A revised Local Plan

The old Local Plan is dead; a new one is to be drawn up. Here is the text of an email from NNDC:

From: Planning Policy <Planning.Policy@north-norfolk.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 at 15:59
Subject: North Norfolk Local Plan Review & Call for Sites (20)

Dear Consultee,

Action may be required - please read the important information below regarding the review of the North Norfolk Local Plan and launch of a ‘Call for Sites’ consultation.

We are writing to you because we hold your contact information, as you or your organisation have previously been identified as a General or Statutory Consultee in relation to preparing the Local Plan for North Norfolk, have voluntarily signed up to our Local Plan Consultation Database to be kept informed, or have previously submitted representations to the Local Plan process.

Local Plan Review

The North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 was adopted in December 2025. However, national planning policy and legislation have changed since then, including updated Government guidance on housing need. This means the Council is required to begin work on a new Local Plan to make sure that planning policies remain up to date and effective, and that growth needs are planned for.

The Council is required to give at least four months’ notice of its intention to commence Local Plan preparation under the new plan-making system, and to publish a timetable setting out the key dates for preparing the Local Plan or any Supplementary Plans. This is currently scheduled to take place by or before 30 June 2026. Further information will be provided on our Local Plan review web page when available.

Processing your data
Under the previous Local Plan process, the Council collected and used your contact data to keep you informed of key stages and consultation opportunities. As we begin preparation of a new Local Plan, we will continue to use your data for this purpose. We are also taking this opportunity to update you on how your data will be used and to provide you with an opportunity to review your preferences.

The processing of personal data is necessary for preparing a Local Plan, a statutory function undertaken by the Council under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated regulations. This processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, rather than based on consent. In some cases, the Council is required to consult certain bodies as part of the Local Plan process, including statutory consultees and general consultation bodies (such as community groups, business interests, and groups representing protected characteristics).

We will only use your contact details to notify you of Local Plan consultations and opportunities to make representations. We do not use this database for marketing purposes.

We may share your personal data, where necessary, with parties involved in the preparation and examination of the Local Plan. This may include the Planning Inspectorate, an independent Programme Officer appointed to support the Local Plan at examination, and other organisations or service providers acting on behalf of the Council where it is appropriate to do so and necessary safeguards are in place.

As we rely on a public task as our lawful basis, you also have the right to object to the processing of your personal data. Requests may be sent to data.protection@north-norfolk.gov.uk

Where you do so, we will consider your request in line with data protection legislation. As part of preparing a Local Plan under current planning legislation, the Council is required to engage with certain consultation bodies and the wider community at key stages. Where you have been identified as a relevant consultation body, we may need to continue to use your contact details to notify you of these consultation stages. In all cases, we will ensure that any continued use of your data is necessary, proportionate, and limited to fulfilling these statutory consultation requirements.

• If you do not wish to be contacted in future, please email your request to planning.policy@north-norfolk.gov.uk
• If you wish to amend your contact information, please email your request to planning.policy@north-norfolk.gov.uk

We will consider any request in line with data protection legislation and the Council’s statutory duties.

Please respond by no later than Monday 29 June 2026. If we don’t hear from you, we will continue to process your data for the purpose of preparing a new Local Plan in line with our privacy notice.

Call for Sites

As an early stage in preparing the new Local Plan, the Council has today launched a ‘Call for Sites’. This invites landowners, developers, agents, organisations, and individuals to submit land to be considered for future development.

Consultation on the Local Plan

Further to the hearings in April, NNDC has announced a final consultation on modifications to the Local Plan.

Langham has now been proposed as a ‘Small Growth Village’:

(Click to enlarge. Please note that proposed changes to the Plan are shown in green.)

The proposed overall growth target in Small Growth Villages is 9%:

The potential proposed growth in Langham is for 15 dwellings:

Whereas new settlement was likelier to receive planning permission if it ‘abutted’ existing settlement, the proposed change in wording is ‘adjacent’ to existing settlement.

NNDC’s email to consultees is reproduced below: as you can see, the final date for representations is 17 September.

From: Planning Policy <Planning.Policy@north-norfolk.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 at 11:09
Subject: Consultation on Main Modifications to the North Norfolk Local Plan (20)

Dear Consultee,

Consultation on Main Modifications to the North Norfolk Local Plan

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 & The Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended)

As part of the ongoing North Norfolk Local Plan Examination, the Council is inviting representations on the Main Modifications and Policy Map Changes that the Inspector considers will be required to make the North Norfolk Local Plan sound.

Subject Matter: North Norfolk Local Plan Examination: Proposed Main Modifications and Policies Map Changes.

Consultation Period: midday Wednesday 6 August to 11:59pm Wednesday 17 September 2025. Only representations received within the advertised response period will be considered by the Inspector.

Area Covered: The administrative area of the district of North Norfolk, except for those parts of the district in the designated Broads Authority Area.

Availability of Documents: The main consultation documents, and all supporting documents, will be available at www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplanconsultation from midday Wednesday 6 August. Paper copies will be available to view during the consultation period at NNDC Main Offices, Holt Road, Cromer, and Fakenham Connect, Oak Street, Fakenham during normal office opening hours, and, at public libraries in the district. Please check if the venue is open before making your journey, or if an appointment is required.

Submitting Comments: Representations should be submitted using the online Consultation Portal at https://consult.north-norfolk.gov.uk

A Guidance Note is available to assist those making representations. If you have any difficultly in submitting your representation by the above method, please contact us so that we can discuss how best to assist you.

What happens to the Representations: All duly made representations will be provided to the appointed Planning Inspector for consideration as part of the ongoing examination.

For further information or assistance please contact the Planning Policy Team:

    • planningpolicy@north-norfolk.gov.uk
    • 01263 513811
    • Planning Policy, NNDC, Holt Road, Cromer, Norfolk, NR27 9EN

www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplanexamination

Yours faithfully,

Iain Withington

Acting Planning Policy Manager

North Norfolk Local Plan Examination

The following email has just been sent out by NNDC. We will keep you informed as to the outcome.

