Agenda item

The MPM introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

He advised that the principle of development for up to three dwellings had been established by grounds of outline permissions, listed within the case history, reference PO/20/2005, which also approved the means of access to the site.

The MPM stated that the main issues for consideration were set out on p.16 of the report. Further, he advised that the applicant, working with Anglian Water, had identified that the scheme would drain outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment area, details of which were contained on p.18 – 19 of the Agenda pack. Officers contended that, as Anglian Water had confirmed that the waste water would not be directed into the Nutrient Neutrality catchment, they did not foresee Nutrient Neutrality guidance being an obstacle for approval.

He concluded that Officers were broadly satisfied with the design and appearance of the proposal, which would be in keeping with the surrounding area, with each dwelling providing an acceptable level of amenity space.

The MPM suggested two additional conditions be added, which were linked to Nutrient Neutrality. First, a condition which would require the applicant to confirm at the point they start development that the drainage flows outside of the catchment. Second, a condition to finalise the surface water drainage details, which would provide clarity exactly how surface water would be dealt with. He stated as the competent authority for Habitats Regulations it was important to ensure the Council considered these points.

Public Speakers

Jane Wisson – Trunch Parish Council

John Barbuk – Supporting

Members Debate

1. The Chairman confirmed that the Local Member who had called the Item to Committee was not in attendance and expressed her disappointment they had failed to attend the meeting, noting the resources involved in bringing items to Committee.

2. Cllr P Heinrich expressed his support for the Officers recommendation and reflected that the principle of development on the site had already been established. He considered that the arguments against development did not stand up to scrutiny, and whilst technicality Trunch was considered to be within a designated countryside setting, the reality was that the three properties would serve as infilling of a large backlot site within the built up setting of the village. He reflected that there was a demand for bungalows within the district given the aging population and contended that the application was to the highest environment standard, and of a satisfactory design. He expressed his wish to see more developers work towards such high standards. Cllr P Heinrich commented that he did not determine that the three properties would add significantly to the volume of foul water, and that the primary issue related to the volume of rain water run off flowing into the sewage system. On balance, Cllr P Heinrich proposed acceptance of the Officers Recommendation.

3. Cllr A Brown stated his disappointment that the Local Member was not in attendance at the meeting, and they had failed to provide a supplementary submission. Cllr A Brown commented that he was nervous about the application, and asked for the evidence from Anglian Water, which had been provided via the Applicants Agent, that they considered the application drained outside of the Nutrient Neutrality catchment area. Further, he commented that he would have preferred to have received the opinion of Natural England or another appropriate body prior to determination. 

4. The MPM affirmed that the agent had communicated with Anglian Water and that there was an email trail evidencing that Anglian Water had confirmed that the discharge would not go the treatment works within the Broads SAC. He advised that Natural England had not been consulted and that had they been approached, they would have provided a general comment without an assessment. Officers therefore came to the determination that, whilst the site was located within the catchment, the foul flow would not affect the catchment, this with the additional added conditions would provide further assurances. The MPM commented that Royal Haskoning were presently working on mapping which would provide a revised accurate map of the catchment provided by Natural England. However, till this work was completed, the Council was in an interim period where it was reliant on evidence. 

5. Cllr A Brown thanked the MPM for his comments and assurances that Officers were satisfied that the evidence supplied would hold up to scrutiny, and with the application of the two additional conditions. He expressed his concerns that that the discharge of foul flow may assist in further discharges into the sea by Anglian Water, whose position could be questioned as a competent Water Authority. Cllr A Brown noted that the previous Landscape Officer for the 2005 application had been very concerned that several trees had been cleared from the site and that no amount of planting would redress the imbalance caused by that clearance to the natural habitat and biodiversity. He asked whether Officers were satisfied that there was a sufficient amount of bio-diversity net gain with respect of the three bungalows rather than two? 

6. The MPM advised that bio-diversity net-gain was not yet enshrined in law as a legal requirement, and therefore decision makers did not have a legal basis to ask a 10% biodiversity net gain. He stated that Officers had looked at the scheme and determined that they were content that the proposal accorded with the relevant policies. 

7. Cllr V Holliday echoed the concerns about sewage flow and enquired how many effluence discharges had occurred from Mundesley, stating that she was not comfortable to come to a determination without more data. She noted that there was much asphalt used within the scheme, and questioned if permeable asphalt was truly permeable or if it would result in increased surface drainage water. Additionally, she considered the density of the site to be very tight and further asked if a planning condition could be implemented for the use of smart glass glazing.

8. The MPM advised that there was no conditioned glazing scheme but that, if Members were minded do so, this could be added. He reflected on Members comments regarding Anglian Water, and advised that Members must be mindful that discharge from Anglian Water was outside the scope of the Local Planning Authority, and that the proposed scheme would discharge to the Mundesley treatment works with waste water being treated before it was discharged into the sea. Instances where untreated raw sewage was discharged into the sea were subject to an exception process in which water authorities must demonstrate reasons for doing so. Whilst the discharge of raw sewage into the sea was of national concern, this was legislated against, and did not form a reason for refusal on this individual planning application.

