Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

Cllr L Withington was present as a substitute for Cllr A Varley.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday, 22^nd June 2023.

The Minutes of the Development Committee meeting held Thursday 22^nd June 2023 were approved as a correct record.

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.

None declared.

Decision

Approved

Officers Report

The TPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. She established the sites location, provided aerial and site photographs, outlined existing elevations and floor plans and proposed site plan, elevations, roof and floor plans. It was noted that use of the outbuilding would be conditioned for incidental purposes only. The main issues for consideration was whether the proposed development was acceptable in respect of principle, the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, effect on residential amenity and whether the proposed development would have any effect on highway safety.

Public Speakers

Phil Harris – Objecting

Carolyn Wright – Supporting

Members Debate and Question’s

1. The Local Member – Cllr T Adams – drew comparisons to another application in his Ward, PF/20/2569, which had been refused on the basis that the application did not pay respect to the character of the surrounding area and failed to ensure that the scale and massing of the building related sympathetically to the surround area. Cllr T Adams, stated that he was not opposed to the principle of an extension but considered the proposal would not be subservient to the host dwelling through the doubling of the footprint and addition of an outbuilding. He contended that the proposal was out of character for the built form of the area and noted the numerous public objections to the application.

2. Cllr J Boyle – Local Member – considered the scale of the proposal was an overdevelopment of the dwelling and would not be in keeping with its immediate setting.

3. The Chairman sought confirmation whether a significant portion of the scheme could be achieved under permitted development rights.

4. The TPO advised that the outbuilding could be built out under permitted development.

5. Cllr J Toye asked, had the application been for the extension to the rear only, whether this could be built under permitted development rights as a single floor extension.

6. The DM advised the application presented to Members was not for permitted development, and confirmed that Members needed to consider and assess the proposal against NNDC Core Strategy policies, in particular EN4. He affirmed that Officers were satisfied that the proposal accorded with policies and reflected that nearby properties had also been extended. 

7. Cllr V Holiday asked about the distance between the extension and the neighbouring property, and whether the proposal would overlook the neighbour.

8. The TPO commented that there would be two windows on the ground floor of the Northern Elevation which would serve the bathroom. This was not considered by Officers to have an overlooking effect on neighbours.

9. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett did not consider there to be a problem with the proposed extension on planning grounds and further she that there had been other developments to the south of a similar nature to the ancillary building. Cllr A Fitch Tillett proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation for approval.

10. Cllr L Withington sought confirmation that the incidental building could not be used as a holiday let and that this would be conditioned.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

Decision

Deferred

The SPO-JB introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval subject to an extensive list of conditions. He established the sites location and context within the wider setting, advising that coastal erosion threatened the access point to the existing car park which would render the current car park unusable. The SPO-JB noted the predicated 100 year coastal erosion estimate, the existing car park falling within the predicated eroded area.

The SPO-JB confirmed the proposed plan for 74 spaces inclusive of 6 disability accessible spaces and 5 motorbikes with a landscaping and ecological buffer zone and enhancements (as detailed in the report) between the car park and neighbouring properties providing amenity screening. Through the consultation concerns had been raised with regards anti-social behaviour, it had subsequently been agreed with the applicant that a gate could be provided and maintained to address this matter, with further limits on opening hours and prohibition of overnight camping and parking conditions.

Aerial images were provided from 2014, 2020 and 2023 for context, establishing the levels of coastal retreat. It was understood that there was only around 15 meters from the existing access point and the cliff edge, with the potential that a turbulent winter storm further risk loss of the access point to the existing car park.

The SPO-JB affirmed that key elements of the proposal was the provision of new access drive to keep the existing car park open, delivery of new spaces (only when the existing car park was deemed unsafe) ecological enhancements and landscaping to the north and west, and grasscrete surface to be used throughout. The proposal was supported by the Council’s coastal erosion roll back policies. Additionally, there was ongoing need access to the Deep History Coast, Norfolk Coast Footpath, Happisburgh Lighthouse, and to maintain access for a nationally important geography case study.

In was noted that much of the Officers report detailed matters of Highway Safety. The SPO-JB set out the proposed access routes with demonstratives.

Public Speakers

David Mole – Happisburgh Parish Council

Paul Sanders – Objecting

Frances Batt – Objecting

Jo Beardshaw – Supporting

Bryony Nierop-Reading – Supporting

Thomas Love – Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr L Paterson – Local Member – expressed his support for the application and of the balanced view presented by Officers. He considered the amenity offered essential, particularly given the lack of public transport and reliance on private vehicles. He highlighted that the beach nearby and Play Park provided an affordable day out to families, and that access to these facilities may be lost without the car park. Further, the loss of the car park would place increased pressure on street parking.

     ii.        At the request of the Chairman, the SPO-JB affirmed the importance of the roll-back policy in Officers considerations. Policy EN12 of the Local Plan establishes a list of criteria to justify rollback (provided on P.27 of the Agenda).

    iii.        Cllr H Blathwayt – Portfolio Holder for Coast – thanked the Parish Council for its far-sighted views on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Decision

Approved

Officer’s Report

The DM introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He established the sites location and context with its local setting as referenced in pages 41 and 42 of the report pack. The DM referenced P.35 – p.36 and confirmed that reserve matters for a not entirely dissimilar proposal had been approved with planning conditions discharged and development commenced. Officers were of the opinion that the extant conditions were material planning considerations that should attract significant weight in decision making. Further, the extant permissions also include a legal agreement which included a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing circa £55,000 as well as other contributions. The proposed S106 contributions were set out in pages 45 and 46 of the report.

