Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Lauren Gregory Email: lauren.gregory@north-norfolk.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Cllr N Lloyd, Cllr M Taylor and Cllr A Yiasimi.
|
|
SUBSTITUTES Minutes: Cllr J Toye was present as a substitute for Cllr N Lloyd.
|
|
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 27th October 2022. Minutes: The minutes of the Development Committee meeting held Thursday 27th October were approved as a correct method.
|
|
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. Minutes: None. |
|
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. Members are requested to refer to the attached guidance and flowchart. Minutes: Cllr R Kershaw declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8 (PF/20/0523 and PO/20/0524) and advised that he had been lobbied by the Parish Council and the business.
The Chairman advised that all Committee Members had been in receipt of both correspondence.
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The DM introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions for Planning Applications PF/20/0523 and PO/20/0524.
He commented that these were complex proposals as set out in the Officers report, the six accompanying appendices and a set of draft planning conditions which were supplied to Members of the Committee prior to the meeting.
Updates
The DM updated Members that further representation had been received from the Environment Agency on 21st November, confirming that guidance issued by Natural England to the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in March advising that a Nutrient Neutrality approach should be used in certain planning decisions, was not replicated for applications under the environmental permitting regime. Applications under the environmental permitting regime for discharge to a watercourse were already subject to assessment and modelling of the ecological impacts on the receiving waterbody and catchment.
The Environment Agency (EA) advised, as the Competent Authority in respect of environmental permitting, the existing HRA is considered adequate for discharges up to the permitted volumes and until such time as any variation is applied for. The EA’s position was therefore one of no objection but Officers suggested appropriate conditions linked to surface water.
The DM further updated that a late representation had been received from Natural England on 16th November. Natural England indicated that they require further information in order to determine the significance of impacts and the scope for mitigation. The following information was required:
1. An update to the Council’s HRA which records North Norfolk District Council’s conclusion as to whether an adverse effect on integrity will occur as a result of the development proposals, and 2. Any necessary conditions or limitations that need to be secured to avoid any adverse effects on integrity and/or mitigation measures. Without this information, Natural England have indicated that they may need to object to the proposal.
The DM stated, since receiving the response from Natural England, Officers had provided Natural England with a copy of the Committee report and appendices, a copy of the draft conditions and further comments from the Council’s ecologist. Officers had been unable to secure updated comments from Natural England, despite Officers attempts to obtain a response. The DM reiterated the Officer Recommendation, set out on pages 88 and 89 of the agenda, requests delegated approval subject to no objection from Natural England in relation to Habitats Regulations matters or subject to Natural England being comfortable with the Council as competent authority to discharge its duties under the Habitats Regulations.
The DM noted that one further letter of representation had been received 22nd November from Mr Rundle, which had been circulated to Members of the Committee. The DM stated that whilst many of the issues contained within the letter from Mr Rundle were captured within the public representations set out across pages 23 to 29 of the agenda, the representations set out that the author of the letter did not agree with the Officer assessment that the departure from the Development Plan ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|
Minutes: The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He noted that Planning Permission had previously been refused for an earlier proposal in June 2021, the reasons for refusal were outlined on P.195 of the agenda pack. Whilst the proposal was considered contrary to NNDC Core Strategy policies to SS1, SS2 and EC7, as the site was located within the area designated as countryside, Officers considered the application to be acceptable and determined that the conflict with these policies was not cited as a reason for refusal of the prior application, and it was therefore reasonable assume that the current application was acceptable in principle. He confirmed that the applicant had sought to address the prior reasons for refusal. The DMTL advised that the site was related to the existing built up part of Wells-next-the-sea, designated as a secondary settlement, lying only 60 metres outside of the settlement boundary and within easy walking distance of the town centre. Officers considered that there would be no significant harm to the aim of the policies in approving this application subject to conditions. He proceeded to go through the presentation detailing the sites location, an aerial photo, settlement boundary, site plans, elevations, views of the site, and main issues for consideration.
Public Speakers Michelle Lyon – Supporting
|
|
HOLT TPO/22/0994 Land Rear of 5 Pearsons Close Additional documents: Minutes: The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation that the TPO be confirmed. She advised that the initial TPO was served on the Sycamore tree in 2021, and she had since reviewed the TPO and considered whether to continue preservation. The SLO relayed the site location plan, aerial photograph and =photos of the tree.
She noted that representations had been received both for and against the TPO, as detailed within the report. The Council were working with the land owner to facilitate tree work, and noted work had been halted due to nesting birds within the tree, but would be completed by 25th November.
The SLO set out the key issues, and advised that the tree contributed positively to local amenity, and was important in terms of wildlife habitat and biodiversity value.
There were no public speakers.
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.
That TPO/22/0994 be confirmed. |
|
NORTH WALSHAM TPO/22/0993 Land at Long Barrow Drive Minutes: The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation that the TPO be confirmed. She confirmed that as a condition of development for the neighbouring estate in the 1990’s a landscape buffer strip had been proposed and planted to aid the visual transition into the countryside. The buffer strip consisted of a mixture of species, planted in formal rows, in some instances residents had removed trees and mowed paths had been created to allow access, in other areas improvements had been made with the introduction of bird boxes and hedgehog houses. The SLO relayed the key issues and provided site photographs, map, and aerial photographs. She confirmed that the TPO would provide a mechanism for works and allow greater scrutiny of tree work. Further, the buffer strip provided amenity and biodiversity value which were important to retain.
There were no public speakers.
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.
That TPO/22/0993 be confirmed.
|
|
NORTH WALSHAM TPO/22/0995 Land East of 19 Rosewood and West of 6 Valley Gardens Minutes: The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation that the TPO be confirmed. The matter was brought before the Committee following the concerns from residents that the oak tree was in the process of being removed.
The SLO advised that the tree was located in a piece of unregistered land, and demonstrated to Members through historic maps evidence of the tree being in situ since 1836, with further aerial imaging from the RAF dated 1946, and an NCC map dated 1988 when valley gardens had been built own. She commented that the tree formed part of a field boundary and was a historic wildlife corridor, and provided images of one of the nearby oak trees, also part of the ancient field boundary, which had recently been heavily pruned and since died. The SLO advised that this was the last tree remaining from the group and stated the importance that the TPO be confirmed.
There were no public speakers
IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.
That TPO/22/0995 be confirmed.
|
|
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE Additional documents: Minutes:
|
|
(a) New Appeals (b) Inquiries and Hearings – Progress (c) Written Representations Appeals – In Hand (d) Appeal Decisions (e) Court Cases – Progress and Results Minutes:
|
|
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 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.” |