Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Committee - Thursday, 4th August, 2022 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Lauren Gregory  Email:

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Fitch Tillett, Cllr A Varley and Cllr M Taylor.




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


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 322 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday, 7th July 2022.


The minutes of the Development Committee Meeting held Thursday 7th July 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.





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 for agenda item 8, Planning Application reference PF/21/3073, which was located within her ward, she considered herself to be pre-disposed but not pre-determined.



BLAKENEY - PF/21/3073 Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and erection of two dwellings and garages: 43 New Road, Blakeney pdf icon PDF 282 KB


The SPO introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. She noted a correction was required to p.18 of the report which should read that the Norfolk Coast Partnership made no objection to the proposal, but raised concerns with regards of light spill.


The SPO affirmed that Officers considered the principle of development to be acceptable and presented to Members areal images, design plans, context of the site, and its relationship with the AONB. She advised that the proposed dwelling on plot 1 would sit slightly forward of neighbouring property 45, with the second bungalow set further back from the road than neighbouring property 41b. The character of new road was considered to be generally modern, single storey or one and a half storey dwellings of a variety of scale and massing’s, generally set back from the road. The SPO highlighted that there was a precedent for infill development within the area.


The SPO advised that the key issues were detailed on pages 21-23 of the Officers report and re-affirmed the Officers recommendation for approval.


Public Speakers

Mr A Donohoe – Blakeney Parish Council

Ms Joyce Sutcliffe – Supporting


  1. The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday expressed her support for the concerns raised by the Parish Council and residents that not enough consideration had been given to the Blakeney Conservation Area appraisal and the North Norfolk design guide. Additionally that, if granted, the development would set a precedent for replacement dwellings on New Road. The Local Member agreed with neighbours’ concerns regarding the issue of overlooking on the northern elevation, which she considered could have been remediated with the removal of the window on the north elevation of plot 1, or through the use of opaque glass. She affirmed that community feedback was that the dwelling on plot 2 would have an overbearing and overshadowing effect on neighbouring properties, noting that the ridge height of plot 2 was only 21cm less than the one and a half storey gable of plot 1. Further, plot 2 was considered to overlook several neighbouring properties with no visual break between the properties by way of landscaping. Cllr V Holliday considered that the footprint of both plots exceeded the expectation set out within the design guide, being larger than that of neighbouring properties, adding that plot 2 had not been subject to a Conservation Assessment. With reference to the deign guide, the Local Member reiterated that the use of timber remains the preferred option on visual and sustainability grounds, and noted the proposed use of aluminium windows within the planning application. The use of windows had formed part of Norfolk Coast Partnerships concerns, which were considered to threaten the dark skies, a key feature of the AONB. Mitigation for black out blinds had been utilised on the eastern elevation, but not the west or northern elevations. The Local Member asked that this be clarified to address community concerns, and surmised that the proposal failed to comply with NNDC policies EN1, EN2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.



Additional documents:



  1. The MPM introduced the Development Management Performance Update Report and advised of an upwards trajectory for the department, reflecting on the very positive statistics with regards to Officer Workload. He thanked the Principle Lawyer for her work with S106 agreements and invited questions and comments from Members.


  1. Cllr J Toye thanked Officers for managing performance through difficult times, citing issues with Nutrient Neutrality.




(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 introduced the Appeals report and provided an update on the Arcady hearing (ENF/18/0164) which was expected to be heard in January 2023, such delays were brought as a result of late information received by the Appellant.


  1. Cllr R Kershaw considered such actions as delay tactics, and enquired if this matter had been taken with the Planning Inspectors to ensure NNDC did not run out of time. The MPM advised that this matter needed to be considered carefully and advised that the Authority would engaged with the Planning Inspector on this matter, adding that a resolution would be for everyone benefit.


  1. Cllr N Pearce reflected that this had been a running issue, and expressed his concerns for the delay tactics used by the Appellant. He stated he was perplexed and disappointed with the continued delays as result of late documentation, and asked if this may occur again. The MPM commented that whilst he did not know the thought process of the Appellant, he could not envisage a reason in which additional documentation would be required. He contended that this was a matter for the Planning Inspector to manage, and NNDC would convey their wish that informal hearing be heard at the earliest opportunity.


  1. Cllr V Holliday acknowledged the concerns of the local community caused by the delay, conjoining of the appeals, and complexity of the case, and contended that strong pushback was required. She added that community feedback had also been received regarding Blakeney, the Pastures, Planning Application PF/21/0390, and the way in which it had come through. The MPM noted issues with PF/21/0390 and affirmed this was a matter for the Planning Inspector to decide whether to grant appeal.


  1. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his frustration that valuable Officers time was spent on appeals, some of which he considered to be wasteful.  The MPM stated that NNDC had an exceptional record at appeal and with decision making. He remarked that other authorities were also affected with time delays by consequence of the appeals process, but that he didn’t wish to see a situation in which appeals were dropped as this may put the Authority at risk. He reflected that future performance reports could include the data capture for the time undertaken by Officers with appeals, noting that this would likely be a considerable amount of time spent.


  1. The Chairman asked what the timeframe for appeals was and whether there was a maximum permitted time. The MPM advised that under the ‘Planning guarantee’ 6 months was afforded to the Authority to make there decision, and 6 months for the Planning Inspector, however, such timeframe was not often met by the Planning Inspecting Service.


  1. Cllr J Toye asked if the Authority had made representations when it considered that the Planning Inspector had taken too long. The MPM advised that yes, the Authority does have a dialogue with the Planning Inspector and referenced the Kelling Application (PF/20/1056) on p.32 of the Agenda Pack, and stated that NNDC had politely asked the Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.



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.”