Agenda, decisions and minutes

Development Committee - Thursday, 20th May, 2021 9.30 am

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions

Contact: Linda Yarham  Email:

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Dr C Stockton and A Varley.  One substitute Member attended the meeting as shown above.





To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 April 2021.


The Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 8 April 2021 were approved as a correct record.



(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.


Councillor J Toye stated that he was the local Member for Wolterton PF/20/2072 and would abstain from voting as he was predetermined on this matter.


SHERINGHAM - PF/21/0405 - Use of land for siting of shipping container to store water sports equipment for a limited period from beginning of April until end of September (2021 and 2022), with removal of container outside those dates; Land on The Promenade, Sheringham, Norfolk pdf icon PDF 364 KB




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


Public Speakers


Stephen Pegg (Sheringham Town Council)

Lewis Gray (supporting)


The Chairman informed the Committee that the local Member, Councillor Mrs L Withington, was unable to attend the meeting but had submitted her comments.


The Assistant Director for Planning stated that Councillor Mrs Withington’s full comments were contained within the report.  She had in addition submitted the following explanation as to why she had called in the application, which he read to the Committee: This application has been very controversial and I have received many emails, telephone calls and comments in regard to both sides of the discussion. It would seem that this application may also determine precedents for future uses of promenade areas in Sheringham. Therefore I felt it was important that the decision was considered on planning terms in an objective, open and transparent arena.” 


Councillor A Brown requested clarification with regard to the relationship of the site with the Conservation Area boundary.


The Senior Planning Officer explained that the application site was 16 metres outside the Conservation Area boundary for Sheringham, but there were concerns with regard to the impact of the proposal on the setting and significance of the Conservation Area.


Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett declared that she was very involved with water sports and would abstain from voting on this matter.  Whilst there were many planning reasons why the application should not be approved, she considered that there were Human Rights issues to take into account in view of the importance of outdoor recreation in the pandemic.  Whilst siting a container where proposed would be a problem, there was nowhere else to operate from as paddleboards had to be within sight of a lifeguard.  She considered that it would be restrictive for the applicant to transport the paddleboards to and from the Promenade and the proposal would be a very good tourist offer. 


The Chairman pointed out that the benefits of the proposal had been highlighted in the report but it was necessary to consider the planning issues.


Councillor P Heinrich stated that he understood the desire to expand the business but was not convinced that it was appropriate to place a container on the Promenade, which could not be compared with the situation at Cromer as it was much more constrained.  Whilst he was supportive of small businesses, it could not be at the expense of the landscape and other aspects of tourism.  The container would be an ugly structure and it would be difficult to improve its appearance.  He considered that the Officer’s report had balanced the issues well.  He proposed refusal of this application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.


Councillor N Lloyd expressed sympathy for the applicant, who was trying to make a success of his business, and referred to the benefits of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 99.


WOLTERTON - PF/20/2072 - Erection of dwelling with attached double garage; Park farm Office, Wolterton Park, Wolterton for Mr & Mrs Michael and Clare McNamara pdf icon PDF 430 KB




The Development Management Team Leader presented the report by remote link and recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.  A copy of the visual presentation had previously been forwarded to the Committee.


Public Speaker


Guy McNamara (supporting)


Councillor J Toye, the local Member, stated that whilst he understood the Officer’s arguments and conclusion, he considered that there was an alternative balance in favour of the proposal.  Although in the Countryside, this was an infill plot in terms of the overall site.  The current office and storage uses already generated vehicle movements and human activity.  He considered that the land currently used for storage could become a garden area and provide benefits for wildlife and biodiversity.  He considered that the extant permission, if implemented, would result in development that would not sit well in its surroundings or in the context of the location.  He referred to the Conservation and Design Team’s view that the current proposal did no harm, and to the amount of local support for the proposal.  With the exception of Policies SS1 and SS2, all other policies had been satisfied.  He considered that the proposed development complied with NPPF paragraph 78 as the site was located in a group of settlements with a range of facilities.  He considered that the proposal would be a significant enhancement of the site in accordance with NPPF paragraph 79.  Whilst Policies SS1 and SS2 were good strategies to protect the Countryside, they did not fit all circumstances and in this case he considered that it would be sensible to acknowledge local opinion.  This was an infill proposal within a built compound of development on land that had an extant planning permission.  He considered that the proposed dwelling was well designed, appropriate for the space and would be a visual enhancement with improved wildlife capacity and potentially fewer traffic movements.  He requested that the Committee reconsider the balance in this case.


At the request of the Chairman, the Assistant Director for Planning reiterated the main points of the Development Management Team Leader’s presentation as the sound had been slightly muffled on the video link.


Councillor N Pearce considered that this was a good scheme that would be of economic benefit and enhance the existing development.  He considered that the potential harm would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme and the application should be approved. 


Councillor P Heinrich accepted that there were arguments in favour of the proposal in that it would complete the development and replace the storage yard, but it was in a very isolated location and the facilities in adjacent villages were not within sensible walking distance.  The former barns and other farm buildings had been converted under different regulations.  He referred to a recent application for barn conversions on a site where there had been a house and considered that it did not set a precedent for the replacement of a portable building.  Although he considered that the proposed house was well designed, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.



(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 9(a) of the agenda.




The Committee noted item 9(b) of the agenda.


The Assistant Director for Planning updated the Committee on the following appeals and answered Members’ questions:


Holt PO/18/1857 – A decision was still awaited.  The Assistant Director for Planning would continue to press the Inspector for a determination date.


Cley-Next-The-Sea ENF/18/0164 – the consultation period for the planning application would shortly expire.  The applicant would be given the opportunity to address any concerns that had been raised and further consultation would take place on any amendments, if necessary.  It was anticipated that the application would be brought before the Committee in July. 


North Walsham ENF/18/0339 – a planning application was currently under consideration by Officers.


Itteringham ENF/17/0006 / CL/19/0756 – a decision on this appeal was still awaited.




The Committee noted item 9(c) of the agenda.


The Assistant Director for Planning informed the Committee that he would be meeting the Planning Inspector on site later that day in respect of High Kelling ENF/16/0131 and would press for a speedy decision.




The Committee noted item 9(d) of the agenda.


Wiveton ENF/18/0061 and PF/19/0856

The Assistant Director for Planning informed the Committee that the Inspector had upheld the Council’s case that a planning application was required and the position given by Counsel relating to the existing permission for the existing antenna on the site, but had not agreed with the Council’s material weighting in this matter.  He did not agree with the Inspector’s weighting of the landscape impact, but there were no technical flaws that could be challenged.  The claim for costs against the Council had been defended robustly and costs were not awarded.




The Committee noted item 9(e) of the agenda.