Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr N Lloyd, Cllr M Taylor and Cllr A Yiasimi.

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 27^th October 2022.

The minutes of the Development Committee meeting held Thursday 27^th October were approved as a correct method.

(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.

None.

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 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.

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 21^st 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 16^th 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 22^nd 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.

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

1. The Local Member – Cllr P Fisher, thanked Officers for their report and noted that no objecting speakers or Members of the Town Council were present as a consequence of timing rather than lack of inclination of disinterest. He considered the proposal failed to accord with NNDC Core Strategy Policy EC7 and was also contrary to policies SS1 and SS2. Wells Town Council had commented on the previous application that it was located outside of the settlement boundary, but the application was refused by the Officer due to matters of height and scale of unit 2, use of external materials failing to comply with EN4, and use of glass on unit 1 which would create light pollution. Cllr P Fisher noted that the revised application sought to address these issues alone, however this failed to address the Town Councils prior objections. He noted that as issues surrounding the boundary settlement had not been cited as a reason for refusal, it was considered by Officers that introducing this as a reason now was unreasonable and inconsistent – which he disagreed. Further, the Local Member considered that Wells-next-the-sea had a large proportion of holiday lets, and that the town did not require additional holiday accommodation. He drew Members attention to the representations and objections on p.196 from Landscape Officer and Norfolk Coast Partnership. Cllr P Fisher disagreed with Highways lack of objection to the proposal and considered existing issues on Northfield lane which often had obstructed access due to the parking on vehicles by holiday makers. The Local Member stressed the importance to protect the AONB and considered that such boundaries were being eroded whether by bricks and mortar, noise or light and affirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

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.

1. Cllr V Holliday expressed her support for the TPO, and commented on the lack of trees in Holt.

2. The ADP thanked the SLO for her report, and welcomed her to her first Development Committee meeting. He advised that the Council had been minded to serve a TPO on the sycamore tree some time ago, but the TPO had not been confirmed. There had been an objection from a local resident who had been very concerned about the implications of having a large mature tree next door to their home, details of which had been considered within the report. The ADP commented that the Officers report made clear the reasons to bring forward the TPO, offering amenity to the local environment, and was encouraged by the positive communication the SLO had engaged the land owner with regards to the management of the tree going forward.

3. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle proposed awarding the TPO and stated that the tree predated the houses, and should not be removed for the sake of giving residents more light.

4. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the Officers recommendation.

5. Cllr N Pearce spoke in support of the TPO and considered that trees were a valuable community asset providing a splash of green to the landscape.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That TPO/22/0994 be confirmed.

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.

1. Cllr P Heinrich relayed a written statement by the Local Member – Cllr V Gay, to which she confirmed that she was familiar with the area having visited the woodland on several occasions. She considered that the Woodland was intended to form a soft wooded boundary to the town, which had been neglected for some years. Cllr V Gay expressed the commitment of NNDC Countryside team to ensure its maintenance, and with the co-operation of residents, in the last few years had introduced schedules for work with a regime in place to explain the trees for safety at regular intervals. The Local Member considered England to be one of the least biodiverse countries in Europe, and stressed the importance of biodiversity to the emerging Local Plan, and the importance of protecting trees more broadly.

2. Cllr R Kershaw spoke in support of the Officers recommendation and proposed the TPO be confirmed.

3. Cllr A Brown seconded the Officers recommendation.

4. Cllr P Fisher asked who owned the land. The SLO confirmed the land was owned by NNDC.

5. The ADP stated that, in general, a TPO would not be applied to Council owned land as it was considered that the Council would be good custodians, managing the land appropriately. It is extremely rare for a TPO to be served of Council owned land.

6. Cllr A Varley stressed the important role buffer strips have on landscapes, and spoke in support of the confirming of the TPO.

7. Cllr P Heinrich advised that he was aware of various concerns from residents, but commented that the majority of comments were in favour of confirming the TPO and ensuring the trees be properly maintained.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That TPO/22/0993 be confirmed.

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

1. The Local Member – Cllr P Heinrich advised that he had been contacted by an objector to the TPO, and agreed following a site visit that the tree was in need for attention. He considered that this was a substantial oak tree, offering important bio-diversity, and so proposed acceptance of the Officers report.

2. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked who would be responsible for maintaining the tree.

3. The SLO advised that the owner of the land would be responsible for tree maintenance. She noted that fences had been moved and adverse possession may on this occasion be a positive thing. Tree work applications did not necessarily have to be undertaken by the land owner.

4. Cllr A Brown advised that adverse possession was 12 years for registered land and 10 years for unregistered land. He spoke in support of the TPO and seconded the Officers recommendation, protecting the land tree of the ancient field boundary.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That TPO/22/0995 be confirmed.

1. The DM introduced the Development Management Performance Update report and advised of the continued good performance of the planning team. He commented that the performance of non-majors had dipped due to a period of poor performance following the introduction of the new uniform system. He advised the Committee, with regards to S106, that Scottow Enterprise Park was moving towards completion.

2. Cllr R Kershaw commented that Swift Air had expressed concern that the S106 would not be completed within the time limit as it was considered NCC were delaying the process.

3. Cllr J Toye asked if or when S106 software would be introduced.

4. The DM advised that S106 software would be introduced on 5th December, though it would not be fully functioning at this time. The Council were pending the appointment of a S106 Officer.

(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 DM introduced the appeals section and noted that there had been no further outcome for outstanding appeals. He welcomed questions from Members.

2. Cllr R Kershaw commented that it was refreshing how much Planning Officers had engaged with Members on applications in recent months, having a dialogue on the direction of the applications. He advised this had been positively received by parish councils and was a great improvement, and asked that his thanks be passed on.

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.”