Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

 

 

 

 

1

City & West End Property Investment

Dereham

33-40

2

Gladedale Estates

Attleborough

41-58

3

MG Property Developments

Swaffham

59-64

4

Greatbrisk Ltd

Hockering

65-73

5

S & J Developments

Banham

74-81

6

Mr Eagle

Hockering

82-91

7

Godfrey & Hicks Ltd

Caston

92-102

8

Mr Jonathon Powley

Lyng

103-110

9

Mr Tony Rowe

Ashill

111-116

10

Bennett Homes

Ashill

117-123

11

Mr P Grange

Gt Dunham

124-128

12

Bennett Homes

Ashill

129-131

13

Mr Graham Lond-Caulk

Griston

132-138

14

Lark Energy Ltd

Kenninghall

139-145

15

Mr & Mrs J Hackett

Guist

146-151

16

Miss S Kelly

Thompson

152-155

17

Black Swan International Ltd

Dereham

156-161

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

a)         Item 1: DEREHAM: Crane Fruehauf Site, South Green: Demolition of existing factory buildings, residential redevelopment with access roads & landscaping: Applicant: City & West End Property Investments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2009/0385/O

 

This application had originally been approved in 2009 subject to a legal agreement which had not been signed.  The site had been cleared and was suitable for residential development.  The TPO tree would be retained.  Drainage issues on site were being addressed.

 

The District Valuer had advised that the site could support £91,000 towards affordable housing.  Some Open Space would be provided on site and there would also be a financial contribution to off-site provision.  Approval was recommended subject to the prompt signing of the legal agreement and authority was requested to refuse the application if that did not happen.

 

Councillor Duigan was glad the site had come forward as the Town Council wanted the area to be developed.  He did not think that the recreation area on site was in the right place and hoped that could be addressed at Reserved Matters stage.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.  Authority was delegated to officers to refuse the application if the section 106 agreement was not signed promptly.

 

b)         Item 2: ATTLEBOROUGH: Residential development up to 350 dwellings, associated access, footpaths, cycle path, open space and landscaping: Applicant: Gladedale Estates: Reference: 3PL/2013/1161/O

 

All Members had received direct representation.  Councillor North noted that she was a Ward Representative for this area.

 

This site fell between existing development and the A11.  An access to Attleborough Hall Farm crossed the site and an existing garage enterprise would be surrounded on three sides by development.  An indicative layout plan showed allotments, a cemetery extension, an extension to the school playing field, pitches for school and public use, open space and parcels of development laid out to include existing trees which would be retained.

 

A two year time limit would be imposed and an additional condition requiring 10% on-site renewable energy was proposed.  Highway improvement works would be provided in advance of, and would work side by side with those required from the Taylor Wimpey permission. 20% affordable housing would be required and a claw-back clause would be included.

 

Mr Morgan (Objector) said he was not actually an objector.  He had been trading in Attleborough for 30 years and asked for Members’ support to continue.  His garage would effectively be operating in the middle of a housing estate and he had asked to meet with the developers to discuss possible solutions such as screening to protect his business which should be provided in advance of the main development.

 

Mr Armstrong (Agent) apologised for not responding to Mr Morgan’s request and said that he would be happy to accept a condition to provide security fencing and planting before development started.  They were in discussion with the Town Council and the Neighbourhood Forum regarding the transfer and future management of areas of land for allotments, cemetery and playing fields. They would be happy to deliver those at an early stage of the process.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen was concerned that part of the site was a major flood risk area.  She could not see how conditions would be able to address those problems.  It was noted that a licence would be required from the Internal Drainage Board (IDB) to discharge to a drainage ditch.


The Chairman noted the comments from Besthorpe Parish Council about the area being a lake formerly, although it had only flooded twice since the A11 bypass had been built 20 years ago.

 

Councillor Duigan was concerned about the speed of delivery of the housing.  The site was being considered in view of the Council’s Housing Land Supply deficit.  He wondered if there was any way to speed up the submission of the full application, because the Council was considering lots of applications outside the Settlement Boundary partly due to the slow delivery of large developments in Attleborough and Thetford.

