Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and Cllr M Taylor

Cllr J Toye was present as a substitute for Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 12^th May 2022.

(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.

The Minutes of the 12th May 2022 were approved as a correct record.

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.

Cllr V Holliday declared a non-pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 8, Planning Application PF/21/2711 for Blakeney. She stated that she was not pre-determined but was pre disposed.

The SPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval, and advised Members that the application had been independently consulted, as detailed on pages 21 and 22 of the Agenda Pack, and that the Consultant determined that the development would be acceptable in principle and would comply with Policies SS1, SS2 and HO5 of the NNDC Core Strategy guide. Additionally, the independent expert advised that there was an essential need for the proposed dwelling to aid with the ongoing operation of the farming business.

A previous application for the siting of a dwelling at New Barn Fam, reference PO/20/1100 had been refused, however concerns identified through that proposal had been addressed since.

The SPO affirmed that the main issues for consideration were the landscape impact on the Norfolk Coast AONB, undeveloped Coast and nearby SSSI site. However, following negotiations with the applicant, in which they had agreed to introduce belts of trees to the north, north-west and east of the proposed dwelling, as well as hedging, the proposed trees and hedging being a mix of native species, Officers considered such planting to appropriately mitigate the visual impact to the landscape and would improve the ecological connectivity through the linkage of existing habitats.

The SPO informed Members that the GIRAMS mitigation payment had been payed, and advised that there had been an amendment to the Officers recommendation relating to agricultural occupancy condition to better reflect standardised wording.

Public Speakers:

Rosemary Thew – Chairman Blakeney Parish Council

Lindsey Read – Supporting

1. The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – stated that this was a finely balanced and complex application. She recognised that the applicant was a highly regarded farmer, and that there was a need for an agricultural dwelling which had garnered significant community support. However, the Local Member noted that the application was contained within a highly sensitive and valued landscape, and that there had been objections raised including from Blakeney Parish Council for the specific location chosen, and who considered that an alternate site should be explored.  Cllr V Holliday commented that community concerns remained that the proposed dwelling would have a negative visual intrusion to the AONB and SSSI, despite the proposed mitigation planting detailed within the application. The Local Member stressed the importance and value of the special features of an AONB and SSI, and the duty of the Local Planning Authority to conserve and enhance these areas. 

2. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the Officers recommendation, and stated that the context of the proposal, to serve as an agricultural works dwelling, was important in decision making. He reflected that Officers had worked closely and carefully with the applicant, to create an agreeable acceptable scheme, which was policy compliant, and that the report provided by the Independent consultant was clear that the development was acceptable in principle. Cllr P Heinrich commented that the farm was a viable operation, well diversified, and had adapted well to the local market, and that aspects of the operation were dependent on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He highlighted for members the location of the proposal and its proximity to nearby terraced houses, particularly to those at the rear of the property. The North-West extension to the property had not been objected to by Holt Town Council, however an objection had been received from a neighbouring dwelling, outlined in the Agenda Pack.

The DMTL advised that the key areas for consideration were firstly, the design of the proposed development and its effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. He noted that the eaves and ridge height had been steeped down slightly to help give the impression that the extension was subservient to the host dwelling. The proposed external materials were intended to match those of the existing dwelling. Second, the impact of the proposal to the living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings to the rear at 15 to 21 Hempstead Road with regards to loss of light and overshadowing. It had been acknowledged that there would be some impact but not to a degree which would justify refusal given the separation between those properties and the proposed development. With regards to privacy, the first floor bedroom window in the rear of the extension had been omitted in the revised plans and replaced by a roof light to serve the bedroom, and a small window to serve the bathroom which would be obscure glaze. The separation between the window and the first floor windows of the closest dwellings (15 & 17 Hempstead Road) was in excess of the separation distance suggested in the amenity criteria in the North Norfolk design guide.

Public Speakers:

Richard Robson – Supporting

Mr Norman – Objecting (Written Statement read by DMTL)

      i.        The MPM recited a statement from the Local Member – Cllr G Perry-Warnes, who was unable to attend the meeting. Cllr G Perry-Warnes wrote that she did not consider that the proposal complied with policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Design guide in that the scale and massing of the extension would fail to relate sympathetically to the surrounding area and to neighbouring properties. In addition, the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the residential amenity of nearby occupiers of the old railway workers cottages, which would present an overbearing and imposing impact on the current skyline and block any winter sun from their outside area. She commented that the Design Guide stated that extensions should be sited to avoid any loss of light or privacy to neighbours, and stressed it should not result in any overshadowing or overbearing effects. The Local Member encouraged the Committee, if it were minded to approve the recommendation, to delay making its decision which would have an impact on local residents, and to arrange a site visit before making its assessment.

