OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
19 JANUARY 2006
Each report for decision on this Agenda shows the Officer responsible, the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control and in the case of private business the paragraph(s) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 under which it is considered exempt. None of the reports have financial, legal or policy implications save where indicated.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
1. HOLT - 20050518 - Change of use of land to public car park and formation of access at Thornage Road for Mr G F Chapman
To give further consideration to the Committee’s resolution to grant planning permission subject to the reduction of the speed limit at Thornage Road to 30 miles per hour.
Background
This application was considered by the Joint Development Control Committee on 9
June 2005 when it was resolved that a car park on the site be approved in principle and that the Highway Authority be informed that the decision to have a car park had been approved and to seek its agreement to a 30 mph speed limit on the road outside the site. The resolution also required that agreement be reached on a number of detailed design issues, including the provision of a right turn lane facility at the proposed site entrance.
Members will recall that the Highway Authority had indicated that it objected to this proposal and had expressed the view that a 30 mph restriction on the Thornage
Road was unacceptable and would be in conflict with both local and national highway guidance.
The proposal was considered by the County Council Cabinet meeting on 20
September 2005, when it was formally resolved to decline the District Council’s request to introduce a 30 mph speed limit and to advise the District Council that option 4 of the County Officer’s report (copy reproduced in Appendix 1 ), involving the formation of an access supported by a formal 50 mph limit, would meet the requirements of the Highway Authority.
Despite the decision of the County Council Cabinet the applicant was anxious to promote the 30 mph limit, but further meetings between the parties have failed to reach any agreement. The applicant has now decided to seek permission based on a 50 mph limit. Such an approach does not comply with this Committee’s resolution of 9 June so the applicant has requested the Committee reconsider this matter and indicate if it is prepared to maintain its support for the proposal but with a 50 mph limit so that he may commence detailed design work (including the provision of a right turn lane).
Updates
Following the resolution on 9 June a number of additional representations have been made:-
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
19 January 2006

Holt Town Council - Letter referring to the on-going discussions between the applicant and the County Council suggesting that further consideration be given to:-
1. The re-introduction of public toilets which had previously been part of the proposal but had been deleted.
2. The reduction of the speed limit in Thornage Road to 30 mph.
3. The designation of Valley Lane to ‘Pedestrian Priority’
Letter from local resident expressing the view that dealing with surface water drainage by soakaway would be inappropriate given the possibility of polluted run off affected adjacent areas (Spout Hills) which in part comprise important wetland habitat.
Environment Agency - Recommend that in the event of planning permission being granted a condition be attached to any permission requiring a scheme of pollution control to be submitted and agreed prior to the commencement of development.
C.P.R.E North Norfolk - Letter urging that two additional conditions be considered, the first relating to the drainage issues referred to above and the second expressing the view that the development may lead to the interruption of traffic flows on the A148
(due to pedestrians crossing the road to gain access to the town centre from the car park) and suggesting that an underpass should be provided.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:-
(a) The Committee gives consideration to the applicant’s request to seek a 50 mph speed restriction in place of the 30 mph speed restriction previously sought.
(b) In the event of a 50 mph limit being agreed the Committee considers whether to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Building
Control to grant permission, subject to the receipt of amended plans providing for a right turn lane, off-site highway improvements to Valley Lane (pedestrian
Source: (Mark Ashwell, Extn 6325 – File Reference: 20050518-1)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
2. safety works), provision of four coach parking spaces, details of levels, lighting and landscaping and to the imposition of appropriate conditions to include drainage and pollution controls.
HORNING - 20051116 – Demolition of hotel and erection of thirty-four dwellings; Petersfield House Hotel, 101 Lower Street for Petersfield
Investments Limited
To consider whether to grant outline planning permission for the redevelopment of hotel premises.
Background
Following the recommendation of the Development Control Committee (East) on 29
October 2005 to refuse permission on policy grounds relating to the loss of the hotel, the Joint Committee debated the proposal at the meeting on 24 November 2005. It was resolved that the Committee was minded to grant outline permission in principle but the decision was deferred to allow the submission and further consideration of affordable housing arrangements.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
19 January 2006

