Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Lakeside Lakes & Apartments

Lyng

27-36

2

Re:think Energy Limited

Bridgham

37-52

3

Mr I Thompson

Necton

53-60

4

Mr J M Wright

Holme Hale

61-68

5

Mrs Suzanne Large

Attleborough

69-74

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

a)         Item 1: LYNG: Lakeside Country Club, Quarry Lane: Revocation of part  consent 3/90/1720/F (16 units – 1 bed) and install 9 holiday lodges (static caravans) and works: Applicant: Lakeside Lakes & Apartments: Reference: 3PL/2014/0373/F

 

All Members had received direct correspondence on this item.

 

A previous scheme for 13 lodges had been refused and this revised application had reduced the density of development.  Officers considered that most of the concerns raised could be addressed by conditions.  An extant permission for 16 units could still be implemented and the new proposal was not expected to generate more traffic than that.  The applicant was happy to relinquish that permission if the current proposal was approved.

 

Concerns about the piecemeal development of the site and enforcement issues were also addressed.  The use of the holiday units as permanent dwellings had been investigated and could not be proven therefore no further enforcement action was proposed although the use would continue to be monitored.  An additional occupancy condition was proposed if Members were minded to approve the application.  A legal agreement would also be required to revoke part of the extant permission.

 

Mr Lambley (Parish Council) said the site was close to residential properties which shared the access road.  The Club was not a good neighbour.  The Bowls Club which used the facilities had been given notice to quit.  The need was not justified; the existing permission would have been implemented if there was a need.  It was common knowledge some units were used as permanent accommodation.  He urged Members not to approve the application without a clear plan for the future of the site and further enforcement action and suggested a site visit should be made.

 

Mr Booth (Objector) lived next to the site.  When he had bought his property the access track had been a metalled road with traffic calming, but the surface had been skimmed and the track was not well maintained.  Surface water flowed into gardens; debris was thrown up by passing traffic; dust was a problem in dry weather.  Acoustic fencing had been removed and the buffer zone did not work.  Residents suffered from anti social behaviour from Club visitors.  Before more development the road should be made up to a satisfactory standard.

 

Mr Futter (Agent) said the Club was very successful and offered various facilities including bowls, snooker and a swimming pool.  The complex had been inundated with enquiries from families requiring larger accommodation.  They were therefore seeking to replace the extant permission for one bed units with nine, two and three bed units.  Planning policy supported tourism and sustainable leisure development and the Club benefitted local businesses and the community.

 

Councillor Bambridge (Ward Representative) noted that the bowls complex should be a jewel in the crown, but it was not.  It was in a rural location close to the River Wensum, which had high protection status.  There were many unresolved matters and he asked Members to defer their decision and 1) carry out a site visit to see what was already there and what was proposed; 2) request a full appraisal of the outstanding applications and agree the total extent of future development; and 3) establish the actual use of the units.

 

Councillor Spencer wondered why it had taken so long for the applications to come to fruition.  She asked to see an updated business plan but was advised that the applicant was not required to submit that sort of information.

 

Councillor Duigan asked what constituted holiday accommodation as opposed to permanent accommodation.  If 11 months’ residence was permitted that was more or less a permanent permission.  He asked if the time limit could be reduced.  He was also concerned about the maintenance of the access track and lighting.

 

The Principal Planning Officer explained that there were lots of variations of ‘holiday accommodation’; some were seasonal but more often there was no restriction on the months of occupation as tourism went on all-year.  The Government encouraged flexibility.  It made it very difficult to determine the difference between holiday and permanent accommodation.  With regard to lighting the concerns were in respect of the previous permission and could not be address in the current application although lighting for that could be restricted to low-level only.  The applicant had agreed to bring Quarry Lane up to a good standard which should mean less maintenance would be required in future.  Other properties used the access and it would be expected that they would make a private arrangement to contribute to the maintenance costs.

 

Councillor North asked about the Bowls Club and the Agent advised that he was unaware they had been given notice to quit.  Mr Booth said that he had been informed that the bowls rink would be used as a children’s indoor play area in future.

 

In response to a further question about job creation the Agent advised that he did not know if there would be more jobs, but year round accommodation meant that people were employed all year.

 

After further discussion Councillor Claussen proposed that a site visit was needed and Members supported that suggestion.

 

Deferred, for a Site Visit.

 

b)         Item 2: BRIDGHAM: Land at Hall Farm and Field Barn Farm: Solar farm and associated works (inverter cabins, switchgear, access tracks, security measures and landscaping): Applicant: RE:think Energy Limited: Reference: 3PL/2014/0589/F

 

This item was deferred from the Agenda.  See Minute No 115/14 above.

 

c)         Item 3: NECTON: Town Farm, Chantry Lane: Erection of four dwellings: Applicant: Mr I Thompson: Reference: 3PL/2014/0590/O

 

This outline application for four dwellings was on a site outside the Settlement Boundary which was partly occupied by a car sales enterprise.  The proposal was for four detached, two storey 4-6 bedroom dwellings with no affordable housing to be provided due to viability issues which had been confirmed by the District Valuer.

 

The proposal was considered to be sustainable as Necton had a full range of amenities.  The site was well screened so there would be no significant negative impact.

 

Mrs Allen (Objector) was concerned because the access road was only six to eight feet from her windows and she could not see how it could be widened.

 

Mr Reeve (Agent) explained that the applicant could not make ends meet with the car business.  The site was immediately adjacent the Settlement Boundary and the village had adequate services.  The houses would be constructed to code level 4 and would be ‘built for life’.