     ii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that he did not consider the proposal to be a particularly large extension and asked Officers if the loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

      i.        The MPM introduced the Development Management Performance Update Report, and advised members that revisions to the reporting would be made for future Committee meetings, once systems for collating information could be established with I.T.

     ii.        Cllr J Toye thanked the MPM for their report, and for the proposed changes. He asked, as the report was being developed, that the impact of Nutrient Neutrality on the Council’s Planning process be considered, as it was likely more extension of time would be required for applications.

    iii.        In response to enquiries of Members into the ongoing impact of Nutrient Neutrality guidance, the MPM advised that an all Member briefing had been scheduled for the 23^rd June which would provide a full update. He advised that meetings were taking place between all affected Norfolk authorities, as well as applicants and agents, and that this was an evolving situation in which local authorities were trying to find a positive way forward. He affirmed that this had been a time consuming matter for himself and other officers and that the first priority was in interpreting the legal advice and ensuring as a Local Authority, NNDC understood what was required of it.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye advised that he and Cllr A Brown had attended a meeting earlier in the week and confirmed that through the cross-authority work, a specialist had been appointed to address Nutrient Neutrality. It was hoped that from July some of the less challenging applications could be considered, and that from October the specialist would have additional guidance which would aid affect Authorities in determining afflicted planning applications. Cllr A Brown affirmed that the specialist was a reputable company, and it was encouraging that they had been secured by the cross-authority group to work on this matter. He added that the guidance provided by Natural England on Nutrient Neutrality still divided legal opinion.

     v.        The MPM affirmed that Nutrient Neutrality was having a huge impact the Council, and that it was causing frustration to applicants, agents, and planning officers. Discussions were taking place with landowner’s to see how they may be able to help going forward, including solutions providing wetland habitats as well as other short-term and longer-term mitigation solutions. In response to Members questions about the disposing of sewage via non-mains drainage, he stated that this would not necessarily overcome issues regarding Nutrient Neutrality as there was still an outpour from the associated drainage point which had to be managed. The application of cess-pits would itself require a permit from the environment agency, and this would require a habitat assessment.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown asked for inclusion in the reported statistics, cases which had received an extension of time, both agreed and refused, and where this may place against a national metric. The MPM advised that in prior reports, the numbers of decisions which had secured an extension of time had been reported, and also where a decision was made within that extension of time. He advised that he would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

      i.        The MPM relayed the Appeals report and invited questions from Members.

     ii.        Cllr K Kershaw asked why enforcement action had been quashed for North Walsham. The MPM advised this had been as a result of a technical issue, but that this would not prevent the Council from re-serving the notice in a slightly different way, which would address any deficiencies identified by the inspector. The DMTL advised that this matter had been discussed at the enforcement panel earlier in the week and that issue was with respect to an annex, which the developer had changed to dwelling after the notice had been served. Permission had been refused for an annex due to its size and impact on neighbours.

    iii.        The Local Member for the affected Ward in North Walsham; Cllr N Lloyd, expressed his disappointment that he had not been informed of this matter prior. The MPM commented that there were lessons to be learned and that the new enforcement manager would work to ensure such matters do not occur again, including consulting with members of the legal team.

   iv.        Cllr N Pearce asked for details about the Arcady Application. The MPM advised that the informal hearing had been postponed, and that this was due to additional information being received by the Council at the last minute. With limited time to study and consider the documents in full, the Planning Inspectorate agreed to defer the meeting. The revised date had not yet been set.

     v.        Cllr J Toye noted, with respect to the Arcady, that it was a huge amount of documentation submitted at the last minute. He was in communication with the Assistant Director of Planning as he was dissatisfied with the way in which the Planning Inspectorate had dealt with this matter, as members of the public had been told it was too late to submit information, and yet the applicant was permitted to do so. He acknowledged this had been a long running issue which he considered need to be concluded for the benefit of all.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown expressed his preference that the Council consider the application of costs, and was of the understanding that this was not the first time in which the applicant and their agent had submitted documents with late notice which had resulted in delays. He reflected that this matter had massively impacted officer time, and would continue to do so until resolved.

  vii.        Cllr V Holliday asked how long the whole process had been ongoing, noting that the UK Government states that the mean time for an enforcement appeal is 112 weeks. She enquired if this had been exceeded with respect of Arcady.

 viii.        The MPM advised, that whilst he did not know the exact number of weeks, he believed it was well beyond 112 weeks. This appeal was an exception to the norm with respect of its time-frame. He acknowledged that this was a challenging matter, as the Council could not challenge the Planning Inspectors decision and go  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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.