Members were provided visuals of the previously approved site plan PO/16/1725 for context and to help identify the differences between the proposed and approved schemes. The DM advised that the main change was that the block of flats would be replaced with 10 single storey bungalows, further the internal layout of Sandpiper House had been changed with respect of the numbers of flats. The DM detailed the proposed elevations inclusive of CGI images, cross sections of the schemes and the relative levels of the land.

Officers considered that the proposal broadly complied with policy, and in circumstances where there had been a departure, Officers concluded that the existence of the implemented permission was a material consideration in which should be given significant. Therefore, the main issues for consideration were that of the effect on Flood Risk and Effect on Ecology.

 Since the drafting of the report a response had been received from the Council’s Ecology Officer raising no objection to the development on ecological grounds, however recommended the following three conditions; one relating to lighting design, another relating to a construction and environmental management plan, and lastly to secure the ecological enhancements set out in the applicant’s ecological appraisal. With the inclusions of such conditions Officers consider the proposal would accord with NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN9.

With respect of matters of Flood Risk, the applicant’s drainage engineers had reviewed the lead local authority comments and had subsequently provided an updated flood risk assessment and drainage strategy revision P02 (dated 14^th July) as well as the LLFA response. A response had not been received by the lead local flood authority, as they were only re-consulted 3 days prior. For context, the DM advised that a similar drainage scheme for the site had been approved by the Flood Authority in July 2020, Officers were therefore confident that matters could be resolved. The recommendation had been slightly amended to request delegated approval to the Assistant Director for planning subject to satisfactory resolution of surface water matters, securing S106 obligations to the value of £97,265 for the purposes set out in section 8 of the Officer’s report, as well as the imposition of conditions including any considered necessary by the Assistant Director.  Further, Officers were seeking to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Decision

Approved

Officer’s Report

The PO – CG introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He established the sites location, existing and proposed elevations, images of the site and relationship with neighbouring properties. The dwelling was neither in a conservation area, nor was listed, though was unique for the area for its use of construction materials. The PO-CW confirmed that when considering the erection of a balcony, one of the principle concerns was impact on the amenity of others.

The relationship between 23B and 23 was considered to be poor, with 23B being heavily overlooked with little privacy. The PO-CG argued that the amenity harm was reduced as the area was already overlooked. The objection had been received from 23A, 30 metres away not 23B. The PO-CG affirmed that if Members concluded that there was no harm to 23B, then it would be difficult to argue there was any harm to 23A. Property 4 Morris Close (to the rear) had a small window facing on to the balcony. The Case Officer reflected that due to the existing balcony and the nature and form of the property that amenity would not be harmed. The proposed balcony was large enough for small group to gather, but not large enough to host larger parties, therefore it was not considered that this may attract unusual or excessive levels of noise for a residential area.

The PO-CG advised that the proposed veranda fell within permitted development, and it was therefore just the balcony requiring planning permission. He considered that the proposed scheme was in keeping with the colonial character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Public Speakers

None

Members Debate and Questions

1. The DM recited a statement prepared by the Local Member – Cllr R Sims. The Local Member considered the old and unique nature of the building, made of Canadian Wood, which he was surprised was not listed. Due to the internal configuration of the building he considered that whilst the ground floor extension would not interfere with neighbours, the extension of balcony would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. Cllr R Sims endorsed the Committee attend a site visit.

2. Cllr A Brown noted the Officer’s representation, that the veranda was consistent with  permitted development,, further, the issues surrounding privacy were somewhat diluted given the distance and use of the balcony, and layout of neighbouring properties. He proposed approvals of the Officers recommendation.

3. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett took no issue with the proposal and expressed her support for the attempts to match the extension with the host dwelling. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett seconded the Officers recommendation.

RESOLVED by 11 for and 1 against

That Planning Application PF/23/1029 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.

Decision

Approved

Cllr L Vickers declared non-pecuniary interest in the item, however advised she was a Member of Hindleveston who had formed a view on the application, as such, she advised she would abstain from speaking or voting on the application.

Officer’s Report

The SPO-MB introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. The application had been referred to Committee for determination under the Council’s scheme of delegation as the site was over half a hectare. The SPO-MB confirmed the site location, aerial view, proposed site plan, and views of the site. The main issues for consideration were; whether the proposal was acceptable in principle, the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, effect on biodiversity and effect on residential amenity. The SPO-MB advised the proposal was located in a discrete location, largely screened by hedgerows and trees, that there would be a negligible impact on biodiversity with enhancements from the wildflower planting.