Dear Consultee,

NOTICE OF RESUMED INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION HEARINGS UNDER REGULATION 24 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (LOCAL PLANNING) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2012

North Norfolk District Council submitted its proposed Local Plan for independent Examination in May 2023. The Secretary of State appointed Mr David Reed BSc DipTP DMS to undertake an independent examination as to the soundness and legal compliance of the Plan and to issue a report with his conclusions. Initial public hearing sessions took place from January to March 2024, following which the Inspector published his initial findings, detailing a number of matters which required further work and public consultation.

A Further Consultation on proposed changes to the Local Plan took place for a six-week period during November and December 2024. Following the Further Consultation, the Inspector requires further hearing sessions to take place to enable discussion on the identified matters. Any matters covered during the initial hearings in January to March 2024 will not be revisited unless directly affected by the new proposals set out in the Further Consultation.

Date and time of hearings

As part of the ongoing examination process, further hearings sessions will be held as follows:

 • Tuesday 8 April (Matter A - Additional Housing Sites)

 • Wednesday 9 April (Matter A continued)

 • Thursday 10 April (Matter B - Small Growth Villages; Matter C - Misc Questions)

The hearing sessions will commence on Tuesday 8 April 2025 at 10:00am and shall be chaired by Mr David Reed BSc DipTP DMS on behalf of the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). All subsequent sessions will commence at 9:30am (morning) and 1:30pm (afternoon) unless detailed otherwise on the North Norfolk District Council website.

Place

Committee Room, North Norfolk Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer NR27 9EN.

Attendance

The hearing sessions can be attended by interested members of the public who wish to observe proceedings. Participation at the hearings is managed by the Programme Officer by prior arrangement. Only those who made representations during the Further Consultation period are entitled to speak, however there is no requirement to do so as the written representations already submitted will be taken fully into account. Duplication and repetition will not be permitted, so those wishing to make similar points should appoint a spokesperson or seek to input into the views of a representative body such as a town or parish council (where these are appearing).

Availability of documents

The programme for the further hearings (subject to change), the inspectors matters and issues for discussion, accompanying letter/guidance, this notice, and the entire suite of Examination Library documents can be viewed in section 1 of the examination library, at: www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplanexamination

The examination documents are available for inspection at North Norfolk District Council, Holt Road, Cromer, NR27 9EN during normal office opening hours. Prior notice should be given by email to planning.policy@north-norfolk.gov.uk or 01263 516318 in order that the relevant documents can be made available to you at an agreed time.

Further information

Additional information about the examination including latest news, can be viewed at: www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplanexamination

An independent Programme Officer, Mrs Annette Feeney, was appointed to administer the examination, including organisation of the public hearing sessions, and dealing with procedural matters. The Programme Officer is independent from North Norfolk District Council and reports to the appointed inspector.

All procedural queries or other matters relating to the North Norfolk Local Plan Examination (including appearing at the examination hearings) should be sent to the Programme Officer using the details available at www.north-norfolk.gov.uk/localplanexamination

Yours faithfully,

Iain Withington

Acting Planning Policy Manager

The Langham Hall barns

Beginning in 1722, the proprietor of Langham Hall Farm erected a range of flint-and-brick barns in North Street. The largest of these was called the Great Barn; other structures, including a nineteenth-century cart-shed, were added later. Not much more seems to be known about these: if anyone has any information or anecdotes to share, please leave a comment. As farm buildings they remained in use until the seventies.

By 1979, though, they had become redundant and the site was sold to the newly established Langham Glass.

Paul Miller had learned his trade from leading European glassmakers at King’s Lynn Glass, and aged only 21 became a Master Glassmaker. Subsequently Wedgwood bought King’s Lynn Glass from its founder, Ronnie Stennet-Wilson, and Mr Miller continued working there, creating many of the unusual glass animals and paperweights that are so collectible today.

A Langham Glass badger

He and his wife Sue wanted one day to set up their own glassworks. They proposed not only to make crystal of the highest quality but also to invite members of the public to watch glassmakers at work. Because of its size, the Great Barn made an ideal venue, and its height allowed a steel gallery to be installed. From this visitors could look down on the various processes, including the fascinating techniques of the glassblower.

Langham Glass became a very popular tourist attraction, with many thousands of visitors a year, so popular indeed that by 2005 it had outgrown its premises. It moved first to Tattersett Business Park, and in 2013 to its present home in Fakenham.

Langham Glass at Tattersett – image credit: Stacey Harris; licence

Once the Millers had decided to leave the village the question arose: what was to be done with the Great Barn and its attendant buildings?

In May 2006 planning permission was granted for a £7m project (pdf) to build 25 houses on the site; the Great Barn was to be converted into four individual dwellings. The developer was Avada Langham Ltd, a sister company of Avada Country Homes. Permission was dependent on providing also a boutique (i.e. small and luxurious) hotel on the site, this being insisted on by NNDC as part of its policy to encourage tourism and create employment: the hotel was predicted to generate 40 to 50 jobs in the local economy, 15-20 of them in the hotel itself. Avada Langham Ltd was to contribute £500,000 towards affordable housing in the Langham area and £58,000 to Langham Village School.

It was envisaged at the start that the majority of the houses would become holiday homes; the linked pdf file above also explains the mooted management relationship between the owners and the hotel.

There was much opposition in the village. One person even pursued a judicial review but withdrew just days before the case reached the High Court.

The 2008 financial crash and subsequent recession did not exactly help things along either, and work did not start until June 2014. Parish Council chairman Dave Curtis said, ‘There has been a range of opinions on the Parish Council about this development over the years but, personally, I have always been supportive of it as it will bring jobs and a new amenity to the village.’

