31 AUGUST 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
H C Cordeaux
C A Fenn
Mrs A R Green
J H Perry-Warnes
Mrs A C Sweeney
Mrs J Trett
Mrs C M Wilkins
Mrs S L Willis
J A Wyatt
R Combe - substitute for J D Savory
C C Durrant - substitute for T H Moore
Observers:
Ms V R Gay
P J High
G R Jones
Mrs H T Nelson
Officers:
Mr S Oxenham - Head of Planning and Building Control
Mr R Howe - Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager
Mr P Took - Senior Planning Officer
(1)
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Corbett, Miss P E Ford, Mrs
B McGoun, T H Moore, N P Ripley, J D Savory, Mrs A M Tillett, S K Welsh, P J
Willcox and S J Wright. Two substitute Members attended the meeting as stated
above.
(2)
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN FOR THE MEETING
In the absence of the Chairman, it was proposed by Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins, duly
seconded and
RESOLVED
That Councillor H C Cordeaux be appointed as Chairman for the
meeting.
(3)
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman stated that there was one item of urgent business which he wished to
bring before the Committee, relating to a report by the Ombudsman into complaints
in respect of a development at Trunch. The reason for urgency was to inform
Members of the findings and invite comments prior to consideration by Full Council.
(4)
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
No interests were declared.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
31 August 2006
(5)
AUDIO EQUIPMENT
The Graphic Designer explained that the microphones did not work as the central
control unit had come to the end of its life. The unit was now out of production and
no other equipment was compatible with the desk units, which were still operational.
The cost of replacement of the whole system would be approximately £40,000.
However, in seeking quotations for a new system, he had found a company which
was able to supply reconditioned central control units for a fraction of the cost of a
new system. He had therefore purchased two units which should delay the need to
replace the whole system. It would, however, require total replacement within a few
years.
It was anticipated that the equipment would be installed on 1 September 2006.
(6)
INGHAM – 20060699 – Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to six
units of holiday accommodation; Holly Farm, Calthorpe Street for Mr and Mrs A
Betts
The Committee considered item 1 of the officers’ reports in respect of a planning
application for the conversion of a group of redundant farm buildings into holiday
accommodation within the high risk flood zone.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had now
withdrawn its objections in respect of the sequential test and the flood risk
assessment. He recommended approval of this application subject to the imposition
of appropriate conditions. He advised the Committee that there were insufficient
grounds to refuse this application as it complied with Local Plan policy and the
Environment Agency was now satisfied.
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold expressed concern that the Parish Council had raised
objections and concerns which did not appear to have been addressed in the report
considered by Development Control Committee (East). She stated that some Parish
Councils considered that they were being marginalised.
It was proposed by Councillor Mrs S L Willis, seconded by Councillor Mrs S A Arnold
and
RESOLVED unanimously
That this application be approved subject to the imposition of
appropriate conditions.
(7)
Enforcement Workload and Statistics – Quarterly Report
The Committee considered item 2 of the officers’ reports which gave details of the
workload and performance of the Enforcement Service for the quarter ending 30
June 2006.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager reported that the Enforcement Team
was currently reduced to one member of staff because of sickness and holiday leave.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager stated that he had been requested to
review the Council’s Enforcement Policy and a report would be submitted to Cabinet
later in the year.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
31 August 2006
Councillor H C Cordeaux asked whether the Enforcement Team was understaffed
even when the Team was fully staffed. The Planning, Legal and Enforcement
Manager stated that, as part of the review, he would be considering the Council’s
Enforcement Team in comparison with other authorities. North Norfolk had a higher
number of Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas than many other authorities and
a high number of complaints.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins expressed concern that the remaining female member of
staff was alone when visiting sites and referred to a recent incident involving another
member of the Enforcement Team. The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager
explained that it was not unusual for staff to undertake visits on their own and such
incidents were extremely rare. Staff followed agreed safety procedures, which are
kept under review.
The Committee noted the report.
(8)
Ombudsman Report - Housing Development at Trunch
The Chairman stated that he had determined that this item be considered as a matter
of urgency pursuant to the powers vested in him by Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local
Government Act 1972.
The Head of Planning and Building Control reported that the Ombudsman’s final
report had been received in respect of an affordable housing development in Trunch.
A report would be submitted to Full Council on 20 September, but he considered it
would be helpful to discuss the main issues at this meeting.
