Agenda item

The SPO introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval, and advised Members that the application had been independently consulted, as detailed on pages 21 and 22 of the Agenda Pack, and that the Consultant determined that the development would be acceptable in principle and would comply with Policies SS1, SS2 and HO5 of the NNDC Core Strategy guide. Additionally, the independent expert advised that there was an essential need for the proposed dwelling to aid with the ongoing operation of the farming business.

A previous application for the siting of a dwelling at New Barn Fam, reference PO/20/1100 had been refused, however concerns identified through that proposal had been addressed since.

The SPO affirmed that the main issues for consideration were the landscape impact on the Norfolk Coast AONB, undeveloped Coast and nearby SSSI site. However, following negotiations with the applicant, in which they had agreed to introduce belts of trees to the north, north-west and east of the proposed dwelling, as well as hedging, the proposed trees and hedging being a mix of native species, Officers considered such planting to appropriately mitigate the visual impact to the landscape and would improve the ecological connectivity through the linkage of existing habitats.

The SPO informed Members that the GIRAMS mitigation payment had been payed, and advised that there had been an amendment to the Officers recommendation relating to agricultural occupancy condition to better reflect standardised wording.

Public Speakers:

Rosemary Thew – Chairman Blakeney Parish Council

Lindsey Read – Supporting

1. The Local Member – Cllr V Holliday – stated that this was a finely balanced and complex application. She recognised that the applicant was a highly regarded farmer, and that there was a need for an agricultural dwelling which had garnered significant community support. However, the Local Member noted that the application was contained within a highly sensitive and valued landscape, and that there had been objections raised including from Blakeney Parish Council for the specific location chosen, and who considered that an alternate site should be explored.  Cllr V Holliday commented that community concerns remained that the proposed dwelling would have a negative visual intrusion to the AONB and SSSI, despite the proposed mitigation planting detailed within the application. The Local Member stressed the importance and value of the special features of an AONB and SSI, and the duty of the Local Planning Authority to conserve and enhance these areas. 

2. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the Officers recommendation, and stated that the context of the proposal, to serve as an agricultural works dwelling, was important in decision making. He reflected that Officers had worked closely and carefully with the applicant, to create an agreeable acceptable scheme, which was policy compliant, and that the report provided by the Independent consultant was clear that the development was acceptable in principle. Cllr P Heinrich commented that the farm was a viable operation, well diversified, and had adapted well to the local market, and that aspects of the operation were dependent on staff being available on site. Further, agricultural workers often work outside of normal working hours with crops and animals needing to be tended to all hours of the day. He noted that the produce grown was consumed locally, which was environmentally sustainable, keeping food miles down. Cllr P Heinrich acknowledged the broad support from consultees and contended that the design of the dwelling was to a high standard which would be in keeping with the local vernacular, drawing comparisons to traditional cart-shed structures, and would be subservient to the existing infrastructure. Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation for approval.

3. Cllr A Brown thanked officers for their succinct and comprehensive report and stated that NNDC should seek to support sustainable farming, and preserving food security, which was especially important given recent world affairs. He recognised that the 5 tests had been met with resect of HO5 of the NNDC Core Strategy Guide, as detailed on page 21 of the Agenda Pack. Cllr A Brown asked Officers to what extent had alternate sites been considered for the dwelling within the existing farm, and why such areas had been rules out? Additionally, he considered that the use of external lights should be carefully considered given the proximity of the proposed dwelling to the nearby Wiveton Downs dark skies site. Cllr A Brown noted the absence within the Officers report that the dwelling should be registered as a local land charge as an agricultural workers dwelling, and asked why this was not included in the Officers Recommendation.

4. The SPO advised this was the third potential site which had been considered by Officers. The first site formed part of the previously refused application, and that this, whilst located outside the SSSI site, it was contained within a more predominant part of the AONB, away from the existing boundary hedge which offered some screening.  The second considered site was within the existing farm complex, however it would also been sited within the SSSI. Officers and the Applicant had sought to engage with Natural England, and had invited them to attend a site visit, however the SPO advised that responses had not been received. Without the support of Natural England, who had encouraged the applicant to consider alternate options not within the SSSI, this second location was refused. The SPO reflected that proposed application before Members had been subject to lengthy and protracted negotiations, and that the location was considered appropriate by Officers with the mitigation planting.

5. The SLO advised that the Wiveton Downs SSSI was designated for its geological significance, therefore Natural England would closely consider any excavation in this area. As an SSSI site, this area was particularly sensitive to accommodate any development. Natural England would have likely required a lengthy process and surveys to determine whether foundations for a building could be placed. Further, the SLO commented that consideration and conversations had been made with the applicant in utilising existing farm buildings on the site, but that ultimately these options were not viable. The SLO acknowledged that there would be a visual impact for the proposed site but considered that the amount of mitigation for a small single dwelling would help to enhance the area and would be in keeping with the rolling health and arable landscape. She considered that the scale of the mitigation proposed would result in enhanced habitat.

6. The Chairman thanked Officers for their appraisals, and commented in response to Cllr A Brown that lighting considerations were contained on Page 27 of the Agenda Pack.

7. The PL advised that an agricultural occupancy restriction was recommended to be imposed as a Planning Condition. She stated that a S106 agreement could have been applied but that this was unnecessary as the matter was being imposed as a planning condition. If a S106 agreement had been entered into, it would have been subject to a local land change.

8. Cllr A Brown expressed his support that the matter be subject to a S106 agreement rather than a planning condition. In response to member’s comments, the MPM advised it is for Members to decide if they wish to apply a planning condition or a S106 agreement, if they were minded to approve the application in the first instance. But, reflected that within his experience planning conditions were stronger as a way of securing something of this nature rather than a legal agreement.

9. Cllr R Kershaw considered that it was a finely balanced application and commended Officers for their hard work and their engagement with the applicant which had resulted in a well-designed building with extensive proposed mitigation. He expressed his support for the farming community, especially during such difficult times, and that NNDC should support the diversification of farming. He considered that it was a modest development, with sound conditions, and so seconded the Officer’s recommendation for approval.

10. Cllr N Lloyd expressed his support for the application and the applicant for the diversification of farming, stating that there needs to be a move away from monoculture farming within the AONB. He considered the proposed mitigation was acceptable, and would screen the existing barn which would have a positive effect. In addition, the planting scheme would help to join up different pockets of biodiversity on the site.

11. Cllr N Pearce commented that this application had been carefully considered by Officers, and thanked them for the significant level of detail offered in their report for a single dwelling. He expressed his support for the application which he considered to be acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED by 11 votes for, and 1 abstention.

That Planning application PF/21/2711 be APPROVED subject to conditions relating to the following matters and any others considered necessary by the Assistant Director for Planning.

•       Time limit for implementation

•       Approved plans

•       The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to a person solely or mainly working, or last working, in the locality in agriculture as defined in section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or in forestry, or a widow or widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependents.

•       External materials

•       Implementation of soft landscaping scheme

•       A ten year landscape management plan

•       The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the submitted Preliminary Ecology Appraisal.

•       Remove certain permitted development rights

•       Parking and turning area

•       External lighting

Final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning.