Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Committee Members, Cllr P Grove-Jones (Chairman), Cllr P Fisher, Cllr C Stockton, Cllr L Withington, and Cllr A Yiasimi

Cllr T Adams, Cllr J Rest and Cllr J Toye were present as substitutes for Cllrs P Fisher, L Withington and P Grove-Jones respectively. 

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 16^th December 2021

Minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2021 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 received.

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.

i.          Cllr J Toye declared a non-pecuniary interest for Agenda Item 8, Planning application PF/21/2507. As the Local Ward Member he had indicated his support and would abstain from voting.

ii.          Cllr R Kershaw affirmed he was the Local Member for applications PF/21/2969 and PF/21/2656, Agenda Items 10 and 11. He expressed his intention to speak and vote on each applications, as was not predetermined.

iii.         Cllr T Adams advised he was the Local Member for applications PF/20/2569 and PF/21/2544, Agenda Items 9 and 13, adding he would speak on the applications, but would not vote.

iv.        MPM stated, in relation to Item 11 application PF/21/2656, he had neither met nor spoken with the applicant, but his wife served as a planning agent and had been involved with the application. As such the MPM advised he would not speak on this Item.

The SPO-JP introduced the report to Members and noted the ward should read ‘Swafield and Bradfield’ rather than ‘Trunch’. He added that the application was for a Certificate of Lawfulness, and the determination would be based on evidence submitted rather than planning policy.

Public Speakers

Elaine Pugh – Clerk, Swafield and Bradfield Parish Council

Questions and Discussion

1. At the request of the Chairman, the PL explained the term ‘Certificate of Lawfulness’. The PL relayed Planning Policy guidance and advised the application was not for planning permission and would not take into account whether a development should be granted, rather it was a consideration of evidence to determine whether  the application was lawful in planning terms.

2. Cllr J Toye sought clarification on how long an absence was considered to be in a planning context, and what the current and future use of the Caravan would be. The PL advised that a period of absence in planning terms would be a substantial and continuous period of time, though any sustained break would reset this period. The SPO-JP referred Members to the Report which detailed the Caravan’s use for tending a small holding.

3. Cllr J Toye enquired whether there would be any restrictions which would legally prohibit the Caravan from being used for residential purposes in the future. The ADP affirmed that information provided to the Council suggested that the Caravan provided shelter to those who worked the area and was not proposed to be of residential use. If occupied permanently for residential use, this would constitute an Enforcement investigation.

4. The PL advised a change of use to residential would constitute a material change of use, and would therefore require planning permission or be subject to enforcement action.

5. Cllr J Toye noted that he had surveyed satellite imagery of the site and a Caravan had seemingly been located on the land since 2006. As the Caravan has been in situ in excess 10 years, Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation. 

6. Cllr N Pearce raised concerns that the Parish Council had disputed the legality of the Caravan over the last 10 years, and that these enquires may not have been addressed. The ADP advised each application should be determined on its material merits. Whether or not the Council had failed through its Enforcement Team to address concerns relating to the use of land, was a separate matter. Members should consider whether the Caravan had been in situ for 10 years based on material facts, or if there was evidence to dispute this.

7. Cllr A Brown sought clarification on whether officers were aware of any planning enforcement action that would have interrupted the period of continuous use. The SPO-JP advised he was not aware of any such action. Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal to accept the Officers recommendation.

8. Cllr V Holiday questioned the validity of evidence provided,  and suggested that Exhibits C-K formed indirect rather than direct evidence, proving the land was used for agricultural purposes, as opposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and noted that the site was subject to a prior planning application for a two-storey dwelling, reference PF/21/771, which was refused by the Development Committee on 11th January 2021. The current design was considered to be an improvement, however the proposed development remained unacceptable in respect of strategic policies SS1, SS2 and SS4. The Highways Authority had objected to the application describing the junction of the B1154 as being severely substandard, particularly with regards to visibility and with no possibility of sustained improvement. It was acknowledged that in receipt of the Highways objection, the applicant and agent had made efforts to improve junction visibility. However, Highways noted that these improvements could not be provided in perpetuity, as the applicant does not own the land subject of the improvements.

