Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Committee - Thursday, 14th April, 2022 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Lauren Gregory  Email:

No. Item




Apologies were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and Cllr A Yiasimi.





Cllr J Rest was present as a substitute for Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.




Due to a heavy schedule for the committee, the minutes for the meetings of 17th and 31st March will be presented to the meeting on 12th May for approval.



It was noted that due to a heavy meeting schedule the minutes from the 17th and 31st March Development Committee meetings would be included for the upcoming Committee meeting scheduled for the 12th May.




(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.


  1. Cllr P Heinrich declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9, reference TPO 21 0985, he had received email correspondence from residents in the Norwich Road Area of North Walsham but considered that he was not predetermined in his decision making.


  1. The Chairman declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 9, reference TPO 21 0985, she is known to the author of one of the written submissions, but had not discussed the item with her.



RUNTON - PF/21/0694 - Change of use of land to provide for the siting of eight holiday lodges for use as guest accommodation in association with The Links Hotel; provision of infrastructure and pedestrian links to the hotel and parking, at The Links Hotel, Sandy Lane, West Runton, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 9QH pdf icon PDF 425 KB


The ADP introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He noted the late representations received and advised a synopsis of late comments had been circulated to Members via email prior to the meeting, this as a consequence of the ongoing consultation process which had only been concluded that day.


He affirmed the context of the site and the proposals relationship within the AONB which had influenced the landscape report. The view from Incleborough Hill of the AONB over the open countryside and the undeveloped coast area was considered to be of significant importance and critical in terms of weighting in the Officers recommendation.


The ADP noted that issues surrounding golf safety had been mitigated and that the proposal included realignment of the golf course which would aid to minimise the concerns of potential conflict between the users of the golf course and the occupants of the holiday lodges, as well as the inclusion of golf safety nets which would be implemented in the short term until tree planting had been established. As such, concerns raised by the Environmental Health team on the matter of safety of the proposal, were considered to be resolved.


He advised Members that the lodges had been designed in such a way to assimilate closely with the nearby dwellings located the northern edge of the site boundary, and with the local landscape. The proposed lodges would be timber cladded, with a flat roof, and had been subject to a landscape visual impact assessment, provided by the applicant. The ADP affirmed the longer term strategy to minimise the impact of the development and the aim to plant both Deciduous and Coniferous trees which would effectively screen the lodges and minimise the harm arising from the proposal. He reflected that there would be an interim period in the short and medium term where the landscaping would not be effective in assimilating the harm arising to the site for a period up to 15 years.


The ADP noted that there was no formal access for visitors or parking at the lodges, and that the visitors would be dependent on the use of golf buggies and pedestrian access routes. The latest proposal was determined to form a stronger linkage to the hotel than prior applications in which the lodges were proposed in a different location. Officers considered there to be no overriding issues in terms of Local Amenity or Highways concerns.


He commented that Officers had considered the impact of biodiversity and habitat and were satisfied that the measures for mitigation within the applicant’s ecological report had been satisfactory. He advised if Members were minded to approve the scheme that this would require a GI/Rams payment due to the proposals relationship with the local areas sensitive habitat and biodiversity.


The ADP stated that a key issue in considering the proposal was the matter of economic development, and reflected on the important role which the tourism economy has on the district and the importance of the provision of tourism accommodation.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 121.


WEST RUNTON - ADV/21/1260 - Installation of free standing external non-illuminated sign for at Dormy House Hotel, Cromer Road, West Runton pdf icon PDF 217 KB

Item deferred from 31st March 2022 Committee Meeting.


The PO re-introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval, and noted that this item had been deferred from the Committee Meeting held 31st March. He advised that a submission had been received from the Highways Authority who noted that the sign was set back from the highway and would allow for visibility beneath, as such they would find it difficult to substantiate a reason to object to the proposal. The Highways Authority wrote that that the proposal would not affect current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic.


