TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were
received from Cllr A Varley
J Toye was present as a substitute for Cllr A Varley.
MINUTES PDF 227 KB
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of
a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 4th August
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.
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 4th August were approved
as a correct record.
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.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 721 KB
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.
TRUNCH - PF/21/3330 Erection of three single storey dwellings and access drive: Itarsi, Chapel Road, Trunch, Norwich Walsham: Mr Roland Wallace PDF 340 KB
The MPM introduced the Officers
report and recommendation for approval subject to
He advised that the principle
of development for up to three dwellings had been established by
grounds of outline permissions, listed within the case history,
reference PO/20/2005, which also approved the means of access to
The MPM stated that the main
issues for consideration were set out on p.16 of the report.
Further, he advised that the applicant, working with Anglian Water,
had identified that the scheme would drain outside of the Nutrient
Neutrality catchment area, details of which were contained on p.18
– 19 of the Agenda pack. Officers contended that, as Anglian
Water had confirmed that the waste water would not be directed into
the Nutrient Neutrality catchment, they did not foresee Nutrient
Neutrality guidance being an obstacle for approval.
He concluded that Officers were
broadly satisfied with the design and appearance of the proposal,
which would be in keeping with the surrounding area, with each
dwelling providing an acceptable level of amenity space.
The MPM suggested two
additional conditions be added, which were linked to Nutrient
Neutrality. First, a condition which would require the applicant to
confirm at the point they start development that the drainage flows
outside of the catchment. Second, a condition to finalise the
surface water drainage details, which would provide clarity exactly
how surface water would be dealt with. He stated as the competent
authority for Habitats Regulations it was important to ensure the
Council considered these points.
Jane Wisson –
Trunch Parish Council
John Barbuk – Supporting
Chairman confirmed that the Local Member who had called the Item to
Committee was not in attendance and expressed her disappointment
they had failed to attend the meeting, noting the resources
involved in bringing items to Committee.
- Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the Officers
recommendation and reflected that the principle of development on
the site had already been established. He considered that the
arguments against development did not stand up to scrutiny, and
whilst technicality Trunch was
considered to be within a designated countryside setting, the
reality was that the three properties would serve as infilling of a
large backlot site within the built up setting of the village. He
reflected that there was a demand for bungalows within the district
given the aging population and contended that the application was
to the highest environment standard, and of a satisfactory design.
He expressed his wish to see more developers work towards such high
standards. Cllr P Heinrich commented that he did not determine that
the three properties would add significantly to the volume of foul
water, and that the primary issue related to the volume of rain
water run off flowing into the sewage system. On balance, Cllr P
Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers
- Cllr A Brown stated his
disappointment that the Local Member was not in attendance at the
meeting, and they had failed to provide a supplementary submission.
view the full minutes text for item 35.
AYLMERTON - PF/22/1298 - Installation of 28 ground-mounted solar panels (retrospective); Row Farm, Holt Road, Aylmerton, Norwich, Norfolk, NR11 8QA; Mr N Ayres PDF 216 KB
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
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.
- 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.
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
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.
- 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.
Chairman reiterated that this was a retrospective application and
that the panels should be considered as they currently
- 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.
- 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
- 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
view the full minutes text for item 36.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE PDF 150 KB
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.
- 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.
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
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.
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
APPEALS SECTION PDF 398 KB
Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
Representations Appeals – In Hand
Cases – Progress and Results
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.
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.
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
To pass the following resolution, if
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.”