Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Linda Yarham Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE MEMBER(S)
An apology for absence was received from Councillor Dr C Stockton. There was one substitute Member in attendance.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 15 August 2019.
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 15 August 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
(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.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
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.
HOLT - PM/19/0981 - Erection of 66 bed, 3 storey care home for older people (Use Class C2) with associated parking, access and landscaping (reserved matters for: access, appearance, layout and scale) pursuant to outline permission PO/16/0253; Land off Nightjar Road, Holt, Norfolk for LNT Care Developments PDF 455 KB
The Committee considered item 7 of the Officers’ reports.
Jo Kemp (supporting)
The Major Projects Team Leader presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including visuals provided by the applicant. She also displayed the masterplan and phasing plan for the wider site. She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.
Councillor D Baker, a local Member, spoke in support of this application. He considered that the economic benefits of the proposal outweighed any other considerations. There was a need for care home facilities to provide for an aging population which was growing, and 263 additional care/nursing homes would be required in the District by 2028. The care home would provide at least 60 skilled full time jobs and would also benefit external local service providers. He considered that the applicant had addressed the concerns regarding scale and massing, and the proposed building had been moved further back from the roundabout. The proposal would kick-start the development of the industrial estate.
Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, a local Member, endorsed Councillor Baker’s comments. There was a demonstrable need for care home facilities in North Norfolk and specifically a shortage of beds in the Holt area for people with dementia. She considered that any concerns could be dealt with by planning conditions. She referred to the NPPF and Local Plan policy considerations in respect of economic development. She stated that design had to comply with the Care Quality Commission requirements to meet the needs of elderly and vulnerable residents and that form and function needed to be balanced in the application of policy EN4. She considered that the design was of high quality and reflected the local vernacular. She considered that the economic and social need presented a compelling reason to reject the Officer’s recommendation.
Councillor N Lloyd considered that there was insufficient parking provision for visitors. He was not convinced that the applicants had addressed issues of scale and bulk, but they had worked with Officers to make some amendments to the design. He welcomed the use of sustainable technology but considered that in addition, solar panels should be installed on the southern elevation. He supported the application as there was a need for the facility. However, he was concerned at the type of business that might be attracted to the unallocated land to the south.
Councillor R Kershaw stated that he understood the need for this form of accommodation but had concerns regarding the siting. He considered that the amenity land should be sited to the south of the building and expressed concerns that the windows to the north would be fixed, there was no crossing provision for elderly people to get to the town, and that if dementia patients were to be housed in the building, the A148 was busy and the estate road would also become busier over time. He was concerned that residents would become isolated and there was a need to engage with older people for their ... view the full minutes text for item 43.
BINHAM - PF/19/1062 - Proposed conversion of an agricultural barn to a dwelling; Barn South of Westgate Old Farmhouse (prev ref Westgate Barns), Warham Road, Binham, NR21 0DQ for Mr & Mrs Bruce PDF 271 KB
The Committee considered item 8 of the Officers’ reports.
Paul Wootton (supporting)
The Head of Planning presented the report and reminded the Committee of its recent site inspection. He reported that Binham Parish Council would not be responding to the application. He stated that page 53 of the report erroneously referred to the inclusion of a garage and store and confirmed that this application applied only to the conversion and extension of the existing building. He presented plans, including a block plan showing changes from the previous application, and photographs of the site. He reported that the applicants had appealed against the refusal of the previous application. He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.
Councillor R Kershaw, the local Member, considered that the applicant had made every effort to try to create a sympathetic rebuild. The barn was not a historic building; it was a post war animal store built of breeze block and wood and refurbishment would be an enhancement. It was not visible from the road and only the roof could be seen from the footpath. He considered that a genuine effort had been made to compromise by removing the intrusive garage building and that the application should be approved.
Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett congratulated the applicant for attempting to bring the building back to use, but supported refusal on grounds that the building should be worthy of retention and the proposal involved significant extension of the building.
The Head of Planning advised the Committee that the “worthy of retention” criterion in Policy HO9 no longer applied as a result of changes to the NPPF and recent appeal decisions.
Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett proposed refusal as recommended by the Head of Planning.
Councillor P Heinrich considered that the design was better than the previous scheme. He supported the application as this was a 20th century utilitarian building and not a historic barn, it was not visible from the road or surrounding dwellings, made good use of the layout including the crew yard, was a good, sympathetic design and would sit well with its surroundings.
Councillor D Baker questioned the harm that would be caused by the proposal. The building was not in the Conservation Area and the proposal would bring an agricultural building back into use, using environmentally friendly building techniques. There had been no objections and he considered that the application should be approved.
The Chairman seconded the proposal for refusal of this application.
On being put to the vote, the proposal for refusal was lost with 3 Members voting in favour and 10 against.
Councillor R Kershaw proposed the approval of this application. He considered that the footprint of the building would not be extended and it was a sympathetic and good reuse of the building which would be acceptable in the village.
The Head of Planning advised the Committee with regard to policy and recommended possible conditions for the Committee’s consideration.
Councillor Kershaw considered that the conditions as ... view the full minutes text for item 44.