 

Councillor Claussen was frustrated by the effect the Housing Land Supply shortage was having on the planning system.  It took control out of the hands of local people who knew the problems of the site.  He was nervous about the flooding issue and also about the effects on the existing traffic problems in Attleborough.

 

Councillor Robinson reminded Members that permission had been given two years ago for 250 homes on London Road.  This site was closer to the town centre and near to the High School.  Residents of the development would have to go through the town centre to access the south which would increase pressures on the gyratory system which was already at breaking point.  He asked if there was a traffic management plan and also suggested that if approved the viability should be independently assessed.

 

Councillor Bowes said that Attleborough had an identified need for affordable homes yet the proposal was only offering 20%.  She also raised concerns about the negative impact on the sensitive landscape.

 

Councillor North was Ward Representative for the area and she was very concerned about the flood plain.  When the bypass had been built a stream had been diverted but the area was still very wet.  If further attenuation works were carried out she was worried that it might have an effect on the TPO trees.  It was a good proposal which provided significant contributions for schools, libraries, etc but no significant improvement for walking and cycling.  The traffic surveys had not been taken into account.  She did not agree that there would only be moderate harm to residents and reiterated her grave concerns about flooding.

 

Councillor Lamb said the open meadow land was an attractive buffer.  It was a water meadow and should not be built on.


The Chairman pointed out that with the land for the allotments, cemetery use and school playing fields it would retain an open aspect.  The indicative plan also showed a green belt alongside the road, not complete blocks of housing.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen asked who would be liable if houses were built there and then suffered flood damage.  It was clarified that there was no intention to build within flood zones 2 and 3.

 

Councillor Martin was not the Ward Representative for the site but was present to offer some local knowledge.  He said that the worst end of the site was in the development area and that works were being carried out there digging trial trenches – all of which were currently full of water.  The water would have to go somewhere if it was built over.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen said that local knowledge was important.  When housing had been developed on a water meadow in Thetford a large tree plantation had been needed to suck up the displaced water.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) sensed strong concerns of Members and asked them which issues needed to be addressed to satisfy their concerns.

 

Councillor Lamb’s proposal to refuse the application was not seconded but Councillor Duigan proposed that the application be deferred and that proposal was seconded by Councillor Carter.

 

Deferred, contrary to the recommendation for further information on flooding and impact on the town centre.

 

It was confirmed that all matters would be open to consideration when the application was brought back to the Committee.

 

c)         Item 3: SWAFFHAM: 7A Whitsands Road: Proposed six 1 bed flats (ground floor), seven 2 bed maisonettes (1st & 2nd floor) one 3 bed attached dwelling: Applicant: MG Property Developments: Reference: 3PL/2014/0090

 

Councillor Bowes was absent from the room for this application.

 

This application proposed amendments to a previously approved scheme, reducing development from three storey to two, with accommodation in the roof.  Viability had been agreed by the District Valuer.  A requirement for 10% renewable energy would be added to the conditions.

 

Mr Cummings (Agent) said that more than 10% renewable energy would be provided on site.  A legal agreement had already been signed by all parties.  He showed photos of the previous and proposed schemes to highlight the height difference.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.

 

Councillor Bowes returned to the room.

 

d)         Item 4: HOCKERING: Land off Heath Road: Outline application for up to 10 dwellings: Applicant: Greatbrisk Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/0486/O

 

For transparency Councillor Claussen declared that he was Ward Representative for this site and he lived on Heath Road.

 

This was an outline application with all matters reserved.  A suggested site layout had been submitted showing a new access through the hedge.  A previous application for 15 had been considered detrimental to the character of the area and the current proposal for up to ten dwellings was considered more suitable.  Previous Highway concerns had been overcome.  10% renewable energy and other conditions would be applied including a two year time limit. 

