Agenda item

The SPO- RA introduced the Officers report and recommendation for approval. He advised a correction in the report, noting that some details related to the other application (PF/22/0541) which was pending decision with delays owing to nutrient neutrality and not approved as stated. The Case Officer affirmed that nutrient neutrality did not affect the proposed application before the Committee.

The SPO-RA confirmed that sites location and aerial view of the property; providing context for the proposals relationship with neighbouring properties and key infrastructure within the historic setting, as well as site plans, elevations and photographs.

The Main issues for consideration pertained to the impact on the heritage asset (Policy EN 8 of the NNDC Core Strategy) with the SPO-RA confirming that the Senior Conservation and Design Officer raised no objection to the internal works and rooflights to the rear, and considered there to be ‘less than substantial harm’ as set out by the NPPF when weighed against the public benefits of the proposal; renewable energy and sustainability of the rural location.

On balance, Officers considered the proposal acceptable subject to condition, and noted it would be conditioned that the solar panels be removed if they were no longer needed.

Members questions and debate

1. The Local Member – Cllr A Brown – raised a procedural issue, firstly whether the site was located in the Broads Conservation Area as this had not been listed as a constraint. Second, whether it was appropriate to consider this application separate to PF/22/0541.

2. The PL advised there was no legal grounds for the two applications to be assessed independently, though understood Cllr A Browns concerns from a practical perspective that usually when there is a listed building application and a planning application they are considered together.

3. Cllr A Brown reflected ongoing discussion with how to manage planning applications pending nutrient neutrality, and expressed concern that assessing the proposal was a departure from how the council had handled such applications. The Local Member welcomed renewable energy progress, and noted the application sites within the Glaven Valley Rural Conservation area which he trusted had been dually considered by the Officers. Cllr A Brown proposed acceptance of the Officers recommendation.

4. The DMTL – CR noted that it was unusual to have a listed building application and a planning application considered separately, and agreed with guidance offered by the PL that there was no legal impediment why this could not happen. Officers considered in the interest of expediency and dealing with applications that there was no reason to delay determination of the listed building application.

5. Cllr P Heinrich sought clarity if the application related solely to the barn/annexe. The Chairman confirmed it was just this application.

6. Cllr G Mancini-Boyle asked if new solar panels would be installed, as the latest models could be recycled when they had come to the end of their lifespan. The DMTL – CR advised that the panel specification was not known, but assured Members that the panels would be removable, ensuring the panels did not pose permanent harm to the heritage asset.

7. Cllr J Toye argued in favour considering the applications separately, and determined the positive benefits of installing the solar panels at the earliest opportunity so that they may mitigate against climate change. Cllr J Toye seconded the Officers recommendation.

IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED by 12 votes for.

That Planning ApplicationLA/22/0542 be APPROVED subject to conditions relating to the following matters and any others considered necessary

by the Assistant Director – Planning:

·         Time limit for implementation

·         Approved plans

·         Removal of the solar panels if no longer required

Final wording of conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director - Planning