None.

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 9 January 2020.

The minutes of a meeting of the Committee held on 9 January 2020 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.

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.

The Chairman stated that all Members had received several emails from members of the public regarding items on this agenda.

Refusal.

Public Speakers

Richard Carter (objecting)

John Mackenzie (supporting)

The Major Projects Manager presented the report, which addressed the matters relating to education, highways and climate emergency that had been raised at the meeting of the Committee on 10 October 2019 when the application had been deferred.  He stated that the Committee needed to base its decision on the current report and the report that had been considered at the October meeting.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site, including the proposed access points and an indicative layout plan.

The Major Projects Manager updated the Committee in respect of correspondence that had been received since the report was written.  A representation had been received from Mr Carter expressing concerns relating to risk of non-delivery of the school, management of the land subject to the option agreement and viability concerns.  The Major Projects Manager referred to a letter from Mr Carter dated 20 January relating to Victory Housing and clarified that Victory Housing’s support for the application was based solely on the provision of affordable housing.  Two representations had been received from residents of Beresford Road and Thompson Avenue objecting on grounds related to road width, impact of traffic, loss of green field, impact on wildlife, lack of need for additional housing and the need to retain a firebreak between dwellings and Holt Country Park.  A letter of objection had been received from a resident of Park Barn raising concerns about the delivery of the school and impact on the surrounding area. 

The Major Projects Manager referred to an email from the applicant that had been sent to Members, which addressed matters relating to the school and highways and included a letter of support from the Vice-Chairman of the Governors of Holt Primary School.

The Major Projects Manager clarified that the school did not form part of the outline proposal and the application description had been amended to make this clear.  He stated that the changes were minor and did not require reconsultation.

The Major Projects Manager recommended delegated approval of this application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation, as set out in the report.

Councillor D Baker, a local Member, considered there had been little change since the application had previously been considered.  Local people would have to live with the consequences of a bad decision if this were approved. The location was inappropriate and it was contrary to the Council’s policies to build in the countryside, which was even more important given the climate emergency.  He stated that school numbers were falling, despite a large increase in the number of dwellings in Holt, and there was spare capacity at the existing primary school and surrounding village schools.  There was also no funding commitment to build the new school.  He considered that the access was unsuitable and problems would not be mitigated by a parking and travel plan.  He appreciated the need for affordable homes, but the Council had demonstrated a five-year housing land supply  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Conditional approval.

Public Speaker

Jerry Stone (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer stated that the Human Rights section of the report should refer to refusal and not approval.  She presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including a plan of the visibility splay which would be required but was not part of this proposal.  She advised the Committee that a long term family connection was not a material planning consideration.  She recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The NCC Highways Officer explained how visibility splays were assessed.  He stated that in this case the visibility fell far short of the requirements for roads of this nature and he maintained his recommendation for refusal.

Councillor R Kershaw, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council fully supported the application, which would allow someone to move back into the village who could not otherwise afford to do so, and would remove an eyesore.  The applicant was giving up a right of way with no visibility and the proposed splay would be safer.  Although the Highway Authority would not allow the erection of a mirror on highway land, the land on the opposite side of the road was owned by the applicant and a mirror would face north west and would not reflect sunlight.  He considered that the applicant had done all he could to fulfil planning and highway requirements.

Councillor P Fisher referred to the site inspection and stated that he could clearly see another Member’s car whilst it was still within the site.  He asked if more consideration could be given to the new Local Plan which would identify Binham as a Growth Village.

The Head of Planning stated that the emerging Local Plan was in its very early stages and it could not be given significant weight.  The current Local Plan policies had to be applied to the application.  Officers did not share the Local Member’s view with regard to the benefits of the proposal.  The Council had a five year land supply and the site was not considered to be an otherwise sustainable location which could be considered for infill development.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett stated that she had driven onto the site and did not have a problem with the access.  She referred to an application at Alby which had been approved against highway advice a few years previously, although Members had to take personal responsibility if there was a problem as a result of the decision.  She also referred to the NPPF and asked what weight could be given to it in respect of rural villages.