It is understood that the hotel has now ceased trading.
Key Policy Considerations
1. Appropriateness of residential development and its impact on the character of the area.
2. The loss of hotel accommodation.
3. The nature of the provision of affordable housing and the manner by which it could be secured.
Appraisal
At the meeting on 24 November 2005 Members considered fully matters of principle of development and policy, including the appropriateness of residential development, its impact on the character of the area and the loss of hotel accommodation, as detailed in the accompanying report copied as Appendix 2.
The site has an area of 0.82ha and it is likely therefore that a redevelopment of more than four dwellings will be envisaged. Policy 58 of the Local Plan requires such developments within selected small villages to include a scheme for the provision of affordable housing, provided that all the excess dwellings are for affordable housing.
Discussions have taken place with the applicant, his agent, and the Development
Officer in an attempt to establish the nature of the provision of affordable housing.
As the application seeks the principle of redevelopment only, with no plans of the scale and form of development proposed, it is clearly not possible for a specific scheme to be proposed at this stage. However, the applicant is prepared to accept a condition to be imposed upon the grant of an outline planning permission requiring a scheme for the provision of affordable housing to be submitted as part of a detailed proposal in excess of four dwellings.
The Council’s Development Officer has advised that in the circumstances this approach, in this instance, is appropriate. However, as there is a recognised housing need within the Horning area it is considered that any provision should be provided on-site rather than accepting a financial contribution for the development of affordable housing to be provided elsewhere.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:-
Approve, subject to conditions requiring details of the design and external appearance, landscaping and a scheme for the provision of affordable housing.
Source: (Paul Took, Extn 6098 – File Reference: 20051116-1)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
19 January 2006

3.
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
WIVETON – 20051841 – Demolition of redundant barns and erection of farm shop/café; Wiveton Hall Marsh Lane for Mr D MacCarthy
To consider an application for the demolition of redundant barns and erection of farm shop/café.
Background
This application was considered at the meeting of Development Control Committee
(West) on 5 January 2006, when it was resolved that Members of the Joint
Development Control Committee visit the site and the application be referred to the
Joint Committee with a recommendation for approval. A copy of the report and appendix is appended to this agenda (see Appendix 3 ).
Updates
At the meeting on 5 January 2006 it was reported that additional information had been received from the applicant’s agent which indicated that there are no buildings within the farm complex which are either vacant or in a suitable position to be used as a farm shop. In addition a revised plan had been received from the agent which showed the access being repositioned and the existing farm stall moved to the east of the access, as required by the Highway Authority.
Key Policy Considerations
Whether the matters raised in support of the farm shop/café outweigh concerns that the proposed café would be contrary to Policy 5: The Countryside and Policy: 88
Farm Shops of the adopted North Norfolk Local Plan.
Appraisal
The site is situated within the Countryside policy area as well as within the Norfolk
Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Glaven Valley Conservation Area and
Undeveloped Coast. In addition Policy 88: Farm Shops is also relevant in this case.
Policy 5 states that development proposals will not be permitted unless they are for purposes, which include (a) agriculture and (d) the reuse and adaptation of buildings, whilst Policy 88 requires that goods to be sold are restricted to locally produced farm related products and that where proposals involve new buildings they will only be permitted where no opportunity exists for the reuse or adaptation of buildings in the
Countryside.
At the present time Wiveton Hall Fruit Farm runs an established business selling produce of the farm together with other locally grown produce from buildings within the farm complex, which includes Wiveton Hall, a Grade II* listed building, and also from a stall adjacent to the A149.
A supporting statement submitted with the application indicated that the produce to be sold would be locally produced, whilst additional information provided by the agent has indicated that there are no other buildings within the farm complex which are either vacant or in a suitable position to be used as a farm shop.
As such whilst a farm shop selling locally produced farm-related produce would comply with policy, the café would be unconnected with the sale of such produce and neither could it be construed as being required for agricultural purposes.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
19 January 2006