Parish Council vice-chairman John Hope said, ‘I still feel this is a very large development in a very small village. It has been approved, so we now have to accept it. I hope most of the jobs promised are full-time jobs because that is the only benefit Langham will get from this, as far as I’m concerned.’

Given the proximity of the school, Norfolk County Council reduced the speed limit in North Street to 20 mph.

While work was going on there was much noise and disturbance. Again and again dumper trucks carried spoil down to a pit at Seeley’s Barn and left the roadway filthy; a crane rose against the skyline and pile-driving was added to the Langham soundscape. But even antipathetic locals had to admit that the tradesmen employed on the site seemed to know what they were about.

Ian Johnston, the owner of Avada Langham Ltd, is a house-builder and not a hotelier. His heart had never been in the idea of running the hotel, and in 2016, when the building was still under development, he put it up for sale.

In June 2017 it was purchased by the Bijou Collection, owned by the Cutmore-Scott family, whose expertise in the hospitality industry had till then been focused on their wedding venues. Sam Cutmore-Scott, elder son of the founders and already a director of the company, took over the hotel and supervised its completion: an enterprise costing millions of pounds. The hotel was named ‘The Harper’ as a tribute to Stanley Harper Cutmore, Sam’s maternal grandfather, who with his brother Jim ran Cutmore’s Mechanics in Barrack Street, Norwich – and whose work ethic still inspires the family today. As a further nod to him, and to the glassworks, the decor, featuring much iron, copper and slate, is faintly redolent of Britain’s industrial past.

The Harper was due to open on 1 April 2020. Preparations were in full swing when the lockdown was imposed. A very difficult and uncertain time followed, but when Sam was finally able to reopen the bookings were encouraging and the enterprise is now doing well: Delia Smith was one of the first guests through the doors.

As envisaged by NNDC, the hotel is unashamedly upmarket. It attracts wealthy visitors from London and Cambridge and elsewhere. Use of the hotel facilities is restricted to hotel residents only, which has been a source of some ill feeling in the village given the history of the site, but the point has been made by the Cutmore-Scotts that, were it otherwise, non-resident visitors would have to park along North Street.

Recently the Bijou Collection also bought the adjoining Hall, which was on the market for £1.95m. It is being thoroughly refurbished and updated and will be incorporated into The Harper.

The Yard at The Harper

Complaints against Cllrs Godfrey and Allen

At the beginning of May the Langham Action Committee jointly and severally made formal complaints to NNDC concerning the legal requirement for registration of parish councillors’ interests.

The complaints have now been processed and we reproduce NNDC’s decisions below.

 

---

NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

LOCAL ASSESSMENT

MONITORING OFFICER INTIAL ASSESSMENT

DECISION NOTICE

SUBJECT MEMBER; Cllr Paul Godfrey

COMPLAINANT; Mrs Laura Osborne, Mr Adam Pitchford, Mrs Fiona Priest, Mr Jonathan Barnes, Cllr Francis Blundell, Mr Sam Cutmore-Scott, Lady Louise Goodenough

The Complainant alleges that:

In February 2023 Lanpro Services, a property consultancy, published a proposal on behalf of Glavenhill Strategic Land for a housing development in Langham: https://www.lanproservices.co.uk/langham

As a member of the public and a local resident, I wish to complain about breaches of the Localism Act, 2011, by Langham Parish Council, as follows:

1. The Parish Council has not published its Register of Interests on its website: https://www.langhamnorfolk.com/documents

2. The Chair, Mr Paul Godfrey, and the Vice Chair, Mr Patrick Allen, have not returned the forms necessary for their interests to be added to the Register of Interests published by NNDC.

3. Mr Allen is the landowner behind the Lanpro proposal, to which he must have been party much longer than 28 days ago. His involvement amounts to a new pecuniary interest.

If the Lanpro proposal came to fruition, Mr Allen’s profit would be considerable. I submit that his offence is sufficiently grave that the matter should be referred beyond NNDC.

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

Langham Parish Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members which contains the following principles;

SELFLESSNESS: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

OPENNESS: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

LEADERSHIP: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

OTHER INFORMATION OBTAINED

The Subject Member states as follows: Further to your undated letters which I received on Tuesday 16th May, along with a number of complaints regarding register of interests, I write to explain the situation.

The complaints against me are noted as ;

1. The Parish Council has not published its Register of Interests on its website: https://www.langhamnorfolk.com/documents

2 . The Chair, Mr Paul Godfrey, and the Vice Chair, Mr Patrick Allen, have not returned the forms necessary for their interests to be added to the Register of Interests published by NNDC

I am not aware that Parish Councils have to publish Register of Interests on its website, if this is a requirement then a number of parish councils are also failing in this regard. Maybe NNDC should provide a guide to parish councils regarding website content requirements.

I was co-opted onto the Langham Parish council in 2019, and attended my first meeting (as noted in the attached minutes) on the 14th May as a new member, and was welcomed to the Parish Council by the Chair. I completed the necessary forms presented to me before to the meeting. Prior to this I had never been a parish councillor and I can not recall the form titles. I can only assume one of these would have been Register of Interest, I understand from the Parish Clerk Kevin Webb these would have been returned to NNDC.

On the NNDC website a search of Langham Parish Councillors’ register of interests lists the interests of five Parish Councillors all of whom have been co-opted onto the council in the last 18 months. Mr Allen and I are the only members of the Council that were on the Council May 2019.

Having just been re-elected onto the Parish Council at the 4th May elections, I went onto the NNDC website and registered my interests following an email from Emma Denny forwarded by our clerk on the 2nd May via the online platform. I have had no acknowledgement from the NNDC that they have received my form.

I believe this issue has blown up following a village consultation over a possible development on 4 acres of land that is owned by Mr Allen in the centre of the village. This public consultation took place on the 7th March. This was followed by a Parish Council meeting, the minutes noted; A mixture of views were apparent.

