Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P Fisher, Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and Cllr G Mancini-Boyle.

None present.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the Development Committee meetings held on Thursday 14^th September 2023 and Thursday 28^th September 2023.

The Minutes of the Development Committee meetings held Thursday 14^th September and Thursday 28^th September 2023 were approved as a correct record subject to typographical corrections to the Minutes of 14^th September, Min 42 ix, to read ‘exception’ rather than ‘expectation’ and Min 42 xxii to read ‘Northrepps’ and not ‘Northreeps’.

(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.

None declared.

 The HPA-HG introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He affirmed the site’s location, context in the local street scene, relationship with the AONB, existing and proposed floor plans and elevations, and provided photos of the site for context. The HPA-HG advised that prior approval had been granted for a similar scheme; PF/23/0318, the differences in the applications related to the addition of the rooftop balcony instead of the previously approved Juliet balcony. The key issues for consideration were the principle of development; impact on the character of the area, heritage asset and design; residential amenity; highways and parking; and impact on protected species.

The Chairman advised that whilst the application had been referred to Committee by himself, he had no personal interest in the application.

Public Speakers

John Jones – Trunch Parish Council

David Houlton – Objecting

Howard Little – Supporting

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr P Neatherway advised that as he knew both parties, he would abstain from speaking on the application.

     ii.        Cllr A Brown considered that the application presented a challenge to the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions by the neighbours. He noted that the prior application for a similar scheme had only recently been approved and questioned why the balcony had now been applied for. Cllr A Brown reflected on the representations made and expressed discomfort in supporting the officer’s recommendation for approval at this stage, and so proposed deferral of the application to enable a site visit.

    iii.        Cllr A Varley seconded the recommendation for deferral.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye agreed that a site visit would be beneficial as it was difficult to fully appreciate the orientation on the site.

     v.        Cllr L Vickers expressed her support for deferment.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

That planning application PF/23/1531 be DEFFERED to enable a site visit.

The SPO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. The Case Officer outlined that site’s location, extent of proposed works including slope protection on Melbourne slope, apron encasement, access ramp repairs, rock revetment to the west and concrete apron to the east.

Public Speaker

Fiona Keenaghan – NNDC Coastal Engineer – Supporting.

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The DM relayed a pre-prepared statement from Cllr H Blathwayt – Portfolio Holder for Coast – who was unable to attend the meeting due to a prior commitment to speak at the Coast and Estuary conference. Cllr H Blathwayt, with reference to this and the Mundesley Coastal scheme (PF/23/0942), argued that the applications were vital for the protection of residents’ homes and businesses, and are urgently required given rising sea levels and an eroding coast. The vital civil engineering work would be scheduled to work in tandem for cost, engineering, and logistical efficiencies, and to ensure that disturbance to the local population could be kept to a minimum. Cllr H Blathwayt considered that the Council’s Coastal team and external Contractors were working together to ensure local communities be included and informed as the scheme develops. The benefits of the schemes patently, far out way the short-term disturbance created.

     ii.        Cllr V Holliday stated it was unfortunate that such paraphernalia be added to the Coastline, however, considered there was no other option but to approve the scheme. Cllr V Holliday proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation for approval.

    iii.        Cllr A Varley seconded the officer’s recommendation, affirming that these were vital works to ensure the longevity of the Coastline.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye expressed his support for the application and asked how long it would take to build out the scheme?

     v.        The NNDC Coastal Engineer advised the current programme was projected to be 12 to 18 months. The start date was yet to be confirmed and was dependent on receiving planning permission and sourcing additional funding.

   vi.        The Chairman enquired whether the proposed steps on the rock armour could be replaced with accessible ramped access.

  vii.        The NNDC Coastal Engineer advised that a DDA compliant ramped access would not be possible in this location due to lack of space. The stepped access proposed would replace the existing stepped access.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That planning application PF/23/0941 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

The SPO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for delegated approval. He outlined the site’s location, proposed western armour stockpile and relationship with the exiting revetment, rock berm (below the church) forward of the existing steel infilled structure, slope protection mattress, apron encasement and widening by the lifeboat station, and levelling out of some sections of the promenade and replacement of steps.

Public Speakers

Fiona Keenaghan – NNDC Coastal Engineer – Supporting

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr W Fredericks welcomed the proposal which would protect the village from coastal erosion and thanked officers for their hard work in bringing the scheme forward. She sought clarity from officers that a public presentation would be delivered before works commenced.

     ii.        The NNDC Coastal Engineer confirmed that presentations would be arranged with a drop-in session organised akin to that held in March, subject to approval of the application.

    iii.        Cllr J Toye thanked officers for their comprehensive reports and asked for an update to the Natural England response regarding the stockpile. He agreed that the application was much needed and had followed the correct processes. Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

   iv.        The NNDC Coastal Engineer advised conversations were still ongoing with Natural England, whose main concerns were that the rock stockpile was entering into the SSSI area in Mundesley and the geomorphologic aspects of the proposal.

     v.        Cllr P Neatherway agreed that the scheme was much needed, he asked if elements of the scheme may be adopted elsewhere including Bacton.

   vi.        The NNDC Coastal Engineer welcomed discussing this matter with Councillors outside the meeting, she did not have technical detail to hand for other sites.

  vii.        Cllr A Varley seconded the officer’s recommendation which he considered vital for ensuring the longevity of the special community and superb coastline.

 viii.        Cllr V Holliday reiterated her earlier comments that it was disappointing such schemes were needed. She commented that she was happy with the application provided Natural England were satisfied.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 11 votes for.

That planning application PF/23/0942 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

 HPA-HG introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He outlined the site’s location, context within the wider setting, elevations of the gazebos, details of the integrated soakaway system, relocation of the flue, and provided site photos.

The key issues for the proposal were the principle of development; the effect on the character and appearance of the area; the cost on residential amenity, coastal erosion; and highways safety.

Public Speakers

Nicholas Dent – Supporting

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr W Fredericks – expressed her disappointment regarding the retrospective nature of the application. She welcomed the proposed changes to the flue as she considered that the original placement had been an issue. The Local Member noted that information pertaining to the impact of noise and smell was missing, additionally details relating to gazebos and lighting needed to be carefully scrutinised particularly with respect of the drainage system. The Local Member was not satisfied that enough consideration had been given by the Environment Agency or officers to this component of the scheme and contended that information was lacking on water displacement and light pollution. In addition, she considered the noise impact of the flue was notable given her assertion that it was running late into the evening and beyond the opening hours of the Chip Shop.

     ii.        The DM advised that the surface water matter had been discussed with the Coastal Team, who were satisfied that the proposed soakaway scheme would acceptably dispose of surface water. The gazebos were constructed with louvers which, when open, would allow for water to be discharged to the ground as it would otherwise have done. Irrespective of whether the louvers were open or closed, the Coastal Engineers had advised they were supportive of the scheme. With respect of the extractor system, the Council were still awaiting information which was required within 28 days of the date of the decision. The Environmental Health Officer had confirmed they were content for this matter to be resolved by condition. The DM advised he was confident that matters outlined could be resolved by condition.

    iii.        Cllr W Fredericks asked how use of the louvers could be enforced to ensure they were opened when not in use.

   iv.        The DM affirmed this was not a key issue and reiterated that the Coastal Engineers were satisfied with the scheme regardless of whether the louvers were opened or closed.

     v.        Cllr L Vickers noted the public speaker’s representation that the gazebos were permitted development under COVID-19 and asked if this was correct.

   vi.        The DM was unable to offer precise specifications of what was permitted during COVID but confirmed that there was an expansion of outdoor seating to encourage users to sit in the open air and not within buildings.

  vii.        Cllr L Vickers stated that she was persuaded by the economic merits of the proposal, with the public house employing local people and the business generating revenue within the local economy.

 viii.        Cllr V  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

The SPO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval. He outlined the site’s location, relationship with neighbouring properties including Grade II listed buildings, existing and proposed floor plans and elevations, use of materials, and photographs of the site.

The key issues for consideration were the principle of development, design, amenity, protecting and enhancing the historic environment, and planning balance.

Public Speakers

Maggie Prior – Holt Town Council

Members debate and questions.

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr M Batey –proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation and asked, should the application be approved, that the contractors be mindful of local businesses when undertaking their work to minimise disruption.

     ii.        Cllr A Varley thanked the case office for his report and stated that as a Local Authority, NNDC took pride in its public facilities. He noted an absence of environmental consideration in the design of the scheme, and asked officers for greater detail on the environmental aspects of the proposal.

    iii.        The DM noted that there was nothing explicitly clear in the application what was being done to satisfy environmental policy requirements, though that was not to say that this policy had not been considered in the application.

   iv.        Cllr A Varley thanked the DM for his comments, but stated this hadn’t moved the matter forward. He affirmed the Council should ensure that its facilities were of a high environmental standard and consideration given into the Council’s carbon footprint. 

     v.        The DM advised that the building would have to comply with building regulations as a minimum. It was a judgment call for the committee whether the application complies with policy, which officers were satisfied it would.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown seconded the officer’s recommendation for approval. He confirmed that updating of facilities was a core feature in the corporate plan, though noted this application had arisen due to damage to the structure. Cllr A Brown stated that the Council’s capital programme and the updating of its public facilities was likely the envy of many other local authorities. He stated that the concerns of local businesses needed to be considered, and whilst there was not a proposed management plan as there may otherwise been for a larger development, the effect of noise and highways matters were important considerations.

  vii.        Cllr V Holliday as the Local Member for coastal villages which used Holt as a well-loved shopping centre, welcomed the application, especially the inclusion of changing places toilets. She asked if consideration had been given over the risk of anti-social behaviour and vandalism of the facilities, as this had been an issue elsewhere in the district.

 viii.        The SPO advised that from a planning perspective the council had limited control over vandalism. It was a case of educating the public about preserving and respecting facilities for the good of the community.

   ix.        The DM advised that vandalism was an issue the Council had faced at other sites which had taken facilities out of action until repairs were completed. Whilst not expressed in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The HPA – MA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He reiterated that subsequent to the publishing of the agenda, members had been circulated an email from the agent directly.

