Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett,  Cllr J Toye, Cllr K Toye, Cllr A Varley.

Cllr J Punchard was present as a substitute for Cllr A Fitch-Tillett. Cllr L Paterson was present as a substitute for Cllr J Toye.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday 12^th October 2023.

The minutes of the Development Committee meeting held on Thursday, 12^th October were approved as a correct record subject to minor typographical amendments.

(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.

      i.        Cllr V Holliday declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda items 12 and 13 (PF/23/0999 and PF/22/1530 respectively). She advised that she would speak as the Local Member for each item but would not participate in any discussion or vote on the applications as she was pre-determined.

     ii.        Cllr P Neatherway declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 11 (PF/23/1531). He advised he was well known by relevant parties and would not speak or vote on the application.

Officers Report

The PO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval. She confirmed the site’s location, relationship within the local context, existing and proposed elevations and floor plans, and provided images of the site.

With respect to key concerns, the PO advised several representations had been received which raised concerns regarding amenity issues, the main concern being that the development would have an overbearing on No.4. Whilst the proposal would increase the property from a one and a half storey dwelling to a two and a half storey dwelling, the property was set away from the boundary to the east, with the increase in height also stepped from the property at No.4. Given the orientation of the properties, the stepped height increase with the single storey garage closest to the boundary, and the existing boundary treatments of mature trees and hedging, there was not considered to be a significant adverse impact in terms of overbearing or overshadowing. The PO advised that a condition requiring the retention and replacement of the trees and hedging along the boundary would also be included, subject to approval, to soften the visual impacts of the proposal from the highway. Further, the bathroom windows on the first and second floor would be conditioned to be obscure glazing.

Concerns were also raised from neighbours regarding the proposed roof dormers resulting in a loss of privacy, however the PO confirmed that the application conformed with the North Norfolk Design Guide. Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding potential noise pollution as a result of the proposal and potential for the dwelling to be a holiday let. Whilst the development would increase the number of bedrooms, officers did not consider this would have a significant adverse impact in terms of noise pollution. The proposal was for a residential dwelling and no change of use had been submitted, the applicant had further stated that the property would continue to be used as a residential dwelling.

The PO stated that whilst the proposal would result in No.2 being one of the larger properties in Beckmeadow Way, the dwelling was not considered to be out of character for the area given the other large, detached properties in the street. There was not considered to be any significant negative impacts in terms of overlooking, overbearing and overshadowing, subject to conditions relating to obscured glazing and maintaining the well treed boundary. In all other respects, subject to conditions, the development was considered to accord with the relevant policies of the adopted Development Plan.

Public Speakers

Simon Quilter – Objecting

Christian Keen -Supporting

Members Questions and Debate

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr W Fredericks – stated that planning should be about community and about housing need, she reflected on the demographic composition of Mundesley and stressed the need for bungalows to facilitate the requirements of the aging population. She commented that the design of the property was not in keeping with the street scene and would have an overbearing affected with the roofline being too  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

Officer’s Report

The PO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. She advised the amended plans had been received after the publication of the agenda, the PO detailed the changes at the meeting which addressed the Landscape and Conservation and Design Officers comments. The amendments related to proposed materials, omission of a window and increased boundary tree planting. The PO outlined the site’s location, relationship with its local setting including Sharrington Conservation Area, proposed elevation and floor plan, and images of the site.

The key issues for consideration related to principle of development, landscaping, and heritage harm.

The application was considered to comply with NNDC Core Strategy Policy HO5. The PO confirmed that the independent agricultural assessor (Acorus) had undertaken a site visit, observed all the tenanted and privately owned land, as well as the farm’s profit and loss records, and was satisfied there was suitable need for a new dwelling. Further, the farm was considered to be financially viable.

Landscaping concerns had been largely addressed by the application, with a reduction in use of glazing and an increase in the volume of trees on the southern boundary. However, it was noted that the domestication of the current agricultural field remained a concern for consultees.

Heritage concerns had been identified by the Conservation and Design Officer, who objected to the proposal. These concerns related to the infilling of the currently open site, the gap between the hedges was considered to positively contribute to the village setting and the wider landscape. The views across the field were considered the principal contributor to Sharrington’s setting on the edge of the Glaven Valley and part of the settlement’s defining characteristics. The PO advised that the heritage harm identified was deemed to be less than substantial, therefore the public benefits arising from the scheme must be weighed against this harm.

