Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Committee - Thursday, 17th February, 2022 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Lauren Gregory  Email:

No. Item




Apologies were received from Committee Members Cllr N Lloyd and Cllr L Withington.




Cllr T Adams and Cllr J Rest were present as substitutes for Cllr N Lloyd and Cllr L Withington respectively.


MINUTES pdf icon PDF 276 KB

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 20th January 2022.


Cllr A Varley noted his name was absent from the list of Committee Members present at the previous meeting, though he had been in attendance. Subject to this amendment the Minutes of the meeting held on the 20 January 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.





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.


The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest for Agenda Item 8, Planning Application PF/21/2469, she is known to the applicant’s sister though advised she has not discussed the application with her, and stated did not preclude her to speak and vote on the application.


EAST RUSTON - PF/21/2469 - Erection of 7 single storey holiday lodges in connection with the public house, associated car parking and amenity areas; Butchers Arms, Oak Lane, East Ruston, for Mr M Oakes pdf icon PDF 156 KB



The DMTL introduced the report to Members and the recommendation for approval subject to strict planning conditions. It was noted that this was a revised planning application following the refusal of planning application PF/19/1816, which had been for 9 units. The revised application was considered acceptable by Officers in principle, subject to conditions including those to mitigate noise, controls regarding external lighting and strict conditions controlling of the use of the site. The Public House and application site were designated as an Asset of Community Value (ACV), and whilst the proposed development would result in the partial loss of an ACV, the revenue from the development would contribute towards the ongoing survival of the other half of the ACV; the Butchers Arms Public House.


At the discretion of the Chairman, Members were furnished with copies of written statements from East Ruston Parish Council and from a local resident, objecting to the development. These representations were received after the deadline for public speaking at the meeting had closed.


Public Speakers

Malcom Dixon – Agent



       i.          Cllr L Shires – Local Member, expressed her support for the concerns raised by the Parish Council and of residents on the impact to their quality of life by result of increased noise levels, loss of privacy, as well as the loss of greenspace and inadequate provision of parking. She thanked the DMTL for his engagement with both herself and local residents and for considering residents’ concerns as reflected in the strict conditions placed on the application subject to approval. Cllr L Shires asked the Committee to consider a possible extension to the Butchers Arms to accommodate rooms within the Pub as opposed to permitting a separate structure, or a further reduction in number of external units to 4 or 5.


      ii.          The ADP advised the Committee of the planning process and affirmed that any extension of the Public House would require a different planning application. He advised Members to consider the application before them, and noted the Applicant had previously revised their application and may not wish to revise it further.


     iii.          The DMTL commented that the Applicant and their Agent had reluctantly reduced the number of units from 9 to 7, which Officers determined to be agreeable.


    iv.          At the discretion of the Chairman the Planning Agent was permitted to make an additional representation for the purposes of clarity. The Agent advised that a further reduction in the number of units would erode at the viability of the business.


      v.          Cllr P Heinrich commented that he was very familiar with the Butchers Arms Public House, and acknowledged that the Pub had always required a second revenue stream to remain viable. He acknowledged the revised application subject to conditions was much improved. He sought assurances with respect to the impact of the external lighting on the dark skies policy. On balance, and considering the economic benefits, Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation.


    vi.          Cllr J Rest stated his concern that the Public  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.


BEESTON REGIS & THE RUNTONS - PF/21/2593 - Removal of existing outbuilding and raised paving and steps to rear of building; two storey side extension; new outbuildings to side and rear; raised rear seating area and glass wind screen to rear of building incorporating ramp and steps; new fire escape stair; pergola and glass wind screen to front of building; replacement of 2 no. roof windows by dormer windows; change window to bi-fold doors from restaurant to outside seating area; 2m high screen fence to eastern boundary (Retrospective); Dormy House Hotel Cromer Road West Runton Norfolk NR27 9QA, for Mr S Brundle. pdf icon PDF 219 KB


The DMTL introduced the report to Members and detailed the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Prior planning permission had been granted for planning application PF/19/1682, however the current application proposed amendments to the approved scheme and was predominantly retrospective in nature given that some of the works had been commenced or completed. The application was considered to be contrary to Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, Section 12 of the NPPF, and design principles set out in the North Norfolk Design Guide.


Public Speakers

Steve Brudle (supporting)


  1. Cllr S Bütikofer – Local Member, noted this was a difficult application and a balance between supporting a local business whilst being equitable across the whole district. She expressed concerns over the protection of the undeveloped coast, specifically with regard to North Norfolk Core Policy EN3, para 3.3.9 She noted that the frontage of the property had altered significantly in recent years, and developed a higher profile on the coast road to the detriment of the gentle coastal landscape. She added it was important for new developments to compliment local surroundings whilst being safe and accessible for all, as established in the North Norfolk Core Strategy’s vision and aims. She considered there to be an inadequate provision of parking, and that customers at busy times would need to park on the road which would further lead to the detriment of the local area, and to highway safety. Cllr S Bütikofer supported officer’s comments that the extension built was contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy policy EN4 and to the NPPF. Whilst sympathetic to the needs of businesses, and the tourist economy, she determined that no one business should be exempt from the rules. The Local Member asked the Committee to consider a middle way which would ensure remedial work was undertaken with respect of the application, accepting there were many aspects of the application which had been compliant. If the Applicant were unwilling to make such changes, Cllr S Bütikofer urged the Committee to consider the officers recommendation for refusal. 


  1. Cllr R Kershaw stated his disappointment with respect to the part retrospective nature of the application, and whilst he was not satisfied with the development in its current form, he wished for an agreement to be reached with the Applicant which would remediate those aspects which were unacceptable. He commented that he was sympathetic to the significant financial difficulties of the hospitality industry as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic.


  1. The ADP advised Members that the application being considered offered a total form of development which must be determined. Should the application be refused, enforcement action would commence for those aspects which would not otherwise be granted planning permission. As highlighted by the DMTL the matter of enforcement action would relate to the side extension, and may not extend to other works undertaken which may otherwise have been granted planning permission. The opportunity would be available for the Applicant to submit a further application, free of fee, for those elements that would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 88.




i.          The ADP introduced the report to Members. He advised that from March an appendix would be added using a traffic light system for negations which were ongoing relating to Section 106 agreements that had been agreed by the Development Committee subject the completion and issue of decision. This would enable Members to have a greater understanding as to the status of Section 106 agreements and where delays may reside. Both Major and Non-Major Planning performance for February 2022 remained above the national average.


ii.         Cllr G Mancini-Boyle enquired about the customer service figures with respect of the planning department. The ADP advised that the Development Management Performance report was intended to report on key performance indices and national performance indices. Planning performance improvement progress was being considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.


iii.         Cllr N Pearce asked for conformation that the computerised planning system was operating satisfactorily. The ADP advised that there were regular updates to the computer system and that there were dedicated officers who managed this system. Issues relating to the use of servers, which had created some difficulties had been picked up by the IT team and Planning Officers and were now resolved.



(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results


       i.          New Appeals


      ii.          No questions.


     iii.          Inquiries and Hearings – Progress


    iv.          ENF/18/1064 Cley-Next-The-Sea - The ADP updated Members and advised that the enforcement appeal hearing would take place in Cley Village Hall on the 22nd and 23rd June.


      v.          Written Representation Appeals – In Hand


    vi.          PO/20/1327 Sheringham – The ADP advised Members that the planning application had been dismissed by the planning inspectorate. It was noted that all appeals detailed within the report had been dismissed. The appeal record for the Council remained very good, and well above national statistics.


   vii.          Appeal Decisions


  viii.          No questions.




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.”