Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P Grove Jones (Chairman), Cllr G Mancini-Boyle and Cllr A Varley.

Cllr H Blathwayt was present as a substitute for Cllr A Varley, with Cllr S Bütikofer present as a substitute for Cllr P Grove-Jones. Cllr P Heinrich (Vice-Chairman) deputised as Chairman for the meeting.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 26^th January 2023 and Thursday 9^th February 2023.

The minutes of the Development Committee meetings held Thursday 26th January 2023 and Thursday 9th February 2023 were approved as a correct record subject to corrections on minor typographical corrections.

(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.

The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 9, planning application PF/22/1337, he is a member of the Caravan and Motorhome Club. He noted that Members had been in receipt of a lobbying letter with relation to Agenda Item 8, application RV/22/0308.

Officers report and presentation:

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval.

He advised that when the application was submitted in February 2022, the applicant sought to reduce the on-site provision of affordable homes from the approved 23 units to 18 comprised of 10 S106 secure dwellings with the intention that the applicant obtain grant funding for the further 8 dwellings. However, In October 2022, the applicant submitted revised proposals which sought to reduce the provision of on-site affordable housing to zero. The applicant highlighted the increase in costs between their two viability assessments confirming that the total increase in the overall design and construction cost was £1.6 million over the intervening period, £436,000 of this figure related to ongoing inflation in base material costs, and a further £760,000 due to increased abnormal costs. The abnormal costs included higher earth work, associated servicing, and foundation costs. The other increases related to other non-base material, labour costs, design and contingency costs amongst others.

Overall, the applicant argued that proposed scheme would result in a £1.5 million viability deficit, details of which were set out in the applicant’s viability assessment.

As part of the consideration of the proposal, the Councils Housing and Planning teams had instructed SMB property consultancy (a qualified viability assessor) to undertake a review of the applicant’s viability case. SMB agreed with the applicant’s assessment and that it supplied sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be sufficiently viable to support the delivery of affordable housing. The independent viability assessor recommended that a review mechanism be introduced into any amended new legal agreement to secure payments towards off-site affordable housing provision should the agreed minimum return be improved upon.

In respect of the applicant’s proposal to vary condition 24 relating to land contamination, the updated report submitted had been considered by the Environmental Protection Team, who raised no objection subject to conditions.

As set out in the Officer’s report, both Local and National Planning Policy along with relevant guidance and case law make clear that viability issues can form a material planning consideration.

The DMTL commented that it was disappointing to receive the proposal to remove all affordable housing from the development, particularly given that the original application was only granted in May 2021 (considered by the Development Committee in December 2020), and would have delivered 23 much needed affordable homes within Holt.

However, the evidence submitted by the applicant had been found sound and for the reasons set out within the report, having due regards to the implications of paragraph 11 of the NPPF, Officers recommended approval.

Since the publication of the agenda a letter of objection had been received from Duncan Baker MP written in conjunction with Cllrs G Perry-Warnes and E Vardy. It was noted that this letter did not raise any new planning matters which hadn’t been covered within the Officers report, however it did highlight the MP and Cllrs disappointment in the application and its impact on Holt.

Following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 115.

Officers report and presentation:

The SPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He outlined that the site comprised of 21 acres with 241 freehold pitches, mostly grass though a small number were fully serviced and hard standing. The site, situated in the countryside, resided in the AONB, the Wooded Glacial Ridge and Coastal Shelf Landscape Character Area as designated with the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment, the Undeveloped Coast as designated within the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, Incleborough Hill Country Wildlife site and West Runton conservation area.

The SPO noted the sites location, its relationship with its surrounding landscape, access to the site, existing and proposed site plans, location of the proposed warden bathroom and kitchen utility pods, motor van waste points, universal service points, all weather pitches, serviced pitches, premium pitches, non-awning all weather pitches and play area (which would be enclosed).

Members questions and debate

         i.          The Local Member – Cllr S Bütikofer – argued against the Officers recommendation and stressed the importance of the Council upholding its responsibilities to the AONB, protecting it from development. This was a large site offering nearly as many pitches as there were houses in the village. The impact of the campsite on local residents remained her primary concern, aside from outlined concerns regarding the AONB, and she noted that the National Trust had raised objections to the application.

Cllr S Bütikofer contended that the entrance to the site was an issue, in spite of Highways written representations, and reflected that on a Saturday between 11am-12pm the road was impassable with caravans queuing up early to try and secure the best pitch. She noted a video available online from a Camping and Caravan club member who commented how difficult access was to the site, and the need to pass over one of the fairways. Further, she stated that residents occupying the bungalows along the access route were essentially trapped in their homes on a Saturday, denying them their rights to enjoy their homes. The Local Member advised she had written to the Caravan and Camping Club on this matter on several occasions

Cllr S Bütikofer raised concerns about the proposals impact on the landscape. Presently, the site was largely grass with pitches able to recover in the winter months. This proposal would introduce chippings that will be seen in the landscape alongside the erection of fences and play equipment.

Whilst the campsite contributes heavily to the local economy, the Local Member argued that the negative impacts to local residents and the environment outweighed the positives.  She argued the proposal was contrary to policy EN4 of the NNDC Core Strategy and to policies surrounding the AONB.

        ii.          The Chairman asked for clarification whether the proposed hard standing pitches were a replacement/upgrading of existing pitches as opposed to being additions. The SPO confirmed this was the case.

The Chairman further added, as a Camping and Caravan Club member, that the organisation were becoming increasingly vigilant about check in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 116.

1. The DM introduced the Development Management Performance update and noted the upwards trend for performance.

2. The PL advised Norfolk County Council and Hethel were signing the S106 agreement for Scottow Enterprise Park. The draft S106 for Crip Maltings in Ryburgh had been circulated and substantially agreed. She advised that the draft S106 Unilateral Undertaking was awaited from applicant’s solicitors for application PF/21/3458.

3. Cllr R Kershaw thanked the PL for her hard and dogged work regarding the S106 agreement for Scottow Enterprise Park. He argued that the implications of this agreement extended beyond the S106 and resulted in Standard Gas taking the lease on one of the other aircraft units so that the pyogenesis machinery, built by Swift Air, would bake waste with no emissions and produce hydrogen.  As a consequence, the RAF had now funded Swift Air to produce trainer aircraft built from hemp resin, powered by aluminium air batteries made by the hydrogen on the Scottow site. Cllr R Kershaw argued this innovative scheme was a phenomenal story for North Norfolk, unlocked by the PL.

4. Cllr N Lloyd asked for clarity over the S106 annexe report and the colour coding. The PL advised that green was for ‘in time’, red was where negotiations of the S106 agreement were taking a lot of time and the application was at risk of being returned to committee for lack of determination, and orange was between the two.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

(a)                New Appeals

                 i.          Noted

(b)                Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

                 i.          Noted

(c)                Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

                 i.          The DM advised with respect of application PU/21/2825, the Inspector had since permitted the appeal. It was noted that the site was located within the Nutrient Neutrality zone and therefore whilst permission had been granted it could not be implemented unless it satisfied and complied with Nutrient Neutrality and GI Rams guidance

                ii.          Regarding application PF/22/0727, a decision had also been reached by the Planning Inspectorate who refused the appeal and cited amenity and highways concerns. Cllr A Brown advised that having read the decision, he noted that nearly every comment raised by the committee had been upheld. Further, the enforcement team had been informed and would be continuing their work regarding the breaches by the landowner 

               iii.           The DM advised since the publication of the agenda the Inspector had permitted application PF/21/2593.

(d)                Appeal Decisions

       i.                       Noted.

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.”

Noted.