Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr P Heinrich (Vice-Chairman), Cllr N Pearce and Cllr V Holliday.

Cllr J Rest was present as a substitute for Cllr P Heinrich.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 9^th June 2022.

The minutes of the Development Committee Meeting held Thursday, 9^th June 2022 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.

The Chairman advised of her intention to vacate the Chair for the first planning application, Item 8, Planning Application PF/21/3389 for Stalham, as she had called this Item in to Committee. She recommended in the absence of the Vice-Chairman that a substitute Vice-Chairman be elected to deputise for this application and so proposed Cllr A Brown be appointed to this role for the meeting, Cllr R Kershaw seconded.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED

That Cllr A Brown be appointed Vice-Chairman for the meeting.

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.

The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8, Planning Application PF/21/3389 for Stalham, she is the Local Ward Member.

Cllr M Taylor declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 8, Planning Application PF/21/3389 for Stalham, he is the Local Ward Member.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9, Planning Application PF/21/3221, she is the Local Ward Member.

The Chairman vacated the Chair and Vice-Chairman for the meeting took the Chair at 9.34am.

The PO introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval, and advised that 12 representations had been received; 7 supporting, 5 objecting and that a late representation had been received from Norfolk Wildlife Trust which made no objection to the proposal subject to proposed conditions. The PO commented that the application had been called into Committee by the Chairman, Cllr P Grove-Jones citing concerns regarding the size of the extension and compliance with NNDC Core Strategy Policies HO8 and EN4.

The PO reflected on the wider context of the site located next to Stalham Fen, and introduced the Officers presentation detailing site plans, floor plans and elevations, an aerial view of the site as well as photographs. She informed Members that the key issues for consideration were; the principle of development, design and amenity, landscape impact, environmental matters and highways impact.

The PO advised that the development was considered by Officers to be acceptable in principle and accorded with NNDC Policies SS1 and SS2, as the proposal was considered to be in a sustainable location and extensions to existing properties was permissible.

With respect of design, the PO informed Members that the extension for an internal attached annexe was intended to provide additional occupation to enable the applicant to care for their elderly relatives. The proposal was ancillary to the main dwelling with plans revised to reduce the size of the extensions and to improve the relationship with the host dwelling through its roofline. The proposal comprised of two elements; a single story pitched roof extension to the east of the elevation, and a two-storey extension on the north elevation. The use of pallet materials were considered to be acceptable and were sympathetic to the existing property. The PO affirmed that the height, scale and materials used were in keeping and proportionate with the host dwelling and sites location.

The PO advised that the development was set within a large plot and although concerns had been raised that the proposed first floor window on the north elevation would result in overlooking on neighbours property, Officers determined that there was a significant separation distance to the existing boundary, which consisted of mature hedging and that this would not result in any significant impact to amenity. Concerns had been raised regarding the landscape impact, however Officers considered the visual impact on landscaping to be localised, noting that the proposal sits close to the residential boundary with Stalham, with large elements of development confined to the rear garden. The PO advised there had been no objection from landscaping officers subject to conditions.

In conclusion, the PO stated that the issues raised by objectors would not justify reason for refusal and reiterated Officers recommendation for approval.

Public Speakers

Mr Fiske – Supporting

Written submissions were provided by Mr Fiske (supporting) and Mr Clementson (objecting) respectively. Members were afforded a few minutes by the Vice Chairman to read through these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

The ADP advised that he had brought the decision for a site visit before Members, as there had been significant concerns raised by local residents and from the Council’s Environmental Health Team on the impact of the proposal to residents at the Luytens Drive housing development located immediately adjacent to the proposed development at the rear Overstrand Garden Centre. He affirmed that Members were not at this time being asked to consider the application, rather were asked to consider a proposed site visit.

The ADP spoke to plans of the site, and established the relationship of the retrospective application with neighbouring properties. He recommended that Members undertake a site visit of the garden centre grounds, and of the neighbouring properties, to better rationalise the juxtaposition of host properties and to judge the veracity of arguments made. He contended that without a site visit Members may be placed in a difficult positon when asked to make a planning judgement without clearly understanding the scale and intensity of the operation and relationship between properties. The ADP advised that a site visit meeting was proposed for 21^st July 2022, rather than 28^th July 2022 as previously scheduled, as this date was favourable to Members. 