9. The Chairman asked the Applicant if the tarmac proposed was truly permeable. The Applicant affirmed that it was and that this material had been used to minimise the noise disruption to neighbours which would otherwise occur with shingle. Further, he would be happy to install a permeable brick weave, should this be preferable to Members. With respect of glazing concerns he stated that there was a deep overhang from the roof, and additional planting would minimise impact of the development.

10. Cllr V Holliday advised that her comments regarding glazing related to light pollution rather than solar gain.

11. The Chairman stated that the application consisted of low lying single storey properties with an accompanying planting scheme, it was contended that light pollution was not considered to be an issue.

12. The MPM advised that that matter of light spill would have been considered by the Landscape Officer and noted that no external lights were proposed within the scheme. He reiterated that should the Committee wish to have a condition to finalise the detail of the glazing, this could be applied with the consent of the Applicant.

13. Cllr N Lloyd affirmed that the principle of development had already been established and that he was pleased that the Applicant had provided a landscape scheme. He acknowledged that the proposal was designed to be developed beyond current building standards, and that he was disappointed that this had not been highlighted within the Officers report. He contended that Climate Change should be included within section three of all future planning applications and within Officer Reports going forward. Cllr N Lloyd expressed his support for the application and seconded the Officers recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

14. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett confirmed that she was aware that Trunch and other villages discharged to Mundesley. She contended that surface water run-off was a large issue and that she was pleased of the insistence within the proposal for permeable surfaces. She noted that surface water drainage was not Anglian Waters fault and that this drainage came under the lead Local Flood Authority which was Norfolk County Council. Cllr A Fitch-Tillett affirmed that the sooner NCC invested the trillions needed to separate surface water runoff from sewage, the better, as this would stop all outpours going into the ocean.

15. Cllr J Toye supported comments made by Cllr N Lloyd and agreed that Climate Change needed to be better reflected within Officer Reports. He noted that the scheme was described as carbon neutral and enquired if there were any checks from building control to ensure this. Additionally, he encouraged the developer to go further and work towards a climate negative scheme. Cllr J Toye supported the efficacy of permeable tarmac which was used on motorways and aided to remove a large volume of water off the road.

16. The MPM commented that he could not address comments regarding building control without speaking to the building control manager, and that once he had obtained this information he could feedback to Members.

17. Cllr J Toye stated that he believed the developer had the best of intentions but that in other applications in which plans were submitted and designed by one person but then passed on to a builder who then sub-contracted the work, the final product was not as intended. He asked for assurances that there would be an audit trail.  

18. In response to Members questions, the Applicant advised that they would employ a team of local builders and that he was confident that work would not be sub-contracted. Additionally, the telegraph pole located within the site would be moved by Openreach.

19. The MPM confirmed that a significant landscaping scheme had been agreed, details of which were outlined in section 4 of the report. With respect of boundary treatment scheme, the MPM advised that a condition could be applied, provided the Applicant was agreeable, which could work to soften the visual impact on the setting.

20. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle agreed with Members representations, particularly the need to consider and reference the impact of proposals on Climate Change within Officer Reports. He considered that more information was required to assist Members in making there determinations and reflected that whilst the application went beyond current building regulations, this had not been included within the Officers report.

21. The MPM advised that the local validation list was being reviewed for the information that the Authority requires applicants to provide upfront. He expressed his support for having a section of how an applicant’s proposal responds positively to the Climate Emergency, considering that this would be helpful in weighting applications. He advised that he would reiterate to Officers the need to include Climate responses in Officer Reports, and would ensure that this was covered in future reporting.

22. Cllr N Pearce commented that the principle of development had been established some time ago, and that local plans had since been introduced which had changed the perspective. He stated that he could understand each perspective and considered the Local Parish Council to be justified in their comments.

23. Cllr A Yiasimi thanked Officers on their excellent report and considered that the application had ticked all of the boxes. He emphasised that it was of vital importance that the conditions were met on the application, should it be agreed.

24. The MPM noted Members comments during the meeting and summarised the conditions which had been included within the outlined Officer Recommendations as well as those added during the meeting. 

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 14 votes for.

That Planning Application PF/21/3330 be APPROVED subject to conditions relating to the following matters and any others considered necessary by the Assistant Director for Planning.

1. Time limit for implementation and submission of reserved matters

2. Approved plans.

3. Materials.

4. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Arboricultural implications Assessment/Method Statement and landscaping plan.

5. Prior to first occupation the vehicle access/crossing over the verge to be constructed in accordance with highways specification and retained as shown.

6. Prior to first occupation the proposed access and on-site car parking and turning areas to be laid out, demarcated and surfaced in accordance with the approved plan and retained for that specific use.

7. Contaminated Land – Any contamination found during the course of construction that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority.

8. Remove permitted development rights for the enlargement, improvement or other alterations of the dwellings, additions or alterations to the roofs and provision within the curtilage of the dwellings of any building or enclosure.

9. Confirmation to be received that, before works commence, that foul water discharged would not go to treatment works within the Broads catchment.

10. Surface Water Drainage.

11. Driveway surfacing to consist of permeable materials.

12. Glazing scheme – to minimise light spill.

13. Boundary Treatment.

14. External Lighting.

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