 

Mr Ward (Agent) said there had been numerous amendments to the scheme which had originally proposed 18 then 15 and now 10 dwellings.  The current proposal would provide three to four bedroom detached homes with two to three parking spaces and garages.  Access had been carefully designed to have a small impact on the hedge and all houses had been positioned to maintain existing hedging.  Good quality trees would also be retained.

 

Councillor Claussen was concerned that the new houses would impact on water pressure which was already insufficient.  He was also concerned that the Northern Distributor Route would affect traffic in the village and thought that lots of planning issues had not been addressed.

 

Councillor Lamb commented that many villages were being suburbanised with small housing estates leading to a loss of rural atmosphere.  It was not sustainable and not environmentally friendly.

 

Councillor Duigan asked if Anglian Water should have been consulted and was advised that they were only consulted on large schemes.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

e)         Item 5: BANHAM: 63 Crown Street: Erection of 3 dwellings and sub-division of partially constructed dwelling into 2 dwellings (Revised Scheme): Applicant: S & J Developments: Reference: 3PL/2014/0845/F

 

All Members had received direct representation from Councillor Askew, Ward Representative.

 

This revised scheme would provide a net increase of four dwellings.  Two dwellings in the original scheme were already built. A third which was partially constructed was now proposed to be sub-divided into two.  The junction had been recently improved.

 

Mr Sizer (Agent) said revisions had been made to overcome concerns. The ‘Right to Buy’ scheme for affordable housing would regenerate an untidy area of the village in a sustainable location.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

f)          Item 6: HOCKERING: Land west of Heath Road and east of the playing field: Outline application for 18 dwellings: Applicant: Mr Eagle: Reference: 3PL/2014/0945/O

 

This was an outline application with all matters reserved except access.  A suggested layout had been submitted.  The proposal included an affordable housing and recreation contribution.  A condition would be required to provide a footpath to give access to the playing field through the site.  Design could be negotiated at the Reserved Matters stage.

 

Ms Lockwood (Agent) explained that the site was a remnant of land given to the National Playing Fields Association in 1992 and managed by the Parish Council.  They had sought to address the Parish Council’s concerns about scale, parking and drainage.  A drainage strategy had been submitted which would improve the existing situation.  A number of local Housing Associations had expressed interest in the affordable housing.

 

Councillor Claussen raised the same concerns as for Item 4. 

 

Councillor Duigan noted that Anglian Water had been consulted but had failed to comment.

 

It was confirmed that access to the playing field would be by car as well as by foot and that parking was already available on the playing field.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on completion of the section 106 agreement.

 

g)         Item 7: CASTON: The White House, The Street: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 8 new dwellings: Applicant: Godfrey & Hicks Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/1002/F

 

All Members had received direct representation.

 

This site was dilapidated and the house had been unoccupied for some time and was in very poor repair.  A similar shceme had been refused last year and the current application addressed the reasons for that refusal.

 

Mr Blincow (Parish Council) said they were unanimously opposed to the proposal and sorry that an iconic house had been allowed to deteriorate.  There were three grounds for refusal: 1) safety, as the service road junction was immediately opposite the school and would cause increased traffic, congestion and on-road parking; 2) development outside the Settlement Boundary; and 3) design not in keeping especially the three storey terrace.

 

Mr Haggett (Objector) said the preferred option would be to restore the White House and maintain the open style development and the habitat of the water vole.  He was concerned about encroachment on the TPO and water vole territory.

 

Mr Daines-Smith (Agent) said the majority of consultees were happy with the proposal.  A detailed structural report on the White House had found it to be unsound.  Highways issues had been addressed.  The design and layout was in a courtyard style with a terrace at the front to contribute to the linear development of the village.  There had been principle policy changes since the appeal decision.  The development would support the village.

 

Councillor Lamb thought it would create a housing estate in a rural village and noted that the Historic Buildings Officer strongly recommended retention and restoration.

 

Councillor North accepted that the White House was past saving but thought that eight was too much development.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) asked Members to bear the Inspector’s decision in mind as he had not required the retention of the White House and that was a material consideration.

