Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
Contact: Committee Services 01362 656870
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2013.
The Minutes of the meeting held on 28 October 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)
To receive apologies for absence.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bowes and W Richmond.
Councillor Duigan was present as Substitute.
Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received (Agenda Item 3)
Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest.
In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.
All Members had received direct representation for the following items:
Schedule Item 2 Watton
Schedule Item 5 Little Dunham
Scehdule Item 9 Dereham
Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)
The Chairman welcomed Paul Took to the meeting. He was temporarily working in the Planning Department again.
Requests to Defer Applications included in this Agenda (Agenda Item 5)
To consider any requests from Ward Members, officers or applicants to defer an application included in this agenda, so as to save any unnecessary waiting by members of the public attending for such applications.
The Solicitor noted that Schedule Item 4 (Old Buckenham) had been withdrawn and Schedule Item 10 (Thetford) had been deferred from the agenda.
Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)
To receive an update.
The Director of Planning & Business Manager gave a brief update.
Work was continuing on key pieces of evidence to support the Local Plan. The next meeting of the Local Plan Working Group would be held on 3 December 2013 and would consider the Employment Growth Study and the Housing Numbers reports.
The three Transport Studies for Attleborough had been considered by Cabinet and the Local Plan Working Group on 29 October and had been accepted as part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. Further work was needed to assess the costs associated with the Council using its powers of Compulsory Purchase.
Work was also underway on a Local Service Centre topic paper which would re-look at which villages should be local service centres and the potential for housing growth within them.
The Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) had been reported to Cabinet on 29 October. Just prior to that meeting the Government had released its response to the consultation on changes to the CIL Regulations. New Regulations would be published in January. Cabinet had therefore decided to delay the consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule until after the CIL regulations were published. The delay was likely to set back the introduction of CIL charging to October-December 2014.
Councillor Bambridge asked whether the principles would be changes for the Local Service Centre Review. The Director of Planning & Business Manager advised that all Councillors would be invited to a visioning exercise to be held in the New Year to look at the whole aspect and he expected that to result in a change to the principles.
Councillor Claussen asked if the Council stood to lose any money due to the late introduction of the CIL but he was advised that was not likely.
To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.
COLKIRK: Azure, Market Hill: Minor Material Amendment to 3PL/2011/0747/F in respect of increased height of the dwelling and garage and a Juliet balcony to the front elevation (retrospective): Applicant: Mr and Mrs Cram: Reference: 3PL/2013/0434/F PDF 52 KB
Report of the Director of Commissioning.
This application, for an amendment to a dwelling which had been built higher than approved, had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 1 July 2013 for negotiations between the Applicants and the Objector on mitigation measures.
The Applicants had suggested planting bamboo between the fence and wall as it would reach a good height quickly and would screen softly, with movement. Other options had been considered and rejected for various reasons. The neighbour had not been satisfied with their proposal and had suggested the planting of mature pleached hornbeam with a maintenance agreement. The main volume of the trees would be above the fence creating a good screen.
Attention was drawn to a recent amendment adding a Juliet balcony. Officers felt that both the balcony and the proposal to plant bamboo were acceptable.
Mrs Lawrence (Objector) had suggested the pleached hornbeam as it would provide a natural hedge-on-stilts with no risk of root damage. She was even willing to have the trees planted on her side of the fence. Bamboo was non-native, did not fit the rural location and had invasive roots.
Mrs Cram (Applicant) said the application sought approval for the additional 15 inches in height. They were willing to mitigate its appearance but as the fence was less than five feet from the garage it was difficult to plant. Bamboo had been suggested after research. The impact of the extra 15 inches was not adverse. Most of the house was single storey whereas Mrs Lawrence’s house was three storeys. If the extra height had been included in the original application it would probably have been accepted.
Councillor Armes was very disappointed. She did not think that bamboo was suitable; it could be noisy and invasive. She favoured the pleached hornbeams. She was also concerned about the sudden addition of the Juliet balcony.
Councillor Spencer agreed and asked where the balcony would be located. The position of the balcony was pointed out. It was also clarified that a Juliet balcony was a safety feature only, providing railings across a window opening to stop people falling out.
Members discussed their powers to impose a condition for the planting of the pleached hornbeams. The Planning Manager advised that it would be difficult to enforce a condition to plant the trees in the neighbour’s garden and might require a legal agreement.
Mrs Cram asked whether the Council would be liable for any damage to the foundations if they enforced such a condition and the Solicitor advised that the Council would not normally be liable for any such damage in connection with a planning permission but said that she should take legal advice.
It was confirmed by several persons present that pleached hornbeam could be planted (if done in the correct manner) without any risk to buildings.
RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to conditions including:
a) the planting of pleached hornbeam along the length of the garage wall;
b) details of the planting scheme and future maintenance to be submitted ... view the full minutes text for item 116a
To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:
RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:
(a) Item 1: DEREHAM: Mill Vue Farm, Badley Moor: Revocation of covenants 5.1, 5.3 & 5.4 on pp 3PL/2006/1067 relating to occupational restriction: Applicant: Mr & Mrs Worledge: Reference: 3OB/2013/0002/OB
This application requested the lifting of restrictions tying the dwelling to the agricultural engineering business. The applicants had not been able to secure a mortgage to build the house due to the legal tie. Although Officers had sympathy with the applicants there was no policy justification to remove the restriction.
