Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bird, Capewell, Lawn and Martin.

Councillor Newcombe attended as a substitute for Councillor Capewell.

There were no declarations of interest at this meeting.

The minutes of the meeting held on 8th October 2025 were confirmed.

Councillor Williamson requested a correction to a typo in Item 2 to change 'meaner' to 'member'.

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented an application for the erection of a single-story outbuilding for use as a hairdressing salon to operate on an appointment-only basis. This application was brought to the Committee as it had been advertised as contrary to the local development plan.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to members together with key issues relating to the application, as per the Agenda Report and Addendum Report. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the updated Officer recommendation is as follows:

That the application 06/25/0640/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report and Addendum Report.

Councillor Williamson requested clarification on the distance a structure needs to be from a neighbouring fence to be authorised under permitted development. The Senior Planning Officer clarified that a structure can be erected directly next to a neighbouring fence, so long as the height of the structure does not exceed 2.5m.

Councillor Boyd asked how parking would be managed when the images of the property showed multiple cars in the driveway. The Senior Planning Officer explained that there would be the option for tandem parking and that clients would be seeing a hairdresser who lives inside the property so it would not be an issue to utilise the whole driveway. It was noted that the local highways authority, Norfolk County Council, did not object to the application.

Councillor Freeman stated that the neighbouring property could be impacted by the noise of hairdryers and asked whether the neighbouring properties had objected on the basis of potential noise nuisance. The Senior Planning Officer stated that there have been no objections based on the potential noise impact from the use of the outbuilding as a hairdresser. Councillor Newcombe commented that hairdryers are not often on for a longer time than an average lawn mower, therefore the noise would not likely have more of an impact than if one of the neighbours was to cut their grass. 

The Chair hereby invited Mr Larcombe (the applicant) to address the Committee - Mr Larcombe was advised that he would have 3 minutes to speak.

Mr Larcombe stated that he and his partner had owned a hairdressing business in Hopton for over 20 years and that their lease was due to end without renewal, therefore they made the decision to move their business to their home. It was stated that their hairdressing business provides a vital service to the community. Mr Larcombe clarified that the number of vehicles at the property has decreased, meaning there would be sufficient parking for four additional cars on the driveway. It was stated that soundproofing has been fitted on the building to minimise noise disturbance to neighbours. Mr Larcombe added that his partner would be the only hairdresser working at the outbuilding and would likely only work 4 days a week, however they had applied for 6 days to allow for flexibility. 

There were no questions for Mr Larcombe.

The Committee hereby entered debate.

Councillor Pilkington stated that he has voted against a similar application on Laburnum Close which was referenced in the officer's report and explained that though there were similarities with this application, there were two significant differences. The first difference was that this is an outbuilding as opposed to a garage located next to an adjoining property. The second difference was that there is no issue with parking in this application due to the sufficient space on the driveway as explained by the applicant. Councillor Pilkington stated that he would be minded to approve the application. 

Proposer: Councillor Pilkington

Seconder: Councillor Williamson

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:

That the application 06/25/0640/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report and Addendum Report.

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented two applications for the installation of a CCTV unit on the rear of the entrance Gatehouse - one application was for full planning permission (06/25/0788/F) and the other was for listed building consent (06/25/0789/LB). 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with key issues relating to the application as per the Agenda Report.

The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Officer recommendation is as follows:

(1) That application 06/25/0788/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report.

(2) That application 06/25/0789/LB should be APPROVED and listing building consent should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report.

Councillor Galer asked if officers were aware that there are security concerns regarding the data stored by this type of security camera. The Senior Planning Officer stated that there is extensive legislation covering CCTV cameras and their data, however in the context of planning this is not a material consideration. Councillor Galer stated that the issue is with these types of cameras and that a different model may be more appropriate. The Development Manager stated that data retention for this model of CCTV camera is not a planning issue.

Councillor Murray-Smith commented that planning is meant to design out crime, however hacking into a camera to steal data would be a crime - therefore approving the use of this camera would open an avenue for crime that could be mitigated with a different model. The Development Manager stated that the mitigation of crime that this CCTV camera would bring would outweigh the potential concerns about the model's data retention. The Chair stated that if there is an issue with the model the applicant would be able to look in to this, however the principle of the matter is trying to protect the cemetery and it's store room from more break-ins. 

Councillor Murray-Smith asked whether the applicant would have to come back to the Committee if they wanted to change camera model in the future. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that any changes to listed building applications would need to be new applications, therefore they would have to be considered by the Committee.

Councillor Galer requested clarification on why the applicant had to specify the exact type of camera they would be using, as it would be more logical to require specifications only so that an alternative model could be used. The Development Manager clarified that precise detail was needed because this is a listed building and heritage asset.

