Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr C Stockton, Cllr P Grove Jones, and Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.

Cllr J Toye and Cllr J Rest.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 21^st October 2021.

Minutes of the meeting held on 21^st October 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.

None declared.

Conditional approval.

The MPM introduced the report and informed Members that the application had been considered previously in July, and had been deferred due concerns regarding foul drainage and the site layout. It was reported that a reduction in the number of dwellings had provided additional space for planting areas to alleviate layout concerns, whilst Anglian Water (AW) had undertaken further investigatory work on the drainage network and confirmed that it was in good working order. The MPM recommended approval of the application, as outlined in the report.

Public Speakers

Ed Mumford-Smith (Supporting)

Questions and Discussion

       i.          The Local Member – Cllr R Kershaw stated that he was grateful to Broadland Housing for the amendments made to the application, but noted that he still had substantial concerns regarding the sewage issues. He added that despite AW’s assurance that there were no blockages, there still appeared to be significant drainage issues, with foul sewage seen to enter ditches and contaminate the river network. Cllr R Kershaw stated that he felt it was necessary to resolve these issues before the application could be approved, in order to avoid exacerbating the issue, and therefore proposed deferral for a site visit so that Members could review the issue in situ.

      ii.          In response to a question from the Chairman, the PL confirmed that an individual planning application should not be used to address an existing issue, and should only be considered on the grounds that it would not make matters worse. He added that it could contribute to resolving the issue, but could not be expected to fully address it. It was noted that if the application was refused for reasons relating to existing drainage issues, then evidence would be required to show why the Committee had acted against the advice of a statutory consultee, which would pose additional risk to the Council.

     iii.          The AW Planning Manager (AWPM) informed Members that AW had undertaken CCTV exploration of the drainage network, alongside removal of tree roots, which had shown that the network was working effectively. She added that manhole covers had also been lifted throughout the Parish for inspection, and no issues had been found. It was noted that there were no historical reports of flooding or drainage issues within AW’s records, and testing models had shown that there was capacity within the existing foul network to accommodate the additional flow, if the application were to be approved. The AWPM stated that evidence provided by the Parish Council appeared to show that the flooding was caused by surface water, unrelated to the capacity of the foul sewage network. She added that this issue was therefore the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authority, and from AW’s perspective there was capacity available to accommodate the development.

    iv.          Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal for deferral to allow a site visit to take place.

      v.          The ADP suggested that prior to debating the proposal, it would be useful to hear what the site visit would seek to determine.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

       i.          The ADP stated that there had been continued improvement across the Development Management and Major Projects Teams.

      ii.          Cllr J Toye thanked officers for their efforts and the improvements made to bring the Department back up to speed following the pandemic.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

       i.          The ADP informed Members that the Briston case had been dismissed, though during consideration the Planning Inspector had determined that they were not convinced of the District’s five year land supply. He added that this was the decision of a single Inspector, and the Council could choose to accept or challenge this decision. Cllr A Brown stated that this decision came as contrary to the Planning Inspector’s decision given at Beresford Road Holt, where the Council was deemed to have a credible five year land supply. He added that on this basis the Council should consider the decision very carefully, and be prepared to challenge it. Cllr N Pearce stated that this decision should be considered urgently, as the Council had previously been informed that it had a five year land supply, and must therefore be ready to challenge the decision.

      ii.          Cllr J Rest asked whether the Panning Inspector had considered just one area or the whole District when making their decision. The ADP replied that this would refer to the wider District, but advised Members to continue as though the Council did have a five year land supply until notified otherwise. He added that even without a five year land supply, Council’s were still able to make decisions on sustainability using the NPPF.

     iii.          New Appeals

    iv.          No questions.

      v.          Inquiries and Hearings – In Progress

    vi.          The Chairman asked whether there had been any progress on the Arcady case, and was informed that officers were awaiting revised plans. The ADP added that a new application had also been received to substitute approved drawings for the appeal decision, with residents able to comment on the application.

   vii.          Written Representations Appeals - In Hand

  viii.          No questions.

    ix.          Appeal Decisions - Results and Summaries

      x.          The ADP noted that there was a trend with the District Council being largely supported in its decisions, though it was still being challenged, as with a recent case decided against the Council on the grounds of sustainability. He added that matters of sustainability for dwellings would be reviewed to consider whether the Council remained in-line with the decisions of the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED

To note the appeals.

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.”