28 SEPTEMBER 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 S A Arnold
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Mrs A R Green
J H Perry-Warnes
N P Ripley
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs A M Tillett
Mrs J Trett
S K Welsh
Mrs C M Wilkins
P J Willcox
Mrs S L Willis
J A Wyatt
B G Crowe – substitute for B Cabbell Manners
R Combe - substitute for Mrs B McGoun
Ms V R Gay, P W High, Mrs H T Nelson - observers
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr G Linder – Senior Planning Officer
Mr R Howe – Planning Legal and Enforcement Manager
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B Cabbell Manners, Miss P E
Ford, Mrs B McGoun, T H Moore, J D Savory, Mrs S Stockton and S J Wright. Two
substitute Members attended the meeting as stated above.
(2)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there were no items of urgent business.
(3)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
A blanket declaration of interest was made in Minute 4. All Members had received
correspondence. Councillors H C Cordeaux and Mrs H T Nelson declared interests in
Minute 5, the details of which are recorded under that minute.
(4)
BLAKENEY – 20060284 – Conversion of one dwelling into two dwellings and
erection of studio above existing garage and formation of vehicular access for
R and M Curtis
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speakers
Mr R Curtis (supporting)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
28 September 2006
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application had been considered by the
Development Control Committee (West) on four occasions. Following the meeting
on 30 March 2006 a decision was deferred to allow Members to make a site visit. At
the meeting on 27 April 2006 the Committee resolved to give the Head of Planning
and Building Control delegated authority to approve the application subject to
conditions.
The application was considered again on 22 June 2006 as new grounds of objection
had been received following the readvertisement. An objection had also been
received from the Environment Agency regarding flood risk and in the light of the
Council’s decision not to proceed with the sequential test and to determine the
application in accordance with the Council’s adopted interim policy on flood risk.
Following this meeting Members had deferred the decision to allow the applicants
time to deal with the issues raised by the Environment Agency and to allow the
service of an additional notice on the owners of the land over which access was
required.
At the meeting of 17 August 2006 Officers recommended deferral, pending further
legal advice, to await the comments of the Police and Fire Service and to consult the
Environment Agency on the amended plans. The application was then referred to
the Joint Development Control Committee with a recommendation for delegated
authority to approve, subject to the views of the Legal Services Manager with regard
to the Interim Policy and the need to seek Counsel’s advice and subject to the views
of Norfolk Constabulary and Fire Service. Since then a response had been received
from Norfolk Constabulary who had raised no objections. No comments had been
received from the Fire Service.
The site was on the western end of Blakeney Quay. The scheme proposed turning
South Granary from one dwelling into two with a fitness studio above the small
garage. The Environment Agency had raised an objection because the site was
situated in a Flood Risk Zone 3 area. At the time of the original application the
residents of Red House and Red Lodge had made objections regarding the potential
for increasing flood risk. The applicants had tried to address the concerns of the
Environment Agency regarding sequential tests. However, the Environment Agency
had raised an objection to the Council’s Flood Risk Policy which had been agreed by
Cabinet in April 2006 following consultation with the Agency.
Since the meeting of Development Control West on 17 August an e-mail had been
received from the applicants stating their view that flooding was no longer an issue.
The Local Member, Cllr B G Crowe, said that the applicant had demonstrated that
even if flooding rose to 1953 levels floor-levels in the property would be above the
flood level. The Community Safety Officer had confirmed this. In regard to the
Council’s interim flood risk policy, he said that this had been agreed by Cabinet and
at Full Council and should not be challenged. To refuse the application would be
unfair because the challenge to the Council from the Environment Agency was
inconsistent.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager was asked for a legal opinion. It was
proposed by Cllr Mrs S L Willis, seconded by Cllr Mrs C M Wilkins and
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
28 September 2006
The Committee received legal advice in the light of the Council’s interim flood risk
policy and the Environment Agency’s objections then it was proposed by Cllr Mrs S
L Willis, seconded by Cllr Mrs C M Wilkins and
RESOLVED
To re-admit the Press and Public.
Members were minded to approve the application and the following site specific
reasons were identified:
•
There had been no objections from the Emergency Services or the Council’s Civil
Contingencies Manager.
•
Floor levels in the building were above likely flood-levels.
•
There was an escape route to higher ground, and the doors would be accessible
by boat in the event of flood and evacuation being required, so walking
evacuation was possible.
•
The property was situated on the quayside rather than a foreshore location with
Blakeney Point and the marshes offering some natural protection from flooding.
•
There had been an inconsistent approach from the Environment Agency in not
objecting to the resubmitted Salthouse application which was considered to be
potentially more vulnerable.
It was proposed by Cllr B G Crowe, seconded by Cllr J H Perry-Warnes and
RESOLVED by 13 votes to 1 with 1 abstention
That the Head of Planning and Building Control be given delegated
authority to approve this application, subject to a final reference to the
Environment Agency and conditions, including the following:
1. That the Flood Warning Service should remain connected to the
property.
2. That the front wall should be left intact and parking rearranged to
preserve the integrity of the flood defences.
3. That there should be no increase in the number of bedrooms and
that permitted development rights for extensions be removed.
4. That the studio should not be used for sleeping accommodation.
(5)
SHERINGHAM – 20060606 – Conversion and extension of garage/games room
to provide residential dwelling; the Piggeries Weybourne Road for Mr K Lowe
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports.
