Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.

Cllr H Blathwayt was present as a substitute for Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday, 23^rd March 2023.

The Minutes of the Development Committee meeting held 20th March 2023 were approved as a correct record subject to a correction to Min 131 vi titling Cllr A Brown as Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement.

(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 T Adams declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 9, he is a Member of Cromer Town Council (The Applicant). Cllr T Adams attended the meeting as a non-voting Member

Officers Report

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised that this application was returning to Committee following deferral in February, an update report was provided from P.21 of the Agenda. The previous report was appended at p.25, with the list of conditions pending approval appended to p.27. As set out in the summery section of the report on p.23, an agreement has been reached between Flagship Housing and Hopkins Homes which would see Flagship purchase the originally proposed 23 dwellings on the site. Various forms of grant funding and S106 monies would be used to support this purchase.

The DMTL clarified that the developer’s affordable housing contribution of the site would remain at 0%, and the agreement reached by the parties was separate to the planning application.

Following discussion with Homes England, the DMTL advised that it would not be possible to secure the 23 dwellings to be purchased by Flagship within an amended legal agreement as there were grant funding limitations preventing this.

Public Speakers

Maggie Prior – Holt Town Council

Gemma Harrison – Objecting

Martin Batey – Objecting

Jonathan Lieberman – Supporting

 Members Questions and Debate

1. Local Member – Cllr G Perry-Warnes spoke in support of the representations made by objecting speakers, and stated that she was unhappy by the way in which the application had been considered at the last meeting. She stated that it was not right that the ADP received and passed on messages from the developer to the Committee during the meeting, and contended this would not have happened for a smaller individual household application.

Cllr G Perry-Warnes thanked Officers and Cllr W Fredericks (Portfolio Holder for Housing and Benefits) for their successful negotiations with Hopkins Homes, and stated that she welcomed the provision of 23 affordable homes. However, the Local Member affirmed that it was outrageous that the delivery of the affordable homes had only been enabled through grant funding sources, money which could now no longer be used for other much needed schemes of social benefit. She argued that as a result, Hopkins Homes preserved their guaranteed 17.5% minimum profit margin at the expense of others.

The Local Member recited an excerpt from the developer’s website ‘We help build communities’ and questioned whether this was true. She reflected that the developments in Holt were leading to an increase in second homes, and holiday lets. The development would lack the other supporting infrastructure needed by communities to thrive. Further, Cllr G Perry-Warnes reflected on other passages on the Developers website, and stated that whilst she did not question the developer’s standards, she questioned their definition of what is right, and right by whom. She contended that had the application been refused and gone to Appeal that it would have cost the developer much more, and therefore the small concession to sell to Flagship was not done out of the goodness of their hearts.

2. Cllr W Fredericks – Portfolio Holder for Housing and Benefits – paid tribute to Flagship  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

Officers Report

The PO – AW introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. It was noted that this application was presented to Committee as the Local Member, Cllr T Adams was also the applicant on behalf of Cromer Town Council.

The PO- AW outlined the sites location plan, proposed block plan, elevations, and photos of proposed sites. She confirmed that the key issues for consideration were the principle of development, the effect on the character and appearance of the areas, the effect on local amenity, and highway safety. Officers considered that the introduction of CCTV cameras would aid in discouraging anti-social behaviour and property damage in Cromer, and in better ensuring that perpetrators be brought to suitable justice.

Public Speakers

None

Member’s Debate and Questions

1. Cllr T Adams – Local Member – advised that the Town Council had been working on the application for some time and were mindful of locations to ensure that there was minimal impact to trees as the cameras were operated by line of site from radio pad to radio pad. Considerations were underway in extending CCTV coverage, however issues remained with line of site to the proposed network.  He stated that, in addition to the benefits outlined by the Case Officer, that the CCTV would assist in cases of missing persons, traffic incidents, event management and monitoring of carparks. Regarding concerns, he advised that views into household windows would be blocked using software, and that footage obtained by the cameras would be accessed by limited numbers of people, which would be governed by relevant legislation.

2. Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation, though commented he was disappointed by the one line response from the statutory consultee (the police)

3. Cllr R Kershaw seconded the proposal.

4. Cllr L Withington reflected on CCTV cameras operated by Sheringham Town Council which had been hugely beneficial in assisting public safety. She noted that North Norfolk had a higher number of elderly residents, and by extension persons with dementia who may wonder.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 14 votes for.

That Planning Application PF/22/3028 be APPROVED subject to conditions to cover the matters listed below

·         Time (3 years)

·         Development in accordance with the approved plans

·         Materials

Final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director – Planning

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised that since the publication of the agenda that it had been agreed to amend the description of the application to conversation and renovation of building to create seven self-contained flats. Whilst the submitted photos and internal floors plans demonstrate that the building was used as a former Bed and Breakfast, insufficient information was available to confirm its lawful use. With specific regard to parking, the Highway Authority had submitted further comments following this clarification of use, having considered the proposals against the worst case fall-back position in parking terms, and continue to raise no-objection though note the development could result in increased pressure on the limited street-parking available.

The DMTL outlined the sites location, existing floor and proposed floor plans and photos of the site. He advised that the existing floor plans were for an 18 bedroom property and not a 21 bedroom property as quoted elsewhere in the agenda.

The DMTL advised that as the use had been clarified and the Highway Authority had provided an updated response, the recommendation could therefore be amended to reflect these matters.

Public Speakers

Lindsey Lovett – Objecting

Jordan Cribb – Supporting.

Members Debate and Questions

1. Cllr T Adams – Local Member- affirmed that there were no objections to the principle of development, noting this building was in need of updating following years of disrepair, rather the concern expressed by residents, and which he shared, was with respect of the scale of the development with the number of flats being disproportionate to its local context.

It was noted that Highways had agreed that there was the potential for significant impact arising from the development on parking and transport movements, but that they and the Authority were relaying on NNDC core strategy Policy CT6. Both his, and the view of the Town Council was that the development was not within the Town Centre (not being in the primary economic shopping area) and that other provisions of CT6 do not apply.  He did not consider that exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated, and that the application of Policy CT6 had been applied too loosely in this instance.

The Local Member argued that the parking situation warranted further consideration, and the only way to reduce the demand on parking was to reduce the number of flats. He considered that the photos provided by the Case Officer did not adequately demonstrate the parking situation, which he argued was much worse, particularly during summer months.

Cllr T Adams stated that if Members were minded to approve, careful consideration should be given on the impacts of dust and noise, particularly on the neighbouring B & B, and the use of skips and associated works vehicles on what is already a heavily congested road. The Local Member welcomed the use of a construction management plan, as suggested by the applicant.

2. The Chairman reflected that parking permits also came with issues, as they did not guarantee residents a parking space.

3. Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140.

Officers Report

The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation to confirm the TPO. The Case Officer outlined the sites location and provided images of the site. It was noted that the tree was located close to the boundary with some root damage from being driven over as residents had been parking to the rear of the property, next to where the tree is located. The SLO advised that residents had applied to remove the tree to aid with parking, however Officers argue that the tree contributes positively the amenity and biodiversity of the area, and it was important that it be retained.

Members debate and questions

1. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation, affirming that the tree was there first and he didn’t see justification for its removal.

2. Cllr H Blathwayt seconded the recommendation and commented that he was concerned about the protection of the roots, which may result in irreversible damage to the tree.

3. The SLO advised that information and support could be provided to the residents.

4. Cllr T Adams – Local Member – noted the parking pressures in the area but agreed with the Officers recommendation. He commented that the road had historically been broken up by trees.

5. Cllr J Toye reflected on the images supplied, with cars not parking in accordance with Highway Code. He commented it may be easier for residents to park, and better for the avoidance of roots, if they were to reverse in.

6. The Chairman noted that the photograph (supplied by the resident) may not be indicative of day-to-day parking and was potentially demonstrative to support their argument.

7. Cllr V Holliday asked if it would be possible for a physical barrier to be erected to protect the roots, as advice and guidance may not go far enough.

8. The SLO advised that a stabilising structure would be advised as an appropriate solution which may include bonded gravel, with the use of something permeable. It was not possible to enforce the implementation of guidance.

9. The Chairman reflected that if the tree had to be removed due to damage that it could be conditioned that it be replaced.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 12 votes for.