As hopefully you can see from my Register of interest, I have no interest other than my home 6 The Cornfield, Langham which we bought in 2015 and I have lived here full time since my retirement in December 2018.

I trust the above information enables you to establish that I have acted with integrity in relation to parish council matters. If you do require any further clarification or information then please do not hesitate to contact me.

MONITORING OFFICER ASSESSMENT

For complaints to be considered under this standards regime, they must be against a named Councillor (s27 of Localism Act 2011); accordingly, there is no jurisdiction to consider complaints against the whole Council.

By way of information, the establishment, keeping and publishing of parish council’s register of interests falls to the Monitoring Officer of the Principal Authority, in this case North Norfolk District Council (s 29(4) of the Localism Act 2011). However, where a parish council has a website, it too must publish the register on its website (s29 (7) of the Localism Act 2011).

It is strongly advised that Langham Parish Council arrange for the register of members and co-opted members’ interests to be published on their website.

The law requires (the Localism Act 2011 together with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) regulations 2012) establishes those pecuniary interests which must be disclosed by members taking office. Members must, within 28 days of their becoming a member (or when re-elected and co-opted re-appointed) notify the monitoring officer of any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been entered on the register of interests. By way of clarification, that interest includes interests of their partner/spouse (or equivalent co-habitant). Section 34 of the Localism Act 2011 makes it a criminal offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to register or declare disclosable pecuniary interests, the consequences of which are an unlimited fine and/or disqualification from holding office for up to five years. That said, North Norfolk District Council it is not responsible for either investigating or prosecuting any breach, this being a matter for the police and CPS respectively, nor does it have any obligation to report the same to the police but makes every effort to encourage compliance.

However, given the Localism Act 2011 requires reference in an authority’s Code of Conduct to the registration and declaration of pecuniary and other interests, it is likely that the Langham Parish Council Code of Conduct will contain provisions for a member to fail to disclose their pecuniary interests (although I cannot say for any certainty at this stage since this is not published on their website).

Having interrogated the principal Council’s records (electronic and paper files), whilst I am able to confirm that Mr Godfrey has registered his pecuniary interests since his re-appointment, there are no records dating back to his being co-opted in May 2019. However, I would note that the absence of such records, although persuasive, does not categorically mean that the Subject member did not, or did not at least try, to register his interests.

I note that Mr Godfrey says he completed several forms presented to him, and whilst he cannot recall the titles of the forms (his being a newly co-opted member at that time), assumes that one would have been to register his pecuniary interests, and that it is his understanding this should have been forwarded to NNDC by the Parish Clerk. It is, however, the member’s responsibility to register his interests; the purpose being to ensure so far as is possible that there is transparency and that members act and are seen to act fairly and in the interest of their constituents.

On the face of it, it appears that the failure to register his interests would likely amount to a breach of the Langham Code of Conduct. That said, I note the mitigation offered by the Subject Member, that his interests extend only to his home in Langham, the lack of any harm arising from the lack of registration, that there is no evidence that such a failure has arisen from any deliberate attempt to gain an advantage, that those interests are now appropriately registered, and further acknowledge that there is a specific alternative route for action to be taken as may be necessary. All things considered, I am not of the view that this matter merits the time and cost of further action by the Council, other than reminding Mr Godfrey of the importance of registering his interests and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

To that end, I would simply remind Mr Godfrey and the Parish Council that the legislation places the onus on individual members to register their interests with North Norfolk District Council rather than any other person

DECISION

No further action, save for the following recommendations:

• Langham Parish Council publish its register of interests on its website in compliance with the Localism Act 2011.
• Langham Parish Council publish its Code of Conduct on its website.
• Members are reminded that the onus is on them to register their pecuniary interests with North Norfolk District Council and to make appropriate checks that this has been received.

JO FURNER

PRINCIPAL LAWYER AND DEPUTY MONITORING OFFICER

Date: 8 June 2023

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION

---

NORTH NORFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL

LOCAL ASSESSMENT

MONITORING OFFICER INTIAL ASSESSMENT

DECISION NOTICE

SUBJECT MEMBER; Cllr Patrick Allen

COMPLAINANT; Mrs Laura Osborne, Mr Adam Pitchford, Mrs Fiona Priest, Mr Jonathan Barnes, Cllr Francis Blundell, Mr Sam Cutmore-Scott, Lady Louise Goodenough

The Complainant alleges that:

In February 2023 Lanpro Services, a property consultancy, published a proposal on behalf of Glavenhill Strategic Land for a housing development in Langham: https://www.lanproservices.co.uk/langham

As a member of the public and a local resident, I wish to complain about breaches of the Localism Act, 2011, by Langham Parish Council, as follows:

1. The Parish Council has not published its Register of Interests on its website: https://www.langhamnorfolk.com/documents

2. The Chair, Mr Paul Godfrey, and the Vice Chair, Mr Patrick Allen, have not returned the forms necessary for their interests to be added to the Register of Interests published by NNDC.

3. Mr Allen is the landowner behind the Lanpro proposal, to which he must have been party much longer than 28 days ago. His involvement amounts to a new pecuniary interest.

If the Lanpro proposal came to fruition, Mr Allen’s profit would be considerable. I submit that his offence is sufficiently grave that the matter should be referred beyond NNDC.

RELEVANT PARTS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT

Langham Parish Council has adopted a Code of Conduct for Members which contains the following principles;

SELFLESSNESS: Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.

INTEGRITY: Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

OBJECTIVITY: In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

ACCOUNTABILITY: Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

OPENNESS: Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

HONESTY: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

LEADERSHIP: Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

OTHER INFORMATION OBTAINED

The Subject Member states as follows:

Further to your undated letters which I received on Monday 15th May, along with a number of complaints regarding my register of interests, I write to explain the situation and vigorously defend myself.

