Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 14 January and 28 January 2021.

The Minutes of meetings of the Committee held on 14 January and 28 January 2021 were approved as a correct record.

(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.

The Assistant Director of Planning stated that, whilst not a matter of urgent business, he had received a response from the agent for planning application Stody PF/20/1798 to a question regarding the sustainability of solar panels that had been raised by Councillor G Mancini-Boyle at the previous meeting (Minute 62).  He read the response in full: “Solar PV modules entering the market today have a life expectancy of 30+ years.  Most manufacturers have a performance warranty of 25 years, which means they guarantee the performance of the panel publishing expected performance degradation.  Power output of the panel at 25 years is usually around 85% of its original output power. 

Solar in the UK didn’t really take off much before the introduction of the Feed in Tariff, so most of the equipment in use today won’t enter the waste stream until 2040 and the panels approved for Stody won’t enter until 2051. At present there is not much demand for recycling of solar panels as most remain in operation, but their main components of glass and aluminium are recyclable once dismantled.  By the time the panels reach the end of their operational life recycling of the main components will likely be through traditional recycling facilities.”

Councillor Mancini-Boyle confirmed that his question had been answered in general, although the issue of toxic materials within the solar panels had not been addressed.

The Assistant Director of Planning undertook to research the matter further and respond direct to Councillor Mancini-Boyle.

Withdrawn.

The Assistant Director of Planning reported that notification of withdrawal of this planning application had been received from the agent on 8 February.  The Committee could not now consider this matter.

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.

Refusal.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speakers

Mo Anderson-Dungar (Colby and Banningham Parish Council)

Paul Harris (supporting)

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council had considered this application thoroughly and had concluded that it was a good scheme for the area.  Although he valued and supported the Council’s policies, he considered that the NPPF was also a material consideration in this case and referred specifically to paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 relating to sustainable development, in addition to paragraphs 78 and 79 relating to rural housing.  He stated that this proposal was considered locally to be an opportunity for the area.  Mill Road had a range of architecture along it.  The proposal would add 6 journeys per day, and he considered that the Highway Authority should address the issue with the junction if it was considered to be a problem.  He asked the Committee to consider if the NPPF and local opinion should weigh more in support of this application than the Local Plan policies.

Councillor N Pearce stated that he supported the views of the Parish Council and local Member, and considered that this was a good application.  He referred to the slide presentation, which showed that there were other two-storey buildings in the locality and the site was an infill with dwellings either side.  He considered that the building would be hidden by landscaping.  The site was currently untidy and unkempt.  He considered that the proposal would bring a young family into the village.  He did not support the Officer’s recommendation as he believed this was an infill development and therefore not in the countryside.

Councillor A Brown referred to the Parish Council’s opinion that the proposed dwelling would provide a starter home.  However, the dwelling would be a four bedroomed property and Policies SS1 and SS2 only supported development in the Countryside if the properties were affordable.  He was concerned that the design of the property was quite intensive as an infill property in this particular location.  He referred to Councillor Pearce’s comment that the proposal would attract a family, and considered that there would be a benefit to the local school in terms of pupil numbers.  He requested clarification as to whether or not additional pupil numbers was considered socially sustainable in terms of paragraphs 78 and 79 of the NPPF.

The Assistant Director of Planning explained that development should meet all the criteria to be considered sustainable, otherwise it was a departure from the NPPF and Local Plan policy.  Detailed consultation had been undertaken with the Local Education Authority when drawing up the Local Plan.  He stated that Local Plan policies SS1 and SS2 were hierarchical policies and were reflective of where there was believed to be demand for educational services and where they could be sustainably supported.

Councillor P Heinrich stated that he had some sympathy with the Parish Council’s views.  However, this Council had longstanding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Conditional approval.

The Interim Development Manager presented the report, and referred to additional slides that had been sent to the Committee to clarify that the application related only to part of the building.  He recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.

Public Speaker

Fergus Bootman (supporting)

Councillor G Mancini-Boyle, local Member, stated that he had carried out site visits with the landowner and site proprietor of Carl’s Auto Service Repairs, which employed 5 staff, including 2 apprentices, was well established and fulfilled a local service.  He referred to the Parish Council’s response and local support for this proposal, which was compliant with Local Plan policies.

Councillor R Kershaw stated that he had also visited the site and had had discussions with the landowner with regard to the development of his estate.  The landowner intended to diversify from farming to make the estate greener, and support local businesses and employment.  Councillor Kershaw considered that this application was a worthwhile proposal and the business concerned was popular and served the village well.  He proposed the approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor N Pearce considered that this was a sensible proposal which fell within the Council’s remit of supporting local businesses, and the landowner had to move his business forward taking into account environmental issues.  He seconded the proposal to approve the application.

Councillor N Lloyd referred to the history of the vehicle repair business.  He considered that approval of the application was appropriate for the sake of the apprentices, jobs and local residents, as well as the proprietor of the business.

Councillor A Yiasimi supported Councillor Lloyd’s comments.  He stated that the proposal was compliant with Local Plan policies and he considered that it would be of benefit to other local businesses.

The Chairman stated that a local garage business in Smallburgh had closed since the previous application for the current site had been considered, so the catchment area for this business had increased.  She considered that the move to a more sustainable location would be of great benefit.

It was proposed by Councillor R Kershaw, seconded by Councillor N Pearce and

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Planning.

Conditional approval.

The Planning Officer presented the report.  She stated that this application had been brought to the Committee as the applicant was related to a Head of Service, who had since left the Authority.  She recommended approval of this application as set out in the report. 

Councillor Miss L Shires, the local Member, stated that she had no objection to this application and no objections or concerns had been raised with her.  She considered that the application supported the Council’s climate change agenda and its desire for greener alternatives, and that in relation to promoting tourism in the District in the future, there was a need to encourage green alternatives to car fuelling in addition to green energy provision.

Councillor A Brown supported Councillor Shires’ comments.  He proposed approval of this application as recommended.

Councillor N Lloyd stated that he fully supported this application and seconded the proposal.

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Assistant Director of Planning.

(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 11(a) of the agenda.

(b)       INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 11(b) of the agenda.

The Assistant Director of Planning updated the Committee on the following matters:

Holt PO/18/1857 – The appeal decision was expected to be received by the end of February.

The Chairman asked why there had been a long delay in this matter.

The Assistant Director of Planning explained that the delay was due partly to capacity issues at the Planning Inspectorate.  In addition, recent changes in legislation regarding the national methodology for housing land supply may have contributed to the delay.  The outcome of this appeal would be critical to a number of cases and a detailed report would be prepared when the decision was known.

Cley ENF/18/0164 – A planning application is expected at the end of March, for determination before the May deadline agreed with the Inspector. 

Itteringham ENF/17/0006 / CL/19/0756 – Final proofs had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for the Public Inquiry on 8 March.  A further appeal had been made against non-determination of a current planning application for the use of the annexe as a separate residential dwelling.

North Walsham – ENF/18/0339 – The current appeal process had been suspended pending the receipt of a planning application.

(c)        WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND    

The Committee noted item 11(c) of the agenda.

(d)       APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee noted item 11(d) of the agenda.

(e)        COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS    

The Committee noted item 11(e) of the agenda.