Apologies were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.

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

(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.

The Chairman invited the MPM to provide speak on the matter of Nutrient Neutrality. The MPM advised that Agenda Items 7,8, 11 and 12 (Planning Application references PF/21/1990, PF/21/2644, PF/21/1478 and PF/21/1479) had been deferred due to new Habitat Regulations matters raised by Natural England concerning Nutrient Neutrality published on 16^th March. He noted that this was an extremely complex matter and that the regulations affected all Local Planning Authorities in Norfolk and several others across the country, with a total of 74 Local Planning Authorities now impacted.

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.

Cllr V Holliday declared an interest in both Planning Applications RV/21/2583 and PF/21/0882 for Cley, she is both the Local Member and Chairman of Cley Parish Council and considered herself to be pre-determined. She advised she would speak on each application as the Local Member, but would not participate in the debate or vote and would excuse herself from the meeting during member’s debate.

The ADP introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He noted that a revised plan had been received during the week, and corrected the description as it appeared in the agenda. He referred to page 105 of the Agenda Pack and affirmed although the first paragraph was unchanged the second paragraph should be amended from ‘replace plan 2317-11b with 1660-00-08’ to ‘replace plan 2317-11B with 16600-00-008c’. These changes had been reflected in the Officer’s presentation.

He affirmed that the application was for the substitution of a revised sectional plan contained within the bundle of drawings from the 2014 planning appeal decision, and not an application to retain the existing building as built. He noted that as this was a Section 73 application for permission, it was in effect an application for the issuing of a new planning permission. He advised members in their decision making to assess the merits of the contemporary building as described and consider its relationship with nearby buildings including Holly House, St Margaret’s Church, Newgate Green, and within the local context.

The ADP noted that plans for Arcady provided to the Planning Inspectorate in 2014 had shown the building at a significantly lower position than neighbouring Holly House and advised this formed a point of reference of the Planning Inspector when they closely looked at the impact of Arcady on neighbouring dwellings and on the street scene. The proposed plans now appeared to place Holly House at a lower position than Arcady. He highlighted that the original bungalow located on the site was of a simple and tradition design with an apex roof, and the current structure as proposed, and as constructed was with a flat roof. He commented that this arguably made the original bungalow and current contemporary property of a similar height, however this had been disputed by members of the local community. The change of the roof form had a significance of the scale and mass of the development. The ADP reminded Members that this was not an application to approve the building as built, rather to approve a series of plans which should have been considered by the Planning Inspector.

Whilst going through the officer’s presentation the ADP asked that members not consider the floor plan contained within the officers report supplied from the original sales brochure.

The ADP noted with regret that the revised plans had not had opportunity to be publically consulted. However considered that the amended drawing did not materially change the contents of the officer’s report or recommendation for refusal.

The ADP relayed the officers conclusion located on page 116 of the Agenda pack, in that it would have been inconceivable that the Planning Inspector would have formed the same conclusions as those reached on the basis of the approved drawing 2317-11b. As a consequence of the new proposals as presented, the delicate balance had been tipped and policy’s EN3, EN4, EN8 and HO8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy were no longer complied with. There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

The ADP introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He advised that moving forward in cognizance of the decision reached on the last application, which would effectively strike out any potential fall-back position in terms of substitution of the drawings and the issues relating to the Choice Place case law.

He stated that Officers were genuinely committed to exploring whether this case could be resolved without being subject to enforcement appeal, and noted the applicant’s attempts to deliver remediation which would enable the Council to step away from the enforcement process. He advised that Officers were not opposed to residential development on the site, and the principles of the appeal decision were noted which contended that a contemporary design or other sensitively designed development should not take place on this site. He affirmed that the Inspectors decision was clear in what may be acceptable on the site and within the context of Local Plan polices.

He asked that Members not consider the former bungalow floor plan as contained within the presentation, as this was misleading.

The ADP commented on the articulation of the development with its group block concept, and with its rise and fall of roofline that provided some articulated variance with respect of impact and in breaking up the scale and massing of the building.  He noted changes between the plans as approved and those as remediated, and that within the approved plans Holly House was shown in a higher position than Arcady in excess of nine meters.

The ADP considered the northern elevation of the remediated plans, and the critical role of Block Two, located to the left hand side of the vestibule which runs concurrently through Blocks Three and Four, which caused issues with the articulation. With reference to the southern elevation, the ADP identified changes to the balcony which would notably run the majority of the building and the impact that this would have on the building as set against the approved plans granted by the Planning Inspector. He noted that whilst attempts had been made to add articulation through staining Block Two in a darker colour, but that it was considered that the proposal was significantly different in terms of height and articulation of blocks as set against the expectation of the Planning Inspectors decision.  He noted that there would be improvements brought through the proposal when compared to the building as built, but that overall the proposal sat far apart from the expectation of delivering those carefully articulated interconnected contemporary development designs as granted by the Planning Inspector. The ADP highlighted to Members the 15 proposed elements in design remediation.