The HPA-MA outlined the site’s location, site plan, and relationship with the local setting. Another application on the site had previously been to committee (PF/23/0929) in July 2023, this did not form part of the application presented before the meeting for consideration.

The Case Officer offered photos of the site and proposed elevations. Comments had been received from the Conservation and Design Officer objecting to the retention of the garden room and fence primarily due to these structures masking the juncture between the principle two storey barn and it’s subservient single-story wing. The fence as built out did not bare as replacement for the post and rail fence which had been approved under a conditioned discharged under application CDA/17/0495.

The key issues for consideration were; the principle of development; the design and impact upon heritage asset; design and impact on the wider landscape; and amenity.

Public Speakers

Patrick Harper-Gray (Supporting)

Members Debate and Questions.

      i.        Cllr A Brown asked why a privacy fence had been proposed and not a privacy hedge.

     ii.        At the Chairman’s discretion, the agent was permitted to speak. The agent advised that the applicant sought a swift solution that would physically obstruct the overlooking, this would not be possible with a hedge given the length of time required for a hedge to become established. The applicant had asked officers if a temporary fence could be retained whilst the hedge grows, however officers did not support this approach.

    iii.        Cllr A Brown stated that he was not convinced with the argument supplied, and further asked the PL about the treatment of property in neighbouring disputes, as he understood that was not a planning consideration. He noted the allegations raised against the Council for a 2021 planning application, though advised he was unaware about this application despite having sat on the Development Committee during the associated period. He asked if officers could respond to the allegations.

   iv.        The PL advised that matters of purely private property disputes were not material considerations for the committee, however, impact on residential amenity was a material consideration, and the committee may have regard to both the applicant’s amenity issues and neighbour’s amenity issues.

     v.        The Chairman sought confirmation that the fence at issue was not the boundary fence, rather it was a short fence within the curtilage of the amenity area.

   vi.        The HPA – MA confirmed that the fence subject to the application was set back from the boundary fence. During his site visit the HPA-MA had attended the Hay Loft and viewed the amenity area of the Old Workshop from the double doors. He advised that the new fence provided limited additional shielding in comparison to the original fence.

  vii.        The Chairman clarified that application PF/22/1909 removed permitted development rights for the erection of buildings, structures, and other  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

      i.        The DM introduced the performance report and spoke positively of the maintained and improved speed and quality of decisions. He advised that meetings had been held with planning agents as part of the planning service improvement plan (PSIP).

     ii.        Cllr A Brown expressed his thanks to officers for their work for their high levels of performance. He asked if the out of time applications referenced in the report had received agreed extensions of time. Further, he asked if there would be changes to the reporting data.

    iii.        The DM advised that it was challenging to secure extensions of time in situations where it was likely that the application was recommended for refusal. Officers were working hard to ensure that those extensions of time were agreed before the statutory time limit expired. With respect of the data sets, he advised as part of the PSIP that the data set was being reviewed which would offer greater insight into the planning service. Whilst there was a plethora of data available, it was important to ensure that it presented in a way which was useful.

   iv.        The ADP confirmed his commitment at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that through the PSIP the planning service would look to produce a broader suite of performance indicators. Whilst the current indicators were interesting, other indicators were also insightful and may be of greater interest to applicants and the wider public. It was the intention that in summer 2024 a new list of indicators be published and monitored; the ADP was keen that these indicators reflected what the various stakeholders consider to be important. He encouraged members to contact him, or the DM should they have an opinion on which indicators they would like to be considered. The ADP affirmed that the Council would continue to report to government on those indicators asked of it but sought to expand on the performance reporting which a rounder suite of data to the Committee and stakeholders.

     v.        Cllr J Toye echoed his thanks, and relayed positive feedback received from agents and applicants following meetings with the planning service. He endorsed greater engagement and communication with stakeholders.

   vi.        The ADP advised there would be quarterly meetings with agents and developers with a commitment that one meeting would be held in person annually.

  vii.        The PL offered an update to the S106 obligations and offered an update for the Church Road, West Beckham application, for Broadland Housing. She confirmed that the draft S106 agreement had already been substantially agreed, though added that conversations were required with Broadland Housing. The PL advised that two applications for Broadland Housing were delayed because the developer had not yet taken an option or entered into a conditional contract to purchase the land. She stated that it was bizarre that someone should wish to make a planning application on someone else’s land given the time and expense of doing so but not enter into any contract to purchase the land. The consequence of this is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

(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 outlined the appeals report and noted the inconsistency in how long appeals were being determined, with some still outstanding over a year and others determined incredibly quickly. A decision had been reached at Blakeney following the informal hearing on 19^th September, the inspector provided a split decision which allowed the chalk grassland but dismissed the dwelling. This was the second successful appeal on the site in recent months.

     ii.        Cllr A Brown welcomed the outcome at Blakeney, and the common-sense approach taken by the inspector.

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.