Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday, 5 September 2016.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on Monday 5 September 2016 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, Councillor Mrs Spikings.

Please indicate if there are any interests which should be declared.  A declaration of an interest should indicate the nature of the interest (if not already declared on the Register of Interests) and the agenda item to which it relates.  If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared, the Member should withdraw from the room whilst the matter is discussed.

These declarations apply to all Members present, whether the Member is part of the meeting, attending to speak as a local Member on an item or simply observing the meeting from the public seating area.

The following declarations of interest were declared:

·        The Vice-Chairman declared a pecuniary interest in item 9/2(j) – Wretton as his brother was the applicant, and left the meeting during consideration of the application.

·        Councillor White declared a pecuniary interest in item 9/2(h) – Northwold, as he was the applicant, and left the meeting during consideration of the application.

To consider any business, which by reason of special circumstances, the Chairman proposes to accept, under Section 100(b)(4)(b) of the Local Government Act, 1972.

There was no urgent business to report under Standing Order 7.

Members wishing to speak pursuant to Standing Order 34 should inform the Chairman of their intention to do so and on what items they wish to be heard before the meeting commences.

The following Councillors attended under Standing Order 34:

Name                            Item                                        Application

B Long                          9/1(d)                                      16/00778/FM

L Bambridge                  9/2(f)                                       16/01316/LB

                                      9/2(g)                                      16/01317/A

To receive any Chairman’s correspondence.

The Chairman reported that any correspondence received had been read and passed to the relevant officers.

To receive the Schedule of Late Correspondence received since the publication of the agenda.

A copy of the summary of relevant correspondence received since the publication of the agenda, which had been previously circulated, was tabled.  A copy of the summary would be held for public inspection with a list of background papers.

The Committee is asked to note the report.

The Monitoring Officer introduced the report and reminded Members that at the last meeting of the Planning Committee it was requested that a report be prepared for this meeting regarding outstanding Section 106 agreements that had been required as part of a planning permission requirement.

It was explained that approximately 100 Section 106 agreements had been entered into between the Council and developers in the past year covering a wide variety of community benefits and contributions towards public services.  When permission was granted by the Planning Committee subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement, there was a 4 month time limit placed upon completion of the agreement, failing which the matter was recommended for refusal.

In some cases where the deadline had passed, and material circumstances had significantly changed, it would be necessary for Members to re-determine those applications.  These applications were listed individually at 9/1(a) Stoke Ferry and 9/1(b) Watlington.  In the case of Stoke Ferry, the delay had been caused by the applicant not owning a portion of the application site and in relation to Watlington the Section 106 agreement had not been agreed by the applicant despite several months of negotiations.

There were two cases, 30 Common Road, Snettisham (16/00263/F) and Massingham Road, Castle Acre (15/00942/OM) where no circumstances had changed, but they required the deadline to be extended.  The cases were considered to remain in compliance with planning policy (which was the key point) but due to circumstances had not been completed in time.  In the case of Snettisham, it transpired that the applicant did not own all of the application site, and this was still being resolved.   In the case of Massingham Road, there was a late renegotiation of the Section 106 as instructed by the Planning Officer but the agreement was now ready to complete.

In response to a question, the Monitoring Officer explained that someone could apply for planning permission on someone else’s land but in order for the Section 106 to be completed, the Council did require to see evidence of land ownership either from the Land Registry or the title deeds.  This was to allow enforceability of the land contained within the red line.

The Monitoring Officer added that the agreements were being turned around quickly and it was only when there were issues with land ownership or the applicant’s solicitors were slow.  The Monitoring Officer also added that she thought having a time limit on the Section 106 Agreements was helpful and this helped to ensure that long protracted negotiations did not take place.  The Monitoring Officer also advised that additional resources had been taken on to deal with the number of agreements and to ensure these were dealt with in good time. 

In response to a comment, the Monitoring Officer explained that an applicant would be written to with the date of completion of the Section 106 to avoid completions being down to the wire.

Councillor White asked for his vote to be recorded against the following  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC41:

The index of applications was noted.

To consider and determine the attached Schedule of Planning Applications submitted by the Executive Director.

The Committee considered schedules of application for planning permission submitted by the Executive Director, Environment and Planning (copies of the schedules are published with the agenda).  Any changes to the schedules are recorded in the minutes.

The Assistant Director advised the Committee that the following item had been withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

16/00784/OM

Terrington St John:  Middlegate, Main Road:  Outline application with some matters reserved:  Residential development of 29 dwellings

RESOLVED:   That the applications be determined as set out at (i) – (xiv) below, where appropriate to the conditions and reasons or grounds of refusal set out on the schedules signed by the Chairman.

(i)         15/01931/OM

            Stoke Ferry:  Land south of Lark Road:  Outline application for residential development of up to 32 houses:  Client of David Taylor Associates

The Principal Planner introduced the report and reminded the Committee that the application had been approved at the Committee meeting on 7^th March 2016 subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.

The period for extending the Section 106 agreement by a further month was agreed at a later Planning Committee.

In this case, progress had been made with the Section 106 Agreement; however it came to light during the engrossment of the Section 106 agreement that the applicant did not have control of the entire application site.  It had transpired that the south-west corner of the application site was owned by the Borough Council.  Some years ago the Borough Council had an agreement to transfer the land in question to Anglian Water but the transfer never took place.  Anglian Water had entered into agreement to transfer the same parcel of land to the applicant once the Borough Council had transferred the land to Anglian Water.

The Property Services team were progressing with the transfer of the land directly with the applicant’s solicitor.

Since the resolution to grant the application, there had been a significant change in material circumstances in relation to the principle of developing the site.  The principle of developing the overall site was previously deemed to be acceptable as, at the time of resolution to grant permission, the Local Authority did not have a 5 year land supply of deliverable housing sites, with only part of the site being “allocated” in the Site Specific Allocation and Development Management Plan Policy Document – G88.1 referred to land amounting to 0.4ha for a minimum of 5 dwellings.  Since the resolution to grant permission, the Authority now had a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites and accordingly the majority of the application site was now outside of the development boundary (and allocation boundary) going forward, with only 0.4ha inside the allocation boundary.

The application was unusual in that part of it was an allocation although a large portion fell outside the development boundary.  In this case a scheme could be negotiated that would be ‘policy compliant’ and the applicant’s agent indicated that the applicant would accept negotiating on this basis,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC42:a

To receive the Schedule of Planning Applications determined by the Executive Director.

The Committee received schedules relating to the above.

RESOLVED:   That, the report be noted.