Public Speaker
Mr N Gant (Supporting)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
28 September 2006
Cllr H C Cordeaux made a declaration of interest. He was acquainted with the
applicant’s father and had spoken to him after the meeting of Development Control
Committee (West). Cllr Mrs H T Nelson also declared an interest because she knew
the applicant and his family.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Joint Committee had visited the
property. At the present time the site was used for breeding livestock and keeping
poultry. Permission had been granted in 1994 for the garage. Members had
considered on site how the building compared with the originally approved plan and
discovered that the roof was one and a half metres higher than agreed.
The applicant lived in Sheringham and because of disability needed to be brought to
the farm on a daily basis. For this reason the applicant wished to be resident on the
site. There was no possibility of the applicant improving access to the site. The
application had been deferred at the meeting of Development Control Committee
(West) on 14 August 2006 for a report which had subsequently been prepared by
Acorus Rural Property Services. The report did not confirm that it was essential for
two workers to be resident on the site at all times.
Cllrs C A Fenn, Mrs H T Nelson and Mrs A M Tillett spoke in support of the
application. They perceived an essential need for another dwelling on that site.
Cllrs H C Cordeaux and R Combe thought that there should be a 5-year temporary
agricultural occupancy. They suggested deferring to negotiate for an annexe which
could not be sold off separately. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that
this would have to be discussed with the applicant.
In reply to questions from Cllr Mrs C M Wilkins, the Senior Planning Officer said that
the building had not been erected until after 2001 and that it did not appear to have
been used for a garage or a games room. The applicant had not been asked to
provide information about other dwellings in the vicinity which might be suitable. The
property opposite was used for crab processing and planning permission for a
dwelling on that site had been refused on the grounds of being an additional dwelling
in the countryside. Agricultural restrictions could be applied to an annexe if it was
linked to an existing building with agricultural restrictions.
Cllr Mrs S L Willis expressed concerns about Highways issues and about setting a
precedent by treating the application as an annexe.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager advised that in making a decision
Members should be aware of setting a precedent. How this application was
determined could be cited elsewhere. In answer to a Member’s question he also
advised that an applicant could later ask for an agricultural restriction to be lifted. In
law, an annexe did not necessarily have to be attached, or immediately adjacent to
the original building.
It was proposed by Cllr H C Cordeaux, seconded by Cllr R Combe and
RESOLVED by 14 votes to 2
That consideration of the application be deferred to negotiate for an
annexe.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
28 September 2006
(6)
Consultation Papers – Planning Delivery Grant 2007/08 and Housing and
Planning Delivery Grant
The Committee considered item 3 of the officers’ reports.
The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that a report would be going to
Cabinet on 2 October and that Members’ comments would be conveyed at the
meeting. The Planning Delivery Grant was now in the 4th year of a 5 year
programme. 80% of it depended on the speed with which applications were handled.
Applications would need to be expedited till the end of March to maximise the award.
The amount allocated by the Government for the Planning Delivery Grant had
dropped significantly for the final year. With regard to development control
performance, funding would be based solely on meeting targets rather than on
performance improvements. This would first be paid on 30 June 2006 followed by a
second tranche from 1 July 2006 to 21 March 2007. A £50,000 bonus would be paid
for meeting all three national targets.
Officers agreed the principles but had reservations. Since the criteria had changed
significantly it was not considered possible under present arrangements to achieve
even the bottom score regarding E-Planning. NNDC received few electronic
planning applications. Members asked how many applications were received from
agents and if they could be persuaded, via the Agents’ meeting, to submit them
electronically. The Head of Planning and Building Control said that not all agents
had the technology. Transmitting plans electronically was challenging. Furthermore
the Government’s electronic form was complicated and long as opposed to NNDC’s
paper-based application form. There was not sufficient time to invest in the Planning
IT systems and get applicants using them by April. Members agreed that a comment
should be sent back that the application form was too complicated compared with the
current method and was not user friendly.
Electronic planning applications would not prevent people from coming in and
discussing their applications with Officers.
Concern was expressed that the targets had been moved and that the Council could
be in a no win situation. Cllr Ms V R Gay did not feel that the indicator regarding
Previously Used Land could be attained but was more optimistic about Renewable
Energy. The proposal was in our LDF proposals. If our LDF were adopted then
NNDC would be compliant for this target.
Other concerns included the fact that the target for delegated applications was
increased from 84% to 90%; that the Council was being forced to achieve targets to
get money, rather than just continuing to do Planning well. The Head of Planning
and Building Control pointed out that this was part of a change in culture across the
entire public sector that had to be acknowledged.
Regarding the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant there was concern that the
money would go to areas of major housing growth despite the important housing
issues in rural areas. Concentration on housing was at the expense of other issues
like economic development and facilities which were required to create sustainable
communities. There was no indication at the present time as to how much money
the Council would get, but there was a risk that Councils would be accused of bribery
if unpopular housing schemes were seen as being forced through the system.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
28 September 2006
It was
RESOLVED
That the views expressed in the “Comments” sections of the report,
together with those of the Joint Committee which will be forwarded to
the Cabinet, form the basis for the Council’s response to the
Government’s Consultation Papers.
(7)
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
RESOLVED
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press
and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of
business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of
exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A
(as amended) to the Act.
(8)
TETRA MAST AT NORTH WALSHAM POLICE STATION, YARMOUTH ROAD,
NORTH WALSHAM
The Committee considered item 4 of the officers’ reports.
After discussion it was
RESOLVED
1. To appoint consultants, subject to budgetary provision;
2. That the Council would take no action to lift the Stay on the Stop
Notice;
3. That the Inspectorate be asked to deal with the new appeals by way
of written representations.
The meeting closed at 12.40 pm.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
6
28 September 2006