21 DECEMBER 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 A R Green
Mrs B McGoun
J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs J Trett
Mrs C M Wilkins
P J Willcox
S J Wright
J A Wyatt
R Combe - substitute for B Cabbell Manners
B G Crowe - substitute for Mrs A C Sweeney
W J Northam - substitute for J D Savory
L G Randall - substitute for H C Cordeaux
Ms V R Gay - observer
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr A Mitchell - Development Control Manager (West)
Mr R Smith - Economic Development Manager
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs S A Arnold, B Cabbell
Manners, H C Cordeaux, C A Fenn, Miss P E Ford, T H Moore, N P Ripley, J D
Savory, Miss C P Sheridan, Mrs S Stockton, Mrs A C Sweeney, Mrs A M Tillett, S K
Welsh and Mrs S L Willis. Four substitute Members attended the meeting 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 B G Crowe declared an interest in Minute 4.
(4)
LANGHAM - 20061273 – Change of use from Post Office stores to ancillary
residential accommodation; Wizards End, Binham Road from Mr and Mrs D
Butcher
Councillor B G Crowe declared a personal interest as he was the former local
Member for Langham and had occasionally used the shop and post office.
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in respect of an application
for change of use which would leave the village with no premises which could lawfully
trade as a shop contrary to the objectives of Local Plan Policy 68.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
21 December 2006
Public Speaker
Mr Butcher (supporting)
The Development Control Manager read to the Committee the comments of
Councillor J D Savory, a local Member, in support of this application. Councillor
Savory had referred to the service given to the village by the applicants, their efforts
to keep the shop open despite it being unprofitable for some time prior to its closure
and the presence of shops in surrounding villages.
The Development Control Manager also read to the Committee an e-mail from the
applicants, who recognised the policy issues involved but considered that there were
no commercial reasons to market the shop as it could not be offered as a lock-up
shop as there were no separate toilet, washing or storage facilities, these being
located within the house. The applicants could only sell the shop and house together
and if they did so, they would be unable to afford to purchase a dwelling locally. The
applicants had referred to similar premises in Upper Sheringham which had been
converted to a dwelling.
Councillor Mrs J Trett, a local Member, stated that whilst village shops were
cherished, the nature of the building did not lend itself to use as a separate shop.
She stated that the entrance to the shop was directly onto the highway and that the
volume of traffic had increased and there were problems with speeding.
Councillor B G Crowe considered that it was unfair to link the determination of this
application with the application for the redevelopment of the Langham Glass site. He
referred to the difficulties being experienced by post offices and the competition from
supermarkets, towns and other local shops, including the village shop in Blakeney
which had developed as a small supermarket. He proposed approval of this
application as the applicant had demonstrated that the premises could not be sold or
let as a local convenience store, which was seconded by Councillor W J Northam.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins requested the comments of the Highway Authority. The
Development Control Manager explained that the Highway Authority had not been
consulted as there were no highway implications associated with this application.
In answer to a comment by Councillor J H Perry-Warnes, the Head of Planning and
Building Control stated that it was not the Council’s intention to put people out of
business. However, Local Plan policy required a marketing exercise to be carried
out. He did not object to the approval of this application provided the Committee was
satisfied that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to demonstrate that the
business was not viable. The correct procedure had not been followed with regard to
marketing and he was concerned that a precedent could be set for other local shops.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins referred to a similar case in Tunstead where conversion
of a post office to residential use had been allowed without a marketing exercise
being carried out. She supported this application.
Councillor Mrs B McGoun considered that the applicants had demonstrated the lack
of viability of the shop. She stated that the applicants bought the property 22 years
previously and had run the shop for 20 years but customers had gone elsewhere.
The Economic Development Manager supported Councillor Mrs McGoun’s
comments. He stated that it was regrettable for a village to lose its assets but it was
a matter of supply and demand.