It was acknowledged that the Local Planning Authority was currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year Housing Land Supply. The PO advised the proposal would provide a benefit in contributing a new dwelling to the local housing land supply, however as this is only one dwelling the benefit was limited.

The PO noted that the proposal would provide a rural workers dwelling to meet an identified need, supporting the local economy and vitality of the rural community as well as a well-established rural farming business. Given the mitigating factors of the development proposed, on balance and in this instance, the harm to the affected heritage asset was considered to be outweighed by the limited public benefit of the scheme, officers therefore recommended approval of the application subject to conditions.

Public Speakers

Deborah Hyslop – Brinton and Sharrington Parish Council

Keith Parks – Objecting

Jerry Stone – Supporting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr A Brown – reflected that this was a difficult application to determine at the present meeting, given the Glaven Valley Conservation Area Appraisal (GVCAA) was due to be considered the following week (the agenda  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

Officer’s report

The SPO introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He outlined the site’s location, relationship in its local context (just outside of the Conservation Area boundary), proposed elevations and floor plan, aerial views, and photographs of the site. It was noted that the proposed barn was to be constructed of similar materials to the nearby village hall.

The key issues for consideration were highways concerns, though it was acknowledged there were no formal objections from the Highway Authority; Scale of Development; and the impact on the character and environment.

Public Speakers

Simon Pegg – Supporting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr A Brown recited a pre-prepared statement on behalf of the Local Member – Cllr S Butikofer. The Local Member placed weight on the objection made by the parish council and considered whilst the application was SS2 complaint, it failed to engage with developing the site. Further, the orchard had been poorly maintained. With respect of access, it was noted that that was narrow, with the site situated on a blind bend in a densely occupied residential street, this would be especially difficult for large agricultural vehicles to navigate. If the unit was let out to an agricultural tenant there was the potential for increased use. The Local Member welcomed the reduction in scale of the development but remained unconvinced for its long-term future. She requested that, should the application be approved, a condition be applied that the unit could not be sublet.

     ii.        The Chairman asked officers if such a condition were possible.

    iii.        The PL confirmed this would be acceptable.

   iv.        Cllr A Brown proposed this condition be added.

     v.        Cllr P Fisher seconded the substantive motion for the condition to be added.

   vi.        Cllr L Paterson asked about the wider site and if this was the entire holding.

  vii.        The SPO confirmed the site boundary.

 viii.        The Chairman confirmed Members were asked to comment on the planning merits of the application before them. Members were only provided the site plan relevant to the application.

   ix.        Cllr L Paterson asked if plans needed to be submitted and approved to convert an arable field into an orchard.

     x.        The SPO advised the planting was for agricultural produce. The proposal was for the building to be used in association with the proposed orchard.

   xi.        Cllr M Hankins referenced the crime and disorder section on the officer’s report and stated that it was well known that there was an increase in theft on agricultural sites. He was surprised with objections, as the proposal would seek to secure valuable agricultural equipment. Cllr M Hankins proposed acceptance of the officer’s report for approval subject to conditions.

  xii.        Cllr R Macondald seconded the motion.

IT WAS RESOLVED by 10 for and 2 against.

That planning application PF/23/1027 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s report

The HPA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He advised that the application had been returned to committee following a site visit earlier in the month. The HPA reiterated the site’s location, relationship with neighbouring dwellings, proposed and existing elevations and floor plans and photos of the site.

The key issues for consideration were the principle of development, impact on the character of the area, residential amenity, highways and parking, and impact on protected species.

Public Speakers

David Houton – Objecting

Howard Little – Supporting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr A Brown considered intrusion to privacy of the neighbours was important in determining this application. He noted NNDC Core Strategy Policy EN4 that applications should not have a significant detrimental effect on residential amenity of nearby occupiers. Cllr A Brown was not convinced that the application wouldn’t have an adverse impact to neighbours.

     ii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation. He concluded that that the neighbouring properties either side of the dwelling were large and stated that it was refreshing for an application to be received which didn’t intend to double the footprint of the principal dwelling.

    iii.        Cllr V Holliday reflected on the site visit and stated that she considered the scale and massing of the proposal would be intrusive.

   iv.        Cllr M Hankins commended officers and the applicant for their efforts to minimise the impact of the proposal. He was satisfied with the scheme following the site visit and so seconded the officer’s recommendation.

     v.        Cllr P Fisher commented, having attended the site visit, that he didn’t consider the development would overlook neighbouring properties, rather it would look down the applicant’s own garden. He further reflected that noise disturbances emanating from the balcony would be limited given the balcony led off from the bedroom.

   vi.        Cllr Roy Macdonald agreed that the two adjacent properties were far larger, he took no issue with the application.

