Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Linda Yarham Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
PURPOSE OF MEETING AND PROCEDURE
The Head of Planning explained thatthe purpose of meeting had been revised since the previous meeting as a result of the passing of The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 No.392, and it was now lawful to determine planning applications under these provisions without having to be physically present. The Regulations received Royal Assent and came into force on 4 April 2020. These measures had been put in place to facilitate business continuity by enabling Local Government to use innovative measures to deliver remote decision making. The meeting would be conducted in compliance with the new regulations and the Council’s Constitution.
The meeting would be live streamed to the public throughout its duration and would therefore be legally open to the public. The Officers’ presentations had been circulated to the Committee prior to the meeting and made available to the public on the Council’s website.
The procedure would be by way of a short Officer’s presentation, followed by questions and answers between the Committee and the Officers. The registered speakers would then be invited to address the Committee via a live link in accordance with established public speaking procedures. The Ward Member would then be invited to address the Committee, following which the Committee would debate the application and make its decision, with Members voting by roll call.
No questions were raised with regard to the provisions and process as outlined by the Head of Planning.
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND DETAILS OF ANY SUBSTITUTE MEMBER(S)
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 2 April 2020, and to confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 5 March 2020 which were considered at the previous meeting.
The minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 5 March and 2 April 2020 were approved as correct records to be 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.
HINDOLVESTON - PO/19/1751 - Erection of 2 no. dwellings with access (Outline application with all matters reserved other than access); Land off The Street, Hindolveston, NR20 5AW for Mr Macann PDF 207 KB
The Development Manager presented the application. She outlined the main issues for consideration and recommended refusal as set out in the report.
Councillor C Cushing referred to the block plan in the slide presentation. He considered that the proposed development would not appear out of place with Broughton Close to the left of the application site. He also noted that there were dwellings to the right of the site.
The Development Manager explained that the dwellings in Broughton Close were semi-detached pairs which were regular in form and design and Officers would expect to see a continuation of that form and design. However, the principle of the proposed development on the application site was contrary to the Development Plan and the form and design of the development was a secondary reason for refusal.
Councillor P Heinrich stated that it appeared the dwellings on Broughton Close were fairly recent and asked why they had not been contrary to Policies SS1 and SS2.
The Development Manager stated that she did not have the details to hand but the development may have been a rural exceptions site. She later confirmed that this was the case.
Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she had searched Google Maps to see what facilities existed nearby. In her opinion the development would be completely unsustainable and she proposed refusal of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.
The Development Manager confirmed that the only facilities in the village were a church and a village hall. There was a very limited bus service operating on a Monday and Thursday, so residents of the new development would be totally reliant on the private car to access everyday services and employment.
The Principal Lawyer reminded the Committee that the registered speaker had not yet spoken and that Members should only ask questions at this point with the debate of the proposal to follow.
Mr P Hardy (supporting)
The Head of Planning responded to concerns raised by Mr Hardy with regard to the processing of this application. He had already responded directly to Parker Planning with regard to this matter. He explained the process for signing off decisions and the quality assurance measures operated by the Council. The processing of the application in question had been lawful.
Councillor V FitzPatrick, the local Member, clarified that the reason he had requested this matter be considered by the Committee was that he had approved a request by the original case officer to approve this application under delegated powers. Subsequently, the original case officer had left and the new case officer had contacted him to say that the application had been recommended for refusal. Given his previous acceptance of approval, and no changes having been made to the application, he considered that the only course open to him was to refer the matter to the Committee.
The Chairman opened the discussion to the Committee.
Councillor G Mancini-Boyle requested clarification with regard to EN4, and parking and access issues.
The Development Manager ... view the full minutes text for item 140.
RUNTON - PF/20/0180 - Change of use from restaurant and two residential units to seven holiday lets and caretaker accommodation; Constantia Cottage Restaurant, High Street, East Runton, Cromer, NR27 9NX for Mr P Yiasimi PDF 208 KB
The Development Manager presented the application. She explained that this application had been brought before the Committee as it had been made by a member of a Councillor’s family and for no other reason. She recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.
Councillor A Yiasimi then left the meeting during consideration of this matter.
Councillor Mrs S Bütikofer, the local Member, stated that the Constantia Cottage had been a key part of the local community for a long time and people were sad to see it go, although they understood the reasons for closure. She considered that the proposal was an acceptable use for the building and that it would be of benefit to have more tourist accommodation in the village. The location was close to the beach and ideal for tourist accommodation. She supported the recommendation.
Councillor N Lloyd proposed approval of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. This was seconded by Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett.
That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.
Site inspections are currently suspended.
(a) New Appeals
(b) Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
(c) Written Representations Appeals – In Hand
(d) Appeal Decisions
(e) Court Cases – Progress and Results
Councillor A Yiasimi returned to the meeting for this item.
(a) NEW APPEALS
The Committee noted item 10(a) of the agenda.
(b) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10(b) of the agenda.
The Head of Planning informed the Committee that High Kelling ENF/16/0131 in respect of Holt Woodland Archery would now be determined by way of hearing, instead of public inquiry as originally anticipated, which was likely to commence in October. He had concerns as to how the local community could fulfil its full role in the hearing process as the Planning Inspectorate currently had no serviceable proposal for remote hearings. It was important in this particular case that the public could be present and were fully able to engage in the process.
(c) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10(c) of the agenda.
(d) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 10(d) of the agenda.
(e) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 10(e) of the agenda.