Items
No. |
Item |
21. |
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from Cllr
A Fitch Tillett, Cllr A Varley and Cllr
M Taylor.
|
22. |
SUBSTITUTES
Minutes:
Cllr J Toye was present as a substitute for
Cllr A Varley.
|
23. |
MINUTES PDF 322 KB
To approve as a correct record the Minutes of
a meeting of the Committee held on Thursday, 7th July
2022.
Minutes:
The minutes of the Development Committee
Meeting held Thursday 7th July 2022 were approved as a correct
record.
|
24. |
ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
(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.
Minutes:
|
25. |
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 721 KB
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.
Minutes:
Cllr
V Holliday declared a non-pecuniary interest for agenda item 8,
Planning Application reference PF/21/3073, which was located within
her ward, she considered herself to be pre-disposed but not
pre-determined.
|
26. |
BLAKENEY - PF/21/3073 Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and erection of two dwellings and garages: 43 New Road, Blakeney PDF 282 KB
Minutes:
The
SPO introduced the Officers Report and recommendation for approval
subject to conditions. She noted a correction was required to p.18
of the report which should read that the Norfolk Coast Partnership
made no objection to the proposal, but raised concerns with regards
of light spill.
The
SPO affirmed that Officers considered the principle of development
to be acceptable and presented to Members areal images, design
plans, context of the site, and its relationship with the AONB. She
advised that the proposed dwelling on plot 1 would sit slightly
forward of neighbouring property 45, with the second bungalow set
further back from the road than neighbouring property 41b. The
character of new road was considered to be generally modern, single
storey or one and a half storey dwellings of a variety of scale and
massing’s, generally set back from the road. The SPO
highlighted that there was a precedent for infill development
within the area.
The
SPO advised that the key issues were detailed on pages 21-23 of the
Officers report and re-affirmed the Officers recommendation for
approval.
Public Speakers
Mr A
Donohoe – Blakeney Parish
Council
Ms
Joyce Sutcliffe – Supporting
- The
Local Member – Cllr V Holliday expressed her support for the
concerns raised by the Parish Council and residents that not enough
consideration had been given to the Blakeney Conservation Area
appraisal and the North Norfolk design guide. Additionally that, if
granted, the development would set a precedent for replacement
dwellings on New Road. The Local Member agreed with
neighbours’ concerns regarding the issue of overlooking on
the northern elevation, which she considered could have been
remediated with the removal of the window on the north elevation of
plot 1, or through the use of opaque glass. She affirmed that
community feedback was that the dwelling on plot 2 would have an
overbearing and overshadowing effect on neighbouring properties,
noting that the ridge height of plot 2 was only 21cm less than the
one and a half storey gable of plot 1. Further, plot 2 was
considered to overlook several neighbouring properties with no
visual break between the properties by way of landscaping. Cllr V
Holliday considered that the footprint of both plots exceeded the
expectation set out within the design guide, being larger than that
of neighbouring properties, adding that plot 2 had not been subject
to a Conservation Assessment. With reference to the deign guide,
the Local Member reiterated that the use of timber remains the
preferred option on visual and sustainability grounds, and noted
the proposed use of aluminium windows within the planning
application. The use of windows had formed part of Norfolk Coast
Partnerships concerns, which were considered to threaten the dark
skies, a key feature of the AONB. Mitigation for black out blinds
had been utilised on the eastern elevation, but not the west or
northern elevations. The Local Member asked that this be clarified
to address community concerns, and surmised that the proposal
failed to comply with NNDC policies EN1, EN2 ...
view the full minutes text for item 26.
|
27. |
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE PDF 150 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
- The
MPM introduced the Development Management Performance Update Report
and advised of an upwards trajectory for the department, reflecting
on the very positive statistics with regards to Officer Workload.
He thanked the Principle Lawyer for her work with S106 agreements
and invited questions and comments from Members.
- Cllr J Toye thanked Officers for managing performance through
difficult times, citing issues with Nutrient
Neutrality.
|
28. |
APPEALS SECTION PDF 376 KB
(a) New
Appeals
(b)
Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
(c) Written
Representations Appeals – In Hand
(d) Appeal
Decisions
(e) Court
Cases – Progress and Results
Minutes:
- The
MPM introduced the Appeals report and provided an update on the
Arcady hearing (ENF/18/0164) which was expected to be heard in
January 2023, such delays were brought as a result of late
information received by the Appellant.
- Cllr R Kershaw considered such actions as delay tactics, and
enquired if this matter had been taken with the Planning Inspectors
to ensure NNDC did not run out of time. The MPM advised that this
matter needed to be considered carefully and advised that the
Authority would engaged with the Planning Inspector on this matter,
adding that a resolution would be for everyone benefit.
- Cllr N Pearce reflected that this had been a running issue, and
expressed his concerns for the delay tactics used by the Appellant.
He stated he was perplexed and disappointed with the continued
delays as result of late documentation, and asked if this may occur
again. The MPM commented that whilst he did not know the thought
process of the Appellant, he could not envisage a reason in which
additional documentation would be required. He contended that this
was a matter for the Planning Inspector to manage, and NNDC would
convey their wish that informal hearing be heard at the earliest
opportunity.
- Cllr V Holliday acknowledged the concerns of the local community
caused by the delay, conjoining of the appeals, and complexity of
the case, and contended that strong pushback was required. She
added that community feedback had also been received regarding
Blakeney, the Pastures, Planning Application PF/21/0390, and the
way in which it had come through. The MPM noted issues with
PF/21/0390 and affirmed this was a matter for the Planning
Inspector to decide whether to grant appeal.
- Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his frustration that valuable
Officers time was spent on appeals, some of which he considered to
be wasteful. The MPM stated that NNDC
had an exceptional record at appeal and with decision making. He
remarked that other authorities were also affected with time delays
by consequence of the appeals process, but that he didn’t
wish to see a situation in which appeals were dropped as this may
put the Authority at risk. He reflected that future performance
reports could include the data capture for the time undertaken by
Officers with appeals, noting that this would likely be a
considerable amount of time spent.
- The
Chairman asked what the timeframe for appeals was and whether there
was a maximum permitted time. The MPM advised that under the
‘Planning guarantee’ 6 months was afforded to the
Authority to make there decision, and 6
months for the Planning Inspector, however, such timeframe was not
often met by the Planning Inspecting Service.
- Cllr J Toye asked if the Authority had made representations when
it considered that the Planning Inspector had taken too long. The
MPM advised that yes, the Authority does have a dialogue with the
Planning Inspector and referenced the Kelling Application (PF/20/1056) on p.32 of the
Agenda Pack, and stated that NNDC had politely asked the Planning
... view
the full minutes text for item 28.
|
29. |
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
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.”
Minutes:
|