I should point out that I have tried to contact Ms Hannah Brown but have had no reply to two emails, so I have been unable to seek any advice from an independent person – Charles Monteith is unable to advise me as he is a friend.

I have lived in Langham all my – nearly 70 years. I have owned and farmed about 200 acres of land in the Parish of Langham for the past 40 years.

I have been a Parish Councillor for the past 26 years, including 10 years as Chair. I think it would be fair to say that most people living in Langham would be aware of these facts. At no stage have I tried to hide my involvement with land in the Parish.

On the NNDC website a search of Langham Parish Councillors’ register of interests lists the interests of five Parish Councillors all of whom have been co-opted onto the council in the last 18 months. Mr Godfrey and I are the only members of the Council that were on the Council at the last election in May 2019. I believe that I completed my register at that time, as I had done every four years previous.

Having just been re-elected onto the Parish Council at the 4th May elections, I duly went onto the NNDC website and registered my interests on the 8th May via the online platform now required. I have had no acknowledgement from the NNDC that they have received my form, however I have had confirmation from Emma Denny at NNDC that it has been received, but that it will take a couple of weeks to be uploaded on the Council’s website.

I should explain that this has all blown up as I, and my advisers, have been consulting with the village over a possible development on 4 acres of land that I and my wife own in the centre of the village. Documentary evidence will prove that this was first raised at a Parish Council meeting on the 14th November 2022, as item 11 on the Agenda, and that I “declared an interest as owner of the land”

On the 7th March my firm of advisers, Glavenhill, held a public consultation in the Village Hall. Between 100 – 150 people attended. This was followed by a Parish Council meeting where it is documented that I again “reiterated my involvement in the land”.

I attach copies of the minutes of those meetings.

I again stress that at no time have I tried to hide my ownership of the land, or any other interests in the village.

I view these complaints as simply an attack on my integrity. My service and commitment to the village is there for all who wish to see. These complaints are made by a few who oppose any form of development in the village.

MONITORING OFFICER ASSESSMENT

For complaints to be considered under this standards regime, they must be against a named Councillor (s27 of Localism Act 2011); accordingly, there is no jurisdiction to consider complaints against the whole Council.

By way of information, the establishment, keeping and publishing of parish council’s register of interests falls to the Monitoring Officer of the Principal Authority, in this case North Norfolk District Council (s 29(4) of the Localism Act 2011). However, where a parish council has a website, it too must publish the register on its website (s29 (7) of the Localism Act 2011).

It is strongly advised that Langham Parish Council arrange for the register of members and co-opted members’ interests to be published on their website.

The law requires (The Localism Act 2011 together with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) regulations 2012) establishes those pecuniary interests which must be disclosed by members taking office. Members must, within 28 days of their becoming a member (or when re-elected and co-opted re-appointed) notify the monitoring officer of any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been entered on the register of interests. By way of clarification, that interest includes interests of their partner/spouse (or equivalent co-habitant).

However, given the Localism Act 2011 requires reference in an authority’s Code of Conduct to the registration and declaration of pecuniary and other interests, it is likely that the Langham Parish Council Code of Conduct will contain provisions for a member to fail to disclose their pecuniary interests (although I cannot say for any certainty at this stage since this is not published on their website).

Having interrogated the Principal Council’s records (electronic and paper files), whilst I am able to confirm that Mr Allen has registered his pecuniary interests since his re- election/appointment, there are no records to indicate he did so previously. He has indicated he did so, however, the absence of such records, although persuasive, does not categorically mean that the Subject member did not, or did not at least try, to register his interests.

On the face of it, a failure to register his interests would likely amount to a breach of the Langham Code of Conduct. Furthermore, this particular scenario does involve a potentially undeclared pecuniary interest and a potential development of the same, which, if it were to go ahead, could result in a substantial financial gain by the Subject Member.

That said, I note that he has owned and farmed land in the Parish of Langham for some 40 years and has made no attempt to hide this, and says he has registered such interests every 4 years for the 26 years he has been a member of Langham Parish Council. I have also reviewed the minutes of the parish council meeting of 14 November 2022 when the potential development was first raised and the minutes from the parish Council meeting of 7 March 2023 which immediately followed a public consultation regarding the potential development and note that the Subject Member declared his interest as owner and/or as having partial control of the land. It does not appear to me these are the actions of someone who is deliberately attempting to gain an advantage by not registering his interest in the land.

I further note that the potential development is in its early stages, with no decision as to whether to support or not support planning application for the same as yet. The Subject Member’s interests are now appropriately registered. Whilst, there is an issue of perception in the Subject Member’s alleged failure to register his interests, I am also mindful that there is a specific alternative route for action to be taken for the Subject Member’s failure to declare his interests, as may be necessary. All things considered, I am not of the view that this matter merits the time and cost of further action by the Council, other than to remind the Subject Member, and indeed all Councillors, in the interests of transparency and accountability, that it is imperative that pecuniary interests are appropriately registered in line with the legal requirements, and that the onus to do so lies with the individual member. This is all the more important where a member’s pecuniary interests go beyond that of owning their home in the parish concerned.

DECISION

No further action, save for the following recommendations:

• Langham Parish Council publish its register of interests on its website in compliance with the Localism Act 2011.
• Langham Parish Council publish its Code of Conduct on its website.
• Members are reminded that the onus is on them to register their pecuniary interests with North Norfolk District Council and to make appropriate checks that this has been received.

JO FURNER

PRINCIPAL LAWYER AND DEPUTY MONITORING OFFICER

Date: 8 June 2023

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION

 

---

We should like to make it very clear that our complaints were not intended to impugn the character of either Mr Godfrey or Mr Allen. Rather, they were made to ensure that the law of the land was being followed by our representatives, particularly in such a sensitive matter as a development that could alter the face of the village.

We should also make it clear that we are not opposed to any form of development in the village, merely to a development such as the one concerned, which in our view is completely unsuitable.

