Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr P Heinrich, Cllr A Brown, Cllr A Fitch-Tillett, Cllr V Holliday, Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, Cllr J Toye and Cllr A Varley.

Cllr G Bull, Cllr L Paterson, Cllr C Ringer were present as substitutes for Cllr P Heinrich, Cllr G Mancini-Boyle and Cllr J Toye respectively.

(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.

Officers Report

The PO-AW introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. It was noted that a similar application had previously been submitted and considered at Development Committee in June which had been deferred. This application had subsequently been withdrawn and resubmitted as PF/23/1761 with several design alterations.

The PO-AW outlined the context of North Lodge Park, a designated area of public realm and open space in policy terms. The park forms part of the setting of the Grade II listed North Lodge, the former tennis courts and bandstand are considered an accessory to the heritage asset. The site comprised of a 1950’s brick-built bandstand and large concreted slab, both have been unused for several years and have fallen into a state of disrepair, although the concreted area remains level and in reasonable condition.

The Case Officer detailed the key aspects of the application including changing places toilets, the entertainment space, horticultural hub containing a greenhouse store and potting area, the community shed, and community food bank. Vehicular access was provided from Carriage Drive along the western boundary of the site.

With respect of design, the PO-AW noted that most of the structures proposed were temporary in nature and would be low impact sitting above the existing hardstanding. Whilst concerns had been raised in public representations with regards to the Open Land designation of the site, it is recognised by officers that whilst the proposal would not enhance the open character of the site, there would be an enhanced recreational benefit to the proposal allowing a currently underutilised area of the park to be brought back into use and offer several recreational uses for the local community.

Some heritage harm had also been identified as a result of the concentration of structures in this area.  Whilst the harm identified must be given great weight, officers concluded it to be at the ‘less than substantial’ end of the spectrum, nonetheless this harm must be weighed against the public benefits accruing from the scheme. It was considered that there were a number of public benefits associated with the proposal including:

• the revitalisation and improvements to a currently unused area of the park in order to promote and facilitate new recreational uses as well as provide new public toilets; and
• a number of flexible community uses, some of which would support the local economy, all of which would help ensure the future viability of the park.

Having regard to these benefits and affording the heritage harm identified great weight; it is considered that the public benefits associated with the proposals would outweigh the identified harm to the heritage assets. Consequently, the proposals would be compliant with paragraph 202 of the NPPF, which deals with less than substantial harm to heritage assets.

Highways concerns had also been raised due to the vehicular access on site. Officers had worked proactively with the agent to reduce the number of vehicle movements on site, the frequency of any pop-up market would be limited, and a traffic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

The PO-AN introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. She affirmed the site’s location and relationship in its local setting. West Raynham was not identified as a service village and therefore, for policy purposes, it is designated as Countryside. The garage is located in close proximity to both the former RAF West Raynham and a bustling business park hosting 13 businesses. In conjunction with the neighbouring enterprise park, the garage is located near the former RAF West Raynham where 13 buildings hold a Grade II listed building classification. The Conservation and Design Officer considered that the proposed development would have no adverse impact on the environment surrounding the Grade II listed buildings to the south.

The Committee were provided with images of the site, existing and proposed floor plans, and elevations.

The PO-AN advised that the main reasons issues for consideration were:

·         The principal of development

·         Design, layout, scale and massing

·         GIRAMS

·         Nutrient Neutrality

As the proposed dwelling was located within the designated Countryside, there is a general presumption against residential development. As future occupiers would be dependent on the car in order to access services, the proposal was not considered to be a sustainable development. Further, a single dwelling in this location was unlikely to significantly enhance the local rural community's vitality. The modest contribution in terms of economic and social benefits would outweigh the strategic policy conflict. Officers consider that there is no justification to this dwelling in the Countryside which would be contrary to policies SS 1 and SS 2 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.

The proposed development, by virtue of the building's overall size and scale and location would result in an unsympathetic form of development, appearing to be out of place and excessive for the available plot, particularly concerning its proximity to the neighbouring property on the left, with a mere 2-meter separation between them. The constraint of the width of the proposed plot would result in the new dwelling being in close proximity to the existing neighbouring dwelling to the left, which would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, providing a cramped form of development.

The proposed dwelling was not considered suitably designed for the context in which it is set. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to policy EN 4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy.

The PO-AN acknowledged that the site lies within the Zone of Influence of several European sites. The proposed net gain of one dwelling would trigger the requirement for a financial contribution towards the strategic mitigation package in accordance with the Norfolk Green Infrastructure and Recreational Impact Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (GIRAMS).

The applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in adverse effects, either alone or in combination on the integrity of European Sites arising as a result of the development including in relation to recreational disturbance. In the absence of evidence to rule out likely significant effects and in the absence of suitable mitigation measures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

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.