Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

(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.

With the agreement of the Chairman, the Assistant Director of Planning stated that the Committee would be updated on the Vanguard Wind Farm appeal under item 7 of the agenda.

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.

None.

Refusal

The Assistant Director for Planning presented the report and referred to the presentation that had been circulated to the Committee.  He reported that Economic Development had no in principle objection to this application as there would be no immediate job losses, but considered that there was a lack of evidence to satisfy Policy CT3 in relation to the loss of community facilities.  A viability assessment was warranted to determine suitability and evidence of marketing to demonstrate that the use of the building in this location was no longer required, or robust evidence should be provided to confirm that alternative provision of equivalent or better quality was available in the area or would be provided and made available prior to the commencement of the redevelopment of the site.

The Assistant Director for Planning recommended refusal of this application as indicated in the report.

Public Speaker

Geoff Armstrong (supporting)

The comments of the local Member, Councillor Ms K Ward, were read to the Committee.  Councillor Ms Ward supported the application as it was a brownfield site with a building that was not fit for purpose or suitable for economic renovation, the proposal would not create more traffic movements than the existing use, the proposed dwellings would not be intrusive, and the development would provide investment in the local community and employment for local trades.  She disagreed with Officer comments regarding the Kelling Estate master plan, and with the planning policy assessment.  She had referred to the support from the Parish Council and requested that the Committee approve this application.

Councillor J Toye stated that he had been dealing with Councillor Ward’s work during her illness.  The Chairman stated that she would allow him to speak as an exception but requested that he did not indicate whether or not he supported the application as he was neither a Committee Member nor attending as a substitute.

Councillor Toye commented that this was not an empty site in the middle of the AONB.  There was an ugly, poor quality building on the site which would spill light and noise into the surrounding area if occupied.  He referred to the comments of the Norfolk Coast Partnership that the site was well screened and could only be glimpsed from the access road and garden centre or the North Norfolk Railway, with the existing garden centre and car park being more visible.  He considered that the proposed development would be less noticeable than the current building.  In his opinion, the description of the area as a wild, remote and tranquil landscape did not apply to this site, given its previous use and the adjacent garden centre with its associated traffic.  He referred to the comments of the Conservation & Design Officer with regard to the design of the proposed dwellings, and to the concerns that had been raised by the applicants regarding the length of time taken to process this application.  He drew attention to paragraphs in the Core Strategy and NPPF relating to housing needs and demand, economic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

The Major Projects Manager reported that the High Court had quashed the Planning Inspector’s decision regarding the Vanguard wind farm and there was currently no decision on this application.  The matter would now be referred back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.  There was a strong likelihood that the examination would be reopened for this application and the Boreas application as they would use the same route and landfall at Happisburgh, with connection to the grid at Necton, and the proposals therefore affected each other.  If the examination were reopened, it would involve more time commitment for himself and colleagues.  Members would be kept informed on this matter.

The Major Projects Manager informed the Committee that Hornsea Project 3 had been granted consent in December 2020.  This would make landfall at Weybourne and connect to the Norwich main substation.  He was not aware that the decision had been challenged.

The Major Projects Manager stated that there was disquiet locally as to how these offshore windfarms would reach the grid connection points.  There had been discussion regarding an offshore ring main, but this would not necessarily resolve all the issues and presented a great deal of challenge in terms of offshore infrastructure, impact on marine conservation zones and other possible impacts.   There was a need for the country to generate electricity through non-fossil fuel methods and there were many challenges as to how this could be achieved and how it could be connected to the grid.  There would be increasing pressure to supply infrastructure to satisfy demand as gas boilers were phased out.

The Chairman stated that underground cables had been laid through the countryside over the last 30 to 40 years and there was no longer any evidence of their existence on the ground.  She considered that the problem with the current proposals was the sensitive nature of the area they would pass through.

The Major Projects Manager explained that the issues were mainly centred around Necton.  The substation required for Vanguard would be much larger than the existing Dudgeon substation.  The key issue in this case was that approval of the Vanguard scheme would effectively give permission for Boreas by default.  The Judge had ruled that the examining authority and the Secretary of State had not considered the cumulative impact issues of the proposal, it had been assessed in an illogical way and the decision breached the EIA Regulations.  It was hoped that the Inspector would follow up this matter and issue a sound decision.  The Major Projects Manager stated that in his opinion the project was likely to go ahead as there appeared to be no other alternatives for generating electricity.  However, there was a need to ensure that the impacts were properly managed and mitigated, particularly for local people who were already badly affected.  People were concerned that these projects were not joined up and the construction process would be extended.  He hoped that the Government would recognise this District’s efforts in enabling these  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.