The report concerned the second of two planning applications made by a Housing
Association in 2004. The first application had proposed five units served by a
vehicular access and five served by a pedestrian access through the adjacent elderly
people’s accommodation. The Highway Authority had raised no objections but the
application had been refused by Development Control Committee (East). The
second application proposed ten units served by a private drive, which was approved
by Development Control Committee (East) against the recommendation of the
Highway Authority, which objected on grounds of inadequate visibility and to the
principle of 10 dwellings being served off a private drive. This resulted in complaints
being made to the Ombudsman by a number of people.
The draft report of the Ombudsman had been challenged and whilst some of the
recommendations in the final report had been changed, the Council had been found
guilty of maladministration causing injustice on a number of issues.
The
Ombudsman had recommended that each complainant be paid compensation of
£250, that the Council review its procedures relating to applications likely to affect
Conservation Areas and the process for reporting to Committee the views of the
Highway Authority, and to consider in consultation with the Highway Authority
measures to improve road safety in Trunch, the cost of any improvements to be
funded by NNDC.
Officers were concerned at the report and its conclusions. The report could be
challenged but this would involve a judicial review, which could be costly and lead to
further adverse publicity.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
31 August 2006
Councillor G R Jones, the local Member, considered that the report was
unreasonable and that the views of the Highway Authority were inconsistent. He
considered that the judgement by Development Control Committee (East) had been
reasonable. He referred to the discussions that had been held with local residents,
the Highway Authority and the Police with regard to the applications. He stated that
the Highway Authority did not make any suggestions for dealing with risks, which he
considered to be an indication that it was not very concerned. He considered that
the report was not a fair summary of events and should be resisted if possible.
Councillor Mrs C M Wilkins stated that a 20 mph speed limit had been requested
which would have resolved the access issues. The Highway Authority had refused
the request. She considered that attendance at Committee by Conservation and
Design Officers should be reviewed and that a report on the conservation and design
issues should be sought where applications were adjacent to the Conservation Area.
The Head of Planning and Building Control confirmed that the access standards
would have been met if a 20 mph speed restriction had been agreed. He explained
that the Conservation and Design Team were consulted on applications within
Conservation Areas but did not comment on all of them. Officers within the
Development Control Team also had conservation and design skills. This application
lay outside the Conservation Area and he did not consider that in this case it was
affected. He stated that the proper procedure had been followed and that the
criticism in the Ombudsman’s report was unwarranted.
Councillor Ms V R Gay considered that the decision was unfortunate and unfair and
would impact on the Council’s relationship with the Highway Authority, affordable
housing and other important issues. She commented on the way in which the
Ombudsman had conducted his interviews which had made it difficult for people.
Those interviewed had responded with openness and honesty which had been
acknowledged by the Ombudsman.
Members were very concerned that there were anomalies in the advice given by the
Highway Authority in respect of access, visibility requirements and the number of
dwellings that could be served off a private driveway. Councillor Mrs S L Willis stated
that she had a written comment that its criteria for the number of dwellings to be
served off private driveways was not necessarily 5 and could be discretionary.
Councillor Mrs S L Willis expressed concern that if the report were accepted there
could be problems every time there was a proposal for affordable housing that was
not supported by local residents. She stated that the Committee had gone to great
lengths to accommodate the wishes of the residents of the elderly persons’
accommodation. She was loath to spend money on this issue as she considered that
the Council had done nothing wrong.
The Head of Planning and Building Control stated that one of the objectors had been
reported in the Press as encouraging people to complain to the Ombudsman. It was
easy for people to complain, there was no cost to the individuals and they could
receive compensation. It was not possible for a Planning Authority to operate without
the risk of such complaints. In the absence of other means of redress for
disappointed objectors the Council was subjected to a constant barrage of
complaints in respect of planning decisions.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager supported the views of the Head of
Planning and Building Control. He referred to other cases that had been resolved.
He stated that the report could be challenged through judicial review, but it was likely
to result in more publicity. He suggested that the decision could be accepted with
reluctance and a press release issued.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
31 August 2006
Councillor Mrs S A Arnold suggested that compensation should be paid only to those
people who objected on highway grounds.
Councillor Mrs H T Nelson commented that such developments were essential to the
vitality of villages.
Councillor Mrs J Trett considered that the main point to be made related to the
desperate need for affordable housing and issues such as this were contrary to the
Council’s aims.
Councillor G R Jones stated that the Police had carried out speed checks in the
village and would no longer do so as there were very few offenders. He considered
that there was a case to put to the Ombudsman that he should examine the Highway
Authority more closely. He considered that cost of the recommendations contained
in the report should fall on the Highway Authority.
The Planning, Legal and Enforcement Manager reminded the Committee that the
decision on this matter was to be made by Full Council.
The meeting closed at 10.45 am.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
5
31 August 2006