  1. Local Member- Cllr S Bütikofer – spoke against the Officers recommendation and stated that despite the reassurances provided since the item had last been brought to Committee, her concerns remained. She stated that it was concerning that the Highways Authority in their submission considered that that the view through the posts would reasonable, and affirmed that access to the property was regularly obscured by parked cars, and that the road was unsafe. The Local Member commented that she had lobbied for a reduction of the speed limit, but that this had been unsuccessful. Cllr S Bütikofer considered that both the size and scale of the proposed sign to be out of place for the local context and that it would negatively impact the open space and the undeveloped coast and would serve as a distraction for motorists. She noted that if applied, policy EN3 and EN4 would be contravened by the proposal.


  1. Cllr N Pearce noted the history of the site and the various iterations of the sign which had been refused, he considered the proposal to unacceptable due to its position in relation to the underdeveloped coast and to the AONB.


  1. Cllr R Kershaw proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation. He acknowledged the Highway Officers submission, which he considered to satisfy his concerns, and stated that issues relating to individuals speeding on the adjacent road was not the fault of the hotel. He commented that Highways Authority should be written to separately, and not as part of the application, to review and reduce the speed limit of the road.


  1. Cllr J Rest sought confirmation and clarity on the removal of wording to advertise parking to the rear of the property. The PO confirmed this had been removed to assist in the overall reduction of wording on the sign. The ADP advised that both Officers and the Highways Authority were satisfied with the proposed visual appearance of the sign, its location and its contents.


  1. Cllr N Lloyd seconded the proposal and considered that there was little reason on planning grounds to refuse. He stated that the proposed sign would be less intrusive that prior proposals and commented that the behaviour of drivers to drive in excess of the speed limit could not be controlled by the planning process.


  1. Cllr V Holliday enquired if the original sign had been granted planning permission. The PO advised that it had, and that if a sign were in situ for four or more  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.


NORTH WALSHAM - TPO 21 0985 - Land South of Norwich Road North Walsham pdf icon PDF 280 KB

Additional documents:


The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He affirmed the affected site subject to the proposed TPO and its context within the development land. He advised that the trees were of a good mix and range of age, though noted that there were some in a poorer condition, and considered that the specified land had developed into natural scrubland which was very important for biodiversity. He highlighted specific trees and zones of interest including a line of Poplar trees which ran across the site, and large evergreens which were key features of the landscape and could be viewed from both Norwich road and from neighbouring housing developments. The SLO affirmed the importance of young scrubland and referred to an example of the Knepp Estate located in South East England, and surveys which concluded that young scrubland was one of the most biodiverse areas of the country, aside from ancient woodland.


He affirmed the key areas for consideration was the protection of biodiversity, ensuring appropriate mitigation of the site in future, and the amenity value of the trees. The SLO stressed that the intention was not to protect every tree, rather it was to protect the amenity and biodiversity. He advised that if individual trees or zones of trees were removed from an area that he would want to see replacement. He advised Members that the TPO had been made as there was a genuine threat to the trees and to the amenity and biodiversity they offered.


The SLO confirmed receipt of a recent legal letter and clarified that in determining amenity he had conducted a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders known as a ‘TEMPO Assessment’, and that this was a national system used by all Tree Officers when considering the application of a TPO. He affirmed that whilst not all of the trees had received full marks by consequence of their age range and visibility, the overall subject area did receive a high enough score determined relative to serve a TPO. He advised that the trees were considered to be of amenity value and noted the petition submitted from local residents. He noted that biodiversity, whilst a factor in serving a TPO, could not be the core consideration in serving a TPO and that this was the amenity of the trees. The SLO responded to comments made within the legal letter which questioned the legality of applying an ‘Area Order’, and affirmed that this was a temporary measure which he considered could be applied for a couple of years, and noted that the Council had other TPO’s dating back to the 1940’s.


The SLO advised that the TPO had not served to stop development, rather it was to protect amenity and biodiversity and expressed the Council were more than willing to work with the developer. The ADP supported the representation and guidance offered by the SLO, and stated that the site still had development potential and that the Council was not anti-development and still want to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.