 

Councillor Carter was sorry to hear the business was not viable as it had been when the applicant had moved to the site from Fransham two years previously.

 

Councillor North agreed, she remembered that it had been a thriving business unable to find other premises.  She had concerns about the lack of viability and the access road.  Large houses would generate a lot of traffic movements and there did not seem to be any passing places.

 

The Senior Planner advised that Highways required the road to be widened to 4.5 metres for the first ten metres into the site only.

 

Councillor Claussen felt that if no affordable housing was offered permission should be refused and Councillor Lamb agreed and noted that all the applications on the agenda were outside the Settlement Boundary.

 

The Chairman asked the Planning Manager to explain why the application was before the Committee.  The Planning Manager explained that the Council’s policies were out of date in the context of the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework).  The requirement for development had increased.  As the site already had commercial use National guidance was very much in favour of allowing its development for housing.

 

The Director of Planning & Business Manager pointed out that Settlement Boundaries were relevant as a starting point for determining the relationship with existing development in the context of deciding sustainability in relation to the five year housing land supply shortage.

 

Councillor Claussen accepted that but said there was only one mechanism for delivering affordable housing and he objected to it being lost.

 

Councillor Carter pointed out that the houses would rely on the village for services but were giving nothing towards its resources.  Councillor Bowes agreed and said she could not support the application without an affordable housing contribution.

 

Councillor Claussen proposed that the application be deferred and the Planning Manager be asked to negotiate with the developer before a decision was made.  The Planning Manager was happy to do that.

 

Deferred, for investigation into affordability.

 

d)         Item 4: HOLME HALE: Site adjacent No 12 Station Road: Proposed dwelling and new access/parking to No 12 (donor property): Applicant: Mr J M Wright: Reference: 3PL/2014/0763/F

 

This application sought permission for a single dwelling in the side garden of an existing dwelling which formed part of a mixed, linear form of development.  The new dwelling would be built gable end on to the road and would have a simple, contemporary feel.  Although the proposal did not perform well with regard to access to local services, there were villages nearby with better services.   Other issues were finely balanced but overall Officers felt it would be consistent with the character of the area and were recommending approval.

 

Mrs Hammond (Objector) lived in the adjacent property which was on land much lower than the application site.  She was concerned that she would have problems exiting her driveway if vehicles were parked on the highway which might occur as there would be less parking with a shared driveway.  The application was for a self-build which would mean noise and disturbance at weekends.  The application would set a precedent.

 

Mrs Kerr (Objector) lived over the road and said the driveway opposite would look directly into her bedroom and sitting room being very intrusive and leading to loss of privacy.  She also pointed out that the road was very narrow and there would be problems caused by vehicles parked on the road during construction.

 

Mr Wright (Applicant) had bought the site with the intention to self build a home for his family.  The existing planning permission had expired because he had needed to move the footprint of the dwelling.  The original permission had been granted when the site was within the Settlement Boundary – it was now outside.  He acknowledged that there would be some disruption during the build but he would try to address any issues as he did not want to fall out with his future neighbours.  He had shrunk the design and obscured the windows to overcome other concerns.

 

Councillor Bowes asked to look again at the elevations to see the extent of overlooking.  The window layout was explained.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

e)         Item 5: ATTLEBOROUGH: Land south side of Bellevue Bungalow, Poplar Road: Erection of one dwelling house: Applicant: Mrs Suzanne Large: Reference: 3PL/2014/0952/F

 

 For clarity, Councillor North declared that she knew the Applicant’s son.

 

The application sought permission for a two storey dwelling in garden land between two bungalows with a ditch to one boundary.  The height had been kept to a minimum and it was not considered that the development would be out of place.  It was recommended for approval subject to conditions including an assessment of the capacity of the existing septic tank and an archaeological condition which had been requested by the NCC Historic Environment Officer.

 

Councillor Stasiak (Ward Representative) supported the application which was on land that the applicant had owned for 30 years.  It was a perfect infill plot.  The nearby railway line now had automatic barriers which had improved safety.  The recent decision on the route for the relief road would lead to major development in the area in future.

 

Mrs Large (Applicant) had signed a Unilateral Undertaking to provide £1400 for Open Space improvements.  The proposal met sustainable development criteria and concerns raised by residents could be overcome.

 

Councillor Martin (Ward Representative) said that both he and the Town Council fully supported the application.  He agreed that concerns could be overcome.

 

Councillor Bowes asked whether responsibility for maintenance of the ditch would rest with the applicant or the occupier of the proposed property.  She was advised that the responsibility would run with the owner of the land.  The ditch would be covered by drainage conditions.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

 

Notes to the Schedule

Item No

Speaker

1

Cllr Bambridge – Ward Representative

Mr Lambley – Parish Council

Mr Booth – Objector

Mr Futter - Agent

3

Mrs Allen – Objector

Mr Reeve - Agent

4

Mrs Hammond – Objector

Mrs Kerr – Objector

Mr Wright - Applicant

5

Cllr Stasiak – Ward Representative

Cllr Martin – Ward Representative

Mrs Large - Applicant

Agenda Item 8a

Deferred Item Colkirk

Mrs Filby – Objector

Mr Moulton – Agent

Mr Starling – for Applicant

 

Written Representations taken into account

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2014/0373/F

11

3PL/2014/0590/O

2

3PL/2014/0885/O

10

3OB/2014/0009/OB

1

3PL/2014/0763/F

3

3PL/2014/0952/F

4

 

Supporting documents: