Agenda item

The ADP introduced the Officer’s report and recommendation for refusal. He noted that a revised plan had been received during the week, and corrected the description as it appeared in the agenda. He referred to page 105 of the Agenda Pack and affirmed although the first paragraph was unchanged the second paragraph should be amended from ‘replace plan 2317-11b with 1660-00-08’ to ‘replace plan 2317-11B with 16600-00-008c’. These changes had been reflected in the Officer’s presentation.

He affirmed that the application was for the substitution of a revised sectional plan contained within the bundle of drawings from the 2014 planning appeal decision, and not an application to retain the existing building as built. He noted that as this was a Section 73 application for permission, it was in effect an application for the issuing of a new planning permission. He advised members in their decision making to assess the merits of the contemporary building as described and consider its relationship with nearby buildings including Holly House, St Margaret’s Church, Newgate Green, and within the local context.

The ADP noted that plans for Arcady provided to the Planning Inspectorate in 2014 had shown the building at a significantly lower position than neighbouring Holly House and advised this formed a point of reference of the Planning Inspector when they closely looked at the impact of Arcady on neighbouring dwellings and on the street scene. The proposed plans now appeared to place Holly House at a lower position than Arcady. He highlighted that the original bungalow located on the site was of a simple and tradition design with an apex roof, and the current structure as proposed, and as constructed was with a flat roof. He commented that this arguably made the original bungalow and current contemporary property of a similar height, however this had been disputed by members of the local community. The change of the roof form had a significance of the scale and mass of the development. The ADP reminded Members that this was not an application to approve the building as built, rather to approve a series of plans which should have been considered by the Planning Inspector.

Whilst going through the officer’s presentation the ADP asked that members not consider the floor plan contained within the officers report supplied from the original sales brochure.

The ADP noted with regret that the revised plans had not had opportunity to be publically consulted. However considered that the amended drawing did not materially change the contents of the officer’s report or recommendation for refusal.

The ADP relayed the officers conclusion located on page 116 of the Agenda pack, in that it would have been inconceivable that the Planning Inspector would have formed the same conclusions as those reached on the basis of the approved drawing 2317-11b. As a consequence of the new proposals as presented, the delicate balance had been tipped and policy’s EN3, EN4, EN8 and HO8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy were no longer complied with. There were considered to be no overriding public benefit identified to offset the harm to the heritage assets of the Norfolk Coast AONB, as such significant weight must be afforded to the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 which dictates that the proposal should be refused in accordance with Development Plan provisions.

Public Speakers:

Richard Allen – Cley Parish Council

Jane Carter – Objecting

1. Local Member- Cllr V Holliday stated her support of the Officer’s recommendation. She established that Arcady is situated in an area of Cley which was of historic significance overlooking Newgate green; the site of an original medieval harbour, and St Margaret’s Church; a grade one listed building. She expressed her frustrations that revised plans, supplied by the applicant, had only been received 3 days prior to the meeting and that they had been unable to be publically consulted, however considered that there was no material differences between the latest plans and those which had been publically consulted. She reflected on her position as Local Member to represent the balance of opinion within the community, and noted the views of members of the public on the planning portal, all of which had been objections. She highlighted specific representations made by members of the public verbatim, which focused on the harm caused by the development to the nearby heritage assets, in particular St Margaret’s Church, and considered Arcady to be disproportionate in its scale, massing and design, having a detrimental effect on the Cley Conservation Area and the wider AONB. In addition, that the development as built was considered to be entirely different from that which had been granted planning permission, and was clearly in breach of permission granted at appeal. She noted comments that the contention that the revised proposal would not be much larger than the original bungalow it replaces was untrue.

Cllr V Holliday left the meeting at 10.03am

2. Cllr J Toye asked for clarity in the changes in the plans, if it were in the scale, position, or both. The ADP noted the lack of survey drawings of the original bungalow, which had hindered the assessment. He reflected on representations made my local residents, who were familiar with the site, and who considered the bungalow inaccurately represented even in its most recent designs. He advised that the Councils Surveyors had been unable to consider the most recent plans, as these had been received only 3 days prior. The ADP advised that the inspector’s decision letter made clear the expectation of the developments relationship with Holly House, in being lower than Holly House, and that positon of Arcady was now considered to be significantly higher than that permitted by the Planning Inspector. He referred to the Officers Report and findings that the height, scale and mass of the building were considered to have a negative impact which were not offset by any wider public benefits. He advised the importance of the sectional drawings in Members decision making.

3. On receipt of clarification from the ADP, Cllr J Toye proposed acceptance of the officer’s report and recommendation for refusal.

4. Cllr A Brown seconded the proposal and considered the importance of the protection of Cley Conservation Area, and that proposal would neither protect nor enhance the historic setting, as noted in the Conservation Area Appraisal. He reflected on a recent decision, referred to within the Officers Report, of an appeal case of Choice Place Properties which made clear the situation when there was significant doubt caused by a plan that would have considerably affected the decision made by the Planning Inspector. He concluded that the application should therefore be considered with a fresh set of eyes. Cllr A Brown expressed his disappointment that a revised plan had been received at late notice, but accepted that the revised plans did not materially change determination of the proposal.

5. In response to questions from Cllr N Pearce regarding the length of time issues surrounding the development had been ongoing, the ADP advised that whilst not material the decision making of Members, the first plans were received in 2012, and that this had been a long standing issue, in which the Council had served enforcement notices on and would looking towards an enforcement appeal. He noted that the current applicant was not the original appellant, and that they had purchased the site subsequently and had inherited the drawings.

6. Cllr N Pearce stated his support for the Officers recommendation and reflected that the approved plans had not been followed. He noted that the application was contrary to policies HO8, EN1, EN2 and EN8 of the adopted North Norfolk Core Strategy as well as the NPPF.

7. Cllr P Heinrich stated that he had no issue with modern architectural design provided that the building was sympathetic with its local environment through its use of materials which would pay homage to the local vernacular. He noted that the current building differs significantly from the approved plans, and the comprehensive information and findings supplied in the Officers Report which detailed the detrimental intrusive visual effect of the mass and bulk of Arcady on the historic setting. He stated that the built relationship of Arcady with Holly House, as compared to approved designs, would have almost certainly impacted on the Inspectors decision. Cllr P Heinrich referred to Pages 114 and 115 of the Officers report and commented on the divergence of the proposal from planning policy.

8. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle expressed his support of the Officers Recommendation and stated that this application failed to comply with policy HO8 of the NNDC Core Strategy and was grossly out of proportion with the area. 

RESOLVED by 12 Votes for, and 1 abstention.

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