FAKENHAM - TPO 21 0987 - Land at Farmland North of A1067 Norwich Road Langor Bridge Little Ryburgh Fakenham Norfolk NR21 0LW pdf icon PDF 272 KB

Additional documents:


The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised that this TPO was brought following contact from a concerned individual, who had a qualification in tree surveying, that some significant trees had been felled in the field north of the Norwich Road in Fakenham, north of Little Ryburgh. He provided images to Members which affirmed that the trees were visible on the horizon from the road, and that they had significant amenity value.


He considered that the tree’s which had been served a TPO were considered to be of a good mix and age, and were of very high amenity. He considered that the key considerations was the matter of amenity and biodiversity.


Public Speakers:

Mr Thomas Cook – Objecting


  1. Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation and reflected on comments made by the land owner that the trees were under no threat, he considered that the confirmation of the TPO should therefore not be objected. He considered that the trees were a valuable part of the landscape and need to be retained.


  1. Cllr R Kershaw seconded the proposal.




That TPO 21 0987 be APPROVED in accordance with the Officers recommendation.




Additional documents:


  1. The ADP introduced the Development Management Performance Update report. He affirmed that contents of Section 3.2 located on Page 48 of the Agenda Pack and noted that with respect of Major Development Team that seven decision’s had been issued in the last quarter January- March and that all of these had been within time. He noted that this was a significant upturn in the decisions issued by the Majors Team and within the last three quarters, 100% of decisions were issued in time. With respect of Section 3.5 of the report and in the appendix, he advised that there were twelve ongoing Section 106 (S106) cases were currently being progressed and that three S106 agreements had been cleared, with decision notices issued, since last reported with the assistance of the PL.


  1. The ADP confirmed, with respect of Non Majors Performance as detailed in Section 3.6, that the team had achieved 96% of decisions in time over the last quarter. He stated the intention to continue to issue significant numbers of decisions on non-majors and that these figures would balance the two- year average.


  1. The ADP advised that Members would continue to receive updates on Nutrient Neutrality, and that its impact on Major Development was an area which needed to be reflected upon and reviewed with respect of its impact on progress and performance. He considered that Non-Majors should be less affected by Nutrient Neutrality but that is issue would still have some affect.


  1. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle reflected on the impact of Nutrient Neutrality, he considered there to be great improvements reported to Members and so expressed his thanks to Officers for their hard work.


  1. Cllr N Lloyd sought clarity whether the S106’s agreements contained within the report were a definitive list. The ADP advised that the list was for those S106 agreements which were actively being processed and that he would be happy to discuss individual cases not contained on the list with Members and the PL. He acknowledged that the matter of S106 agreements had been historically a difficult matter which spanned across various departments. He informed Members that new S106 Software was expected which would enable all S106 agreement to be available within the public domain, this software was aimed for June. Before the software went live, a capture process was needed to ensure all data was gathered and that this would need to be a robust process. He noted that the Council would be looking towards having a dedicated S106 officer who would act as a point of liaison with local communities and who would be able to ensure that spending is actively undertaken and planned with those communities post development and post S106.


  1. Cllr R Kershaw asked if an update on Nutrient Neutrality could regularly provide for the Development Committee. The ADP affirmed that an update would be provided to the Committee and referred Members to the Councils dedicated ‘Nutrient Neutrality’ webpage which would be regularly updated. He advised that the Council were working together with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.



(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results


.           New Appeals


ii.         No questions.


iii.         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress


iv.        Cllr R Kershaw asked if a decision had been reached following the information hearing for Kelling, reference PF/21/1056. The ADP advised that the hearing had been concluded and that the delay in the decision was as consequence of the Appellant raising the issue of Nutrient Neutrality. He confirmed that the Council had responded to the planning inspector on the late representations on Nutrient Neutrality, and that the Appellant had been provided the chance to respond. He affirmed that the Planning Inspector would now be considering their decision which would be made within the next month or so.


v.         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand


vi.        No questions.


vii.        Appeal Decisions


viii.       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.”