Venue: remotely via Zoom. 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 N Lloyd. Councillor Dr P Bütikofer attended the meeting as his substitute.
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23 July 2020.
The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 23 July 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.
Committee Members had received a letter and presentation document from Martin Leay in respect of Egmere PF/20/0365.
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and referred to the slides that had previously been circulated to the Committee. He recommended the refusal of this application as set out in the report.
Mo Anderson-Dungar (Colby with Banningham Parish Council) (also speaking in respect of PF/20/0708 below.)
Ann Bartaby (supporting)
Councillor J Toye, the local Member, referred to the history of this site and the circumstances that had led to the current application. He stated that the design of the proposed building was the same as had been permitted under the prior notification application, in the same location and with the same layout, and had there not been a poor survey and miscommunication regarding underpinning of the building the family would now be living in the dwellings. He considered that the site was in a sustainable location as it was close to regular bus routes into Aylsham and North Walsham, and a school, garage and restaurant were within a short walking distance. He considered that the issue was not about building in the countryside; it was enabling a family to build what had been approved under a different set of rules, and listening to local people and the support they had given to this application. He considered that the application should be approved as it was sustainable development, it would improve the local environment and employ local people.
Councillor P Heinrich stated that two prior notifications had been approved and the barn structure had been deemed suitable for conversion at the time. Two dwellings would have existed on the site if problems had not occurred. The application merely replicated what would have been created by the prior notifications. He considered that there were exceptional circumstances in this case. Whilst it could be argued whether or not Policy SS2 was applicable, the applicant’s agent had cited an appeal decision, there was case law and paragraph 79 of the NPPF gave a definition of ‘isolated’. He stated that this was not an isolated greenfield site in the open countryside. It was a brownfield site on the edge of a cluster of houses which was typical of this part of North Norfolk, there were facilities nearby and the site was on a bus route between two market towns with good facilities. He considered there would be planning gain in removing an eyesore building and replacing it with two good quality, modern, sustainable dwellings. There was support for the application from the Parish Council and no local objections. He considered that natural justice was relevant in this case and to prevent a house being built where a house might rightly exist was against natural justice. He would therefore vote against the officer’s recommendation.
The Development Manager explained that the previous permissions had been granted under prior notification which allowed the conversion of existing buildings. The buildings no longer existed and the permission could no longer be implemented. The proposal was therefore new build. The application site was in the defined Countryside ... view the full minutes text for item 21.
COLBY - PF/20/0708 - Change of use of land from agriculture to residential curtilage in association with Planning Application PF/20/0660; Heppinn Barn, North Walsham Road, Banningham, NR11 7DU for Mr & Mrs Jones PDF 305 KB
Following the approval of application PF/20/0660 above, the Senior Planning Officer recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions listed in the report.
Councillor J Toye, the local Member, supported the recommendation.
It was proposed by Councillor P Heinrich, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and
That this application be approved subject to the conditions listed in the report.
EGMERE - PF/20/0365 - Erection of dwelling (Estate House under NPPF Paragraph 79e)) and restoration of barns; associated landscape and ecology proposals and change of use of land from agriculture to residential curtilage; Creake Buildings, Walsingham Road, Egmere for The Holkham Estate PDF 506 KB
The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and referred to the slides that had previously been circulated to the Committee. He stated that drone footage showing the site and wider landscape was available. He recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions as set out in the report.
Martin Leay (supporting)
Councillor T FitzPatrick, the local Member, considered that the plans were very imaginative and that the proposal met the criteria in the NPPF. He referred to the history of outstanding buildings in North Norfolk. He considered that the proposed development would fit in well with the surrounding area and there was a real opportunity to provide employment and develop skilled craftsmen and tradesmen. He was happy to support this application and had received no objections to it.
Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett considered that the building was truly outstanding, and that the development was sensitive within the landscape, had taken wildlife into consideration and there was a superb emphasis on carbon neutrality. She proposed approval of this application as recommended.
With the approval of the Chairman, Councillor P Heinrich asked Mr Leay how many apprentices would be employed and how the proposal would benefit the local community.
Mr Leay stated that there would be one apprentice working with the contractors, and that the building would be seen as an exemplar of new construction following the best traditions of traditional architecture, and the trades working on the building would afterwards apply those skills in the wider locality.
Councillor Heinrich requested that the drone footage be shown as he was unsure how the development would relate to the enhancement of the surrounding landscape and biodiversity.
The Head of Planning referred Members to the sections of the Officer’s report relating to landscape and biodiversity.
The Senior Planning Officer presented the drone footage and indicated the site, the main features of the landscape and explained where the building and landscaping would sit in the wider landscape.
Councillor Heinrich stated that this was an application for a new house in the Countryside, which would have been rejected if paragraph 79(e) of the NPPF did not apply. He considered there would be no great benefit to the community beyond one apprentice and additional skills for existing workers. There was no contribution towards community facilities or affordable housing. He considered that the proposed building was a pastiche of neo-Classical style. He stated that there were many large country houses in the area, and he questioned the need for another. He had considered carefully the national guidance, Inspectors’ reports and Court cases relating to development of this nature, and he considered that it was a matter of interpretation of paragraph 79(e), which was not prescriptive. In his opinion the design was not innovative, although it was arguable that the proposal achieved a higher standard of architecture. He considered that the proposed dwelling would not raise design standards in the area as it was an individual property and typical of North Norfolk estates. He was not ... view the full minutes text for item 23.
(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 10(a) of the agenda.
(b) INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS
The Committee noted item 10(b) of the agenda.
The Development Manager informed the Committee that the Council’s statement of case in respect of Cley-next-the-Sea ENF/18/0164 had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate and a hearing date was awaited.
(c) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND
The Committee noted item 10(c) of the agenda.
The Development Manager informed the Committee that Itteringham ENF/17/0006 and CL/19/0756 would be dealt with by way of Public Inquiry.
(d) APPEAL DECISIONS
The Committee noted item 10(d) of the agenda.
The Development Manager stated that the Council’s record on appeal decisions showed that the Council was making very robust planning decisions, which were upheld by Planning Inspectors.
The Chairman stated that a great effort was being made by the team.
(e) COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS
The Committee noted item 10(e) of the agenda.
That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.
The Head of Planning updated the Committee on the outcome of a court case in respect of a planning matter at Holt. A public announcement on this matter would be made at a later date.