RESOLVED by 9 votes for, 2 against and 1 abstention.

That planning application PF/23/1531 be APPROVED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

The meeting was adjourned at 11.06am and reconvened at 11.22am.

Officer’s report

The DMTL introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. He outlined the site’s location, relationship with neighbouring dwellings, existing and proposed elevations and floor plans, and photos of the site.

The DMTL stated that the main issues for consideration were matters of principle of development, design and heritage impact, amenity, landscape, biodiversity, and highways.

With respect of design and heritage impact the DMTL confirmed that the revised scheme was considered acceptable, which better aligned with the existing dwelling. Whilst officers acknowledge that the proposed development would alter the symmetry of the existing cottages, this had already been altered to an extent by the existing first floor extension and by the sizable rear extension to No.1 Barnfield cottages, which had been approved earlier in the year. The extension was noteworthy in its size; however, it was not considered it would have a significant detrimental impact on the appearance of the dwelling or the surrounding area, nor conflict with the character and appearance of the Weybourne Conservation Area. Additionally, the proposal wasn’t considered to have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties. The application was therefore complaint with policies EN4 and EN8 of the NNDC Core Strategy.

The DMTL commented that the fenestration was policy complaint, and the relatively small rooflights proposed would not result in any significant overlooking. Officers concluded that there would not be a significant loss of light or overshadowing by consequence of the proposal.

The Landscape Officer took not issue with the landscape and visual impact of the proposal on the AONB, noting that the property was positioned in the built-up part of the village.

Any concerns relating to light spill from the development had been satisfactorily addressed through a significant reduction in glazing from 7 to 3 rooflights, it was further noted that the proposal would replace the existing first floor extension which was almost fully glazed. Accordingly, the proposal accorded with polices EN1 and EN2.

The DMTL concluded by affirming that the application was considered, on balance, to be acceptable and complaint with the relevant development policies.

Public Speakers

Martin Brown – Weybourne Parish Council

James Stanbrook – Objecting

Jonathan Smith – Supporting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – noted the large number of objections to the application and argued their comments were material considerations in determining the application. Such objections related to matters including loss of privacy, loss of light or overshadowing, parking, and effect on the Conservation Area. She relayed a sample of objections submitted and stated there was no space capacity on Station Road to accommodate additional vehicles, it was therefore difficult to understand how the three parking spaces could be accessed. The Local Member considered the application would be contrary to the NNDC design guide, NNDC conservation area guidelines and NNDC Core Strategy policies EN2, EN4, EN8, HO8 and CT6.

     ii.        Cllr P Fisher asked if the 52% increase in the size of the dwelling reflected the removal of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

Officer’s report

The DMTL introduced the officer’s report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions. Since the publication of the agenda, additional representations had been received objecting to the proposal which had been uploaded to the planning portal.  He outlined the site’s location, relationship with the neighbouring dwelling, existing and proposed floor plans and elevations, and provided images of the site.

The DMTL advised the key issues for consideration related to design and heritage, and amenity issues. It was noted that the scheme was for a sizeable extension, however the revised proposal plans were considered to result in less than substantial harm and would ensure that the extension remained subservient to the host dwelling. The Conservation and Design Officer had lifted their objection, and now considered the application policy compliant. It could be conditioned that the Holly tree be retained, however it was considered the Holly tree did not justify reason for refusal.

With respect to amenity matters, the neighbour had raised objections to the proposal which they considered would result in unacceptable overlooking of their property. Subsequently revised plans were submitted which removed the initially proposed balcony. Officers did not consider there would be significant overlooking and noted that the neighbour also had a first-floor window facing the gardens. The impact of any loss of light to the first-floor window on the neighbouring property facing the extension, would be limited by consequence of the window serving a stairwell and not a primary room.

The proposal was not considered to have a significant detrimental impact on the AONB or Conservation Area, with the extension being located to the rear of the dwelling and only visible from the east.

The existing parking arrangement was not altered with the proposal and therefore did not substantiate grounds for refusal.

