Agenda item

The ADP introduced the Officers report and recommendation for refusal. He advised that moving forward in cognizance of the decision reached on the last application, which would effectively strike out any potential fall-back position in terms of substitution of the drawings and the issues relating to the Choice Place case law.

He stated that Officers were genuinely committed to exploring whether this case could be resolved without being subject to enforcement appeal, and noted the applicant’s attempts to deliver remediation which would enable the Council to step away from the enforcement process. He advised that Officers were not opposed to residential development on the site, and the principles of the appeal decision were noted which contended that a contemporary design or other sensitively designed development should not take place on this site. He affirmed that the Inspectors decision was clear in what may be acceptable on the site and within the context of Local Plan polices.

He asked that Members not consider the former bungalow floor plan as contained within the presentation, as this was misleading.

The ADP commented on the articulation of the development with its group block concept, and with its rise and fall of roofline that provided some articulated variance with respect of impact and in breaking up the scale and massing of the building.  He noted changes between the plans as approved and those as remediated, and that within the approved plans Holly House was shown in a higher position than Arcady in excess of nine meters.

The ADP considered the northern elevation of the remediated plans, and the critical role of Block Two, located to the left hand side of the vestibule which runs concurrently through Blocks Three and Four, which caused issues with the articulation. With reference to the southern elevation, the ADP identified changes to the balcony which would notably run the majority of the building and the impact that this would have on the building as set against the approved plans granted by the Planning Inspector. He noted that whilst attempts had been made to add articulation through staining Block Two in a darker colour, but that it was considered that the proposal was significantly different in terms of height and articulation of blocks as set against the expectation of the Planning Inspectors decision.  He noted that there would be improvements brought through the proposal when compared to the building as built, but that overall the proposal sat far apart from the expectation of delivering those carefully articulated interconnected contemporary development designs as granted by the Planning Inspector. The ADP highlighted to Members the 15 proposed elements in design remediation.

He advised Members consider the local context, the relationship of the building with the Cley Conservation Area, Holly House, St Margaret’s Church, Newgate Green, and the AONB.

The ADP concluded that the property as built had 48 breaches in design alone and was very different from that permitted, and although some changes were small, the cumulative effect was substantial. He considered that making the building acceptable was not a matter of cosmetic changes and the proposal would need to go considerably further. He stated that Officers did not doubt the appellant’s good faith in suggesting the proposed changes, however Officers felt these were limited and did not go far enough to address concerns in particular with respect of issues of height and articulation. The combination of the removal of much of the articulation of both elevations and the roofline of the permitted building and its increase in overall height produced a dominant bulky effect. He stated that the remediated scheme failed to appropriately mitigate the detrimental effects of the development on its local context, and that the proposals were consequently recommended for refusal.

Public Speakers:

Richard Allen – Cley Parish Council

Jane Carter – Objecting

Adam Spiegal – Supporting

      i.        Local Member – Cllr V Holliday stated her support for the officer’s recommendation and reflected on the volume of objections from members of the public on the planning portal. She recited verbatim extracts from public representations which focused the dominating effect the building would have on Newgate Green, the ancient church of St Margaret’s, and the excessive height and massing of the building which was higher than the original bungalow. The cosmetic alternations were not considered to alter the height and impact of the building and its bulky appearance, and both the proposal and building as built were contrary to a large number of planning policies.

Cllr V Holliday left the meeting at 10.55am

     ii.        Cllr J Toye affirmed that he had attended the site, and whilst he was not against modern design, he considered it was an unsuitable location for such a development due to its scale and mass, and that it would have a detrimental impact on the grade one listed property of St Margaret’s Church and on Newgate Green. He expressed sympathy with the family living in the property but contented that this also impacted the whole community and the whole of North Norfolk. He considered that even with the adjustments made, the application was unacceptable and so proposed acceptance of the Officer’s recommendation for refusal.

    iii.        Cllr N Lloyd seconded the proposal. He welcomed the applicant’s attempts to mediate and minimise the harm of the development on the Cley Conservation Area but concluded that the scale and mass of the building remained a problem. He noted the large number of public objections as well as those objections raised by Planning Officers and Consultees. He stated that one of the Council’s primary duties was to protect the integrity of the landscape.

   iv.        Cllr N Pearce affirmed that the Council had a responsibility to protect its heritage, and that the gentile view of Newgate Green, which he considered typical for Norfolk, had been lost through this development as a consequence of its size. He concurred with the Officer’s assessment, and whilst he felt for the family, the deviation from approved planning permission was incomprehensible.

     v.        Cllr P Heinrich stated his support for the Officers recommendation and acknowledged that the building as built was nothing alike to the approved scheme. He stated it was not an appropriate building within its location, and that even with the the proposed improvements, the dwelling would still have an unacceptable impact. He affirmed that the proposal was contrary to policies EN1, EN2, EN4 & EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy, paragraphs 135, 174, 176, 199, 200 & 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021, and Section 66(1) of the of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. He expressed his great sympathy with the applicant, however commented that changes in design did not get away from the original problem.

   vi.        Cllr R Kershaw expressed his support for the Officer’s recommendation, and noted that had the property been built in accordance with approved plans at appeal, members would not be debating the application today. He considered the building to be harmful to its environment, and that its scale was unreflective of the original plan.

  vii.        Cllr L Withington stated her support for the Officers recommendation, but acknowledged the positive attempts made by the applicant through design to reduce the visual impact of the mass and scale of the building. She concluded that such changes did not go far enough, and that felt impact of the properties height remained. She expressed regret for horrendous situation incurred by both the family and community.

 viii.        Cllr A Varley noted that a clear attempt had been made by the applicant to work with the Planning Team to address concerns, but considered that this had been limited with minimal effects to the plans. He asked what would happen next should Members vote to refuse the application.

   ix.        The ADP advised that the decision made by Members must be on the matter before them, and that should the application be refused it could be appealed. He stated that an enforcement notice appeal had been scheduled for June, but that this was separate to Members material considerations. He noted that if that appeal was dismissed it would be subject to the enforcement process and would require removal of the building.  He stated that Members must make a decision on the materiality of the decision brought forward from contents of the Officers Report.

     x.        Cllr A Brown commented that the building as built was in breach of planning policies and that it would inflict significant harm to the environment with nothing to counter in way of public benefit. He considered Members responsibilities in upholding planning policies.

RESOLVED by 12 Votes for, and 1 abstention.

That planning application RV/21/2583 be REFUSED in accordance with the Officers recommendation.

At the discretion of the Chairman the meeting took a short break at 11.15am and resumed at 11.30am.