He advised Members consider the local context, the relationship of the building with the Cley Conservation Area, Holly House, St Margaret’s Church, Newgate Green, and the AONB.

The ADP concluded that the property as built had 48 breaches in design alone and was very different from that permitted, and although some changes were small, the cumulative effect was substantial. He considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

The PO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He noted the historic applications for a replacement sign which had been refused by officers, and identified that the sign currently in situ was unlawful, and was subject to an enforcement case.

He stated that the site was located close to an AONB, but not within the AONB, and that the proposed sign was a reduction of 1.4m of the current sign, and compared to the original sign was only half a metre taller and roughly half a metre wider including posts.

He informed Member’s that the relevant policies for consideration were Chapter 8 of the North Norfolk Design Guide which observes the proportionality of the size of the sign to its associated business, and policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy. Officers had determined that the current proposals satisfied both the relevant National and the Council’s own adopted policies.

Public Speakers:

John Simpson – Runton Parish Council

1. Local Member – Cllr S Bütikofer – considered the impact of the sign on the surrounding area to be significant, particularly with respect of the signs close proximity to the AONB.  She stated that the standalone nature of the sign and situation near the road made it more impactful and that it would dominate the landscape. The Local Member asked that policy EN3 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, be considered, and stressed the importance of protecting the undeveloped coast. She determined that the sign should be considered non-essential as the Dormy House Hotel could be clearly and easily be identified from the road, and the lack of a freestanding sign would not have a detrimental impact on the business. Cllr S Bütikofer expressed surprise that the Highways Authority had not commented on the application, and felt that there were many highway safety issues with the associated area which would be further exacerbated by the proposed sign. She considered it preferable that a smaller sign, comparable to that of the original, be introduced, if a sign was seen as necessary.

2. Cllr N Pearce considered the placement of the proposed sign to be dangerous in that it would obscure driver’s view of the A149, and that the application should be refused on highways safety grounds. He stood with the Local Member in the need to protect the undeveloped coast.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that no comments had been submitted by the Highways Authority and reflected had there been concerns about the impact of the sign on road safety, by that Authority, that this would have been reported. He affirmed that the proposal was complaint with policy EN4 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and questioned the application of policy EN3 which he understood to be designed for new developments as opposed to replacement signage.  Cllr A Brown proposed acceptance of the officers recommendation for approval.

4. Cllr P Heinrich stated his support for the Officer’s recommendation, and agreed with Cllr A Brown that the lack of representation from the Highways Authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

The MPM introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He advised that the application had been brought to the Committee in accordance with the Constitution as the application had been submitted by Cllr’s T Fitzpatrick and V Fitzpatrick. The MPM noted that the proposed application was a resubmission application from a scheme which had been previously refused by the Development Committee in 2020.

He noted that the description on page 151, paragraph two, was incorrect and that the proposed materials would consist of brick with a natural slate roof and aluminium metal windows.

He advised the most significant matter for consideration was the impact of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of the Walsingham Conservation Area. The proposal would be contained with the rear garden of a grade two listed building, 18 Bridewell Street, and would result in the loss of a historic wall to gain vehicle access. In accordance with Section 66 and 72 of the Listed Buildings Act, the Council had a statutory duty to given weight to the preservation of heritage assets. He noted that Officers considered there to be limited capacity within the site to provide proportionate mitigation planting to replace the five trees which would need to be removed and to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.

The MPM concluded that whilst the proposed plan was an improvement on those previously submitted, there were relatively modest public benefit when weighed against the harm to the heritage asset.

Public Speakers

Vincent Fitzpatrick – Supporting

1. The Chairman advised that the Local Member, Cllr T Fitzpatrick, was not present due to a conflict of interest.

2. Cllr N Pearce expressed his support of the application. He considered the proposed use of materials to be sympathetic with the local area and stated that there would be preservation of the historic setting through the retention of a large portion of the existing wall, and noted that the trees lost through the development were already in poor condition. He affirmed that there would be minimal material change to the area, with the site set away from public view.

3. Cllr A Brown noted that the materials used were vernacular with the area and that this was an overall improvement on the previous application, but expressed concern with relation to policy EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, and highlighted the Conservation and Designs Officers assessment on page 80 of the Agenda Pack. He affirmed that the proposed development would be surrounded by 4 listed buildings, in the centre of Little Walsingham which had significant historic and cultural heritage.

4. In response to questions from Cllr A Brown, the MPM advised that the trees which would be removed by consequence of the development would be replaced, but that the replaced trees would extensively contribute to a lack of natural light. Whilst off-site mitigation was possible, the MPM questioned where this would be and how it would be provided, and noted that there was no clear precedent for such process other than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

(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.        The ADP noted a decision regarding the Kelling Estate, planning application PF/20/1056 was anticipated by the end of April.

     v.        Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

   vi.        No questions.

  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.”

None