 

The recommendation of approval was tied and the Chairman used his casting vote to support it as he did not feel the house was of historic value and felt that the site needed to be sorted out.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

h)         Item 8: LYNG: Land to rear of Fox & Hounds, The Street: Construction of 2 new 3 bedroom houses: Applicant: Mr Jonathon Powley: Reference: 3PL/2014/1012/F

 

All Members had received direct representation.

 

This application had been reduced from three to two and a new site layout plan had been provided.  A brick wall would be built to separate the development from the pub car park.

 

Mr Marks (Objector) said the site used to be an overflow car park for the pub and without it vehicles sometimes parked on the street which caused problems for drivers and pedestrians particularly at night as there were no street lights.  He also had concerns about: overlooking and shadowing; buildings out of character; lack of parking provision for visitors; flooding in Soames Court; and noise.

 

Mr Tring (Agent) advised that the site was part of the beer garden which was disused, fenced off and overgrown.  They had worked with Planning and Highways Officers to make amendments to overcome access safety concerns.  The improvements would benefit the pub by providing clear delineation for parking in the car park.  The proposal had been designed for privacy and additional screening would be provided.

 

Councillor Bambridge (Ward Representative) asked for an e-mail from a neighbour to be read out, but was advised that all Members had received a copy.  He said that the residents of Lyng were pleased to have a well run pub but concerned about the two storey development and that additional hard surfacing would add to flooding problems. He suggested that the application should be amended to single storey dwellings and that access and parking issues should be addressed.

 

Councillor Sharpe asked the distance to existing dwellings and was advised that the closest point would be six metres, but the only window in that elevation would be a bathroom window.

 

Councillor Lamb thought that the pub would need overflow parking provision in future and that the spaciousness around the listed church should be protected.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) advised that English Heritage (EH) had been consulted on this application and the one in Caston and had not yet responded.  If Members were minded to approve the application(s) the approval would be deferred until EH’s comments were received and if any objection was raised the application(s) would be returned to Committee.

 

Councillor North was concerned about parking on Parish owned land opposite the pub; flooding; the narrow access; and that the time limit should be reduced to two years.  She asked if bin lorries could access the site and was advised that they could but that residents might be asked to bring their bins to the front of the site.

 

It was confirmed that the applicant owned land which could be used to widen the access entrance.

 

Councillor Robinson asked if the pub was likely to hold live music events and was advised that they had a normal pub/restaurant licence and had no plans to hold music events.

 

Councillor Claussen asked about the two storey development and it was pointed out that the pub and a couple of other dwellings in the vicinity were also two storey.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions including an additional slab level condition, on receipt of no objections from English Heritage.

 

i)          Item 9: ASHILL: Land on Hale Road: 3 new dwellings and detached garage (1 No 2 bed and 2 No 3 beds): Applicant: Mr Tony Rowe: Reference: 3PL/2014/1059/F

 

This application outside the Settlement Boundary would result in a loss of openness but no intrusion into the countryside.  Highways required a footway to be provided to join the existing path.  In view of the Council’s Housing Land Supply shortage it was considered that the benefits outweighed any harm. 

 

Councillor Darby (Ward Representative) said it was natural infill and the owner was happy to provide the required footpath.

 

Councillor Bowes asked that details of materials should be included on applications outside the Settlement Boundary.

 

Approved, as recommended subject to a two year time limit.

 

j)          Item 10: ASHILL: Land off Dunnetts Close: Residential development of 25 dwellings: Applicant: Bennett Homes: Reference: 3PL/2014/1105/D

 

Items 10 and 12 were considered together.  Item 10 was for the main approval of Reserved Matters and Item 12 sought the removal of a condition requiring a Design Brief.  That condition had been applied in case the site was split up and developed separately.  However, that had not happened and the condition was no longer relevant.

 

The development was on land adjacent Goose Green.  Seven units of affordable housing would be provided, equating to 30% and there was a financial contribution to Open Space as none was provided on site. The density was lower than indicated at Outline stage.

