Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and to note any substitutions.

There were no apologies for absence.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the second Planning Committee meeting being held via Zoom.  He informed the Committee that the meeting was being broadcast live on You Tube.

The recording of the meeting is available to view at WestNorfolkBC on You Tube.

The Democratic Services Officer conducted a roll call to confirm attendees.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 June 2020 (to follow).

Councillor Parish stated he had concerns about the generic nature of the minutes, and he felt that the number of votes for each application should be recorded. 

However, his specific concern related to application 19/00694/RMM Gayton.  The minutes stated that ‘the recommendation to approve was also lost’, and he felt that it would have been clearer if it said recommendation was to refuse. 

He drew attention to the fact that the that the Assistant Director had suggested that the application be deferred to address any outstanding issues, or the Committee could continue with the debate.  After that the minutes said ‘that the Chair proposed that the application be deferred’, but he felt that there should have been something in between those two statements, which was that Councillor Parish attempted to continue the debate and was refused the opportunity.  He considered that would be a correct record of what happened and would explain how the Committee jumped from continuing with the debate to proposing that the application be deferred. There was no opportunity given for that debate.

Councillor Joyce stated that in his view the accuracy of the minutes was not 100% and the reasons for refusal of the recommendation were not sought, which he considered should have been. 

Councillor Storey stated that members had received the minutes in advance of the meeting and could have contacted the legal department before the meeting.

Councillor Ryves stated that he had contacted the legal department for clarification on the issues.  He added that he was very concerned that in relation to the Gayton application there was no reference to the fact that Councillor Mrs Spikings motion to refuse the application was debated and turned down and our own motion was refused.  The minutes did not make that clear, so he could not see how they were an accurate record.

Councillor Joyce added that he had also contacted the legal department, the Monitoring Officer, as the Committee knew as they had been copied into the email, along with the Assistant Director.  He added that he had not received the minutes 5 days in advance and had only received them on Friday before the meeting. 

The Chair asked for clarification from the Legal Advisor as to whether the minutes could be amended and presented to the next meeting of the Committee.

The Legal Advisor confirmed that it was possible to do that, but the Committee needed to decide what was the accurate record of the meeting, as that was what the Committee needed to determine.

The Chair added that he considered the minutes to be an accurate record and asked the Democratic Services Officer to carry out a roll call, and on being put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED:   That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 June 2020 were agreed as a correct record.

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.

Councillor Crofts, Bubb and Kirk declared that they were Members of the King’s Lynn Internal Drainage Board, which had made comments on item 8/1(g) – Walpole Cross Keys.

Councillor Joyce declared that he knew the objector to application 20/00429/F, as he had been a previous Mayor of the Borough Council.

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 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 made comments / attended the meeting via Zoom on the following applications:

J Collingham               8/1(a)               Dersingham

M De Whalley             8/1(b)               Grimston

A Holmes                    8/1(e)               Hilgay

To receive any Chairman’s correspondence.

The Chair reported that any correspondence received had been read and passed to the appropriate officer.

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

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

The Committee is asked to note the Index of Applications.

The Committee noted the Index of Applications.

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

The Committee considered schedules of applications for planning permission submitted by the Executive Director for Planning & Environment (copies of the schedules will be published with the agenda).  Any changes to the schedules will be recorded in the minutes.

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

(i)         20/00327/F

Dersingham:  66A Hunstanton Road:  Proposed single storey car port with store:  Mr Carver

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application related to the construction of a carport and store to the front of 68A Hunstanton Road, Dersingham.

The application site was situated on the east side of the Hunstanton Road and currently consisted of a single storey dwelling with a detached garage and store to the side, which had permission to be converted to a residential annexe.

The application sought full permission for a carport and store in addition to the existing garage and store.  The proposed carport and store was to the front of the dwelling, adjacent to the road.

The application had been referred to the Committee for determination as the application had been called-in by Councillor Collingham,

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

·       Principle of development;

·       Impact on the form and character of the area;

·       Impact on residential amenity; and

·       Other considerations.

In accordance with the adopted public speaking protocol, Jordan Cribb (supporting) addressed the Committee in relation to the application.

Comments from Councillor Mrs Collingham were read out to the Committee.

The Committee debated the application and officers responded to queries as set out below:

·       The Principal Planner added that it was best to view the site location plans in the agenda where it could be seen quite clearly that there were no outbuildings forward of the main buildings along Hunstanton Road.

·       Several members of the Committee considered that the application was overdevelopment.

·       The Parish Council made no objection to the application, as reported at page 12 of the agenda.

·       Google maps was displayed to see the street-scene.

Councillor Lawton advised that he could not vote on the application as he had to leave the room during the debate.

The Democratic Services then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application, and after having been put to the vote, it was:

RESOLVED:   That the application be refused as recommended.

(ii)        20/00428/F

Grimston:  Cambrian, 57 Lynn Road:  Proposed extension and loft conversion:  Mr & Mrs Mason

The Principal Planner introduced the report and explained that the application involved a loft conversion and a single-storey rear extension to a single-storey detached bungalow on the south side of Lynn Road in Grimston.

The application site was located within the development boundary.

The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, namely:

·       Principle of development;

·       Impact on the form and character of the area;

·       Impact on residential amenity; and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PC113:a

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

The Committee received schedules relating to the above.

RESOLVED:   That the reports be noted.