Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor N Lloyd.  There was one substitute Member in attendance.

(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.

None.

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.

Conditional approval.

Public Speaker

Polly Wake (supporting)

The Interim Development Management Team Leader presented the report.  She displayed plans and photographs of the site and existing railway carriage, including a photograph of a guards van which the extension would resemble.  She recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor A Brown, the local Member, considered that the report was clear as to the policy issues and he did not have many concerns over the proposal.  However, there  Parish Council was uncertain as to how the proposal would affect the public footpath.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader explained that the development would not impact on the footpath, but a condition would be imposed as a precautionary measure to ensure that the footpath remained open and was not diverted.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that there was a history of old railway carriage bodies being used as accommodation and of camping coaches at railway stations.  He considered that vertical cladding was acceptable but he had some reservations regarding the use of larch.  However, he was happy to leave this matter to the Officers.  He proposed approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett declared that she knew Mrs Wake, who had been a former employee of the Council.  After checking with the Principal Lawyer that it was in order to do so, she seconded the proposal.

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle stated that his only concern related to fire risk and asked what precautions would be taken.

The Interim Development Management Team Leader explained that the applicant would not allow barbecues in the vicinity of carriage and that cooking facilities within the carriage were electric.

Councillor N Pearce considered that this was a finely balanced proposal and wished it to be recorded that he did not like retrospective applications.  In this case, he accepted the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor C Cushing considered that the proposal fitted in well with the theme of the area and it would not impact on other businesses.  He supported the recommendation.

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Site inspection.

Public Speaker

Frank Lees (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area.  He referred to the previously refused application and stated that although the parking concerns had been overcome, the other concerns remained.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the Environment Agency’s flood zone maps would shortly be updated to show the site located in Flood Zone 1 rather than zones 2 & 3, and therefore at a lower risk of flooding.  However, the revised zones were not yet in place and the application had to be determined according to the existing situation.

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks, the local Member, stated that she had a copy of a letter from the Environment Agency which had been referred to by Mr Lees, confirming that the site would be designated as Flood Zone 1.  She stated that Heath Lane had a varied street scene, with a mix of bungalows and houses of varying sizes and parcels of land.  She considered that the garage site would be better used to provide housing as there was a dire shortage in Mundesley, and stated that neighbouring bungalows sat on equally small plots.  This was a contentious site and she considered that a site inspection would be appropriate.  This was seconded by Councillor A Varley.

On being put to the vote, 4 Members voted in favour of a site inspection and 4 against.  On the casting vote of the Chairman it was

RESOLVED

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the Committee to inspect the site.

Deferral.

Public Speaker

Roger Arguile (Wells Town Council)

The Interim Development Manager presented the report.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site and the surrounding area, and a photograph of the proposed Corten steel cladding and an example of its use in a sensitive location elsewhere.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor P Fisher, the local Member, referred to the popularity of Wells-next-the-Sea as a tourist destination and the pressure on its public conveniences, which were outdated and barely adequate.  He stated that the new facilities were needed, but he considered that the Corten steel cladding was inappropriate and did not reflect the character of the surrounding area.  Although flint had been incorporated into the east and west elevations, they would be seen by few people.  The site was in an elevated position and the building would be highly visible, particularly in the winter months when the car park was empty. 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett asked if the proposed panels were similar to those on the Maltings building in the town. 

The Head of Planning explained that the material on the Maltings and the proposed toilets were effectively rain screens.  The material used on the Maltings was a bronzed contemporary material which set the benchmark for modern materials on prominent buildings.  It was not similar in appearance to the Corten steel proposed for the toilets but it was similar in context of a contemporary material in a Conservation Area.  He advised the Committee of its options for determination of this application, including deferral for further negotiations relating to materials.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she was Vice-Chairman of the AONB Partnership, which was more concerned about lighting than the materials and she shared its concerns.  She did not object to the application in principle.

Councillor N Pearce stated that the Council was entrusted to look after heritage and the AONB.  He considered that the proposed materials did not match the AONB and Conservation Area and that this application should be deferred for negotiations on materials.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he was familiar with the example which was displayed during the Officer’s presentation and considered that it fitted in very well with that particular landscape.  He had no objection to a modern building of high quality design in the car park and considered that the inclusion of flint detailing provided some connection with the area.  The proposal would provide Changing Places toilets which were needed, with a good modern design using appropriate materials.  He supported the application.

Councillor C Cushing supported the Town Council’s concerns and considered that the design was inappropriate.

The Chairman commented that there appeared to be no concern regarding the internal layout of the proposed building.

Councillor T Adams supported Councillor Pearce with regard to deferral.  He stated that he would like to see Changing Places toilets in every community, and many public conveniences in the District needed replacement.  However, he was not convinced that the material was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.

None in addition to PF/19/1664 above.

(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 10(a) of the agenda.

(b)      INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 10(b) of the agenda.

The Interim Development Manager reported that the hearing in respect of Letheringsett with Glandford PF/28/2980 had taken place and the result was expected in the next few weeks.

(c)      WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND       

The Committee noted item 10(c) of the agenda.

The Interim Development Manager reported that the appeal in respect of Happisburgh ENF/18/0069 had been dismissed.

(d)      APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee noted item 10(d) of the agenda.

(e)      COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS       

The Committee noted item 10(e) of the agenda.