Councillor R Combe stated that the business had been unviable for a long period and
he sympathised with the applicants.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
21 December 2006
In response to a comment the Economic Development Manager stated that under
current circumstances Post Offices were blighted and it was very difficult for people
to sell them.
It was proposed by Councillor B G Crowe, seconded by Councillor W J Northam and
RESOLVED by 11 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be approved on the grounds that the Committee
accepts that the applicants have demonstrated that the existing use is
not viable and the premises cannot be sold or let as a local convenience
shop.
(5)
Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 – First Provisional Allocations
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports informing Members of the
latest position concerning the provisional award for the first tranche of the Planning
Delivery Grant 2007/08 and to stress the importance of the maintenance of good
performance for the remainder of the current financial year.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that the Council would be
penalised on the plan-making element of the Planning Delivery Grant because of
circumstances brought about by the Government. He stated that the Council could
record its displeasure but could do nothing about it.
In terms of the Annual Monitoring Report, the Council should score well having met
or exceeded many of the targets.
The Head of Planning and Building Control considered that the Council should score
in terms of e-planning but would not do as well as previous years. This was now
dependent on take-up of services outside the authority’s direct control.
Some £48,000 had already been allocated for Development Control performance.
This related to approximately one quarter of the development control element. The
remaining three-quarters would be based on performance from July 2006 to March
2007. It was therefore vital to process planning applications quickly. The
Development Control Team had been instructed to do everything possible to meet
targets and this imperative also applied to Members. The Head of Planning and
Building Control understood the pressure on Members from local people but
emphasised the need to exercise judgement in asking for applications to be
considered by the Development Control Committees and to ensure that site visits
were undertaken only when it was essential to do so.
Performance on ‘major’ applications and ‘other’ applications was ahead of the
Council’s target. However, performance on ‘minor’ applications was currently at 70%
compared to a Council target of 72%. The Government’s target was 65%. If the
Council failed to meet the Government targets on Development Control performance
it would lose out on £50,000, which represented 1% of Council Tax.
The Chairman stated that this was a sum the Council could not afford to lose and
emphasised the importance of meeting the targets. He considered that all Members
were guilty of calling in applications and the issue had to be addressed.
In answer to a question the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the
Government set base-line targets, but the Council set its own higher targets as it
aspired to meet top quartile performance.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
21 December 2006
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins expressed concern that local people should not be
prevented from expressing their views on applications.
The Committee discussed ways of bringing possibly controversial matters to the
attention of local Members and officers as quickly as possible. It was suggested that
Members draw to the attention of officers any applications they thought would be
controversial as soon as they received the weekly list of applications to allow them to
be brought to the Committee at the earliest opportunity, informing local Members of
pre-application discussions on significant applications, and consulting local Members
with regard to determination of applications under the delegation procedure at the
earliest opportunity.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that these matters could be
discussed at the forthcoming Members’ Workshop.
The Chairman considered that it was helpful to listen to the discussions at
Parish/Town Council meetings in respect of planning applications, after making it
clear for the minutes that they were not participating in those discussions.
The Chairman reminded Members that they could only advise members of the public
on procedure. They should not offer an opinion on planning proposals.
Councillor Mrs J Trett stated that there were occasions when proposals were clearly
contrary to policy and she considered that it was a waste of time asking for them to
be brought to Committee and visiting the site.
RESOLVED
That the latest information concerning the Planning Delivery Grant
awards for 2007/2008 be noted and the measures to achieve good
performance, particularly in respect of minor applications in the period
up to 31 March 2007, be endorsed.
(6)
Enforcement Workload and Statistics – Quarterly Report
The Committee considers item 3 of the officers’ reports setting out for the
Committee’s consideration details of the workload and performance of the
Enforcement Service for the quarter ending 30 September 2006.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that the ability of the
Enforcement Team to monitor conditions was limited given the team’s current
workload and the absence of one member of staff on sick leave.
RESOLVED
That the report be noted.
The meeting closed at 10.30 am.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
21 December 2006