Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mr D Baker, Mr A Brown, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett and Dr C Stockton.  There were four substitute Members in attendance.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 December 2019.

The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 5 December 2019 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(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.

Delegated conditional approval + Section 106 agreement (or refusal if Section 106 is not completed)

Public Speakers

Roger Swift (Southrepps Parish Council)

Stephen Hall (objecting)

Graham McCabe (objecting)

Faith Davies (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer (JM) presented the report and an addendum giving an updated position as of 7 January 2020.  As a further update, he stated that the tenure of the proposed dwellings should be 60% for affordable rent and 40% for shared ownership.  Two further representations had been received following publication of the addendum which did not raise additional concerns.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, including the road network and visualisations of the landscape impact in 15 years’ time.  He presented an amended recommendation as set out in the addendum and amended above.

Councillor N Pearce, the local Member, stated that he wished to hear the Committee’s views before commenting on this application.

Councillor T Adams confirmed with the Chairman that he could speak but not vote on this application.  He asked for confirmation that there was sufficient width of highway verge to provide a footway.   Having seen the highway boundary maps, he had some concerns regarding the deliverability of the footway given the narrowness of the highway verges.  He stated that the kerbing on Long Lane as existing did not provide a continuous accessible footway and there did not appear to be proposed conditions to resolve the matter. He also requested clarification that the Highway Authority had lifted its technical objection.  He considered that a site inspection would be of benefit to Members who had not previously visited the site.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that condition 5 required details of the footway to be provided, which would need to be agreed by the Highway Authority.  Other conditions related to highway improvements which would also need to be agreed.  He confirmed that the Highway Authority had removed its technical objection and now supported the scheme subject to conditions.  These conditions had been included in the addendum.

Councillor Adams considered that there was no certainty as to whether the issues could be resolved or information to demonstrate that the footway was deliverable.  He considered that this was an important issue given the increase in the number of wheelchair users who would be using the footpath.

As a point of clarification, Councillor J Rest pointed out the difference between the requirement for affordable housing across the District, which was infinitesimal, and need which as at January 2020 stood at 2864 affordable dwellings across the District.  He considered that any development that delivered the right number of affordable dwellings to help address the need was the most important consideration and that this development should be approved.

Councillor N Lloyd considered that the applicant had worked hard to resolve the highway issues and had arrived at a solution, although it was not perfect.  He supported Councillor Rest’s comments with regard to the huge need for affordable dwellings in the District.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he understood the objections that had been made on highway grounds.  However, there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.

Deferral for site inspection

Public Speaker

Jerry Stone (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer (CD) presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, including photographs of the boundary wall, proposed site access and visibility from the proposed access.  A map was displayed showing the relationship of the site with the village and its services.  The Senior Planning Officer recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Councillor R Kershaw, the local Member, stated that the existing building was now derelict and an eyesore.  The proposal was a self-build scheme for a young family with local connections who wanted to return to their village and could not afford local market prices.  The Parish Council supported the proposal subject to conditions in respect of parking and deliveries, to which the applicant had agreed.   Average traffic speed along the road was 20-23 mph and he considered that the visibility splay would be better than that of the surrounding dwellings.  The site was within a cluster of dwellings and he did not consider that the proposed dwelling would be isolated.  Binham had been identified as a small growth village which would allow infill development to take place.  He referred to Policy HO8 and considered that the proposed dwelling would not result in a disproportionately large increase in the height and scale in comparison with the existing building and would not materially increase the impact of the building on the surrounding countryside.  The applicant had tried to comply with all planning requests and had amended the original plans.  He considered that a site inspection would be beneficial before a decision was made.

It was proposed by Councillor R Kershaw, seconded by Councillor J Rest and

RESOLVED by 12 votes to 2

That consideration of this application be deferred to allow the Committee to carry out a site inspection.

In response to a question by Councillor T Adams, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the lowering of the wall required planning permission which was the reason for its inclusion within this application.

Refusal

The Head of Planning announced that filming would take place during this item and asked if any member of the public did not wish to be included.  No objections were raised.

Public Speakers

Debra Hyslop (Brinton Parish Council)

Keith Parks (objecting)

Ben Rivett (supporting)

The Acting Development Manager presented the report and presented plans and photographs of the site and surrounding area, including plans showing the extent of the land at Valley Farm, much of which was tenanted, and the area of land owned by the applicant. 

The Acting Development Manager reported that Councillor Ms K Ward, who had been local Member when the application was submitted, supported the Officer’s recommendation for refusal as it had significant implications for building in the countryside and was clearly contrary to HO5.  Councillor Ward had also stated that Councillor A Brown, the current local Member, supported the recommendation.   A request had been made to make it clear that representations had been received from the CPRE.  These had been included in the general list of representations as the CPRE was not a formal consultee for this application.   An email had been received from the applicant, which had been circulated to the Committee, and four emails had been received from a local resident which did not raise new material issues.  Emails had been received from two further local residents which also did not raise new material issues.  They also referred to the potential for pigs to be kept on land close to their dwellings and effect on property values.  The Acting Development Manager explained that the siting of pigs on land did not require planning permission and any effect on property values was not a material planning consideration.

The Acting Development Manager recommended refusal as set out in the report.

It was proposed by Councillor R Kershaw, seconded by Councillor P Bütikofer and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

Application withdrawn prior to meeting

This application had been withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.

None in addition to PF/19/0456 above.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(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.

The Acting Development Manager reported that the appeal in respect of Melton Constable PF/19/0481 had been dismissed.

(d)      APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee noted item 12(d) of the agenda.

(e)      COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS       

The Committee noted item 12(e) of the agenda.