Agenda item

      i.        The MPM introduced the Development Management Performance Update Report, and advised members that revisions to the reporting would be made for future Committee meetings, once systems for collating information could be established with I.T.

     ii.        Cllr J Toye thanked the MPM for their report, and for the proposed changes. He asked, as the report was being developed, that the impact of Nutrient Neutrality on the Council’s Planning process be considered, as it was likely more extension of time would be required for applications.

    iii.        In response to enquiries of Members into the ongoing impact of Nutrient Neutrality guidance, the MPM advised that an all Member briefing had been scheduled for the 23^rd June which would provide a full update. He advised that meetings were taking place between all affected Norfolk authorities, as well as applicants and agents, and that this was an evolving situation in which local authorities were trying to find a positive way forward. He affirmed that this had been a time consuming matter for himself and other officers and that the first priority was in interpreting the legal advice and ensuring as a Local Authority, NNDC understood what was required of it.

   iv.        Cllr J Toye advised that he and Cllr A Brown had attended a meeting earlier in the week and confirmed that through the cross-authority work, a specialist had been appointed to address Nutrient Neutrality. It was hoped that from July some of the less challenging applications could be considered, and that from October the specialist would have additional guidance which would aid affect Authorities in determining afflicted planning applications. Cllr A Brown affirmed that the specialist was a reputable company, and it was encouraging that they had been secured by the cross-authority group to work on this matter. He added that the guidance provided by Natural England on Nutrient Neutrality still divided legal opinion.

     v.        The MPM affirmed that Nutrient Neutrality was having a huge impact the Council, and that it was causing frustration to applicants, agents, and planning officers. Discussions were taking place with landowner’s to see how they may be able to help going forward, including solutions providing wetland habitats as well as other short-term and longer-term mitigation solutions. In response to Members questions about the disposing of sewage via non-mains drainage, he stated that this would not necessarily overcome issues regarding Nutrient Neutrality as there was still an outpour from the associated drainage point which had to be managed. The application of cess-pits would itself require a permit from the environment agency, and this would require a habitat assessment.

   vi.        Cllr A Brown asked for inclusion in the reported statistics, cases which had received an extension of time, both agreed and refused, and where this may place against a national metric. The MPM advised that in prior reports, the numbers of decisions which had secured an extension of time had been reported, and also where a decision was made within that extension of time. He advised that he would encompass this information within the reports going forward.