Agenda item

The DMTL introduced the report to Members and detailed the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Prior planning permission had been granted for planning application PF/19/1682, however the current application proposed amendments to the approved scheme and was predominantly retrospective in nature given that some of the works had been commenced or completed. The application was considered to be contrary to Policy EN4 of the North Norfolk Core Strategy, Section 12 of the NPPF, and design principles set out in the North Norfolk Design Guide.

Public Speakers

Steve Brudle (supporting)

1. Cllr S Bütikofer – Local Member, noted this was a difficult application and a balance between supporting a local business whilst being equitable across the whole district. She expressed concerns over the protection of the undeveloped coast, specifically with regard to North Norfolk Core Policy EN3, para 3.3.9 She noted that the frontage of the property had altered significantly in recent years, and developed a higher profile on the coast road to the detriment of the gentle coastal landscape. She added it was important for new developments to compliment local surroundings whilst being safe and accessible for all, as established in the North Norfolk Core Strategy’s vision and aims. She considered there to be an inadequate provision of parking, and that customers at busy times would need to park on the road which would further lead to the detriment of the local area, and to highway safety. Cllr S Bütikofer supported officer’s comments that the extension built was contrary to North Norfolk Core Strategy policy EN4 and to the NPPF. Whilst sympathetic to the needs of businesses, and the tourist economy, she determined that no one business should be exempt from the rules. The Local Member asked the Committee to consider a middle way which would ensure remedial work was undertaken with respect of the application, accepting there were many aspects of the application which had been compliant. If the Applicant were unwilling to make such changes, Cllr S Bütikofer urged the Committee to consider the officers recommendation for refusal. 

2. Cllr R Kershaw stated his disappointment with respect to the part retrospective nature of the application, and whilst he was not satisfied with the development in its current form, he wished for an agreement to be reached with the Applicant which would remediate those aspects which were unacceptable. He commented that he was sympathetic to the significant financial difficulties of the hospitality industry as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic.

3. The ADP advised Members that the application being considered offered a total form of development which must be determined. Should the application be refused, enforcement action would commence for those aspects which would not otherwise be granted planning permission. As highlighted by the DMTL the matter of enforcement action would relate to the side extension, and may not extend to other works undertaken which may otherwise have been granted planning permission. The opportunity would be available for the Applicant to submit a further application, free of fee, for those elements that would have otherwise been granted planning permission. If this application was deferred, further discussion would take place with the Applicant regarding the side extension. The ADP affirmed that proportionate enforcement action would be undertaken, and enforcement notices would only be served if the enforcement negotiations had been entirely exhausted.

4. Cllr V Holliday stated the importance of protecting coastal areas, and that this application failed in doing that.

5. Cllr N Pearce supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal, and was assured by the ADP’s guidance that refusal of the application would not result in an immediate enforcement notice, opening an avenue for meaningful dialogue with the Applicant to ensure the matter was resolved.

6. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett endorsed the need to support and preserve the coast, and commented that the establishment had increased in size significantly in recent years. She considered the development to be visually unappealing and that it must be stopped. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

7. Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal and hoped that the enforcement team would engage in a proactive and constructive manor with the Applicant. He commented it was important to encourage hospitality businesses to recover from the pandemic, and the central role tourism plays in North Norfolk.

8. In response to comments made, the PL advised it was unlawful to carry out development without planning permission, and that it was a criminal offence to fail to comply with an enforcement notice.

9. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the officer’s recommendation and acknowledged the economic need of the area and of the business, and commented that the issue was with the side extension which was not compliant with granted planning permission.

10. Cllr A Yiasimi stated his support for the officer’s recommendation and sought assurances that everything would be done to assist the Applicant going forward in an expedient manor.

11. The ADP advised should the application be refused by Members, the Applicant would be open to appeal the decision, allowing the possibility for a conjoined appeal with an enforcement notice. He affirmed that the planning process was both fair and reasonable.

12. The Chairman permitted the Local Member to make an additional representation. Cllr S Bütikofer asked whether the application may be granted subject to conditions that issues on the development be rectified within the next 12 months.

13. The ADP commented that the enforcement process would be best applied in this circumstance, and it would stretch the bounds of a planning condition in law to ask the Applicant to take remedial action to impose a proposal which was previously approved.

14. The PL endorsed comments made by the ADP, and counselled Members that it would not be lawful to require works to be undertaken, and that this was the purpose of the enforcement process. A planning application is one to permit development, not to require it, imposing a condition to require development would be unlawful.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED.

That planning application PF/21/2593 be refused in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.