Public Speakers

Mo Anderson-Dungar – Clerk, Colby and Banningham Parish Council

Paul Harris (Supporting) 

i.          Cllr J Toye- local Member, expressed his support for the application. He established the primary issues in determining the application were the sustainability and quality of the structure. With reference to sustainability, Cllr J Toye advised that Sanders Coaches ran a regular bus service, which was only a short walk from the proposed dwelling, with Bannigham Village also only a short walk via Weavers Way. He added that the proposed building was sustainable with its reuse of products, recycling, and energy efficiency, and the design was of exceptional quality, reflecting high standards in architecture, significantly enhancing the immediate setting. In reference to the Highways objection, he commented that the dwelling would not make the road any more dangerous, and that there were other junctions to busier roads that were more dangerous.

ii.          Cllr R Kershaw expressed his support for the application. He noted familiarity with the site and affirmed that there had not been, to his knowledge, any road traffic accidents at the junction with Mill Road. He considered the application was one of infill rather than building within the countryside. He praised the applicant’s commitment to improving highways visibility by cutting the hedge at the junction.

iii.         Cllr T Adams spoke in support of the application, and acknowledged representations made by the Local Member and Parish Council, and recognised the application as being sustainable and of good design.

iv.        Cllr N Lloyd endorsed comments raised by Members relating to the environmental considerations, and suggested that developers should be encouraged to produce similar low carbon properties within the District. Additionally, there should be a greater distinction between the use of vehicles dependent on fossil fuels and electric vehicles which would have no impact on sustainability.

v.         Cllr J Rest agreed with representations and noted concerns about the report which advised Mill Road would not be suitable for heavy construction vehicles, given that this would be for a limited time whilst construction was being undertaken.

vi.        Cllr N Pearce noted the Officer’s objections in relation to policies, but stated his support for the arguments made and the application itself.

vii.        The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

The SPO-JB introduced the report and relayed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. It was determined that the critical aspects of the report related to design and amenity.

Public Speakers

Phil Harris – Councillor, Cromer Town Council

Douglas Hiscock (Objecting)

i.          , Cllr T Adams - Local Member expressed concerns that the scale and massing of the property would result in overdevelopment of the site. Impacts on amenity had also been noted in comments raised by public objectors. He added that the building would be of a considerably larger scale following development compared to existing properties in the area and along the Runton Road. Cllr T Adams suggested the result would be a cramped development with the host building being dominated by the extension.

ii.          The MPM relayed a statement prepared by Local Member -Cllr A Yiasimi, who was unable to attend the meeting. The Local Member had advised that each application should be considered on its merits, and expressed his support of the Officer’s recommendation for approval. Cllr A Yiasimi noted that he was familiar with the area and considered the application to be acceptable in principle and on consideration of the impact on character and appearance, amenity and Highway safety.

iii.         Cllr R Kershaw queried the documentation of the Parish Councils comments, with the report stating no objection, whereas the Parish Council made there objection known. He added that he shared the concerns raised by neighbours with respect to the massing of the building, and impact that the relocation of the living room to the first floor would have on privacy, and stated that he would vote against the Officer’s recommendation.

iv.        Cllr A Brown objected to the application, stating that whilst the application may be policy compliant, the final result would be an intensification of the site. There would be a large loss of garden, which he determined to be at the upper limit of acceptability. If the application were approved, he suggested that permitted development rights be withdrawn.

v.         In response to questions raised by the Chairman, the SPO-JB advised that the remaining garden space would be permissible for the dwelling, but this was a finely balanced application. The case officer noted within the recommendation the removal of permitted rights associated with alterations and extensions as well as roof additions.

vi.        Cllr J Toye agreed with concerns about the scale and massing of the development, and the loss of garden space that would result in a loss of biodiversity.

vii.        Cllr V Holiday sought clarification on what percentage increase of the extension compared to the footprint of the original dwelling, and referred to the design guide defining distances between windows to neighbouring properties, as she believed the development would be very close to adjacent neighbours. She added that the single storey studio in the garden would be considered as a bedroom, given that it contained a bathroom, and with this increased bedroom capacity, the application should be considered developmental over-massing. The SPO-JB replied that he did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

The DMTL-DW introduced the report and affirmed officer’s recommendation for refusal. Primary considerations related to the effect the proposed extension would have on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and also on the conservation area. Officers considered the proposal to be harmful due to its size, appearance and proposed materials which would not be subservient to the existing dwelling, and be an in conflict to it. It was noted that there were no public benefits or material considerations which would outweigh this harm, as required by paragraph 202 of the NPPF.