The Parish Council questionnaire

The Parish Council has told us that it is about to distribute a questionnaire to find out what residents think about the proposal to build 35 houses on land west of North Street.

You can simply say you are for or against the proposal, or qualify your approval of it if certain conditions are met.

There are five basic reasons to be in favour of the proposal.

1. It will enrich the landowner involved, who is coincidentally the Vice Chair of the Parish Council;

2. It will enrich the developers;

3. It will provide employment for construction workers for the 18-24 months during which the site is being landscaped and the houses put up;

4. It will increase the population of the village, currently about 350, by some 50-100 souls;

5. It may provide some measure of affordable housing in Langham.

If you broadly approve of the scheme but have reservations, the questionnaire offers the following options:

1. You need reassurance about safe entry to and exit from the development;

2. You would like to see a reduction in the number of houses proposed or a guarantee that the number would not increase from 35;

3. You would like a proportion of the homes to be affordable;

4. You would like to see ‘legal protection to ensure that the homes cannot be used as second or holiday homes (if we think this could be possible)’;

5. You have other concerns.

Safe entry to and exit from the development

Access to the site must be made either from North Street or Binham Road. In either event, most of this extra traffic will use the crossroads by the church. The line of sight when emerging there from North Street is bad enough, but coming the other way, from Field Dalling Road, it is positively dangerous: so dangerous in fact that drivers must nose forward into Binham Road in order to see what’s coming.

An exit into Binham Road would also be dangerous, given the way the road curves, even if the existing and historic (it was once the village school) Parish Room were to be demolished; Lanpro have mooted providing a new village hall.

Prompted by a previous planning application for the same piece of land, the Highways Department at Norfolk County Council voiced grave concerns about the implications for road safety.

They also commented that the village is in need of more footways. Walking east from the Cockthorpe road, one can follow for a while the safe footway provided during construction of the St Mary’s estate, but at Astley Cottage this runs out and one must cross the road, again with a poor line of sight, to a narrow footway which becomes even narrower when approaching the crossroads. Having crossed over and with the church on one’s right, this narrow footway soon ends. After that, almost all the way to the Blakeney road, one must walk in the carriageway – which is often obstructed by parked vehicles.

Most of the length of North Street is served by a safe footway on its east side, but in Field Dalling Road there is no footway at all.

Fewer houses

Reduction in the number of homes below a certain point, particularly if some of them are to be designated as affordable, may make any development uneconomic. Developers fiercely resist such a reduction. However, it is possible that the figure of 35 dwellings has been put forward with the intention of appearing to compromise later by settling for fewer, a suspicion given credence by the fact that the number proposed in 2019 was only 27, four of which were to have been flats.

Affordable homes

The definition of ‘affordable’ is elastic and is discussed in this BBC article from 2016. In rough terms, an affordable home is sold at something like 80% of the market value. Developers may be required by district councils to include a number of such properties in their plans, but of course each one reduces the profitability of the development, so there is much negotiation about this before full planning consent is given.

Assuming that the new market-rate houses proposed for Langham are comparable to those on the St Mary’s estate, albeit with much smaller gardens, the affordable homes would cost something in the region of £400,000.

Using the basic mortgage calculator found here, and assuming the purchasers can supply a £50,000 deposit, and assuming the current mortgage rate of 4.5%, they will need to find £1945 a month to service a £350,000 repayment mortgage. Over the full term they will pay £583,398, which includes interest of £233,398. These are of course approximate figures. The historic bank rate since the seventeenth century has been about 5%. Given the current rate of inflation, we could soon see it go considerably higher than that.

Restrictions on occupation

In its questionnaire the Parish Council itself expresses doubt as to whether covenants restricting the occupation of these houses will be enforceable, a doubt we can only endorse. In any case, such covenants would reduce the value of the houses and make the whole scheme less financially viable.

In legal circles it is known that restrictive covenants can be and are breached all the time. If such breaches remain uncontested at law, the covenants eventually become null and void.

As to the designation of a country property as a second home, it is common practice for someone living in, say, London to designate the London house as the second home and the country property as the primary residence, neatly circumventing whatever impositions a local authority seeks to make.

Other concerns

These are many and various. The scheme if built would run a coach and horses through numerous NNDC core strategy policies, especially concerning development in the countryside and in ‘small growth villages’, of which Langham is a prime example.

If you want to look these policies up on the NNDC website, they are as follows:

SS 1: Spatial Strategy for North Norfolk

SS 2: Development in the Countryside

SS 4: Environment

SS 6: Access and Infrastructure

HO 1: Dwelling Mix and Type

HO 2: Provision of Affordable Housing

HO 3: Affordable Housing in the Countryside

EN 1: Norfolk Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads (PDF)

EN 2: Protection and Enhancement of Landscape and Settlement Character

EN 8: Protecting and Enhancing the Historic Environment

EN 9: Biodiversity & Geology

EN 10: Development and Flood Risk

CT 1: Open Space Designations

CT 5: The Transport Impact of New Development

CT 6: Parking Provision

In brief, this is a greenfield site lying within both the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Langham Conservation Area. Building over it will irreversibly change the character of the village and put unwonted pressure on local infrastructure, especially the road system.

For these reasons alone the proposal is highly unsuitable and, we submit, without merit.

The site

Image credit: Gaynor Pannier

Parish Council meeting, 9 May

The next scheduled meeting of the Parish Council will be held next Tuesday, starting at 7.00 pm in the Village Hall. We have requested of the Parish Clerk that the matter of the housing development proposed by Lanpro be included in the agenda of that meeting.

Mr Patrick Allen is the Vice Chair of the Parish Council and has unofficially disclosed that he has a pecuniary interest in the proposed development.

Section 31 of the Localism Act, 2011, requires him to recuse himself at that meeting from all discussion of the proposed development. He may not ‘(a) participate, or participate further, in any discussion of the matter at the meeting, or (b) participate in any vote, or further vote, taken on the matter at the meeting, but this is subject to section 33.’ Section 33 deals with dispensation from this requirement, which as far as we are aware has not been issued.

