To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012.

With regard to Minute number 48/12 Deferred Application, Attleborough, page 4 of the Agenda, the first paragraph of the second paragraph should read, ‘it was one Councillor’s belief that to place additional traffic lights at Connaught Plain together with existing lights outside the Post Office would create a worse situation than at present, and that traffic would back up even more’.

With regard to Minute number 49/12 Item (j) of the Schedule of Planning Applications, Old Buckenham, page 9 of the Agenda, the penultimate paragraph should read, ‘some properties in Fen Street had suffered flooding and to build on more land, would take away drainage’.

Subject to the above, the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 May 2012 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Cllr Sharpe declared a personal interest in Agenda Items 8 (b), Deferred Applications, Attleborough, and Agenda Item 9, Schedule of Planning Applications Item No. 1, Snetterton by virtue of being the Executive Support Member for Assets & Strategic Development.

Cllr Claussen declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 9, Schedule of Planning Applications Item No. 2, Mattishall by virtue of close family members owning property in Mattishall.

Cllrs Robinson and Kybird declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, Schedule of Planning Applications Item No. 4, Thetford by virtue of being Members of the Moving Thetford Forward Board.

Cllr Bowes declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 9, Schedule of Planning Applications Item No. 1, Snetterton, by virtue of a relative owning one of the companies who had submitted a letter of objection.

Cllrs Claussen and Bambridge were welcomed as Planning Committee Members, as was Cllr English as a substitute.  Farewells were accorded to the former Chairman Cllr Gould, and Cllr Wassell.

To receive an update. 

Following further consultation with regard to TAAP, the Council had received recommendations from the Inspector on 30 May 2012, who found the TAAP sound, subject to minor amendments as shown on the website.  The Policy Team had started to produce documents for adoption, with a report scheduled to go to full Council on 5 July 2012.  If adopted, it would be part of Breckland’s LDF.

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

The demolition of an existing detached dwelling and construction of a replacement dwelling was proposed outside the Settlement Boundary.  The application had been deferred from the Planning Committee held on 14 May 2012 to enable negotiations to take place in respect of the siting and design of the proposed replacement dwelling.

The applicant was not prepared to amend the proposal further, and he had asked Members to consider factors as detailed in the report.

Mr Cowen, Ward Representative advised that since the deferment he had spoken to both Thompson Parish Council and the applicant.  He said that the property was of a very urban design in a very rural location and was not appropriate for the location.  Whilst the Parish Council did not object to the site being developed, their concern was about the form and layout.

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to conditions as listed in the report and an additional condition removing permitted development rights in relation to curtilage buildings.

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Cllr Sharpe declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Executive Support Member for Assets & Strategic Development.  Members had received correspondence with regard to the application.

David Higgins of Norfolk County Council Highways was in attendance to answer questions.

The proposal was deferred by the Planning Committee on 11 April 2012 to enable further consideration to be given to transport matters, in consultation with the applicant and the Highway Authority.  Concerns about the potential amenity impact of 2½ storey houses on London Road were also raised.  The application was deferred again by the Planning Committee on 14 May 2012.

Revised plans had since been submitted which proposed an extension of the traffic management measures further eastwards along London Road towards the town centre.  Speed reactive signs and enhanced cycling links were also now proposed.  The number of 2½ storey houses on the London Road frontage had been reduced from seven to five.  The remaining units would be interspersed evenly amongst the 2 storey houses.  

Mr Hall, Objector and representative of the Attleborough Community Team, questioned the public consultation, and reasons for refusal were the severe impact on the Town Centre and a cycle way that went nowhere.  He asked the Committee to support local democracy, the residents of Attleborough, the Town and District Councillors and refuse the application until it was included in ASHAAP.   

Ms Taylor, Attleborough Town Council,  stated there had been no consultation and despite strong representation by the Town Council and Ward Members no changes of substance had been made to the proposal.  The Town Council was not against the development but as it was outside the Settlement Boundary it should be part of the ASHAAP.

