OFFICERS REPORTS TO
JOINT MEETING OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST & WEST)
31 AUGUST 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.
INGHAM – 20060699 – Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to six
units of holiday accommodation; Holly Farm, Calthorpe Street for Mr and Mrs A
Betts
To consider whether to grant planning permission for the conversion of a group of
redundant farm buildings into holiday accommodation within the high risk flood
zone.
Background
The application has been considered by the Development Control Committee (East)
on two occasions. At the meeting on 29 June 2006 a decision was deferred for
further consultation with the Environment Agency. At the meeting on 27 July 2006
officers recommended delegated authority to approve the application subject to the
following:1) The Environment Agency being informed that the Council is minded to approve
the application in accordance with its interim policy with regard to applying the
sequential test.
2) Suitable revisions being made to the flood risk assessment to the satisfaction of
the Environment Agency.
The decision of the Committee was to refer the application to this Joint Development
Control Committee with a recommendation to refuse permission on grounds of flood
risk.
A copy of the report that went to Committee on 27 July is attached as Appendix 1.
Key Policy Issues
Flood Risk
Appraisal
The proposal is not an uncommon one in the District, for the conversion of redundant
farm buildings in the countryside to holiday accommodation. Local Plan Policy 29
provides various criteria for such proposals to be considered against. The proposal
complies with the various criteria referred to in this policy.
In this case however the site is located within a high risk flood zone on information
provided by the Environment Agency. (The zone comprises land as having a 1 in
200 or greater chance of flooding from the sea in any year.)
The application is supported (as required by PPG25) by a flood risk assessment
(FRA). Initially the Environment Agency objected to the FRA but it is now understood
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
1
31 August 2006
that these objections have been overcome. In a letter from the Environment Agency
to the applicants’ Civil Engineering Consultants (who prepared the FRA) it is stated
that “the analyses have shown that in the event of a 100m breach of the defences
near Sea Palling at the peak of a surge spring tide, the net inflow of water over 2 tide
cycles will not reach the application site at Holly Farm. As such the proposed
finished floor level of 2.355m AOD will be sufficient to protect the development in
such an event”.
The Environment Agency has also however objected to the application on grounds of
the sequential test. Members will be aware that the sequential test (which is referred
to in both PPG25 and Draft PPS25) states that in deciding applications for
development in a particular location, it should be demonstrated that that there are no
reasonable options available in a lower-risk flood zone.
In March this year this Committee agreed a revised interim development control
policy with regard to applying the sequential test. This was subsequently endorsed
by the Council’s Cabinet. This states as follows:1) That the sequential test is applied to all planning applications within medium or
high risk flood zones or dry islands surrounded by higher risk flood zones
(including within existing defined settlement boundaries) having regard to the
advice contained in PPG25 (PPS25) and the comments of the Environment
Agency.
2) Development proposals which do not satisfy the sequential test will normally be
refused planning permission unless an overriding case is put forward as an
exception (this would be assessed under the ‘Exception Test’ referred to in
PPS25).
3) That in cases where the sequential test is satisfied, planning permission is only
granted where (if required) a satisfactory flood risk assessment has been
submitted, having regard to the advice in PPG25 (PPS25) and the views of the
Environment Agency.
4) That this interim policy (in terms of the sequential test) does not apply to current
proposals where flood risk assessments have been submitted in consultation with
the Environment Agency and where the applicants were not initially advised of
the sequential test.
In this particular case the applicants originally submitted a planning application for
the development in December 2005. The application was supported by a FRA.
However following an objection being raised by the Environment Agency on grounds
that the FRA was deficient in terms of information provided, on request the applicants
agreed to withdraw the application. The letter received from the Agency did not
object on grounds of the sequential test. The current application was submitted in
good faith that provided the revised FRA addressed the previous deficiencies, then
the issue of flood risk would be overcome. However, as mentioned above the
Agency is not now satisfied that the proposal meets the sequential test.
Officers consider that this is a case whereby paragraph 4) of the Council’s agreed
interim policy applies. Furthermore provided that the Agency confirms its apparent
view, on the basis of the FRA now submitted, that the buildings would be suitably
protected in the event of a tidal flood, then this would indicate that approval of the
application would not present any significant increase in risk to life or property.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
2
31 August 2006
Members’ attention is drawn to the e-mail sent by the applicants’ agent dated 9
August 2006 in support of this proposal (Appendix 2). The e-mail also refers to
another application not considered on this agenda.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE (EAST):Refuse on flood risk grounds.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL:Delegated approval, subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that
they have no objection to the revised flood risk assessment, and subject to the
imposition of appropriate conditions.
Source: (Paul Took, Extn 6098 - File Reference: 20060699)
PUBLIC BUSINESS – ITEM FOR DECISION
2.
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 June 2006.
At the meeting of the Joint Committee on 8 June 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 June 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 a quarter when the Enforcement Service
usually receives a high number of complaints, there was a slight reduction in the
number of complaints on hand at the end of the quarter from 59 to 55 cases.
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
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, the Joint Committee will note an increase in the total number of
conditions requiring monitoring. On 8 June the Enforcement schedules reported to
the Joint Committee showed a substantial reduction in the number of conditions
requiring monitoring. This was a consequence of the temporary secondment of
another officer to Enforcement to deal specifically with condition monitoring. As
reported to the Joint Meeting on 8 June, that officer has taken up another post within
the Council, resulting in an increase in the condition monitoring caseload over the
last year.
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
3
31 August 2006
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: Roger Howe, Extn: 60116 - File Reference: Enf Workload June 2006)
Joint Development Control Committees (East & West)
4
31 August 2006