Public Speakers

Wayne Shields – Weybourne Parish Council

Marie Fraser - Objecting

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – reflected on objections raised from the community, that the proposal would have a detrimental impact on dark skies, loss of biodiversity, lack of parking and impact to the conservation area. The Local Member affirmed that the Local Authority had a responsibility to consider any material considerations raised by local people. Cllr V Holliday considered the application would block out light to the first-floor windows of the neighbouring property and would cause additional overshadowing of the garden which would be most notable in the spring. She further argued that the first-floor windows would overlook the neighbouring garden, something which had been noted in the officer’s report. The Local Member stated the sizable extension would result in a lack of amenity space, which much of the remaining garden intending to be paved which would contribute of the loss of biodiversity. She expressed her concerns about the parking arrangements which was unsuited to the area. Cllr V Holliday stated that the application was in conflict with EN2, EN4, EN8, EN9, HO8, CT6 and emerging Local Plan policy CT10 in addition to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

Cllr A Brown left the meeting.

The PL left the meeting for this item and was replaced by the DMO.

Officer’s report

The ADP introduced the officer’s report and recommendation to approval. He detailed the history of the site and confirmed those relevant conditions detailed on prior planning approvals still applied with this application.

With respect of public representations, the ADP confirmed that 15 representations had been received and noted that that there had been some confusion about the proposal. The ADP relayed the submission from the Local Member, Cllr E Spagnola who was unable to attend the meeting. Cllr Spagnola considered that clarification was needed for the benefit of neighbours who were unclear what the application intended to do.

The ADP summarised the proposed changes including: the introduction of further basement car parking (incorporating electric car charging points) and the alternative use (e.g. landscaping and the larger Woodland House) to some of the previously proposed external car parking areas (no longer proposed). Changed elevation designs, including to the roof design, to Maplewood, Woodland and Rosewood Blocks), it was noted that there would not be an increase to the overall roof height.

Re-siting of the day room to the southern boundary, effectively replacing the former 2 and a half storey residential block (‘Laurel House’), the 6 units lost from Laurel House were included within a larger footprint ‘Woodland House’.

Many of the representations received related to the area between Maplewood and Oakwood, with residents expressing concern about the lack of landscaping, though it was noted there had been no changes proposed from the existing scheme in this area. Irrespective, the applicant had agreed to introduce a planting scheme consisting of hedgerows and trees to form a visual buffer between developments. Traffic calming measures would also be addressed by way of condition, as would a construction management plan.

Public Speakers

None.

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr P Fisher thanked the ADP for his clarification. He asked about the likelihood of whether the buildings would be built out given the extensive history of the site.

     ii.        The ADP noted that it was the applicant’s intention to start construction in the coming weeks subject to permission being granted. He acknowledged that the applicant had received approval for other historic applications and could decide to build out earlier schemes, though remarked this was unlikely.

    iii.        Cllr P Neatherway reflected that much of the site was yet to be built out and asked about the adequacy of surface water drainage.

   iv.        The ADP advised that the Council had consulted with the lead local flood authority who were satisfied with the scheme. He confirmed that residents had not raised any issues regarding water drainage when they made their representations.

     v.        Cllr V Holliday considered it sensible that the day room had been re-sited to a central location. She reflected on parking arrangements with use of underground parking and the narrowing of the existing road, and asked if either of these arrangements were of concern.

   vi.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Officer’s report

The SLOA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation that the TPO area order be confirmed. She outlined the history of the trees and surrounding area, provided images of the site, and identified the key issues for consideration. The SLOA advised that officers instigated the order following receipt of a planning application which proposed a tree removal plan. The area order sought to pause any further tree works till information was received including survey works and future planning application. The SLOA advised that, in the fullness of time, when detailed information was provided that the Landscape team would take a more detailed look at what needed to be protected as opposed to the blanket area order.

Public Speakers

Mr Ward – Objecting.

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Local Member - Cllr P Neatherway advised that the TPO had not been raised as a concern by the parish council.

Cllr M Batey left the room at 12.50pm

     ii.        Cllr A Brown proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

    iii.        Cllr P Fisher seconded the officer’s recommendation, he reflected the SLOA advised the confirming of the TPO would serve as a holding position till detailed information was provided.

   iv.        The Chairman reflected that the area was well maintained, and protection of the trees was important given the planning application.  

     v.        Cllr L Paterson asked if the order would apply to the whole area, and if it was usual for the TPO to be applied to conifers.

   vi.        The SPOA confirmed the TPO was for an area order, she advised that each tree was evaluated on its own merit.