The Local Government Association has issued a ‘Model Councillor Code of Conduct’ for the guidance of its members. This document is available [pdf] on the NNDC website, which implies that NNDC expects its councillors, and by extension the parish councillors over whom it exercises authority, to observe its terms. In Appendix B we find the following directive:

4. Where a matter arises at a meeting which directly relates to one of your Disclosable Pecuniary Interests as set out in Table 1, you must disclose the interest, not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not remain in the room unless you have been granted a dispensation. If it is a ‘sensitive interest’, you do not have to disclose the nature of the interest, just that you have an interest. Dispensation may be granted in limited circumstances, to enable you to participate and vote on a matter in which you have a disclosable pecuniary interest.

Table 1 includes as a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest ‘Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the council.’

Thus we expect Mr Allen to leave the room when the subject of the proposed development comes under discussion.

A meeting of the Parish Council is a public event. Anyone may attend and observe, and there is a 15-minute period when the Council takes questions from members of the public. We suggest that everyone interested in the development proposal should attend. The Chair has the right summarily to close the meeting if it becomes rowdy, and so we (unnecessarily, we are sure!) urge those present to behave with the restraint and decorum that so characterise those of us lucky enough to live in Langham.

Update, 1 May 2023

More than fifty people attended the meeting at the Village Hall on Friday, and the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be against the Lanpro proposal. The committee, comprising seven members, was formed. Afterwards the meeting turned into an enjoyable social event amounting almost to a party, thanks to the wine, etc. and gourmet treats generously provided by Jo and Mark Cutmore-Scott of The Harper.

One of the new members unfortunately had to stand down, for personal reasons, before the first meeting.

The committee held its first meeting today, 1 May, with Louise Goodenough as elected Chair. The present members are:

Louise Goodenough

Jonathan Barnes

Frank Blundell

Laura Osborne

Adam Pitchford

Fiona Priest

Don’t forget, this is an enterprise involving everyone who wants to be involved. We will keep you updated via this blog, and if you have any information or other assistance to offer us, we would love to hear from you. The contact details are on the sidebar.

We learned tonight that NNDC has rejected the pre-planning application for the land opposite The Rectory. You can read the Senior Planning Officer’s response here. This greatly reduces the chance that the Binham Road/North Street proposal will get anywhere, but we are still assuming an application for it will be made and have not relaxed our efforts.

The planning process

A proposal like the one published by Lanpro can be worrying, but it is important to keep a level head. The stress is made worse by uncertainty and lack of knowledge. Stress about a housing proposal is greatly eased by an understanding of the process whereby a housing development gets the go-ahead from the authorities.

This process can be protracted, and we emphasise straight away that the Binham Road/North Street scheme is at its earliest and most tenuous stage.

The landowner and the developer

Obviously, before any sort of housing scheme can go forward, the developer either has to own the land or have a legal agreement with the present landowner. Such an agreement is likely to commit the landowner to selling to the developer if full planning permission is granted; by then the price per acre will have increased manyfold.

Someone seeking to maximise the price of his or her land might approach a property developer directly. Alternatively he or she might approach a planning consultancy. A planning consultancy, among other activities, will work on behalf of developers. The planning consultancy in our present case is Lanpro, which seems to have a close relationship with Glavenhill (or GlavenHill; both forms appear on its website), the putative developer. Quite often, especially in urban and suburban settings, it can work the other way round – a planning consultancy or developer might identify a possible site on the map and approach the landowner.

Once these relationships are in place, the next step is to produce an impression of what the development might look like. This is the stage we are at now with the proposal published by Lanpro earlier in the year. Clearly they perceive difficulty ahead, which is why they went to the trouble of mailing a glossy A3 brochure to nearby residents, lauding the purported benefits of the scheme; on 7 March they also set up an exhibition in the Village Hall. The purpose of such moves is generally to minimise the level of opposition to be encountered were a formal application to be put forward. Lanpro themselves claim, ‘We are committed to working with local people, to fully understand the opportunity at Langham and to gauge the support that is likely to be forthcoming for our emerging proposals.’

Planning permission

Legislation enshrined in the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 requires any new development to be granted planning permission. As defined, ‘development’ refers to various enterprises, such as quarrying or engineering projects, change of use (e.g. from residential to commercial use), and putting up buildings.

Some forms of minor development, like maintenance of an existing building (say, renewing the windows in a house which is neither listed nor in a conservation area), are defined as ‘permitted development’ and do not need planning permission.

If planning permission is required it must be sought in the first instance from the local planning authority, which in our case is North Norfolk District Council.

It is not necessary for an applicant to own the land. The applicant will apply either for full planning permission straight away (very unlikely in such a sensitive case as this) or for outline planning permission, which if granted essentially says the local authority finds the proposal broadly acceptable.

The next step is an application for so-called ‘reserved matters’. This provides more detail than the outline planning application, and includes things like the exact size, appearance and status of the buildings, landscaping, and the provision of access roads and other public amenities. There is likely to be negotiation at this stage between the applicant and the local authority.

Once the reserved matters application has been approved, full planning permission can follow. Sometimes a ‘hybrid’ application is made, for outline planning permission for some parts of the scheme but full planning permission for the rest.

If planning permission is granted in full, that does not necessarily mean a scheme will proceed: the landowner may sell the site to another, or decide not to build for the present because of the economic climate. Planning permission is often time-limited and must be renewed. In some circumstances it can also be varied. Sooner or later, though, an approved scheme in one form or another will probably go ahead.

Opposition

If a local authority deems an application unsuitable it will be rejected. Strict policies for new housing are in place, whether drawn up by a district or county council or central government. Even if the application satisfies the requirements of these policies, it yet may be rejected for various reasons, such as concerns about road safety or the capacity of local infrastructure.

