The North Norfolk Council's Development Committee met on 21 August 2025, to discuss several planning applications, a review of the committee's call-in process, and updates on development management performance and appeals. The committee deferred decisions on a commercial development in Cromer and a live/work unit in Lower Bodham, and approved the construction of a restaurant and farm shop in Fakenham against officer recommendation.

• Home Farm Enterprise Zone, Cromer

  The committee discussed a deferred application PF/24/2341 for the erection of five commercial units at Home Farm Enterprise Zone in Cromer. The application sought permission for uses within Use Classes E(g)(iii) (industrial process suitable for residential area) and B8 (storage or distribution).

  The Senior Planning Officer SPO-RS presented an addendum report, noting that the application had been revised since the last committee meeting, with financial services, offices, and indoor sports facilities removed from the proposal, and industrial processes added. The officer stated that the intent of the scheme was to facilitate the relocation of two existing Cromer businesses.

  The report outlined several reasons for the previous recommendation for refusal, including conflict with countryside policies, potential detrimental impact on Cromer town centre, unjustified development in the undeveloped coast area, impact on the setting of the Grade II listed South Lodge, and highway safety concerns.

  The addendum report stated that the revised description and additional information had strengthened the proposal, but that it still represented a departure from the Development Plan¹. The report noted that the need to accommodate the proposed uses in the Cromer area was a material consideration, but that highways concerns, ecological impacts, tree impacts and surface water flood risk remained. The updated recommendation was for refusal.

  The committee had previously deferred the application at its meeting on 27 June 2025, to allow the applicant to provide further information.

  Ultimately, the committee voted to defer the application again, to allow the applicant to address the outstanding concerns.

• Old Scarfe Brothers Workshop, Lower Bodham

  The committee considered a deferred application PF/24/2705 for the demolition of a workshop building and erection of a live/work unit at Old Scarfe Brothers Workshop, Lower Bodham. The application also included recladding of a retained storage building, demolition of other storage buildings, and erection of a cart shed.

  The Senior Planning Officer SPO-JS presented an addendum report, noting that the applicant had submitted an amended plan reducing the ridge height of the building by 1.6 metres. However, the officer stated that concerns remained regarding the overall cumulative impact of the building's scale, appearance, and massing. The officer recommended refusal.

  The committee had previously deferred the application at its meeting on 27 June 2025, to allow the applicant to provide a landscape impact assessment and further consideration to be given to the height and scale of the proposed building.

  Ultimately, the committee voted to defer the application again, to allow the applicant to address the outstanding concerns.

• Salmonds Lane, Thorpland, Fakenham

  The committee considered application PF/24/2184 for the erection of two buildings for use as a restaurant and farm shop at Salmonds Lane, Thorpland, Fakenham. The application also included associated development including a separate WC and bar, two polytunnels, car-parking, paths and access.

  The Planning Officer PO-IM presented the report, noting that the recommendation was for refusal. The officer stated that the main issues were the principle of development and location, sustainability, and impact on the highways network.

  The Mayor of Fakenham, Angela Glynn, and the applicant, Jack Spencer Ashworth, spoke in support of the application. Councillor Cushing, a local member, also spoke in support, noting the support for the application in the town of Fakenham and the potential for farm diversification and employment opportunities.

  Members debated the application, noting the benefits of farm diversification, support from the local community, and the need for rural business in rural areas. Some members raised concerns about access for pedestrians and cyclists.

  The Development Manager DM suggested that if the committee was minded to approve the application, they may wish to consider conditions to control the development and ensure it benefited the local economy. The Assistant Director of Planning ADP advised that it would be possible to impose relevant conditions and create a legal agreement to link the ownership of the farm and the development site.

  The committee voted to reject the recommendation for refusal. They then voted to approve the application, subject to conditions and a legal agreement to link the ownership of the farm and the business on the development site.

• Land rear of Marigold, Blakeney

  The committee considered application PM/25/0651 for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for a self-build dwelling at Land rear of Marigold, Blakeney. The application was made pursuant to outline planning permission PO/24/2084.

  The officer stated that the main planning considerations were whether the proposed housing development was appropriate in terms of its appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, and whether it was in accordance with the requirements of the outline planning permission.

  Blakeney Parish Council objected to the application. One representation was received with objections relating to loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing, design, parking and loss of trees.

  The officer recommended approval, subject to conditions.

  The committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions.

• Langham Road, Blakeney

  The committee considered application PF/25/0522 for the demolition of a two-storey dwelling and erection of a replacement two-storey dwelling at 8 Langham Road, Blakeney. The application was part-retrospective.

  The officer stated that the main issues were design and residential amenity.

  Cley Parish Council commented that the property had shown a complete abuse of the planning system and contempt of the entire planning process. One public objection was received, raising concerns about the building's bulk and appearance.

  The officer recommended approval, subject to conditions.

  The committee voted to approve the application, subject to conditions.

• Development Committee Processes Update

  The committee considered a report on the Development Committee Call-In Form process. The report recommended that the new version of the Call In Form be agreed for use from 1 September 2025.

  The committee voted to approve the recommendation.

• Development Management Performance Update

  The committee received a report on development management performance for July 2025. The report noted that 100% of major applications and 97% of non-major applications were decided within the time period.

• Appeals Section

  The committee received reports on planning and enforcement appeals.