RESOLVED by 9 votes for and 2 abstentions.

That TPO/23/1014 be CONFIRMED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Cllr M Batey returned to the meeting at 12.52pm.

Officer’s report

The SLOA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation that the TPO be confirmed. She outlined the history of the trees and surrounding area, provided images of the site, and confirmed the key issues for consideration. The pine trees were considered by officers to form part of the older landscape and formed an important feature to the street scene, offering considerable visual amenity.

It was noted that some concerns had been raised about tree roots, however officers were content that this would not be an issue.

Public Speakers

None.

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        The Local Member – Cllr L Vickers – noted the trees were not a native species nor did she consider them particularly attractive. She expressed her sympathy with residents’ concerns and questioned the safety of the tall pine trees given how top heavy they were.

     ii.        The SLOA advised there was no indication that the trees would fail. With pruning, the trees were expected to last for at least another 10 years which would allow enough time for the next generation of trees to become established. The removal of the existing pine trees was considered to have a significant impact on visual amenity.

    iii.        Cllr L Vickers placed emphasis of the objections received from the residents who had the trees located in their gardens. She asked, should the trees fall, whether the Council would be liable by consequence of imposing a TPO.

   iv.        The SLOA advised it would be the owner of the tree who would be liable if reasonable precautions were not taken.

     v.        Cllr P Neatherway asked if the tree roots, likely covering a large surface area due to the size of the trees, were causing damage to the public highway.

   vi.        The SLOA agreed that the root coverage would be large, noting that the pine trees were estimated to have been planted in the 1960’s or 1970’s. She stated that there was no apparent damage to the road and pavement, nor had there been any damage to properties.

  vii.        The Chairman enquired what the standard lifespan would be for a Corsican Pine.

 viii.        The SLOA advised that the species could live up to 200 years.

   ix.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

     x.        Cllr P Neatherway seconded the motion.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 against.

That TPO/23/1016 be CONFIRMED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

Officer’s report

The SLOA introduced the officer’s report and recommendation that the TPO be confirmed. She outlined the history of the area, provided images of the site, and outlined the key issues for consideration. The SLOA considered the trees contributed positively to the biodiversity and connectivity of the area and it was important they be retained.

Public Speakers

None.

Members’ Debate and Questions

      i.        Cllr A Brown asked about the prevalence of honey fungus, referenced in the officer’s report.

     ii.        The SLOA advised that honey fungus was an endemic fungus located everywhere. She offered technical details on the lifecycle stages of the parasitic fungi. The SLOA confirmed that there was no evidence the sycamore trees were infected with the fungi, though it was present elsewhere in the garden. She advised she was in communication with the residents about the situation and asked that they provide images should the sycamores show signs of infection.

    iii.        Cllr A Brown proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.

   iv.        Cllr P Fisher seconded the motion.

RESOLVED by 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

That TPO/23/1017 be CONFIRMED in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

      i.        The DM introduced the officers report and spoke positively of the planning service’ performance both with respect of major and non-major applications, in addition the council’s strong appeals record. He advised that the number of applications remained high unlike other Local Authorities whose workloads were slowing.

     ii.        Cllr A Brown expressed his thanks to officers for their continued hard work and for the encouraging performance figures. He welcomed additional funding to aid with the backlog.

    iii.        Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated that he had shared recent planning performance data with his parish councils. He commended the planning team and welcomed promoting the excellent work of the planning service whose work is often misunderstood by residents.

   iv.        The ADP updated Members of the recent Town and Parish Forum and confirmed that briefing sessions would be held across the district in the next 2 years, covering the generality of planning with the aim to give greater insight to Town and Parish Councils about the planning process.

     v.        Cllr M Hankins commended officers for the introduction of the weekly list and asked if a weekly decision list could also be published.

   vi.        The ADP advised he would consider Cllr M Hankin’s suggestion and would discuss the practicalities with relevant officers.

  vii.        The PL  provided an update on the S106 appendix and advised that she was broadly waiting on applicants.

(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 provided an update to the growing list of appeals, he noted that many of the appeals decided were on advertising signage and it was a judgement call for the Planning 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.”