Venue: remotely via Zoom. View directions
Contact: Linda Yarham Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE MEMBER(S)
An apology for absence was received from Councillor N Pearce, with Councillor T FitzPatrick in attendance as his substitute.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2021.
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 11 February 2021 were approved as a correct record.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
(a) To determine any other items of business which the Chairman decides should be considered as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.
(b) To consider any objections received to applications which the Head of Planning was authorised to determine at a previous meeting.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests that they may have in any of the following items on the agenda. The Code of Conduct for Members requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest.
The Chairman stated that correspondence had been sent to the Committee by the agent and objector for Sheringham PF/20/1564. Members confirmed that they had read the correspondence.
SHERINGHAM - PF/20/1564 - Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission PF/14/0887 (Partial demolition of hotel and erection of six residential apartments and single-storey rear extension to hotel) to amend the design; Former Burlington Hotel, The Esplanade, Sheringham for Jaevee SPV1003 LTD PDF 331 KB
The Development Management Team Leader presented the report and referred to the slide presentation that had been supplied to the Committee. She reported that a further representation had been received and circulated to the Committee, which raised concerns regarding the failure to build the full width of the site, reduction in car parking, substation construction and failure to use the approved bricks. As a correction to the report, she stated that there would be a shortfall of two car parking spaces, with 10 proposed in the current application whereas there were 12 spaces in the approved scheme. She understood that a letter in support of the application had been sent to the Committee by the applicant’s agent. She recommended refusal as set out in the report.
Stephen Pegg – Sheringham Town Council
Bernard Smith – objecting
Debi Sherman – supporting
Councillor Mrs L Withington reiterated the concerns raised by the Town Council and local residents. The Burlington was the only building of its type left in Sheringham and it was important to retain its ethos. She had received a number of concerns that this building could end up in the same state as the Shannocks, which had been a blot on the landscape for many years. She urged that this matter be resolved in a way that retained the integrity of the building.
Councillor P Heinrich considered that there was no real clarity as to why the new steel sections had not been built according to the approved plans. He asked if it was known if the original builders had followed those plans, and why the current developers could not remediate any faulty work and return to the original designs. The current proposals presented significant changes to the approved design, which the Conservation and Design Team considered were unacceptable and damaging to the Conservation Area. He considered that the public benefit of completing the build and returning the building to use did not outweigh the design issues, and that the report and its conclusions were clear. He proposed refusal in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director for Planning.
Councillor N Lloyd seconded the proposal.
Councillor R Kershaw commended the officers for the work they had put into the report. He considered that the Burlington was a very important building and did not wish to see it go the same way as the Shannocks. He could not understand why the approved plans had not been followed and could not see any demerit in them. He appreciated the need for housing, but supported the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor A Yiasimi stated that the Committee wanted to see the building used, but works had to be carried out in the appropriate way and within the policy framework.
Councillor T FitzPatrick stated that he had missed part of the presentation and discussion due to a power cut and would therefore abstain from voting on this matter.
RESOLVED by 12 votes to 0 with 1 abstention
That this application be ... view the full minutes text for item 82.
LUDHAM - PF/19/0991 - Residential development consisting of 12 dwellings with associated access from Willow Way, footpath to School Road, open space, landscaping and parking: Land south of School Road, Ludham PDF 615 KB
Delegated conditional approval + S106
The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and displayed an aerial photograph showing the location of the site, and site layout plan. A slide presentation had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting. He reported that one further public comment had been received, raising concerns regarding groundwater and surface water flooding. He recommended approval of this application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation and the imposition of conditions as set out in the report.
Jo Read (objecting)
Melissa Burgan, the agent for the application, was unable to attend the meeting and had submitted a written statement in support, which was read out by the Major Projects Team Leader.
Councillor A Varley, the local Member, thanked the Officers for their presentation and report, and wished to note his thanks to Rob Parkinson who had now left the Authority. He stated that Ludham was capable of expansion, and was a sustainable and caring community. He considered that the proposed development fitted in with the characteristics of the village. He referred to the flood risk issues and was pleased to see that risk assessments had been carried out and the planned mitigation measures would be effective and in accordance with Policy EN10. He stated that most of the representations from local residents related to foul drainage concerns. It was important to take into account the overall issues of flooding and foul drainage, and whilst it was stated that Anglian Water had increased capacity, he sought assurances that all necessary improvements would be made to ensure that this development did not have implications for Willow Way or other parts of Ludham. He requested that contributions from the Section 106 monies be given to the community to investigate surface water issues on Willow Way to ensure that the problems were not exacerbated. He expressed his gratitude to Giles Bloomfield of the IDB for his advice. He was disappointed that affordable housing would not be provided on site, which was a departure from Policy LUD01. However, he was pleased that a financial contribution would be made towards the provision of affordable housing and requested that the Council work with the Parish Council and himself to identify a site to provide the affordable dwellings locally. He stated that he had been involved with this application for a long time and had been lobbied by the Parish Council and local residents on both sides of the argument. He had remained impartial throughout the process and, although he shared concerns on the key aspects of this matter, he was willing to listen to the full discussion and would vote on this application.
Councillor G Mancini-Boyle stated that he was reasonably content that there was a good mix of elderly and infirm housing in the scheme, but would like to see more affordable housing provision.
Councillor A Brown supported the application. He stated that the site had been identified in the site allocations policy, the Parish Council was in favour and the ... view the full minutes text for item 83.
(a) New Appeals
(b) Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
(c) Written Representations Appeals – In Hand
(d) Appeal Decisions
(e) Court Cases – Progress and Results
a) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 9(a) of the agenda.
(b) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 9(b) of the agenda.
Holt PO/18/1857 - The Major Projects Manager reported that a decision was due by Friday 12 March but at the time of this meeting a decision was still awaited.
Cley-Next-The-Sea ENF/18/0164 – The Assistant Director for Planning reported that the mediation process had been successful. A revised set of proposals had been received which would be reviewed by the Planning Appeal Team and advice given to the appellants. The appellants would then decide whether to submit a planning application by 26 March. The enforcement notice and planning appeal remained live. Members would be kept updated on progress.
North Walsham ENF/18/0339 – a planning application was awaited.
Itteringham ENF/17/0006 / CL/19/0756 – the hearing had taken place earlier in the week and it was hoped that a decision would be issued by the Planning Inspector within 6 weeks.
(c) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 9(c) of the agenda.
High Kelling ENF/16/0131 – the Planning Inspectorate was being pressed to issue a decision in this matter.
(d) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 9(d) of the agenda.
(e) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 9(e) of the agenda.
The Assistant Director of Planning updated the Committee with regard to the demolition of the Shannocks Hotel, Sheringham. The compulsory purchase appeal was now subject to an agreement between the site owners and the Council with a timetable for development of the site, which required demolition to commence by 1 May 2021 and to be completed by 1 June 2021. A small building adjoining the hotel would be demolished by the Council, starting on 15 March, which would start the wider demolition of the Shannocks. A construction/demolition compound would be erected on the promenade car park which would be used whilst demolition was taking place. Work on redevelopment of the site was required to commence within one year of the demolition and be completed within two years from the demolition date; significant departure from that process would result in the site being ceded to the District Council. This will be confirmed to Cabinet Members, the Town Council and local Members in writing.
Councillor R Kershaw thanked the Legal Team for the way this matter had been approached to achieve a very satisfactory result.
The Chairman reported that Sarah Ashurst, the Development Manager, would shortly be leaving the Authority for a more senior role at Norwich City Council. She requested that the Assistant Director for Planning pass on her good wishes to Ms Ashurst.