Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P Grove-Jones (Development Committee Chairman) and Cllr L Withington.

Cllr H Blathwayt was present as a substitute for Cllr P Grove-Jones. The Vice-Chairman; Cllr P Heinrich, served as Chairman for the meeting.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 24^th November 2022.

The Minutes of the Development Committee held Thursday 24^th November 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.

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 A Fitch-Tillett declared a non-pecuniary interest for agenda item 8, planning application PF/21/2186. She advised that the application site was located in AONB and she was the Vice-Chairman for the Norfolk Coast AONB Partnership.

Cllr H Blathwayt declared a non-pecuniary interest for agenda item 8, planning application PF/21/2186. He advised he is a Member for Norfolk Coast AONB Partnership.

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal for the reasons outlined on the agenda.

Public Speakers

Jonathan Cheetham - Supporting

Members discussion & debate

1. The Chairman asked the DMTL about the history of the land and its prior uses.

2. The DMTL advised that the land had previously been used as an RAF base during WWII but was now populated by trees. It was understood that part of the site had been used ad-hoc for agricultural storage purposes, however it was unknown the full extent of the sites history.

3. The Chairman sought clarity whether, if approved, the application site would be permitted to accommodate 107 caravans/ boats.

4. The DMTL confirmed, as per the Officers report (p.25) that in addition to the 39 containers, permission was sought to house up to 107 caravans/boats.

5. The Local Member – Cllr R Kershaw – expressed his support for the Officers recommendation, and thanked the case Officer for his lengthy report. He noted that there had been 37 letters of objection and that the parish council had objected to the proposal. Having attended the site, and read the Officers report, the Local Member stated he was convinced that the proposal was contrary to NNDC Core Strategy Policies SS1, SS2, SS5, EN1, EN3 & EN9, and considered that the harm outweighed any benefits. He commented that the proposal would result in an intensification of a rural site, resulting in damage to the ecosystem, and a loss of bio-diversity. Further, the containers would be visible from the quiet lane. Cllr R Kershaw questions the suitability of the lane in supporting the volume of traffic in installing and moving the containers, and subsequent delivery and removal of boats and caravans throughout the tourist season. He contended that the site would likely require security measure including fencing, CCTV and lighting, given the value of the assets proposed to be located on the site, and noted that the lighting would have a detrimental effect on the AONB. The Local Member noted paragraph 174 of the NPPF, and argued that the proposal was counter to these aims. He commented that some of the trees on the application site were subject to TPO’s, and approval in the application would require removal of mature trees at the entrance to facilitate access. Having considered all of the above, Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation for refusal.

6. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett remarked on the length harm described to the AONB in the Officers report, and stated that she could not support the application. She considered the proposal would have a significant detrimental effect on the surrounding natural beauty, and on dark skies. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the Officers recommendation for refusal.

7. Cllr N Pearce spoke in support of the Officers recommendation, and commented that access to the site was highly restricted. He considered the harm brought through the proposal would outweigh any good, and noted that the proposal was counter to many of NNDC’s core strategy policies, as identified in the Officers report.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

1. The ADP introduced the Development Management Performance Report and advised that performance remains solid with sustained improvement both with respect of major and non-major performance. He reiterated prior advice that that the introduction of the new software system still had a lingering impact on figures but that he was confident that the two-year figure would improve significantly. The ADP affirmed that validation of applications continued to be completed in a timely manner, with low rates of validation outside of the timeframe.

2. Cllr A Brown thanked the ADP for his comments, and asked that his thanks be supplied to the Planning Service for their work over the last 12 months.

3. Cllr J Toye noted the significant workload of Officers, and commended them for validating applications in time under challenging circumstances.

4. The PL advised, with regard to the S106 report, Scottow Enterprise Park that NCC had explained the delay had arisen on the property side as they were discussing overage provisions. NCC had requested for additional time to secure completion until the end of February 2023.

5. Cllr R Kershaw commented that the applicant for Scottow Enterprise Park understood the situation with overage as relating to the runway, and considered that this would not impede completion.

6. Cllr A Brown expressed his support for the extended deadline for Scottow Enterprise Park, and thanked the PL for her work in this matter.

7. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle noted that a S106 Officer was sought and advised that he was keen to implement schemes in his area. He expressed his frustration over the difficulties in accessing S106 money.

8. The ADP advised he would be pleased to discuss S106 revisions with any Council Member. He commented that when Members wished to secure S106 money, they would be required to have a qualifying development within their Ward. The key stages with progressing schemes involved the engagement through the planning application process. The ADP noted that a new S106 software had been launched, with a Member training session organised for January 2023. Interviews had been held for a dedicated S106 Officer, and the Council were awaiting confirmation of acceptance of a job offer for one of the candidates.

9. Cllr A Brown asked that a link be circulated to Members for S106’s. It was agreed that the Democratic Services Officer would provide this to all Members.

10. The Officers report was noted by Members.

(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 ADP advised that the significant hearing for Arcady, Cley-next-the-sea (ENF/18/0164, PF/21/0882 & RV/21/2583) was due to he heard on 24^th – 26^th January 2023 in NNDC officers, which Members were welcome to attend. The enforcement appeals for Thurning (ENF/19/0307 & ENF/19/0307) were due to be heard, date pending.

2. The ADP confirmed that 3 appeals had been determined since the agenda publication – PU/22/0019 and PF/22/1121 which were dismissed in addition to PF/21/1561 which was also dismissed. The ADP noted that there were still a significant number of written representation appeals awaiting determination.

3. Cllr A Brown was pleased to see the Councils decisions upheld by the Planning Inspectorate, and noted the Councils exemplary record at appeal of 95%.

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.