That the Order for TPO/22/0997 be confirmed with the modification.

Officers Report

The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation to confirm a modified Woodland Tree Preservation Order. The SLO affirmed the sites location, its history and provided both onsite and areal images of the area, and affirmed the importance of retention to ensure the protection of the amenity, biodiversity and connectively of the woodland.

Members debate and questions:

1. The Local Member – Cllr L Withington- stressed the importance of the trees to the Town, and the protection of the habitat corridors, with Sheringham being ‘Twixt Sea and Pine’. She commented that another development on Hooks Hills had cut into the tree canopy, acting as a scar on the green entrance of Sheringham.

2. Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation, and thanked the SLO for her considered report.

3. Cllr J Toye seconded the Officer recommendation.

4. The Chairman reflected that England was the least forested area of Europe, and it was important to retain trees which served as the lungs of our cities.

5. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle commented that the site was an ideal place for the education of young people, and it was in the well-being of residents that trees be protected.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 12 votes for.

That the Order for TPO/22/0996 be confirmed with the modification.

1. The DM introduced the Officers Report and spoke positively of the Planning Service’s performance, which remained above national averages.

2. The PL advised that there were 6 S106 agreements outstanding, with the Cattle shed being signed shortly. The PL commented that, despite the draft S106 agreement for Crisp Malting having been circulated in November 2022, it remained outstanding. She advised that she followed up on this matter 1 – 2 times a week for a response on the one outstanding clause.

3. Cllr A Brown asked if the Crisp Maltings application was not signed by end of June that it be returned to Committee.

4. The DM advised that in addition to the S106 there were a few outstanding matters which need to be resolved including the point with Natural England, which was in the process of being resolved regarding habitats regulations and nutrient neutrality. He commented that the majority of the conditions list had be completed, and once those points were resolved it would just be the S106 agreement outstanding. The DM affirmed that within the approved conditions there was a clause which stipulated that if sufficient progress was not made that the application would be returned to Committee.

5. The ADP suggested the 20^th July as a provisional date for completion and that he would keep an eye on progress. He commented it was appropriate that Members be informed of progress, as they have been through the performance report, and that Members have the opportunity to confirm their expectations.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

New Appeals

1. No Comments.

Inquiries and Hearings in progress

2. The ADP advised that an outcome for Arcady (Cley-next the sea) was due by end of April.

Written Representations

3. Cllr P Fisher commented re ENF/21/0061 that the pizza van had since moved to a worse location, arising more controversy. He understood Enforcement Officers were responding to this matter.
4. Cllr L Withington asked if a stop notice had been applied to ENF/22/0289. The ADP advised that the Enforcement Service had served an Enforcement Notice, if there was a further issue that the Ward Member wished to make the Service aware of, then those issues could be considered and acted on accordingly.

Appeal Decisions

5. The DM advised that application PO/21/1525 had also been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. He spoke highly of the Authorities record at appeal, though noted ENF/20/0066 had been quashed.

6. The ADP stated the outcome of ENF/20/0066 was disappointing and that Officers had taken technical advised before issuing the notice, the technical advice and details of the notice were disagreed by the Inspector. He commented that there were lessons to be learnt, and that the Enforcement team had amended the notice and would be re-issuing the amended notice shortly.

7. Cllr J Toye asked if there had been an update re Nutrient Neutrality.

8. The ADP advised he was a board member of the joint venture, and that NNDC now had its share certificate as a member of Norfolk Environmental credits. He commented that the environmental credits company would launch a webpage by the end of the month which will enable for interested parties to apply, enabling landowners and relevant parties to look at a credit modelling process which would bring forward mitigation. It was envisaged a public meeting would be arranged for May/June where an update would be provided, with an expectation that Country Landowners Committee would attend. The ADP commented that the joint venture would focus on a suite of nutrient neutrality measures, which included; working with Anglian Water (party to the ltd company) who would seek to deliver improvements to waste water treatment ahead of 2030 and which would be funded by the proposals; further works to foul drainage systems in Norfolk to become more efficient through investment; reviewing the granting of solar farms which take land out of agricultural production; and other nature-based solutions. The ADP advised a briefing would be offered after the election to Cabinet and Officers.

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.”