Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Varley

Cllr J Toye was present as a substitute for Cllr A Varley.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 4^th August 2022.

Cllr V Holliday stated at the previous meeting the use of smart glass had been discussed and whether this be made a condition for Planning Application PF/21/3073. She advised she had been in correspondence with the MPM on this matter and that she had advised that this had been made a condition, but that it was not clear within the minutes that the use of glazing would have to be approved by NNDC. The MPM advised whilst it had not been cited within the minutes, it had been covered within the Officers’ actions post Committee and secured by condition. 

Cllr R Kershaw stated that pagination on the agenda was incorrect and clarified the correct corresponding pages for each item.

Subject to the amendments, the minutes of the Development Committee meeting held Thursday 4^th August were approved as a correct record.

(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.  Members are requested to refer to the attached guidance and flowchart.

None.

The PO introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions set out on p.23. She noted that this was a retrospective application and advised that the item had been brought before Committee for consideration for the reasons detailed on p.21.

The PO advised that the site was located within the AONB, North-West of Aylmerton, and affirmed the sites location, context of the site with the solar panels being located a considerable distance from neighbours, and the type of solar panel used.  The key issues relating to the proposal were principle and site history, design and renewable energy, residential amenity, and impact on the AONB.

Members Debate

1. Cllr V Holliday thanked the PO for her report and asked about the anti-reflective surface of the solar panels and the amount of solar glare limited, as she was uncertain if this could be quantitated. She observed that the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment Document had not been referenced in the report, and considered this document contained detail which may be beneficial.

2. The PO advised that information about the solar panels provided to Members had been provided by the Applicant. She confirmed she could speak to the Applicant to seek further clarification about the solar panels and their surface coating, should this be of use.

3. The MPM commented that it was in the interest of the developer that the solar panels were anti-reflective and angled correctly, otherwise the efficiency of the panels be reduced. The MPM noted comments regarding the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment Document and advised that he considered that there was enough information presented to Members to enable them to make their determination.

4. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his hope that the solar panels were of the latest technology and were recyclable, noting that this had been a problem for older models.

5. The Chairman reiterated that this was a retrospective application and that the panels should be considered as they currently were. 

6. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted that the application was contained within the AONB and that she was assured that any application located within the AONB would be scrutinised by Norfolk Coast Partnership with their own team of planners, and that they would have commented had they been concerned about the application. She stated that as Norfolk Coast Partnership were happy with the application, she too was happy. 

7. Cllr A Brown expressed his support for the application and proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation subject to conditions. He stated the importance and usefulness of solar panels in generating electricity which could be fed back into the grid, and noted that the proposal accorded with the Local Plan and with the Councils Climate Emergency declaration.

8. Cllr P Heinrich commented that had the panels been located on a roof they may not have been brought before Committee. He stated that the panels were on a small scale, out of the way, providing clean energy to the site, and that such developments should be encouraged. He affirmed that small scale schemes were the future and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

1. The MPM introduced the Development Management Performance Update Report detailed on p.25 of the Agenda pack, and affirmed an upward trend for planning performance, with many older cases being cleared. He noted that Nutrient Neutrality had impacted some schemes, but in such cases extensions of time had been agreed. He advised that there were some staffing pressures, with members of the team leaving resulting in caseloads being redistributed.

2. Cllr A Brown thanked Officers for their continued hard work during challenging times and expressed his hope that non-major performance would match that of the majors, noting the 7% gap.  The MPM advised he would pass Members thanks on to the team.

3. The MPM advised, with respect of S106 agreements, that the Authority were in a healthy position and that there were three agreements close to be issued. Those marked in grey on the report could not be progressed at this time, leaving just two obligations remaining.

4. The PL advised the Sea Marge S106 agreement had been completed and that the West Raynham S106 agreements were out for signatures. The Chairman thanked the PL for her continued hard work.

5. The MPM advised that where a S106 agreement could not be progressed as a result of the Applicant, the application would return to committee as per the clause in the decision notice, to avoid delay. 

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

1. The MPM updated Members on the Arcady (References ENF/18/0164, PF/21/0882, RV/21/2583), with the hearing date set of January. He considered that the outcome of this appeal was of interest locally and to developers broadly.

2. The Chairman enquired about the Kelling application, reference PF/20/1056. The MPM advised that the Planning Department were still awaiting a decision from the Planning Inspector, and that this was a fundamental case with respect of the Councils 5 year housing land supply.

3. The Chairman noted the Roughton Pub application, reference PF/20/1659, and asked the Local Member for details of the location of the proposed carpark. Cllr N Pearce commented that he was against the application, considering it to be ill thought out, and that the area was in danger of becoming a commercial corridor. He stated that this was a very complex situation which he was keeping an eye on.

4. Cllr V Holliday stated that she wished to re-register the concerns of the community about the delays of the Cley Appeal for Arcady. In addition she commented, with respect of the Blakeney appeal, reference PF/21/0390 that she understood this had been withdrawn or was not accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. The MPM advised that the team were working on the basis that the appeal was live, as they had been asked by the Planning Inspectorate for submissions from the Authority.

5. Cllr P Fisher asked for an update on the Wells-next-the-sea application, reference ENF/21/0061, and for details of the conditions for the North Walsham appeal decision ADV/22/0404. The MPM that he would ask the enforcement team for an update regarding Wells-next-the-sea and ask this be communicated to Cllr P Fisher. He advised that, for the North Walsham appeal, the Planning Inspector had imposed standard advertisement conditions to keep the sign clean.

6. Cllr A Brown commented that, whilst it had not been covered in the media, there were delays with the Planning Inspectorate, which impacted on the Authority who had to monitor sites in the interim pending decisions.

7. Cllr N Lloyd commented that the sign at North Walsham had been there for a long time and that Flagship had not raised an issue, nor had any residents.

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:-

 “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 Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

None.