guidance which had
not yet been updated.
Councillor H C Cordeaux stated that no account had been taken of wave action and
expressed concern that the 1953 flood zone was not shown on the Environment
Agency maps.
The Development Control Manager reported that he had received an e-mail from
Councillor D Corbett requesting that permitted development rights be removed from
properties in the high and medium flood risk zones. The Development Control
Manager considered that if the recommendations were adopted there would be less
likelihood of new dwellings being approved.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
16 March 2006
The Development Control Manager stated that since the report was written the issue
of dry islands had been raised. Many dry islands were in areas where development
would not be permitted under other policies. In recent cases, permission had been
refused for development on dry islands on the grounds that it would be surrounded at
times of flooding and an Inspector had supported the Council’s view on appeal. He
amended recommendation 1 contained in the report to require that the sequential
test also be applied to dry islands surrounded by high risk flood areas.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis reiterated her concerns regarding the lack of a second
generation Shoreline Management Plan and considered that the Council should be
extremely cautious in its approach. She was loath to sign up to the interim policy
before the publication of the SMP.
The Development Control Manager stated that, whilst flood risk and coastal erosion
were related, the report under consideration related solely to flood risk areas as
identified by the Environment Agency. Sea defences were not taken into account by
the Environment Agency as stability could not be guaranteed for the long term future.
A strategic flood risk assessment would be carried out in conjunction with
neighbouring authorities as part of the LDF. This was expected to take into account
existing sea defences. As a result of that assessment the high flood risk area could
be further divided according to vulnerability.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis requested that a letter be sent to the Government stating
that NNDC was a maritime authority and expressing concern that there was currently
no joined up thinking, whereas a holistic approach should be taken to coastal issues.
The Development Control Manager answered Members’ questions in respect of
previous planning applications in areas of flood risk and the effect of the sequential
test on future applications in locations about which they expressed concerns.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, duly seconded and
RESOLVED by 13 votes to 1
1.
That the following revised interim Development Control Policy be
recommended to Cabinet for adoption, pending the adoption of the
Local Development Framework:
1) That the sequential test is applied to all planning applications within
medium or high risk flood zones (including within existing defined
settlement boundaries) having regard to the advice contained in
PPG25 (PPS25) and the comments of the Environment Agency.
2) Development proposals which do not satisfy the sequential test will
normally be refused planning permission unless an overriding case
is put forward as an exception (this would be assessed under the
‘Exception Test’ referred to in PPS25).
3) That in cases where the sequential test is satisfied, planning
permission is only granted where (if required) a satisfactory flood
risk assessment has been submitted, having regard to the advice in
PPG25 (PPS25) and the views of the Environment Agency.
4) That this interim policy (in terms of the sequential test) does not
apply to current proposals where flood risk assessments have been
submitted in consultation with the Environment Agency and where
the applicants were not initially advised of the sequential test.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
16 March 2006
2.
(8)
That a letter be sent to the Government stating that NNDC was a
maritime authority and expressing concern that there was currently no
joined up thinking, whereas a holistic approach should be taken to
coastal issues.
North Norfolk District Council Local Development Framework Statement of
Community Involvement
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ report updating the Committee on
the outcome of the Hearing concerning the Statement of Community Involvement
and the handling of planning applications in particular and seeking the Committee’s
view on issues raised in the Inspector’s report.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that the Inspector’s
recommendation for widening the definition of ‘major applications’ could lead to
disputes over whether or not an application should be regarded as ‘major’. Officers
considered that a cautious approach should be taken in this matter. An application
should have a significant impact in terms of the planning considerations and should
not just be controversial, for example, it should be a significant departure from policy,
a sensitive type of development or in a particularly sensitive location. For
consistency the decision would be made by the Development Control Managers or
Head of Planning and Building Control. Developers would be encouraged to consult
the community whether or not it was a requirement.
The Head of Planning and Building Control referred to the requirements for further
consultations in respect of major developments that are a departure from the
Development Plan or those that may give rise to local controversy or on sensitive
sites. He stated that the advice of local Members would be sought as to who should
be consulted, whether a public meeting would be required and, if so, the
arrangements to be made.
In respect of commercial confidentiality, the Head of Planning and Building Control
stated that he would be happy to exercise discretion in this matter provided that local
consultation took place eventually and in the appropriate manner.
The Head of Planning and Building Control requested the Committee’s endorsement
of the suggested approach to the issues raised by the Inspector.
It was proposed by Councillor Miss C P Sheridan, seconded by Councillor Mrs C M
Wilkins and
RESOLVED unanimously
That the suggested approach outlined by the Head of Planning and
Building Control in respect of issues raised by the Inspector be
endorsed.
The meeting closed at 12.15 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
7
16 March 2006