Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Committee - Thursday, 27th October, 2022 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Lauren Gregory  Email:

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, Cllr M Taylor, Cllr A Varley and Cllr A Yiasimi.




None received.


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 215 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 29th September 2022.


Cllr V Holliday noted a discrepancy with Minute 44 for the Minutes of the Development Committee Meeting held Thursday, 29th September 2022, and stated that she had declared a pecuniary interest but that as her interest was considered to be non-technical, she was able to take part in debate and deliberation.


The PL advised that Cllr V Holliday had declared a non-pecuniary interest, and that a pecuniary interest would apply if Cllr V Holliday held shares exceeding the value of £25,000 or 100% total share of that body, in accordance with the relevant authority’s Disclosable Pecuniary Interest’s Regulation 2012.


The minutes of the meeting held Thursday 29th September 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 P Heinrich declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8, PF/21/26/50, and advised he had been contacted by the applicant and their agent on several occasions along with Cllr E Seward (Local Ward Member). Additionally, he had met with Cllr E Seward and Officers to discuss progress with the application. He did not consider himself to be pre-disposed or pre-determined.


North Walsham - PF/21/2650 - Technical Details Consent following from Permission in Principle (PP/20/0160) for the demolition of the existing buildings on site and the erection of four dwellings with associated parking and gardens, Unit 1, Melbourne House, Bacton Road, North Walsham, for Mr David Taylor pdf icon PDF 579 KB


The DM introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He updated Members that the outstanding payment detailed on p. 23-24 of the report had been paid on 26th October, and this subsequently no longer formed part of the reason for refusal. The DM confirmed that Members had been provided with additional documentation including the applicant’s legal advice, the authority’s legal advice, the appeal decision for permission in principle and a written submission from the Local Member Cllr E Seward.


The DM noted that whilst aspects of the proposal would accord with many development plan policies, Officers held significant concerns regarding the proximity of the proposal to the existing poultry farm. Officers considered that the existing business would have an adverse impact on the ability of the residential unit occupiers to be provided with high quality residential amenity in regard to matters of odour, noise, dust, light and pests associated with the poultry farm, set out in s.7 of the report. Further, he stated that the proposal failed to accord with NNDC Core strategy policies EN4 and EN13.


The DM stated that, if the application were permitted, there would be significant conflict between land users and increased pressure placed on the existing business to mitigate or reduce its operation which was not considered to be viable. Officers contended that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on operations or viability of the adjacent business, contrary to Paragraph 187 of the NPPF. The DM advised that senior Environmental Protection Team Officers were in attendance, highlighting the level of Officer concern over the application.


Public Speakers

David Taylor (supporting)


  1. Local Member – Cllr P Heinrich commented that a partial site visit took place in 2021 to consider a prior application for the same site, which he was in attendance for. During this non-formal visit no issues of odour or noise were noted. However, it was noted that a nearby building had been converted without objection, which was only a few meters away from the application site.


The Local Member commented that the principle of development had already been established through the planning appeal decision for 1-4 dwellings. He considered that the legal opinions supplied as additional documentation to Members effectively cancelled one another out. Further, as the adjacent business was operating at best practice, he considered the impact of the operation on neighbouring properties to be minimal. The Local Member acknowledged Officers concerns but questioned why additional studies had not been requested, if Officers were dissatisfied with the reports produced by the applicant. Cllr P Heinrich considered the complaints received to be dated and noted that they could not be directly attributed to the poultry farm. He contended that the increased volume of complaints during Covid lockdown was linked with numbers of people staying at home who would be more aware and particularly sensitive to their local environment. Additionally, he was unaware that any action had been taken with respect of the submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.


BINHAM - PF/21/2926 - Two storey side/rear extension to dwelling, 87 Warham Road, Binham, for Mr & Mrs Wales pdf icon PDF 246 KB


The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He advised that this application had been deferred from the 20th January 2022 Development Committee Meeting to enable further discussion between Officers and the applicant relating to the material position of the extension in relation to the existing building. The proposal had subsequently been revised and included a reduction in the overall length of the extension, a small decrease in height and a redesign and reposition of the fenestration. It was now considered that the scale and massing revised of the proposal would enable the extension to be subservient to the host dwelling.


The DMTL advised that Officers considered the application acceptable on balance with the amendments made and conditions applied, and noted that there were no further objections from the Conservation and Design team, Parish Council or the Public.


  1. The Local Member – Cllr R Kershaw spoke positively of the constructive way in which Officers and the applicant had worked together. He acknowledged that the applicant was moving into the property to better enable them to run a new business which would employ 9 local people. He considered this change in business to be a good example of diversification and proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation for approval subject to the outlined conditions.


  1. Cllr N Lloyd echoed comments made by the Local Member and so seconded the officer’s recommendation.


  1. Cllr V Holliday asked when timber cladding had been considered as acceptable vernacular, as the design guide stated that this material could be utilised in small quantities but on this application it was much larger. She did not consider that the extension sat comfortably with the existing flint building.


  1. The Chairman commented that there were several instances where timber cladding was used in the district on new dwellings, and noted that it often silvered and became more muted with time. It was considered that some new flint extensions onto existing flint buildings did not meld well together.


IT WAS RESOLVED by 9 votes for, and 1 against.


That Planning Application PF/21/2926 be APPROVED subject to the imposition of the following summarised conditions:


1. Time limit for implementation (3 years)

2. In accordance with approved plans

3. Brick, tile and boarding samples to be agreed prior to installation


Any other conditions considered necessary, and final wording of conditions, to be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning.




Additional documents:


  1. The DM introduced the Development Management Performance Report and advised that performance had been impacted though the introduction of a new planning back office system, but that there would be an uplift in later date reporting.


  1. In response to questions from the Chairman, the DM agreed that there was a notable increase in workload for Officers as a result of increased homeworking during the Covid-19 pandemic, leading to individuals considering their living situations. He advised that the team were seeking to recruit new planning officers, but that it was a challenging market.


  1. Cllr A Brown thanked officers for their hard work during challenging times, and expressed his expectation that there would be future performance improvements as Officers became more familiar with the back office system.


  1. The PL introduced the S106 annexe report and noted a correction to the Scottow Enterprise agreement detailed, this had been approved by NNDC Officers and was now awaiting response from the land owner.


  1. The ADP advised that the Scottow Enterprise agreement would be brought back to Committee either by way of an update or as an item for consideration in the New Year, noting this matter had been ongoing for many years. He thanked Officers and the Legal team for their continued hard work.




(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 report and advised that two decisions had been reached by the Planning Inspectorate, Blakeney PF/21/3265 and Kelling PF/20/1056 both of which had been dismissed.


  1. Cllr N Pearce enquired if all information had been submitted with regard to the Arcardy Appeals


  1. The ADP advised that all information had been submitted and it was for the Planning Inspector to advise if they required any additional information.


  1. The Chairman noted the length and volume of the appeals report, and commented that there continued to be many outstanding planning appeals awaiting an outcome from the Planning Inspectorate.


  1. Cllr A Brown asked if the Council planned to make representations with the Planning Inspectorate regarding delays.


  1. The DM voiced caution in complaining to the Planning Inspectorate and advised that the Council would need to consider its words carefully if it were minded to challenge the speed in which appeals were being considered. He advised that the Council had engaged with the Planning Inspectorate regarding the Kelling appeal, but that requesting haste from the Planning Inspectorate didn’t guarantee a faster response.


  1. The ADP advised that the Planning Inspectorate were under tremendous pressures and were struggling to recruit and retain staff. He reflected on his comments from previous meetings in which he considered the system as ailing and in need for change.




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.”