Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dr C Stockton and Mr A Varley.  One substitute Member was in attendance as shown above.

(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.  Members are requested to refer to the attached guidance and flowchart.

None.

Deferral

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report by remote link and recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.

Public Speakers

Professor Mike Hoxley (objecting)

Mr Mark Forster (supporting)

Councillor Mrs G Perry-Warnes, local Member, stated that the dwelling permitted under the Certificate of Lawfulness was significantly smaller than the current proposal.  She considered that the size and design of the dwelling now proposed would have a greater impact on the neighbours and would contravene Local Plan policies EN8 and HO8.  She was concerned at the increased traffic accessing the busy A148 via a difficult junction.  She considered that the proposal contravened Policy EN9, Section 15 of the NPPF, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in respect of the resident bat population and, in conjunction with other problems associated with the application, it firmly tipped the balance towards refusal.  There was a realistic concern that the shared use driveway would be used much more by residents of a four-bedroomed house than the chalet bungalow already permitted, which would have a substantial impact on neighbours.  In addition, the construction traffic associated with the larger build would have difficulty navigating the narrow driveway, with associated nuisance and hazard.  Although the neighbours did not object to a house being built, they did object to a house of the size now proposed.  She requested that the application be refused.

The Chairman asked officers to comment on a statement by Professor Hoxley that an objection letter had been omitted from the public website.

The Senior Planning Officer stated that she could not comment as to why one of the objections had not appeared on the public website, but she had referred to both objections in her report and assured the Committee that she had considered them during the application process.

The Assistant Director for Planning confirmed that Members of the Committee were in possession of the full details from both objectors and the decision making was not prejudiced.  He undertook to investigate the matter following the meeting.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones asked why it was necessary to demolish the TB building and establish an alternative bat roost.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the collective impact of the buildings and structures on the site would appear to be overdevelopment.  The current application proposed the removal of all buildings and replacement with a dwelling and cartshed.  The Landscape Officer was satisfied that the mitigation in terms of a new bat roost would overcome the issue of relocation of the bats and that a protected species licence would be granted by Natural England.  Detailed conditions would be attached to the planning permission and require further details to be submitted by the applicant’s ecologist.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that Natural England would not allow any disturbance to protected species so the Committee could have confidence that the proposed bat boxes would mitigate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Conditional approval

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report by remote link and recommended approval of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.

There were no public speakers present at the meeting.   The applicant had sent an email in support of his application, copies of which were circulated at the meeting.  The Chairman paused the meeting to allow Members time to read the submission.

Councillor N Lloyd expressed concern regarding the felling of trees on the site prior to the application.  He considered that there was a danger of rewarding people who arbitrarily removed trees for profit.   It appeared that the trees were not subject to a Tree Preservation Order as permission had not been sought to remove them.

The Principal Lawyer confirmed that it was not necessary to seek consent to fell trees if they were not in a Conservation Area or covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  The Local Authority had the power to make a TPO but the process often commenced as a result of local representation.

Councillor Mrs P Grove-Jones expressed disapproval that the Member who had called in the application was neither present nor had submitted his comments in writing. 

Councillor N Pearce considered that it would be wrong to allow three dwellings to be built on this site in contravention of the Council’s Countryside policies.  Whilst Trunch was a bustling, self-contained village, he considered that there were issues in respect of transport. 

Councillor A Brown requested clarity as to the weighting of paragraph 78 of the NPPF against the Council’s Policy SS2.  It appeared that greater consideration was being given to paragraph 78 over the Council’s policies in this case as this development would support the rural economy of Trunch.  He considered that the site would be more suitable for two dwellings, rather than three, and that the proposal gave the impression of ‘garden grabbing’.  He requested that it be made clear to the developer that a landscaping scheme of a very high specification would be required to replace the trees that had been removed.

The Senior Planning Officer explained that the description of the development of up to three dwellings allowed flexibility at the detailed application stage in respect of the number of dwellings, trees and replacement planting.  The assessment of this application had been based on the assessment of other recent cases in Trunch.

The Assistant Director for Planning explained that the Council’s Local Plan was aged and the NPPF had introduced the concept of sustainable development.  Where proposals were considered to depart from Local Plan Policies SS1 and SS2, it was necessary to consider the three criteria in the NPPF relating to sustainable development.  The new Local Plan would be led by the NPPF of 2019 and would look to bring forward development in smaller settlements where the sustainability criteria could be met, of which Trunch was one such settlement.  The emerging Local Plan currently carried very limited,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

(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 8(a) of the agenda.

(b)       INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 8(b) of the agenda.

Holt PO/18/1857 – A decision was still awaited.  The Assistant Director for Planning would write to the Inspector to seek a timescale for a decision on this application, which had implications for the progress of the Council’s Local Plan.  (The Inspector’s decision was received shortly after the meeting had concluded).

(c)        WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND    

The Committee noted item 8(c) of the agenda.

High Kelling – a site inspection had been carried out by the Inspector.  The Inspector had indicated that he would issue a decision in 5 weeks from the date of the inspection.

(d)       APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee noted item 8(d) of the agenda.

Edgefield PF/20/0761 – This case related to an appeal against non-determination, where the applicant unwilling to negotiate further with the Council.  Officers had submitted a response explaining why the scheme was unacceptable.  However the Planning Inspector considered that the proposals were otherwise in accordance with Policy EN4.  

Itteringham ENF/17/0006 & CL/19/0756 – the appeal had been dismissed and the occupancy of the annexe as a stand-alone dwelling would be required to cease within 6 months of the date of the Inspectors decision.  The Council would work with the appellant to ensure their housing needs were met.  The Assistant Director for Planning paid tribute to the work carried out by Kevin Peacock of the Enforcement Team on his first appeal case.  

(e)        COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS    

The Committee noted item 8(e) of the agenda.