Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices. View directions
Contact: Lauren Gregory Email: lauren.gregory@north-norfolk.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr A Fitch-Tillett and Cllr A Yiasimi.
|
|
SUBSTITUTES Minutes: Cllr J Rest was present as a substitute for Cllr A Fitch-Tillett.
|
|
MINUTES Due to a heavy schedule for the committee, the minutes for the meetings of 17th and 31st March will be presented to the meeting on 12th May for approval. Minutes:
It was noted that due to a heavy meeting schedule the minutes from the 17th and 31st March Development Committee meetings would be included for the upcoming Committee meeting scheduled for the 12th May.
|
|
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: None. |
|
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:
|
|
Minutes: The ADP introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He noted the late representations received and advised a synopsis of late comments had been circulated to Members via email prior to the meeting, this as a consequence of the ongoing consultation process which had only been concluded that day.
He affirmed the context of the site and the proposals relationship within the AONB which had influenced the landscape report. The view from Incleborough Hill of the AONB over the open countryside and the undeveloped coast area was considered to be of significant importance and critical in terms of weighting in the Officers recommendation.
The ADP noted that issues surrounding golf safety had been mitigated and that the proposal included realignment of the golf course which would aid to minimise the concerns of potential conflict between the users of the golf course and the occupants of the holiday lodges, as well as the inclusion of golf safety nets which would be implemented in the short term until tree planting had been established. As such, concerns raised by the Environmental Health team on the matter of safety of the proposal, were considered to be resolved.
He advised Members that the lodges had been designed in such a way to assimilate closely with the nearby dwellings located the northern edge of the site boundary, and with the local landscape. The proposed lodges would be timber cladded, with a flat roof, and had been subject to a landscape visual impact assessment, provided by the applicant. The ADP affirmed the longer term strategy to minimise the impact of the development and the aim to plant both Deciduous and Coniferous trees which would effectively screen the lodges and minimise the harm arising from the proposal. He reflected that there would be an interim period in the short and medium term where the landscaping would not be effective in assimilating the harm arising to the site for a period up to 15 years.
The ADP noted that there was no formal access for visitors or parking at the lodges, and that the visitors would be dependent on the use of golf buggies and pedestrian access routes. The latest proposal was determined to form a stronger linkage to the hotel than prior applications in which the lodges were proposed in a different location. Officers considered there to be no overriding issues in terms of Local Amenity or Highways concerns.
He commented that Officers had considered the impact of biodiversity and habitat and were satisfied that the measures for mitigation within the applicant’s ecological report had been satisfactory. He advised if Members were minded to approve the scheme that this would require a GI/Rams payment due to the proposals relationship with the local areas sensitive habitat and biodiversity.
The ADP stated that a key issue in considering the proposal was the matter of economic development, and reflected on the important role which the tourism economy has on the district and the importance of the provision of tourism accommodation. ... view the full minutes text for item 121. |
|
Item deferred from 31st March 2022 Committee Meeting. Minutes: The PO re-introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval, and noted that this item had been deferred from the Committee Meeting held 31st March. He advised that a submission had been received from the Highways Authority who noted that the sign was set back from the highway and would allow for visibility beneath, as such they would find it difficult to substantiate a reason to object to the proposal. The Highways Authority wrote that that the proposal would not affect current traffic patterns or the free flow of traffic.
|
|
NORTH WALSHAM - TPO 21 0985 - Land South of Norwich Road North Walsham PDF 280 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He affirmed the affected site subject to the proposed TPO and its context within the development land. He advised that the trees were of a good mix and range of age, though noted that there were some in a poorer condition, and considered that the specified land had developed into natural scrubland which was very important for biodiversity. He highlighted specific trees and zones of interest including a line of Poplar trees which ran across the site, and large evergreens which were key features of the landscape and could be viewed from both Norwich road and from neighbouring housing developments. The SLO affirmed the importance of young scrubland and referred to an example of the Knepp Estate located in South East England, and surveys which concluded that young scrubland was one of the most biodiverse areas of the country, aside from ancient woodland.
He affirmed the key areas for consideration was the protection of biodiversity, ensuring appropriate mitigation of the site in future, and the amenity value of the trees. The SLO stressed that the intention was not to protect every tree, rather it was to protect the amenity and biodiversity. He advised that if individual trees or zones of trees were removed from an area that he would want to see replacement. He advised Members that the TPO had been made as there was a genuine threat to the trees and to the amenity and biodiversity they offered.
The SLO confirmed receipt of a recent legal letter and clarified that in determining amenity he had conducted a Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders known as a ‘TEMPO Assessment’, and that this was a national system used by all Tree Officers when considering the application of a TPO. He affirmed that whilst not all of the trees had received full marks by consequence of their age range and visibility, the overall subject area did receive a high enough score determined relative to serve a TPO. He advised that the trees were considered to be of amenity value and noted the petition submitted from local residents. He noted that biodiversity, whilst a factor in serving a TPO, could not be the core consideration in serving a TPO and that this was the amenity of the trees. The SLO responded to comments made within the legal letter which questioned the legality of applying an ‘Area Order’, and affirmed that this was a temporary measure which he considered could be applied for a couple of years, and noted that the Council had other TPO’s dating back to the 1940’s.
The SLO advised that the TPO had not served to stop development, rather it was to protect amenity and biodiversity and expressed the Council were more than willing to work with the developer. The ADP supported the representation and guidance offered by the SLO, and stated that the site still had development potential and that the Council was not anti-development and still want to ... view the full minutes text for item 123. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The SLO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised that this TPO was brought following contact from a concerned individual, who had a qualification in tree surveying, that some significant trees had been felled in the field north of the Norwich Road in Fakenham, north of Little Ryburgh. He provided images to Members which affirmed that the trees were visible on the horizon from the road, and that they had significant amenity value.
He considered that the tree’s which had been served a TPO were considered to be of a good mix and age, and were of very high amenity. He considered that the key considerations was the matter of amenity and biodiversity.
Public Speakers: Mr Thomas Cook – Objecting
UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 13 votes for.
That TPO 21 0987 be APPROVED in accordance with the Officers recommendation.
|
|
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE PDF 333 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
|
|
(a) New Appeals (b) Inquiries and Hearings – Progress (c) Written Representations Appeals – In Hand (d) Appeal Decisions (e) Court Cases – Progress and Results Minutes: . New Appeals
ii. No questions.
iii. Inquiries and Hearings – Progress
iv. Cllr R Kershaw asked if a decision had been reached following the information hearing for Kelling, reference PF/21/1056. The ADP advised that the hearing had been concluded and that the delay in the decision was as consequence of the Appellant raising the issue of Nutrient Neutrality. He confirmed that the Council had responded to the planning inspector on the late representations on Nutrient Neutrality, and that the Appellant had been provided the chance to respond. He affirmed that the Planning Inspector would now be considering their decision which would be made within the next month or so.
v. Written Representations Appeals – In Hand
vi. No questions.
vii. Appeal Decisions
viii. None
|
|
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: None. |