The Head of Planning stated that national planning advice required sites to be assessed against sustainability criteria.  There would be a small amount of economic benefit from the building of the dwelling and bringing new residents into the village, but this was limited.  As the Council had a five year land supply it would add little if anything to the land supply issue.  There were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Deferral for site inspection.

Public Speakers

Mo Anderson-Dungar (Colby with Banningham Parish Council)

Ann Bartaby (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report.  He displayed plans and photographs of the site, including plans which had been approved under Class Q and photographs of the building prior to development and as currently existing.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Interim Development Manager explained that the extent of rebuilding which was required meant that the proposal was not a conversion of an agricultural building which would comply with Class Q.  The proposal was considered to be new build in an unsustainable location.  Other powers were available to deal with untidy sites.

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, considered Aim 1 of the Core Strategy was relevant given the personal circumstances related to service life and family members who were disabled or elderly. In addition, the proposal would meet Aim 3 of the Core Strategy to protect and enhance the environment and to protect, restore and enhance the landscape and biodiversity.  He referred to the local support for this proposal.  He supported the plans to include natural hedging, encourage wildlife and use renewable resources.  The dwelling would replace a derelict shed, and a family home would be a welcome addition.  He explained that technical difficulties and miscommunication had led to the contraventions and the applicants had stopped building as soon as they had become aware of it.  The dwelling would be built on the footprint of the previously approved application and would include the remains of the existing building.  He stated that policy EN8 did not specify how much of the original building could be replaced.  He considered that this application should be approved.

Councillor A Yiasimi considered that the unauthorised work had not been done on purpose.

Councillor A Brown asked if the Authority had expressed sympathy for the applicant having been given incorrect advice.  It was necessary to apply planning policy and having listened to the circumstances he understood the need for the project to proceed.  However, he found it difficult to understand to what extent the development carried out to date was conversion and new build and what percentages constituted conversion and new build.  He suggested that a site inspection may clarify the matter.

The Head of Planning explained that officers had met with the applicant and her representatives and had endeavoured at length to try to find a solution.  On the basis of the advice given, the applicant had chosen to proceed with the solution which was before the Committee.  Officers had expressed sympathy and had endeavoured to bring forward the applicant’s proposals to Committee in a timely manner.

Councillor A Brown proposed a site inspection.

Councillor N Pearce asked if the applicant could continue to build on the original foundations and asked for clarification with regard to conversion if foundations were retained.

The Head of Planning explained that case law was divided on this issue.  He was unable to give a percentage of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

Refusal.

Public Speaker

Frank Lees (supporting)

The Senior Planning Officer presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including a plan that had been submitted following the previous meeting showing the building in context with the street scene.  He also displayed two additional photographs at the request of the applicant, showing developments along Heath Lane, and photographs taken from the adjacent property showing the site in context.  He recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified the flood zones and stated that the Environment Agency had objected to the application.  The Environment Agency had acknowledged that the site was likely to be designated as Flood Zone 1, but the maps had not been officially updated and the application had to be determined as existing.

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks, the local Member, stated that the Parish Council supported this application.  The street view was extremely varied, with the only exception being the garages.  The applicant wanted to build a new dwelling for his retirement, which would release a 4-bed home to accommodate a family.  She referred to the flood zone review.

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett referred to the lack of the required information with regard to flooding and expressed concern that water would flow through the site in a rain event and into the River Mun.  She proposed refusal of this application as recommended by the Head of Planning.

Councillor A Varley considered that Heath Lane was a charming, idyllic setting and the existing garages did not belong to the setting.  He considered that the design of the proposed dwelling was ambitious and would enhance the area.  However, he would hesitate to approve the application until there was certainty with regard to the flood zones.

Councillor N Pearce supported the views expressed by Councillor Mrs Fitch-Tillett.  He also considered that the proposed design was not in keeping with Heath Lane as it was cramped, did not match the heritage of the site and was not conducive to good planning.  Whilst he had sympathy with the applicant, he seconded the proposal to refuse this application.