At bottom a district council is a political construct and is beholden to the electorate for its powers. Besides deciding whether an application conforms with official policies, it must take into account the views of interested parties, such as local residents.

It is the planning officers who receive planning applications. If these are minor they may be approved without being referred to the councillors on the planning committee. If, however, an application is controversial, it takes on a definite political colour and will certainly be referred to the planning committee for a decision.

Should the vote be negative, the applicant may appeal it; the government body concerned is the Planning Inspectorate. An inspector will review all the paperwork and make a site visit, after which he or she will give his or her verdict, which is binding.

What’s next?

When a planning application is made there is a statutory period of 21 days in which comments can be submitted to the local planning authority. Notices (often on bright yellow paper) may be posted at or near the site to inform interested parties of this.

It is during this crucial 21-day period that objectors must get to work. Sometimes would-be objectors are unaware of or unprepared for an application and unable to act as effectively as they would like.

That is why an action committee needs to be set up now. The steering group, its prototype, have already assembled a veritable arsenal of data and are acquiring more and more as time goes on.

This is only the first stage in what might prove a long struggle. We hope that sense will prevail and the proponents of the scheme will not take it further, but if they do we shall be ready for them.

Six new dwellings opposite the Rectory?

A pre-planning application was submitted to NNDC last January for the erection of six dwellings, with a car park, on land opposite the Rectory:

The consultation period has passed and comments are officially closed, but the Case Officer, Ms Jayne Owen (jayne dot owen at north-norfolk.gov.uk), has indicated that comments may still be submitted*. If you wish to object to the proposal, it is far more effective if each objection is individually written and signed. A petition or form letter, no matter how many signatories it may have, counts as one objection.

The case number is IS2/23/0039, which refers to ‘Erection of six dwellings with car park, publicly accessible open space and landscaping | Land North Of Holt Road Langham Norfolk NR25 7BX.’ NNDC advice about making comments is available here.

The proposal is alarming in its own right in that the site makes a very important contribution to the character of Holt Road and the village in general. This proposal may also have a bearing on the one to build at Binham Road/North Street, in that if Holt Road goes ahead, the case against the other, newer proposal could be weakened.

* UPDATE

It was to the best of our belief that we stated (above) that comments on this pre-planning application were still being entertained. However, our informant was as surprised as we were to find that this is not the case: the commenting period has ended, and we apologise for any inconvenience caused to Ms Owen and commenters alike.

Nonetheless, we understand that all comments will be retained in the council’s case-file relating to the proposal.

An intriguing mystery

A proposal to develop the Binham Road/North Street site was put before North Norfolk District Council in 2019. The Senior Planning Officer’s response ended with a summary.

‘The proposal is situated within the Countryside as defined by Policy SS 1 where the principle of development is limited to that which requires a rural location and that meets one or more of the criteria within a closed list as defined in Policy SS 2. As the proposal is for market led housing this does not meet any of the required criteria, the rural location is considered to be unsustainable development and Contrary to Policies SS 1 and SS 2.

‘The proposed development is considered to have a potentially significant detrimental impact upon the natural environment as the site represents an important open space within Langham and is situated within the AONB. It is considered that the proposal for 27 dwellings in this location would have a detrimental impact upon the landscape and the AONB and is therefore not considered to be in accordance with Policies SS 4, EN 1, EN 2 and EN 9 of the Core Strategy.

‘The proposal is situated within the Langham Conservation Area and it is considered that the proposal for 27 dwellings would have result in significant harm to the designated heritage asset. At present [our emphasis] the benefits arising from the proposed scheme do not outweigh the potential harm and the proposal is, therefore, not considered to be in accordance with Policy EN 8 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 196 of the NPFF.

‘Norfolk County Council as the Highway Authority raise objections in regard to highway safety, particularly in regard to visibility splays at the Binham Road/Holt Road junction and the potential safety implications that this would cause. Further to this there is a lack of footways in the village and therefore pedestrian safety would also be compromised with the addition of further traffic movements. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to policies SS 6 and CT 5.

‘Were a formal application to be made on this site further consideration would also need to be given to the provision of open space (notwithstanding the suggested retention of the protected open space designated through Policy CT 1) and the potential impact of surface water and groundwater flood risk.

‘Based on the information provided it is considered that the principle of a residential, market led development would not be considered in accordance with the Development Plan and the case for a departure has not been made.’

This expert analysis of a proposal for ‘27 dwellings’ should surely have dissuaded any developer from wasting money on making a fresh proposal, not only for the same site but for almost 30% more dwellings. Unless something substantial has changed since 2019, the present proposal is a mystery.

The Senior Planning Officer’s letter ends with a list of ‘Validation Requirements’:

‘If a planning application were submitted the following items would be required:

• A full set of existing and proposed plans

• Application Form

• Completed ownership certificate

• Correct Fee

• Design and Access Statement

• Location Plan

• Site Plan

• Affordable Housing Statement

• Assessment of Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Broads

• Sustainable Drainage Strategy including Foul Water and Surface Water Management

• Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

• Flood risk assessment

• Foul Drainage Assessment

• Heritage Statement

• Landscape Character and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment

• Landscape Proposals

• Open Space Assessment and Strategy

• Planning Statement

• Refuse and Waste Strategy

• Section 106 Planning Obligations Statement including Draft Head(s) of Terms and undertakings to pay legal costs

• Statement of Community Involvement

• Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment

• Viability Assessment (if not in line with Affordable Housing Policy)’

The validation requirements, if satisfied, would involve the applicant in considerable and potentially futile expense, the more so were individual objections by residents to be numerous, coherent, apposite and comprehensive – which is precisely what we are hoping to foster.

We strongly recommend that the developer shelve this plan, just as the abortive 1991, 1992 and 2019 plans were shelved. Indeed, the 1992 application was rejected on appeal.