Mr Futter (Agent) said the Applicants had been trying to obtain a mortgage since 2008 but due to the restriction they could not find a lender. They were living on site in the caravan which had been given temporary permission. They had lived on the site for 21 years and wanted to build a modest dwelling. It was a successful rural enterprise.
Councillor L Monument (Ward Representative) said that the legal agreement was a blight on the property which would continue to affect whoever owned the site. There was no chance to borrow money. Officers were right about the Policy but she asked Members to use their prerogative to make an exception.
Councillor Claussen noted that the rules and policies had been drawn up in better times.
The temporary permission for the caravan was clarified by the Planning Manager who advised Members that once that permission expired Enforcement Action could be taken to remove the caravan if necessary. However, if the restriction was lifted and the dwelling built, the caravan could remain as a chattel in the grounds. If economic conditions changed the house could be built. He asked Members to consider whether they would grant permission for an unrestricted dwelling on the site.
The vote was tied and the Chairman used his casting vote to support the recommendation.
Refused, as recommended.
(b) Item 2: WATTON: Thetford Road: Erection of 110 Dwellings with associated Open Space: Applicant: Hopkins Homes Limited: Reference: 3PL/2013/0510/F
This full application for 110 dwellings would include 25% affordable housing (28 units). The District Valuer had confirmed that 40% was not viable and 25% was acceptable. The supplementary information provided referred to a contribution for bird monitoring and mitigation. That figure had been re-calculated and should be £125,000. If that sum was required the applicant would have to reduce their affordable housing contribution to 22% (25 units).
Mr Denempont (Objector) said that Watton did not have the facilities to accommodate the development. If affordable housing was developed it would attract more people and there were not enough shops, doctors or schools.
Mr Smith (Applicant) said the development had been carefully planned in consultation with officers and key stakeholders. The current scheme would provide affordable and market housing, open space and land for the school.
Councillor Wassell (Ward Representative) had concerns about the development. The four accesses to the site were potential accident spots, there should be a roundabout at Barn Ruche. He was also concerned about the proposal to ... view the full minutes text for item 117.
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.
Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 12)
APP/F2605/A/13/2196145: EAST TUDDENHAM: Centaur, Church Lane: Appeal against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission by Mr. & Mrs. Taylor: The development proposed is change of use of former workshop/store and self contained flat to a 3 bedroom dwelling: Reference: 3PL/2013/0032/F
Decision: Appeal Dismissed and planning permission refused
Summary: The Inspector considered that the appeal site was not a sustainable location and would not enhance or maintain the vitality of a rural community. It was not demonstrated that the commercial use of the building was unviable. The proposal would not amount to the appropriate re-use of an existing building in the countryside.
APP/F2605/A/13/2199481: SHROPHAM: Highview Farm, Watton Road: Appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission for a proposed agricultural farm manager's dwelling by Mr. & Mrs. A Leonard: Reference 3PL/2012/0997/F
Decision: Appeal allowed subject to conditions in relation to occupation, surfacing and drainage of the access, landscape works
Summary: The Inspector considered that there was sufficient justification for the additional dwelling
APP/F2605/A/13/2197719: LYNG/LENWADE: Wrongs Covert, Easthaugh Road: Appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission for renewal of planning permission 3PL/2009/.0379/F in respect of permanent permission for continued use of timber workshop and storage to facilitate woodland restoration project by Ms. K. Harris: Reference: 3PL/2012/0608/F
Decision: Appeal dismissed
Summary: The Inspector considered that it was not clear that the woodland social enterprise was well established. The economic, educational and ecological benefits of the enterprise had not been quantified or assessed. A reasoned assessment could not be made as to whether it was a genuine enterprise whose public benefits outweighed the harm to the character and appearance of the countryside. It had not been demonstrated that the risk of flooding had been minimised.
APP/F2605/C/13/2195799: SHIPDHAM : Otterwood Kennels, Watton Road: Appeal against an enforcement notice in relation to unauthorised mixed use of land for residential, joinery and paint stripping business and storage in connection with a construction business by Mr. J. Jay
Decision: Appeal dismissed and enforcement notice upheld with corrections and variations
Summary: The Inspector concluded that:
- the appellant had not made out his case that copies of the notice were not served as required
- the appellant had not made out his case that the part of the mixed use alleged comprising the residential use is not in breach of planning control
- the appeal on ground (d) fails. At the time the notice was issued it was not too late to take enforcement action in respect of the breach alleged.
- Nine months would be sufficient time to cease the uses. The appeal on ground (g) fails.
APP/F2605/C/13/2195799: SHIPDHAM : Otterwood Kennels, Watton Road: Application made by Breckland District Council for a partial award of costs against Mr. Joe Jay in connection with the above matter
Decision: Application allowed
Summary: The Inspector found that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary and wasted ... view the full agenda text for item 120.