Public Speakers

Pennie Alford - Councillor, Binham PC

Gary Pearce (Supporting)

      i.        Cllr R Kershaw - Local Member supplied photographic evidence of other properties located on Warren Road which had large extensions. He added that the application would enable a third generation farming family to live and work in the area, and better enable them to run the local tea room, adding to the local community and economy. Cllr R Kershaw proposed that members defer the application, to enable Officers and the applicant to discuss and seek a mutually agreeable decision.

     ii.        Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal and acknowledged whilst the property was situated within the conservation area and would be subject to additional criteria, there was scope for further discussion.

    iii.        Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted the images supplied by the local Member were instances where the extension was more sympathetic with the existing character and appearance of the area, including use of brick and flint materials. She added that the proposed application did not adopt such traditional materials. Cllr N Pearce echoed concerns regarding the materials used for the proposed extension would consist largely of glazing and timber construction. The setting of the building within the Binham Conservation Area was a principle consideration.

   iv.        The DMTL-DW noted the prior application which had an initial similar design, required amendment in order that it be agreed. Should the applicant desire to submit a new application, this would be considered within the pre-application service.

     v.        The ADP referred to the previously approved design, which the committee had been informed did not meet the personal circumstances of the applicant, but noted that personal circumstances carry limited, if any, material weight because conditions could not be made on the basis that the building may not remain in the ownership of the  family in perpetuity. The ADP acknowledged comments made by the DMTL-DW, which respectfully indicated that this process was felt to have been exhausted.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown asked the DMTL-DW whether the use of timber cladding would be permitted as an acceptable material within a conservation area. The DMTL-DW advised that extensions carried out within permitted development stipulated that materials must match the existing dwelling, though this was not applicable for this application, as it was not permitted development. Cllr R Kershaw affirmed timber cladding had been used in the previously approved design.

  vii.        Cllr V Holiday surmised from discussion that it seemed Members were in favour of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and outlined the reasons for refusal. The core issue being the design of the outbuilding and its visual impact upon the setting of the grade II listed asset. It was acknowledged that the harm arising from the proposal was low, and that any harm must be outweighed by public benefits, required under paragraph 202 of the NPPF. Officers concluded that this was a finely balanced proposal but that benefits did not outweigh the identified harm, and would be in conflict to policy EN8 and paragraph 202 of the NNPF.

Public Speakers

Debbie Boon (Supporting)

1. Cllr R Kershaw - Local Member established his support for the application and acknowledged the retrospective nature of the application was due to incorrect planning advice received by the applicant from the former architect. He added that the applicant had made every effort to comply with the Conservation Officers recommendations, and had agreed to the removal of the separate garden shed in addition to landscape planting which may help soften the visual impact of the studio outbuilding. The local Member recognised the high level of restoration the owners had brought to the old school house, and the value that they had brought to the local community and economy. Cllr R Kershaw indicated his support for approval under SS1, SS2 and under NPPF section 14.

2. In response to comments made by the Chairman, the DMTL-CR advised that officers had considered the listed nature of the building and that the NNPF required great weight to be added to conserving heritage assets, and that any harm level be outweighed by public benefits.  The ADP affirmed the buildings listed status and that appropriate weight be applied accordingly. He added that it was a prominent building, and the use of additional landscape planting may help mitigate the appearance of the outbuilding. It was stated that Members must consider that it was a permanent structure, which would remain in perpetuity. The ADP stated that it was for Members to consider the appearance of the outbuilding and its setting, in relation to the listed building, and apply weight appropriately any positive elements considered to be of wider public benefit.

3. The PL reminded Members of Section 66 of the Listed Buildings Conservation Areas Act, which stated in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a listed building or setting, that the local Planning Authority should have special regard for the desirability of preserving the building or setting.

4. Following questions from the Chairman, the DMTL-CR stated that the application would not be classified under permitted development, irrespective of its listed status, as it is beyond the principle elevation of the building.

5. Cllr J Rest stated he had observed other larger buildings which had been erected in gardens throughout the District, and was therefore opposed to refusal.

6. Cllr N Lloyd spoke in favour of the application in supporting the economic benefits brought to the area through the development.

