Agenda item

Officer Report:

The SCDO introduced the Glaven Valley Appraisal, which sought approval to adopt to the Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans for Brinton, Edgefield, Hunworth, Sharrington, Stody and Thornage. These documents had been produced in collaboration with the Council’s appointed consultants, Purcells. The Officer stated due to the early designation dates for the Conservation Areas, these settlements had been prioritised as an updated, robust definition and understanding was needed which would aid in informing and assisting future decision making.  She advised that the appraisals followed the successful adoption of other settlements further up the Glaven Valley including Holt, Blakeney and Cley-next-the-sea.

The SCDO affirmed the definition of Conservation Area as defined in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as ‘an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which is desirable to preserve or enhance’, and the responsibility of the Local Authority to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of Conservation Areas. The appraisal documents were considered to conform to current Historic England Guidance.

The SCDO advised that a Public Consultation had been undertaken from 22^nd November 2021 – 21^st January 2022 resulting in 32 responses received from members of the public, Parish Councils and interested parties. The Public Consultation had been extended to accommodate the Christmas period and ongoing issues with COVID-19, and had been subject to a press release, social media campaign, poster distribution, local exhibitions and Public Meetings held on 15^th December 2021 in Hunworth and Sharrington. 

Individual Conservation Area Appraisals

With respect of the Brinton Appraisal, the SCDO outlined the proposed changes to the Brinton Boundary which would exclude the Meadow between Brinton and Thornage from the Conservation Area. This was done to allow a clearer definition of the special interest and facilitate the future management of each. Within Brinton, 2 areas were considered for local listing due to making a positive contribution to the area.

The SCDO commented that the Edgefield Boundary review was subject to areas of inclusions and exclusions, some of which were modern buildings which were not thought to contribute to the special interest. The addition included a farmstead to the south, as well as the Church, which was a listed building. She noted that there were proposed additions to the Edgefield local listing, and highlighted a semi-detached pair of houses which were considered to be worth recognising.

The SCDO stated that Hunworth was also subject to a mixture of inclusions and exclusions from the boundary review, and that Officers considered the Mill would be better aligned with the Glaven Valley Conservation area given its industrial significance. She noted that there were no buildings proposed for Local Listing.

With regards to Sharrington, the SCDO advised that the Boundary review was considered to tidy the affected boundaries and would include the addition of some parcels of land to the north which would better rationalise the area. The SCDO highlighted some of the proposed properties which would be included within the Sharrington Local Listing including pairs of estate workers cottages. The Chairman expressed his concern and the concern of residents, that the proposed Sharrington boundary would dissect the village pond located to the east of Ash Yard. The SCDO commented that this was an oversight and could be amended.

The SCDO commented that Stody Village was unique being the only village within the Glaven Valley which did not have its own designated Conservation Area. She advised that Officers recommended Stody be given its own designated Conservation Area, which would encompass the historic village core around the Church, buildings along Brinton Road and the important historic farm buildings to the North West. The Village Hall was the only building recommended for Local Listing.

The SCDO spoke to the proposed changes to the Thornage Boundary, and noted that the largest change had been detailed earlier in the Brinton appraisal.

The SCDO summarised the next steps, and the reaffirmed Officers recommendations.

Member Debate

1. The Chairman thanked the Conservation and Design Team for their report and affirmed that the Conservation Appraisal was necessary as the Council had a statutory responsibility under the Planning (Listed Buildings) Act 1990 to regularly review and upgrade Conservation Areas. He considered the costs associated with the appraisal included engagement with other villages, not simply the 6 listed, and covered the Glaven Valley Rural Area review; to follow later in the year. The Chairman asked how the planning process differentiates with local and national listed buildings.

The CDTL advised that nationally listed buildings were subject to range of controls externally and internally and that they would require listed building consent for a complete demolition. Local Listed Buildings did not have the same controls and were a reflection of buildings which were considered to be of a higher quality than the average building, and which provided a positive contribution to the local setting, but not of such significant architectural or historic interest to justify national listing. He advised for planning purposes, within the NPPF, the Council were obliged to give weight to reduce the harmful impact an application may have to a listed building or Conservation Area. Planning permission would be required for the demolition of an unlisted building within a conservation area as it would constitute relevant demolition.

