Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from the Chairman; Cllr P Grove-Jones, Cllr G Mancini-Boyle, Cllr M Taylor and Cllr P Fisher.

Cllrs V Fitzpatrick and J Toye were present as substitutes for Cllr G Mancini-Boyle and P Fisher respectively. 

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 14^th March, 31^st March and 14^th April 2022

The Minutes of the 14th March, 31st March and 14th April 2022 were approved as a correct record subject to an amendment raised by Cllr V Fitzpatrick to Minute 113 (31st March 2022) to read:

“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”

(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.

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 a non-pecuniary interest in Planning Application PF/21/2977 (Item 9) she considered herself to be pre-determined and would therefore refrain from voting on the application.

Cllr A Brown declared a non-pecuniary interest in Planning Application PF/20/1278 (Item 8) he considered himself pre-determined and would therefore refrain from voting on the application.

The DMTL introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised Members thatthe hedge, which had been removed, had been replaced by a close board timber fence, approximately 1.5 metres high. The hedge was understood to consist of Elaeagnus, a non-native flowering shrub, and in the supporting Planning Statement it was advised that around 50 per cent of the hedge was dead at the time it was removed which is thought to be around the middle of 2020 as a contravention was reported to the enforcement team at the beginning of June 2020.

The DMTL advised that the previous condition was considered to be poorly drafted and failed to meet all of the six tests as set out on page 52 of the Agenda Pack. The deficiencies in the condition set out in the report including; lack of precision,  no requirement for the hedge to maintained to a specific height, and no requirements for the hedge to be replaced if it died or was damaged.

He commented that there was no record how high the hedge was when the condition was imposed or the species that made up the hedge and that correspondence from 1993 suggested the hedge could have been Hawthorne, but that this was not definitive.

The DMTL stated that Officers considered that the condition did not meet tests 4, 5 and 6 of Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that planning conditions should only be used where they satisfy the following six tests, as such it is recommended that the application is approved.  In this case no conditions were considered by Officers to be necessary.

Public Speakers:

Deborah Hyslop – Chairman of Brinton Parish Council.

1. The Local Member – Cllr A Brown – spoke against the Officers recommendation. He commented that Condition 3 of the original 1993 consent stated that the removed hedge should not be ‘uprooted or otherwise destroyed without prior consent’, and stated that two years ago the applicant removed the hedge for reasons which were unclear. Cllr A Brown acknowledged that the subsequent submitted application was objected to by both the Parish Council and the Landscape Officer. He stated that there was a vicarious objection implied by the recent Conservation Area Appraisal due to the assessor recommending the retention of hedging instead of urbanising hard fencing to maintain the village character, and that it’s notable that the assessor makes no distinction between properties either in or adjacent to (as in this case) the conservation boundary. He noted the comments made by the Landscape Officer that the removal of the hedge would contravene Core Policy EN4 of the NNDC Core Strategy because it provides amenity value, continuous soft edges in the village street scene had been interrupted, as apparent in photos on pages 12 and 13 of the Agenda Pack. Cllr A Brown challenged the officers appraisal, detailed on pages 52 and 53 of the Agenda pack and stated that 1. It is an unfortunate reflection on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

The SPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. She informed Members that there was an amendment to the recommendation contained on Page 65 of the Agenda Pack, bullet point 4 which should now read “The use of the site shall be for the purposes of dog walking/exercise only and not by groups, clubs, training classes, dog shows or other similar related activity.”

She advised that Wiveton Parish Council had made four additional points which were not included in the report.

1.     That the proposal is contrary to the North Norfolk Landscape Character Assessment.  The site falls within RHA 1 Rolling Heath and Arable with one of the guidelines being to conserve the high scenic quality and natural beauty of the area and also to conserve and expand …. Including ecological connectivity and the proposal for dog walking is contrary to the spirit and purpose of these guidelines.

2.     The urban nature of the access standards required by Highways brings increasing suburbanisation to a rural landscape.

3.     Damage to the environment, loss of a feeding and breeding habitat for locally scarce/under threat wild birds, mammals, amphibians and insects.

4.     It is contrary to specific policies in the current North Norfolk Local Plan Policy EN 1, EN 2 and EN 9.

As such an additional condition was recommended:

On the cessation of the use of the field for the development, the storage and maintenance building shall be removed from the site and the land restored in accordance with a scheme that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The SPO stated that the main issues for consideration were the principle of the development, design and impact on the heritage asset (conservation area); landscape impact within the AONB; amenity and highways impact. She advised that In terms of the principle, the site was within the rural area where Policy SS 2 states that development will be limited to that which requires a rural location and is for one of a number of specified types of development which includes recreational use.  The development is acceptable in principle.

She summarised that the landscape impact arises largely from the proposed storage shed, whilst the site lies within the AONB and designated undeveloped coast valued for its wide, open and unsettled areas of land which provide a sense of remoteness, tranquillity and wilderness, in this instance the main physical changes to the site would be two buildings of a relatively modest size and scale which would be subservient to the important views of the landscape beyond and on balance are not considered to significantly detract from the landscape setting or have a significant adverse impact on the special qualities of the AONB.

Public Speakers

John Ramm –  Chairman Wiveton Parish Council

Nichola  Harrison – Objecting

Annette Rigby - Supporting

       i.          The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – spoke against the Officers Recommendation. She acknowledged that there had been support for the application, but considered that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Development management performance report to follow (Uploaded 10/05/22)

1. The MPM advised Members of changes to performance reporting at Committee. He affirmed that the changes should enable Members to have a fuller picture of the activity within the department.Members noted the contents of the Development Management Performance Report.

2. The PL informed Members that there were only 5 outstanding S106 agreements, down from 10.

(a)         New Appeals

(b)         Inquiries and Hearings – Progress

(c)         Written Representations Appeals – In Hand

(d)         Appeal Decisions

(e)         Court Cases – Progress and Results

1. New Appeals

No comment.

2. Inquiries and Hearings

The MPM confirmed that the Council were awaiting a conclusion for the Kelling application (PF/20/1056) and Ryburgh application (ENF/20/0231)

3. Written Representations and Appeals

No comment.

4. Appeal Decisions

No comment.

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.