It is therefore considered that the proposals fail to comply with Policies 5 and 88 of the North Norfolk Local Plan.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):-
That the application be approved on the grounds that the use is considered to be an appropriate form of farm diversification, would create employment opportunities, reduce food miles, assist in the creation of a permissive footpath between Blakeney and Cley and the kitchen/toilets could be used by employees and customers using the existing establishment.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:-
That the application be refused on the grounds that the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Policies 5 and 88 of the North Norfolk Local
Plan in that the proposal would involve the construction of a new building in the countryside for purposes other than agriculture and for the sale of locally produced farm related produce.
Source: (Gary Linder, Extn 6152 – File Reference: 20051841)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
4. Development Control Performance
This report sets out Development Control performance figures for the quarter ending
31 December 2005 and comments on matters relating to the Planning Delivery
Grant.
At the meeting on 24 November 2005 the Committee received the previous quarterly report on performance, supported the new Council target figures to be recommended to Cabinet and endorsed efforts to maintain performance, with particular emphasis on improving performance in relation to minor applications wherever possible.
Table 1 ( Appendix 4 ) indicates that during the most recent quarter 405 decisions were made, the lowest number in the last year. Delegated decisions reached a new high of 87.4%, only 2.6% below the Government’s target figure of 90%. Approvals dropped to 87.2%, a similar figure to the corresponding period in 2004 but lower than the three subsequent quarters.
Table 2 ( Appendix 4 ) sets out cumulative performance figures for the quarter and compares these with previous years and the nine months from October 2004 to June
2005, the latter period forming the basis for the award of the development control element of the Planning Delivery Grant for 2006/07.
The most recent quarter shows that 60% of major applications were determined within the statutory period, less than the Council’s target but based on a small sample of only five decisions. On the other hand the Service produced its best ever performance for minor decisions, 82.9% of these being within the 8-week deadline and in accordance with the Committee’s aspirations as expressed in November.
Other decisions also reached a new high at 92.7%. These figures meant that cumulatively over the six months from 1 July 2005 the Service was exceeding all of the Council’s targets and has also improved across all categories compared with the nine months ending 30 June 2005. If this performance can be maintained over the next six months the Council should receive a good outcome from the final Planning
Delivery Grant award for 2007/08.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
19 January 2006

In terms of next year’s Planning Delivery Grant the Government announced in
December that the preliminary settlement of the development control element of the
PDG for next year will be just under £235k. Although this is substantially less than last year, principally because less money is available nationally, it still represents a good achievement, North Norfolk receiving the second highest award in the County after South Norfolk. The Council is likely to receive another £52k following the submission of the Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report and a further allocation is expected for e-Planning which is currently being independently assessed. A substantial portion of this money has already been allocated for expenditure during the budget process, with 25% being ring-fenced for capital projects and it is hoped that this will be used to fund IT improvements, both directly for the Service and for related corporate systems. Cabinet will be responsible for the distribution of any remaining funds from this source.
Table 3 ( Appendix 4 ) sets out the Council’s performance on planning appeals
(excluding enforcement appeals) and indicates that during the most recent quarter only 1 appeal out of 11 was allowed, representing 9.1% of the total. Cumulatively, for the current financial year the figure stands at 12.8%, a significant achievement when compared with the Council’s target of 28.2% and the national average of some 33%.
In terms of staffing, because of the success of the Service in achieving its targets it has been decided not to replace the Trainee Planning Assistant who resigned in the autumn, this post having been funded by the Planning Delivery Grant. One Planning
Officer is currently on extended sick leave.
RECOMMENDATION:-
That the Joint Committee notes the current situation concerning Development
Control performance and continues to support efforts to maintain performance.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn: 6135 - File Reference: DC Performance-11)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
5. Reconsideration of special arrangements to deal with late letters of representation at Committee
This report seeks the Committee’s views on whether it is necessary to make special arrangements for the consideration of late letters of representation received prior to
Development Control Committee meetings.
At the meeting on 10 June 2004 the Joint Committee agreed that a late letters file, containing a copy of each letter of representation received after the Committee report had been printed, be established and made available to Members and to the public on the morning of the meeting and that this system be reviewed after six months.
Because of staff shortages at the time, this resolution was not implemented and the matter was discussed again at a recent meeting of the Planning Chairs in order to seek views on whether it remained necessary for this instruction to be carried out or whether the matter should be reviewed. The Planning Chairs agreed that a further report should be written to the Joint Committee in order for Members’ views to be ascertained.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
19 January 2006

