Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr N Lloyd, Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, Cllr N Pearce, Cllr A Varley and Cllr A Yiasimi.

Cllr J Toye was present as a substitute for Cllr N Lloyd

Due to a busy Committee Schedule the minutes of the 24^th November 2022 will be brought to the Development Committee scheduled Thursday 22^nd December 2022.

It was noted that the minutes of the meeting held 24^th November 2022 would be presented for consideration for the Committee meeting scheduled Thursday, 22^nd December 2022.

(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.

1. Cllr V Holliday declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 8, Planning Application PF/22/1885, and advised she considered herself pre-disposed but not pre-determined.

2. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett declared a non-pecuniary interest in Agenda Item 9, Planning Application PF21/3221, she is the Local Ward Member and a customer of the business and advised as she had been consistently lobbied, she would abstain from voting.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that all Members had been in receipt of communication from Mr Tassie sent prior to the meeting.

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He affirmed that the main considerations were set out on p.9 of the report:

1. Whether the proposed development was acceptable in principle;

2.The effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area;

3. The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings;

4. Whether the proposed development would result in a detrimental impact upon the surrounding landscape/AONB, and;

5. The impact of the proposed development on highway safety and parking.

The DMTL noted that the concerns contained in the representations from the public and Parish Council related to over-development, the effect on neighbouring dwellings, light pollution, proximity of the extension to the shared driveway, use of render being different to other buildings in the vicinity, lack of parking and increased traffic with cars having to reverse onto the road.

He advised that Officers were satisfied that the proposal accorded with core strategy and national planning policies and was therefore considered acceptable subject to conditions.

The DMTL proceeded to go through the presentation, establishing the sites location, relationship with neighbouring buildings within the wider context of the built up settlement and AONB, as well as site plans, existing and proposed elevations, proposed floor plans, and photographs of the site.

Cllr M Taylor arrived at 9.45am

Public Speakers

Charlie Harrison – Weybourne Parish Council

Lyndon Swift – Objecting

Christopher Harwood – Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

1. The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – disagreed with the Officers assessment, and considered that the proposed development did not accord with NNDC Core Strategy Polices HO8, EN1, EN4, EN9 and paragraph 185 of the NPPF. She noted that the extensions would result in a 50% increase in the footprint of the dwelling, which was in conflict with policy HO8, creating a disproportionally large increase to a modest dwelling. Further, the proposed use of glazing would approximately double the glazing on the southern elevation, triple the glazing on the eastern elevation, and would add a roof lantern on the rear extension, which she argued contravened policy EN1 and would result in light pollution, adversely impacting the nearby Kelling Heath Dark Skies Discovery Site.

The Local Member considered the close proximity of the proposed rear extension, 0.8m to the southern neighbour, and argued this was counter to policy EN4, as was the application of render was not commonplace in the village or neighbouring dwellings. Cllr V Holliday further considered the development in conflict with policy CT5, with the number of bedrooms increasing to four, and considered that cars assessing the site would be forced to reverse onto a busy road. With regard to EN9, Cllr V Holliday argued there had been a loss of a biodiversity rich hedge, removed without requirement for planning permission, but with no mention of a replacement planting scheme or another planting scheme which may otherwise mitigate the development. The Local Member stated, if approved, she would expect the conditioned application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The DM introduced the report and the Officers recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He noted that a site visit had been held in July 2022 which enabled Members to see the relationship between the application site and the neighbouring dwellings.

Since the site visit Officers from Planning and Environmental Health had worked with the Applicant to try and address some of the issues which were preventing a positive resolution. The primary issues centred on the surfacing of the application site, discussions of HGV deliveries and forklift truck impacts.

The Applicant had subsequently removed the gravel from the site, following concerns raised about the noise of passing vehicles, which left a hard-core surface.

In relation to addressing the impacts on HGV and forklift trucks, the Applicant had produced an updated noise impact assessment and layout plan, referred to within the Officers report. Further, since the site visit, the Applicant had acquired a new forklift truck for the site, and noted concerns about the noise impact of the former forklift truck. The change in equipment had been reflected in the noise impact assessment.

The DM noted the changes in the proposed application layout, amended since the site visit, with the final submission seeking to retain the 9m wide landscape buffer, removal of the pedestrian access from the site (effectively removing public access from this portion of the site), and inclusion of 3m high acoustic fence located on the edge of the landscape buffer strip.

6 public representations had been received since the Agendas publication, which touched upon many of the points raised in pages 15 and 16. Comments included concerns that the land would be operated on from 8am till 6pm, disturbing residents and spoiling their use and enjoyment of their home and garden, concerns that the scheme was not dissimilar to the last with the exemption of public parking, and concerns that the new forklift truck was just as noisy as the old one. Suggestions had been made to condition the use of staff parking from 8.30am – 5.30pm Monday to Saturday and 9.30-4.30pm Sunday and Bank Holidays, with forklift and delivery movements restricted to 10am at the earliest to 4.00pm at the latest Monday – Friday only. Further controls had been suggested to minimise the number of deliveries on the site, the DM noted that the applicant had advised that there would be 9 HGV deliveries across the year, however concerns were raised that this may increase if unmonitored. 

The DM advised that a copy of draft conditions had be circulated subsequent to agenda publication, and highlighted that HGV conditions were still a matter for consideration. It had proposed that a 10am – 4pm Monday – Friday HGV delivery restriction be imposed, though noted the Applicant would prefer this to be a 9am-5pm Monday-Friday which the Environmental Protection team had indicated they were agreeable to.

Further Forklift truck hours of use were to be agreed, with the Applicant wishing to align permission with opening hours.

The meeting was suspended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The DM introduced the Officers report for a variation of condition on a previous planning application for use of galvanised steel to an oak structure. He advised that the application was not a designated fire escape under building control, and therefore this was not a material consideration. The DM noted that the key issue was whether the change to galvanised steel was acceptable in planning terms. Officers contended within the report that there were no planning reasons to object to the proposed change, and therefore there recommendation was one for approval.

1. Cllr P Heinrich noted that the stairwell was not a fire escape and would simply be a timber access stairwell, which he did not see issue with. Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

2. Cllr A Brown seconded the Officers recommendation, and considered the change a non-material amendment.

3. The DM, in response to Members questions, advised that as this was a Section 73 application, a variation of condition, which created a new planning permission, therefore any conditions on the original application would need to be re-imposed. He advised that he would ensure this was included.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 9 votes for.

That Planning Application RV/21/3306 be APPROVED subject to conditions to cover the matters listed below and any other considered necessary by the Assistant Director – Planning

• In accordance with approved plans
• Materials as submitted

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

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.”

Not applicable.