2. The Chairman expressed his concern that there had not been a generous amount of time afforded to Members over the Easter Holidays to consider the appraisals and that the Planning Portfolio holder was not in attendance as it was the Easter Holidays. He reflected that it was a substantial document containing some inconsistencies, including, as an example, regulations for managing trees within the Conservation Area which didn’t stipulate height. He considered that there were likely more which could be missed due to a lack of time provided to Members to proofread. He stated that it was important to ensure the appraisals were right and he was nervous to recommend the appraisals to Cabinet at this stage.

3. The CDTL responded to the Chairman’s comments that there were inconsistencies with the current boundary’s, advising Officers were conscious to ensure that the villages were dealt with first before the wider landscape designation. The CDTL considered that these were two separate matters which required specific focus and separate consultation periods. He advised that if Members felt comfortable to provide Officers the Authority to make minor, modest, textural changes, including inconsistencies surrounding trees if needed, these could be arranged which would not materially change the substance of the appraisals.

The SCDO advised that amendments to textural inconsistences could be made to the report consistently, rather than aspects only appearing in one appraisal, noting this had been an oversight which could be easily rectified.

4. The Chairman asked that a glossary be added to the revised document for ease of use. The SCDO confirmed this could be arranged. 

5. Cllr N Dixon enquired whether the submission made by Mr Sloman had been addressed by the Local Member. The Chairman affirmed he was the Local Member and that there had been discussion within the Parish Council, who Mr Sloman had also engaged with also, about the points raised. He advised the Member of the Public had not engaged with himself directly prior to the meeting.

6. Cllr N Pearce shared concerns expressed by the Chairman, and considered that the documents would have a significant impact over an extended period of time. He stated it was important to ensure the documents were right and considered it better to defer decision making till clarification was sought.

7. Cllr R Kershaw agreed that there had not been enough time afforded to give due attention to the documents.

8. The PPM noted that specific inconsistences had not been detailed other than concerns relating to tree measurements, which he considered to be trivial and could be resolved under delegated authority. He contended that the only matter raised by Members which would materially change the document was with regard to the inclusion or exclusion of a pond at Sharrington, which Officers had agreed to include following omission. The PPM did not consider that deferral was necessary but acknowledged that these were weighty documents.

9. Cllr P Grove-Jones supported Members comments and stated it had been impossible to read and assimilate a 700 page document in limited time due to the Easter Holidays. She commented it was a detailed report, excellently presented, but as she had not had the time to read the whole document she felt uneasy to recommend its approval to Cabinet.

10. The Chairman acknowledged that some of the inconsistencies were minor which he had picked up when reading through the document, but considered that given the lack of time afforded to Members to study the document, not all inconsistences may have been picked up. He considered more time would allow for the document to be given the proper attention required of it, and the justice it deserves.

11. The CDTL commented that this was not the first time that these documents had been brought to the Working Party, noting that, to a large extent, the document had been approved by Members in its draft form which had been publicly available via consultation. The CDTL affirmed that the structure of the document remained the same, without legislative issue. In response to questions from Members, the CDTL advised there would be no issue in delaying recommending the report, as it would not fall foul of any official time-scales, acknowledging the next meeting was planned for the following month.

The SCDO asked, should the item be deferred, that Members submit their comments to Officers ensuring amendments could be made in advance of future agenda publication.

12. Following further discussion from Members, The Chairman suggested deferral of the item to the following meeting and that comments be submitted to the Conservation and Design Team within the next 10 working days.

13. Cllr V Gay stated that the deferral was not a criticism of the Officers, and commented that this was a demanding piece of work which Members were grateful for.

14. Cllr N Dixon stated he was satisfied with deferral, and asked that the full 700 page document not be re-issued, rather a summary of updates be provided. The PPM agreed that a scheduled of changes would be presented to Members rather than re-publication of all documents. Purcell could be instructed post-meeting, once changes had been agreed, to make their amendments.

15. Following advice from PPM and DSM about the correct procedure for deferral, the Chairman proposed deferral of the Item to the next meeting to enable Members to better study the document and enable Members to supply comments to the Conservation and Design Team about the textural inconsistencies within the document, seconded by Cllr Pearce.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 9 votes for.

To defer the Item to the next meeting of Planning Policy Working Party.