Members will doubtless recollect that in 2004 representations on supermarket proposals were at a peak and this seemed to prompt a spate of very late representations being received, leading to difficulties for both Officers and Members.
Since that time the number and intensity of representations on these matters has reduced and the Committee is therefore asked to reconsider the necessity of introducing special arrangements to cope with the situation.
A further point to bear in mind is that the coming into force during the next few months of new arrangements for consulting the community on major schemes prior to formal applications being submitted may mean that there is less need for last minute representations to be submitted since hopefully the public will have been properly engaged at an earlier stage in the proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION:-
The Committee’s views are sought on whether it is necessary to introduce special arrangements for considering late letters of representation or whether existing arrangements are adequate to meet current requirements.
Source: (Steve Oxenham, Extn 6135 - File Reference: late representations)
PUBLIC BUSINESS - ITEM FOR DECISION
6. Council Practice on the Checking of Setting Out of Development
This report explains the Council’s current policy and practice on the setting out of development and seeks the Committee’s views on whether there are any issues which are considered to require amendment.
At the meeting of the East Area Committee on 22 September 2005 Members considered the siting of a detached dwelling on land at Harbord Road, Cromer. One of the local Members, in supporting objections that had been raised locally on the matter, requested that the issue of setting out be considered at a Joint meeting of the
Development Control Committees and expressed concern at the tolerances allowed by Building Control Surveyors.
The Council’s adopted Planning Enforcement Policy and Service Standards, which dates from 2001, clarifies that Officers will, through the use of Building Control staff, check the setting out of new development consisting of freestanding buildings, including new houses, garages, separate annexes and industrial and commercial buildings, where such buildings are the subject of inspection by the Council’s Building
Control staff.
Conversely, Officers will not routinely check out the setting out of developments in the case of extensions; where Building Control has been carried out by another
Approved Inspector; or where no Building Regulations approval is required. In these cases Officers will seek to monitor the setting out of new freestanding buildings wherever possible but will not guarantee to do this at the time the construction takes place.
In interpreting this policy the Council’s Building Control Section has for many years operated under the terms of a practice note which amplifies detailed arrangements for carrying out this task. In particular, if the setting out on site does not accord with the approved plan, i.e. that on the basis of which planning permission has been
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
7
19 January 2006

granted and is incorrect by more than 0.5m or 10%, whichever is the greater, the
Building Control Surveyor will alert the builder and advise him to stop work until the revised siting can be verified. The Building Control Surveyor will also contact
Development Control staff, including the Enforcement Officer if necessary in order to follow the matter up.
The effect of this is that normal building tolerances are considered to allow for a difference in setting out of up to 0.5m without the risk of action being taken in relation to freestanding buildings. If a building is to be located more than 5m from any particular boundary then the 10% rule would apply, so that if a building were 10m from a boundary then a variation in siting of up to 1m would not be considered to be worthy of further action being taken. These practices have been followed for many years and have not generally given rise to significant problems, but in the light of the recent case the Committee is asked to consider whether it wishes any amendment to be recommended.
If the Committee were minded to seek alterations it is suggested that this would need to be the subject of further consideration and consultation involving the Building
Control Manager, whilst of course any change in policy would need to be in the form of a recommendation to full Council.
RECOMMENDATION:-
The Joint Committee is asked to note the current situation with regard to the checking of the setting out of development on the site and to give consideration as to whether any alteration to current policy or practice is required.
Source: (Steve Oxenham, Extn 6135 - File Reference: setting out of development)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
8
19 January 2006