OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
21 DECEMBER 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.
LANGHAM - 20061273 – Change of use from Post Office stores to ancillary
residential accommodation; Wizards End, Binham Road from Mr and Mrs D
Butcher
To consider 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.
Background
This application was considered by the Development Control Committee (West) on 7
December 2006. Report attached; see Appendix 1). Also on the agenda for that
meeting was the current application for the conversion and redevelopment of the
former glass works in North Street, Langham (20060770). The glass factory
proposals include the provision of a shop.
Although approval of the proposed change of use at Wizards End would leave the
village with no shop premises it was considered that the promise of a future shop
within the former glass factory proposals was a material consideration and could be
taken into account. Accordingly the recommendation was that the Wizards End
application be approved providing the Langham Glass application was similarly
approved. At the meeting, however, the Langham Glass application was deferred.
Members were unwilling also to defer the Wizards End application and resolved that
this application be reported to Joint Committee with a recommendation for approval.
Updates
Following consideration of this application by the Development Control Committee
(West) the applicant has submitted a further letter outlining the history of the
business prior to closure. This is attached as Appendix 1.
Key Policy Issue
The loss of the possibility of a village shop in the immediate future without any
attempt by the present owners to sell or rent the premises as a local convenience
shop in accordance with the requirements of Local Plan Policy 86.
Appraisal
Local Policy 86 reflects the important role of the village shop. Planning permission
will not normally be granted for a change of use resulting in the loss of a local
convenience shop if there is no alternative facility within reasonable walking distance
or it has been demonstrated through a marketing exercise that the premises could
not be sold or let to someone willing to continue the business. In this instance the
shop ceased trading approximately two years ago and has remained vacant since.
The applicants’ latest letter reinforces the information already provided by their
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
21 December 2006
accountant regarding the financial non-viability of the business in its last years.
Nevertheless the commercial use has not been abandoned in planning terms and the
shop could therefore reopen for business. The property has not been marketed in
accordance with Policy 86 and the demand or not for the property as a retail unit has
not been formally tested.
The possibility of a replacement village shop now being offered by the Langham
Glass proposals does not of itself satisfy the policy requirement of an alternative
facility. However, given the particular circumstances of this case it is considered that
this is a material consideration to be taken into account which could tip the balance in
favour of the applicants and enable approval of the application notwithstanding that
to do so would conflict with Development Plan Policy. Officers originally therefore
recommended deferral on that basis.
In the absence of a positive decision on the Langham Glass application (reference
2060770) it is considered that there is insufficient justification to approve this
application.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (WEST):Approve, on the basis that non-continuation of this retail business was
inevitable.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Refuse on the grounds that the applicants have failed to demonstrate through
an appropriate marketing exercise that the property could not be sold or let as
a local convenience shop, contrary to the requirements of Local Plan Policy 86.
Source: (Mathew Gannon, Extn 6160 - File Reference: 20061273)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 – First Provisional Allocations
The purpose of this report is to inform 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.
Members will recall that at the meeting on 28 September 2006 the Committee
considered a report concerning two consultation papers from the Government
regarding the Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 and the proposed Housing and
Planning Delivery Grant which might replace it in subsequent years.
With regard to the former report the Government has now published its response to
the consultation paper, a summary of which is attached in the letter to Chief Planning
Officers dated 5 December 2006 (attached as Appendix 2). Officers are examining
this letter and if there are any matters which require comment these will be reported
to the Committee orally.
A second letter of the same date to Chief Executives has been received and this is
attached as Appendix 2. This sets out the overall position in terms of the first
provisional allocations of Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08; the criteria for use of the
money are similar to those which have applied in previous years. The District
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
21 December 2006
Council has been awarded a provisional allocation of £48,774 in respect of
Development Control performance up to 30 June 2006. This figure is the third
highest in Norfolk; a second potentially larger tranche will be awarded based on
performance for the nine months from 1 July 2006 to 31 March 2007. At the meeting
Members will be given the up-to-date position in respect of the critical BVPI109
targets for the three categories of applications.
As a general comment, however, it is considered that performance on major and
other applications is satisfactory and is likely to meet or exceed both Government
and Council targets, but the performance on minor applications is of some concern,
certainly in relation to meeting the more stringent Council target.
It is suggested that at the very minimum the Government’s target of 65% on minor
applications determined within 8 weeks must be met in order for a £50,000 bonus
payment to be awarded. It is therefore essential that Officers and Members give the
highest priority to performing efficiently in respect of this area of work and this is a
matter which may benefit from some discussion at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:It is recommended that the Committee notes the receipt of the latest
information concerning the Planning Delivery Grant awards for 2007/08 and
continues to endorse measures to achieve good performance, particularly in
respect of minor applications in the period up to 31 March 2007.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn: 6135 - File Reference: PDG 2007-08)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
3.
Enforcement Workload and Statistics – Quarterly Report
This report sets out for the Committee’s consideration details of the workload and
performance of the Enforcement Service for the quarter ending 30 September 2006.
At the meeting of the Joint Committee on 31 August 2006 a report concerning
statistics relating to the workload and performance of the Enforcement Service was
considered. The statistics have been updated for the quarter ending 30 September
and are set out in Tables 1-4 of Appendix 3.
Table 1 shows the number of complaints received, resolved and on hand during the
quarter and includes those cases which were unresolved for more than three months,
as were included in the Schedules to the most recent meetings of the Area
Development Control Committees. During the quarter there was a large number of
new complaints, some 85, leading to a net increase of 10 in the number on hand, to
66.
Table 2 includes cases which have been considered by Committee and provides a
statistical summary of those cases which were included in the regular Schedules of
outstanding cases as reported to the individual Committees.
Table 3 concerns condition monitoring. Members will note the historically very high
figures brought forward as a result of the original decision to monitor planning
conditions on a comprehensive basis. Policy for a number of years now has been for
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
21 December 2006
the Committee and Officers to monitor conditions on a selective basis and since this
time the number of conditions requiring monitoring has declined for the majority of
quarters. However, following the withdrawal earlier in the year of the additional
resources for this task the number of outstanding conditions requiring monitoring has
risen for the second quarter running.
Table 4 sets out performance in relation to the service standards attached to the
Council’s planning enforcement policy. The principal purpose of these statistics is to
ensure that those making complaints are kept properly informed as to the progress
made in dealing with outstanding cases.
RECOMMENDATION:The Committee is asked to note the contents of the Tables and to indicate
whether it considers that the figures raise any issues which should be the
subject of further consideration.
(Source: Steve Oxenham, Extn: 6135 - File Reference: Enf Workload Sept 2006)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
21 December 2006