Public Speakers

None

Members Debate and Questions

1. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

2. Cllr J Toye expressed his support for renewable energy, he noted the comments from the CPRE but reflected that the applicant would be introducing Wildflower Meadows. He asked that information be provided to the applicant with respect of maintaining the pond, given how essential ponds were to biodiversity. Cllr J Toye seconded the Officers recommendation.

3. Cllr P Fisher endorsed comments made by Cllr J Toye.

4. Cllr A Brown noted the increasing volume of this type of application, and asked that the scheme of delegation be reviewed to increase the threshold for Officer Delegation. As Portfolio Holder he was keen to discuss this matter with Officers.

5. The Chairman supported a review of the scheme of delegation and in increasing Officer Delegation with respect of solar farms.

6. The DM confirmed that it would be the Local Member Protocol which would need to be reviewed, and that he would be agreeable to have discussions outside the meeting.

RESOLVED by 11 votes 1 abstention. 

That Planning Application PF/23/1053 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.

Decision

Refused

Officer’s Report

The PO-CG introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He confirmed the site location and the relationship of the proposal with adjacent listed and curtilage listed building. It was noted that the garage was constructed without planning permission, and the plans submitted at time the Committee report had been prepared had subsequently been revised. The proposed changes were to include a double dual pitch roof (as opposed pyramidal roof) which was considered to be more in keeping with the general shape of the adjacent barns, the substitution of the roller door for a more in keeping timber door, and removal of the brick wall and replacement with a hedge.

The PO-CG confirmed he had received informal comments from the Councils Conservation Officer, who advised that the applicant had reduced the grounds for objection, hence the level of harm is reduced. It is now far more finely balanced whether refusal can be sustained or not. Had the garage blocked principle views of the main listed buildings, it might be a different matter. There may be a risk of refusing the application with the garage being located in peripheral position. The Conservation Officer considered that there weren’t any obvious public benefits, but that there was relatively low levels of residual harm. The PO-CG affirmed guidance from paragraph 202 of the NPPF which sets a test of harms weighed against public benefit, in this instance as the building is in domestic use at present there is no counterweighing public benefit to allowing a harmful additional building.

It was noted that comments were circulated to Members from the agent, received after the publication of the agenda. Members indicated, as these comments were received late, that they would like for the Case Officer to summarise. The PO-CG confirmed he had received 2 emails (both of which are available on the planning portal), the first raised objections to the way in which the Case Officer had summarised neighbours comments, which they considered to be misleading.  Further comments received were in support of the amended plans.

Cllr A Fitch-Tillett left the meeting.

Public Speakers

Dr Michelle Lyon – Supporting

Members Debate and Questions

1. Cllr A Brown recognised that this was a finely balanced application, and noted the applicants willingness to work with Officers to introduce amendments to make the scheme more acceptable. He considered the appearance of the site without the garage and whether this may result in unsightly parking instead, noting the representation from the agent that the garage was of public benefit in improving the appearance and attractiveness of the site. Cllr A Brown considered the harm arising to the heritage asset to be less than substantial, particularly given the amendments, and reflected that should members refuse the application, and it were go to appeal, that the Planning Inspector would likely support the application. He advised that he had yet to make his mind up.

2. The Chairman advised that Members must first consider and vote on the Officer’s recommendation before considering any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

       i.          The DM introduced the Officers report, and outlined the quality and speed of decision making for the last month. He spoke highly of both Major and Non-Major Performance over the 24 month period. The Planning Service remained busy with 248 applications received in June.

      ii.          The Chairman predicated that the number of householder extensions would likely increase, with residents choosing the buildout existing properties rather than move.

     iii.          The PL was pleased to confirm that the S106 agreement for Crisp Maltings, Great Ryburgh, had been completed. The Yard Street, Sustead, was progressing well and was expected to be completed soon.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

       i.          The DM noted p.93 of the Agenda Pack, and the three appeals which had been allowed by the Planning Inspector. With reference to the Ludham decision, the DM advised the Inspector had formed a different interpretation to sustainability than the Councils, and were more permissive in assessing whether a site was sustainable. The DM considered this to be an outlier, and not a case to justify development in the countryside. The Council had tried to uphold higher standards of design on the site in Holt, which the Inspector disagreed with.

      ii.          Cllr A Brown reflected that it was a rarity that the Council lose 3 appeals in a month, something he hadn’t observed in 5 years.

     iii.          Cllr J Toye asked with respect of the Ludham application, whether this application was affected by Nutrient Neutrality.

     iv.          The DM advised that application site drained to the Ludham treatment works which falls outside of the nutrient zone, the application would therefore not be impacted. Had the application been subject to Nutrient Neutrality, and the habitat regulations were ignored by the Inspector this would have substantiated reason for challenge by the Council. 

(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.

The Chairman noted that, during the coffee break, that it had been raised whether a site visit should be organised with respect of the Happisbugh application (PF/22/2510). He advised that he was not convinced this was the best course of action, noting that site visits are expensive, and several members were already familiar with the location. The Chairman sought the views of the Committee whether to proceed with a site visit. No Members indicated a preference to proceed with a site visit.

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.