Mr Osborn, Agent advised that they had listened and acted on all matters of concern.

Cllr Stasiak, Ward Representative commented that if the scheme was not viable, then it should not go ahead, as the people of Attleborough did not want it in its present form.  He was still of the belief that it was a “cheap fix”.   He questioned if any surveys had been done on air quality and air pollution.  If there was a need for higher storey houses, they should go in the middle of the development so they overlooked the new houses, and not the residents who currently had private gardens.  It was outside the Settlement Boundary.

Cllr Martin, Ward Representative stated that as the application was prior to ASHAAP the totals should come off the proposed 4000 units, and that Attleborough needed assurance that the long term affect on the town, traffic and infrastructure would be taken into account.

In answer to a Councillor’s concerns about the safety of the fast London Road, what part of it would be narrowed particularly from the south west, and there being no mention of New Road on Highway’s plans, Mr Higgins of NCC Highways believed that whilst there would be more traffic, with the speed reduction features taken down to the full extent of the site and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications :

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows :

(a)       Item 1 : Snetterton : Erection of a 40MW renewable energy biomass power station and associated works : Applicant : Iceni Energy Ltd : Reference : 3PL/2012/0029/F

Cllr Sharpe declared a personal interest by virtue of being the Executive Support Member for Assets & Strategic Development.

Cllr Bowes declared a personal interest by virtue of a relative owning one of the companies who had submitted a letter of objection.

Members had received correspondence about the proposal.

The Senior Planning Policy Officer presented the report, which was for the erection of a 40MW renewable energy biomass power station and associated works.  The main structures which would form the development would be the turbine and boiler house, two fuel storage barns, wood storage barn, stack and an air cooled condenser.  It would also include smaller structures as identified in the report.  The total area of the proposed site that formed the application would be approximately 9.0 ha. The site was outside the Settlement Boundary.

Many letters of support and objection had been received from local residents and the areas they referred to were outlined in the report.

The proposed power station would accord with both local and national planning policies which encouraged the development of renewable energy projects.  By addressing current energy problems in the locality, the proposal would also help to promote the development of the Snetterton Heath employment area.  Careful consideration had been given to anticipated environmental impacts, and it had been concluded that the scheme would not result in significant adverse effects.  Accordingly, the application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Mr Napier, Shropham Parish Council, stated that there had been overwhelming concern despite the need for electricity, by those who attended a meeting at Shropham Village Hall in February 2012, as the proposal fell outside the core strategy along with other reasons for objection detailed in the report.

Mr Skinner, Snetterton Parish Council, was concerned the proposal was in the wrong place and outside the development area for the village and should be on industrial development land.  Local agricultural community would be adversely affected.

Mr Foster, Objector, believed that the application was not a biomass plant but an incinerator and was not on Snetterton Heath, with the River Thet being about a mile from the site.  The application was the wrong technology in the wrong place.

Mr Hilton, Iceni, stated all limitations and restrictions were covered in their Environmental Statement.  Guarantees would be provided with regard to particulates and emissions from the chimney would be caught by filtration.  Anglian Farms had given assurances that they could provide all the fuel, would enter into a 15 year agreement and would not use farmers who were not members of Anglian Farms.

Cllr Cowen, Ward Representative, believed there were errors and omissions in the report.  He was concerned about the Snetterton and Thetford Area Action Plan.  The level of scale of the proposed development would affect future growth of Snetterton as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

Report of the Director of Commissioning

Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.

Noted.

APP/F2605/E/11/2163002 : 1 Church Street, Litcham, Kings Lynn, Norfolk, PE32 2NS : Appeal against the refusal to grant listed building consent for conversion of ancillary accommodation to two self-contained holiday lets : Reference : 3PL/2011/0151/LB

Decision : Appeal Dismissed

Noted.

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.

Noted.

Noted.