Members Debate

1. Cllr G Mancini Boyle asked if the visit could be arranged for when the garden centre is at its busiest, specifically at the weekend.

2. Cllr R Kershaw considered that HGV vehicle movements would likely occur during weekdays, and noted this was likely when issues occurred. He advised that he was away on the 21^st July, but he would make his own independent visit to the site.

3. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett – The Local Member- expressed her support for the Officers recommendation and would be pleased to welcome Members to Poppyland on 21^st July. She requested that the visit be arranged for the morning due to other commitments.

4. The Chairman advised that the proposed site visit would be scheduled for around 10.00am on 21^st July 2022, and clarified Members would need to arrange their own transportation to the site.

5. In response to Members representations, The ADP advised that the purpose of the site-visit was for Members to familiarise themselves with the layout of the development, and its relationship with neighbouring buildings. Whilst he understood why Members may wish to visit the site at its peak hours on its busiest days, he contended that this may skew Members opinions and re-affirmed the intended purpose of the visit. He affirmed when the Item was included on the agenda for determination that further detail would be included within the Officers report, and it was intended that a Member of the Environmental Health Team be in attendance to address Members questions.

6. Cllr A Yiasimi proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation for a site-visit. Cllr A Varley seconded.

7. In response to questions from the Chairman, The ADP advised that it was anticipated that this application would be presented for consideration by members for the August Development Committee Meeting, however  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

      i.        The ADP introduced the Development Management Performance Update and advised of improvements in the performance of the Majors and Non-Majors Team, both making a significant advance for the numbers of decisions made within the agreed time limit. He commented that there would be a couple of difficult quarters coming up, which had impacted on non-major performance, this was as a consequence of the introduction of a new planning software. The ADP stated that the quality of decision making remained exceptionally good, above national benchmarks, and he considered this in part was due to the positive relationships held between Officers and Members. Further, under 1% of all appeals in the latest 2 year period for non-majors were overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. With reference to S106 obligations, the ADP informed Members that since the last report another 5 matters had been progressed. He reflected on the impact of Nutrient Neutrality guidance on the Councils ability to progress with S106 agreements and advised that short term mitigation was not anticipated till September, with larger Mitigation predicated for February 2023. The Authority were bound by the constraints of Nutrient Neutrality guidance which would result in extensions of time for S106 obligations.

     ii.        The Chairman thanked Officers for their hard work, stating that they were a privilege to work with.

    iii.        Cllr R Kershaw echoed the Chairman’s comments and gave a vote of thanks to the Planning Policy Manager who had presented on Nutrient Neutrality at the Town and Parish Forum held that Monday, stating this was well received.

   iv.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked what provision there would be to increase the numbers of Planning Officers as a result of a backlog caused by Nutrient Neutrality.

     v.        The ADP advised that the Council had a Service Plan set with a 0 based budgeting system. He stated that Officers would continue to make progress with applications, and S106 agreements, and were moving things forward wherever possible. The ADP relayed the timeline for mitigation efforts and commented that he was unsure if additional officers may be required from February 2023, but that service demand was being monitored. He advised if it was determined that support was needed, short term contracts could be established to assist on a time-limited basis.

   vi.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his support for the DMTL, and relayed positive feedback received from members of his community.

  vii.        Cllr A Brown expressed his thanks to Planning Officers and affirmed that contingency plans to cope with the upturn of applications when the Nutrient Neutrality embargo was resolved would be worked on. He acknowledged the challenges in implementation any new software system, but reflected that planning performance figures remained strong which he contended reflected the upholding of standard of integrity between Members and Officers in their respective roles. Cllr A Brown also thanked the Principal Lawyer for progressing with the reported S106 agreements, stating that this was good, demanding work.

 viii.        Cllr L Withington reflected on the performance report and noted that around 10% of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

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.