7. Cllr J Toye considered the harm associated with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The SPO-JP introduced the report and relayed the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

Public Speakers

Alex Waters (Supporting)

1. Cllr T Adams affirmed his support and proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation.

2. Cllr A Brown seconded the officers recommendation, and expressed his disappointment that the Local Member had not made a representation at the meeting.

3. Cllr J Toye noted a similar development within his ward, which operated without issue, and stated that he was in support of the recommendation.

4. Cllr N Lloyd asked that it be placed on record his disappointment that the Local Member had not made a representation at the meeting, given the application had been brought to Committee by said Member.

5. Cllr R Kershaw, noted the representation made by the applicant, and supported their foresight and innovation in developing a scheme for sustainable tourism.

RESOLVED by 11 votes for, and 1 against.

That application PF/21/1630 be approved in accordance with the Officers recommendation.

The DMTL-CR introduced the report and relayed the Officer’s recommendation for approval. It was noted that the existing first floor windows were of poor condition and in need of replacement, and that the proposed new windows would match that existing windows installed on the second floor, as approved under application PF/20/0968. The Officer’s report considered the incorporation of such windows locally, as well as on the building, and determined the benefit of unifying the style of windows with the frontage above. The Officer’s recommendation established that there would not be an unacceptable level of harm caused to the host building or the Cromer Conservation Area.

Public Speakers

Tim Bartlett – Councillor, Cromer Town Council

1. Cllr T Adams - Local Member stated his concern that no appraisal of the impact on the Grade I listed St Peters Church, located opposite the site, had been included within the report. The impact of which, Cllr T Adams determined to be significant and material to the decision making. He added that the use of UVPC plastic windows within the Cromer Conservation Area would have a detrimental effect to the visual impact of the host building, and would be noticeable from the street scene.  Previous comparable applications, including 28 High Street and 14 Mount Street, had been refused, with these refusals being upheld at appeal. Cllr T Adams noted that the application did not comply with policies EN4 or EN8.

2. The MPM read a statement prepared by Cllr A Yiasimi -Local Member for Cromer, who had been unable to attend the meeting. Cllr A Yiasimi detailed his approval of the Officers recommendation, and determined that the heritage white wood grain effect UPVC window frame would match the existing windows located on the second floor.

3. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett noted the use of UVPC windows within the Cromer Conservation Area had repeatedly been discussed at Committee, with Members historically supporting the conservation of Cromer Town by refusing such applications. She added that having declared a Climate Emergency it was important to limit the use of plastic, and suggested voting against the Officer’s recommendation.

4. Cllr V Holiday affirmed that the ground floor and first floor should be considered together as a unit, as opposed to the first and second floor, as this would be more noticeable from the street. It was noted that the ground floor did not have plastic UVPC windows. Cllr V Holiday supported voting against the officer’s recommendation.

5. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle stated use of UVPC windows on the first floor would be noticeable to onlookers, and was considered to have a detrimental effect to the building and the Conservation Area more broadly.

6. Cllr N Lloyd commented that whilst he would normally support the use of double glazing for environmental reasons, on this occasion he had been persuaded by Members the use of Wood, with its insulating properties would be more suitable for the location.

7. In response to questions raised by the Chairman, the DMTL-CR relayed the Conservation Officers comments, in recognising that plastic windows were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

The ADP introduced the report to members and invited comments or questions.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

1. New Appeals
2. No questions.

3. Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

4. ENF/18/0164 Cley-Next-The-Sea – The ADP confirmed an appeal hearing would take place in June with the Planning Inspectorate. Amended plans were anticipated for February which would seek to remediate the building and secure historical permission.

5. PF/20/1056 Kelling- The ADP advised that the hearing would be undertaken remotely on the 1^st and 2^nd of February.

6. ENF/20/0231 Ryburgh – The ADP relayed the appeal had been deferred to March, and would be taken in person. The appellant suggested to the Planning Inspectorate that there were a number of individuals who wished to make representations and should be heard in an informal hearing.

7. Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

8. The ADP updated members on application PO/20/0887, noting the Planning Inspector had dismissed the appeal in part for considerations relating to the Council’s five year land supply.

9. Appeal Decisions

10. None

To pass the following resolution, if necessary:-

 “That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A (as amended) to the Act.”

None.