SEA PALLING - PF/19/0519 - Change of use of land to a storage area for caravans (Class B8); Land opposite Golden Beach Caravan Park, Beach Road, Sea Palling, NR12 0AL for Golden Beach Caravan Park PDF 220 KB
The Committee considered item 9 of the Officers’ reports.
Kevin Matthews (Sea Palling Parish Council)
Raoul Fraser (supporting)
The Planning Officer presented the report, displayed plans and photographs of the site and surroundings.
The Planning Officer reported that Sea Palling Parish Council had raised further concerns regarding the ability to get a caravan into the site and the impact on businesses when the road was closed to facilitate the movement of caravans. In response, the agent had provided information regarding the size of the caravans, how they would be delivered and confirmation that a banksman would be used to assist with the movements. The agent had stated that similar movements were made into the caravan site opposite and that the road was a consistent width. The Highway Authority had been consulted on both responses and had confirmed that there were no highway objections to the proposal, the applicant would be in control of delivery times and the access could be extended across the whole of the frontage of the site if necessary.
The Planning Officer reported that the Environment Agency had no objections as the site was protected under the Shoreline Management Plan. He recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Councillor H Blathwayt, the local Member, stated that he had experience of managing holiday parks and considered that the operator was likely to seek permission to extend the use of the land in the future. He stated that the business area was at the beach end of Beach Road and the residential area at the other, and if the road was blocked for any length of time it would have an impact on the economy of the village. The lifeboat station was busy and blockage of the road could be very dangerous. He considered that it would be difficult to time the deliveries to the site given the length of the transport route from Hull where most vans were manufactured. He did not support the application.
Councillor D Baker stated that he wanted to see businesses move forward and there was no real objection to this application except for the perception of risk that there could be short term blockages of the road. He proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett considered that the applicant could manage deliveries or withdrawals of caravans, and in the event of an emergency the banksman would ensure that lorries moved out of the way. She seconded the proposal.
Councillor N Pearce stated that economic development was needed in this location and supported the application.
Councillor R Kershaw stated that he understood the concerns and also understood that the purpose of the application was to move smaller caravans off the Golden Sands site and replace them with larger units. He asked if it would help to condition the size of the trailer to be used to move the caravans off the caravan park so there would be less chance of blocking the road.
The Acting ... view the full minutes text for item 45.
TRIMINGHAM - PF/19/0812 - 'Deep History Coast' discovery point including picnic table, seating/benches and three interpretation monoliths on land adjacent to The Pilgrim Shelter; The Pilgrim Shelter, Loop Road, Trimingham, Norwich, NR11 8EQ for NNDC Local Housing Enablers PDF 196 KB
The Committee considered item 10 of the Officers’ reports.
Terry Brown (Trimingham Parish Council)
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site. He recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, the local Member, referred to the background to this application. She was pleased that Trimingham had been chosen as a discovery centre.
Councillor Mrs W Fredericks proposed approval of this application as recommended.
Councillor A Brown expressed disappointment that there was no prescriptive condition regarding litter management. However, he supported this application and seconded the proposal.
The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there were no litter bins shown on the plan, but this issue could be considered under permitted development. He stated that the site would be maintained by NNDC and cleared on a regular basis.
Councillor Brown stated that he was reassured by the Senior Planning Officer’s response.
Councillor P Bütikofer stated that he supported this application but requested confirmation as to the trees which would be removed.
The Senior Planning Officer stated that there would be minimal removal of trees and the work mainly involved crown lifting and removal of branches. Additional planting would take place.
Councillor G Mancini-Boyle referred to concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and asked what fencing or hedging was proposed.
The Senior Planning Officer explained that existing fencing would be replaced but there would be no additional fencing. The site was meant to be open and accessible to visitors, and people could currently gain access to the site. There would be an element of natural surveillance given the nature of the proposal.
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report and any other conditions deemed necessary by the Head of Planning.
(a) New Appeals
(b) Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
(c) Written Representations Appeals – In Hand
(d) Appeal Decisions – Results and Summaries
(e) Court Cases – Progress and Results
(a) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 12(a) of the agenda.
(b) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 12(b) of the agenda.
(c) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 12(c) of the agenda.
(d) APPEAL DECISIONS – RESULTS AND SUMMARIES
The Committee noted item 12(d) of the agenda.
The Head of Planning referred to an appeal against the refusal of Potter Heigham PF/18/1298 which had been allowed. He had discussed the possibility of a challenge to the decision with the Principal Lawyer as there were concerns regarding sustainability. It was considered that Inspector had reviewed the correct material planning issues, although the weight may not have been correctly applied to those issues. However, it was not a matter which could be challenged.
The Head of Planning stated that other appeal decisions made by this particular Inspector had given cause for concern, not only in North Norfolk but also in South Norfolk and in relation to highways issues, given the inconsistency of the weighting applied in comparison with similar cases dealt with by other Inspectors. It was likely that a joint letter would be sent to the Inspectorate raising this concern.
The Head of Planning invited Members to raise any concerns regarding consistency of appeal decisions either at Development Committee or directly with him.
(e) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 12(e) of the agenda.