Councillor A Yiasimi considered that the proposed dwelling would enhance the area and the existing garages were an eyesore.  Although the new flood zone designation had not been officially confirmed, the Officers had the information in writing and he therefore supported the application.

Councillor R Kershaw noted from the photographs of other infill dwellings on Heath Lane that they were lower than the surrounding buildings and within a larger space.  The proposed dwelling appeared to be higher than the adjacent dwellings, although the report stated that it was not.  However, he considered that the site would be cramped.

Councillor A Brown supported Councillor Kershaw’s views and noted that 3 Heath Lane would have a gable immediately contiguous with its boundary and he considered that light to the existing gable window would be severely compromised.

Councillor Mrs W Fredericks asked if it would be appropriate to defer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

Refusal.

Public Speakers

Maggie Bolan (Sustead Parish Council)

Andrew Temperton (supporting)

The Interim Development Manager presented the report and displayed plans and photographs of the site, including elevations to the street.  He reported that a bus service ran between Cromer and North Walsham via Sustead but this was unlikely to be an attractive or convenient option for the occupiers of the new dwellings as there were only two buses in each direction per day at mid-morning and mid-afternoon.  A letter had been sent to all Committee Members by the occupier of Wendy Cottage, reiterating points which had previously been made, and an email from Mr Temperton was also forwarded to the Committee.

The Interim Development Manager recommended refusal of this application as set out in the report.

Following Mr Temperton’s supporting comments, the Head of Planning explained that Officers had met with the applicant, who had confirmed that he would be submitting an application for residential development.  However it was not his recollection that Officers had encouraged the proposal.

Councillor J Toye, the local Member, stated that he had not called in the application and would have been happy to accept the recommendation for refusal.  He referred to the history of the site, discussions he had had with the Parish Council and local residents and correspondence he had received from the applicant.  He considered there were good planning reasons to refuse the application.  He stated that as a local Member he supported the permanent residents of the village.  The only support for the application had come from Mr Temperton and another property owner who visited infrequently.  The Parish Council had unanimously objected to this application and had consulted residents who had not previously commented to gauge the opinion of the whole village.  He considered that the site would be greatly improved by removing the remaining parts of the former scaffold yard as they were unsightly and there were problems with vermin. 

Councillor C Cushing referred to comparisons the applicant had drawn with the application at Binham that had been considered earlier in the meeting.  He considered that there was nothing in this application that would benefit the village.  He proposed refusal as recommended by the Head of Planning. 

Councillor Mrs A Fitch-Tillett seconded the proposal.  She considered that this application bore no comparison to the Binham application.  The site was totally unsustainable and there was no need for additional housing in this location.

Councillor N Pearce stated that Sustead was an unsustainable village, with no connection to Cromer.  He considered that the proposal would not enhance the village and was not supported by the community. 

The Interim Development Manager clarified that one letter of support had been received from a local resident and the other had been sent by a person who could be a relative of the application.  It had not been signed by him.

RESOLVED unanimously

That this application be refused in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning.

None in addition to PF/19/1974 above.

(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 13(a) of the agenda.

(b)      INQUIRIES AND HEARINGS - PROGRESS

The Committee noted item 13(b) of the agenda.

(c)      WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS APPEALS - IN HAND       

The Committee noted item 13(c) of the agenda.

(d)      APPEAL DECISIONS

The Committee noted item 13(d) of the agenda.

The Interim Development Manager reported that the appeals in respect of wind turbine proposals at Bodham and Selbrigg had been allowed.  The appeal in respect of Letheringsett with Glandford PF/18/1980 had been dismissed.

The Interim Development Manager also reported that appeals in respect of a farm access at Ridlington and a prior approval application at Southcroft, North Walsham, which had not been included in the report, had been dismissed.

The Major Projects Manager informed the Committee that Counsel’s advice was being sought in respect of the wind turbine decisions and the Committee would be updated in due course.

Members expressed disappointment at the outcome of the wind turbine appeals.  The Head of Planning stated that a summary of the decisions would be submitted to the next meeting.

(e)      COURT CASES – PROGRESS AND RESULTS       

The Committee noted item 13(e) of the agenda.