Councillor Williamson stated that he fully supports this application as this site has been subject to significant levels of anti-social behaviour and this CCTV camera would protect the building, the cemetery workers and the wider community who use the area. 

Proposer - Councillor Williamson

Seconder - Councillor Freeman

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:

(1) That application 06/25/0788/F should be APPROVED and planning permission should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report.

(2) That application 06/25/0789/LB should be APPROVED and listing building consent should be granted subject to the proposed conditions listed in the Agenda Report.

The Committee received and considered the Senior Planning Officer's report which presented a Norfolk County Council consultation (NCC application FUL/2025/0033) regarding a request to extend the approved timescale for minerals extraction on the northern boundary of Phases 3 and 4, and subsequent delay to site restoration and aftercare documents with amended/updated versions. 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with key issues relating to the application, as per the Agenda Report. 

The Senior Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that Great Yarmouth Borough Council, as District-level Local Planning Authority, offer a consultation response to Norfolk County Council as Minerals and Waste Local Planning Authority, which confirms there is no objection to the proposal and which requests use of the following measures:

1. Any permission granted should be subject to a requirement that the reptile relocation receptor area is delivered to the timeline recommended in the application (subject to comments from the County Council’s appointed ecology advisor).
2. The conditions on the existing planning permission should be reimposed in relation to noise and dust mitigation.
3. The County Council should have full regard to the outcome of consultations with the Highways Officer, Ecologist, Environment Agency and Natural England.

There were no technical questions for the Senior Planning Officer.

The Committee hereby entered in debate.

Councillor Boyd commented that extracting materials to be used locally in the building trade and for domestic uses is positive. Councillor Boyd moved to approve the Officers' recommendation. 

Proposer: Councillor Boyd 

Seconder: Councillor Murray-Smith

Following a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:

That Great Yarmouth Borough Council, as District-level local planning authority, offer a consultation response to Norfolk County Council as miners and waste Local Planning Authority, which confirms there is no objection to the proposal and which requests use of the following measures:

1. Any permission granted should be subject to a requirement that the reptile relocation receptor area is delivered to the timeline recommended in the application (subject to comments from the County Council’s appointed ecology advisor).
2. The conditions on the existing planning permission should be reimposed in relation to noise and dust mitigation.
3. The County Council should have full regard to the outcome of consultations with the Highways Officer, Ecologist, Environment Agency and Natural England

The Committee received and considered the Development Manager's report which presented an application to vary the terms of an existing Section 106 Agreement linked to planning permission 06/23/0507/F. The proposed amendment would vary the required Affordable Housing Mix from the required 18no. Shared Ownership tenure and 47no. Affordable Housing for Rent tenure dwellings to instead provide 11no. Shared Ownership tenure and 54no. Affordable Housing for Rent tenure dwellings, and to amend occupation eligibility criteria. 

The Development Manager presented the salient matters of the application to Members together with key issues relating to the application, as per the Agenda Report and Addendum Report.

The Development Manager reported that the updated Officer recommendation, as per the addendum report, is as follows:

That the authority be delegated to Officers to APPROVE the application and authorise a variation to the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 26 March 2025 pursuant to planning permission 06/23/0507/F, in the manner described at paragraphs 2.2,10.12-10.14, 10.18 and 10.21 of the published Committee Agenda report and paragraph 4 of the Addendum Report. 

Councillor Freeman requested clarification on the reason that the applicant would want this change and what the financial impact would be. The Development Manager clarified that there is additional funding from Homes England to allow for an increased provision in Affordable Housing for Rent tenures. It was added that it can be more difficult to find people who would need Shred Ownership tenures and that rented properties stay within the housing stock of the company who owns them, meaning that there is a potential for long term financial benefit. It was added that this decision was not related to financial difficulties and that this amendment would improve the deliverability of the site whilst making these properties more accessible to the people who live in the Northern Parishes. 

Councillor Mogford moved to approve the Officer's recommendation.

Proposer: Councillor Mogford

Seconder: Councillor Pilkington

Following a vote it was RESOLVED:

That the authority be delegated to Officers to APPROVE the application and authorise a variation to the terms of the original Section 106 Agreement dated 26 March 2025 pursuant to planning permission 06/23/0507/F, in the manner described at paragraphs 2.2,10.12-10.14, 10.18 and 10.21 of the published Committee Agenda report and paragraph 4 of the Addendum Report. 

The Chair reported that there was no other business being of sufficient urgency to warrant consideration at the meeting. 

The Chair thanked the Head of Planning for his work within the authority and wished him well for future ventures as this would be his final Development Management Committee meeting. the Chair welcomed Mr N Fountain who would be taking over the role of Head of Planning.