 

Comments had been received from Norfolk County Councillor, Ian Monson.  He raised concerns about the access from Dunnetts close and its effect on amenity and safety.  He suggested an alternative access should be provided where a pedestrian access was currently proposed but that would mean using part of the village green.  Although his concerns were understood, the principle of development had been approved at Outline stage when those issues had been considered.  With regard to the pedestrian access, a lighting condition was proposed to overcome police concerns.

 

Mr Leighton (Parish Council) asked for the application to be deferred for three items to be settled: 1) to provide bungalows on the western boundary; 2) to alleviate flooding problems in the south west corner of the site; and 3) the original plans had shown a bridge from the development to the village green to avoid a long walk to access Open Space which was missing from the current proposal.

 

Mr Abram (Objector) suggested deferral for consideration of an alternate access from Hale Road to overcome concerns that the access via Dunnetts Close had insufficient width to achieve adopted standard.

 

Mrs Pickering (Objector) spoke on behalf of seven farmers who needed access down Dunnetts Close for their farm machinery all year round and were concerned about additional vehicles causing obstruction.  An alternate access should be provided for the new development; there was no other access for the farm vehicles.

 

Mr Bell (Agent) pointed out that the access had been agreed at the Outline stage when the application had been submitted by the Parish Council.  There had been extensive discussions with Officers about bungalows but the distances to existing dwellings were not a problem.  They would re-engineer if there were flooding issues.  Mr Bingham had spoken to Highways and they were happy that the access could provide a satisfactory road which could be adopted.

 

The Chairman asked about the footbridge to the Green and Mr Bell noted that they would need the consent of the landowners but they would consider it.

 

Councillor Darby (Ward Representative) said the access was very bad and that the bedrooms in two bungalows would be in direct line with headlights from vehicles.  He did not think the Committee would approve such a plan if it was submitted today.  He also thought the view onto Goose Green could be improved.  The Green was the pride of the village.  He raised concerns about access to rear gardens of properties in Dunnetts Close and loss of trees.

 

Councillor Bowes acknowledged that access had been agreed in principle but asked if the application could be deferred to consider alternatives.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) advised that the applicants had bought the site on the understanding that it could be accessed from Dunnetts Close so it was unlikely. 

 

Councillor Lamb said that the Committee had been unaware of the problems that the farmers had when they had first considered the application.

 

The Chairman agreed but said that the decision had been made and the road already served a number of houses and it was difficult to control on-street parking.


Councillor Bowes asked if the Officers could guarantee the safety of trees which overshadowed properties and was advised that it could not be guaranteed, but the houses had been designed with their main amenity areas away from the trees.  It was also noted that if a protected tree was removed a replacement had to be provided.

 

Approved, as recommended subject to additional conditions for footpath lighting, slab level and a management plan for construction.

 

k)         Item 11: GREAT DUNHAM: The Smithy, Castle Acre Road: Demolition of existing cottage and construction of two dwellings and garage block with parking: Applicant: Mr P Grange: Reference: 3PL/2014/1116/F

 

This application proposed the demolition of an existing cottage with no known historic value and its replacement with two dwellings and garages. 

 

Mr Wakelin (Parish Council) had two objections: 1) the water table was so high that septic tanks and soakaways had problems with back-filling; and 2) it was the oldest building in the village and a better option would be to renovate it.

 

Mrs Reeve (Objector) lived opposite and showed photographs of the old house from her windows.  She was concerned about overlooking and the loss of a heritage asset.  Replacing one house with two would add to drainage problems.  She also had concerns about light, privacy and access due to the narrow road.

 

Mr Grange (Applicant) said the house had never been a Smithy and had been altered many times.  Drainage solutions had been designed to suit local conditions.  It was a good use of land and would help to sustain schools and local businesses.  Air source heat pumps would be used and the roof lines had been lowered to reduce overlooking.  There would be no adverse effect on Highway safety.

 

The Chairman noted that Councillor Kiddle-Morris, Ward Representative had sent in a representation saying it was a balanced application.

 

In response to a question from Councillor Lamb it was confirmed that external materials would be a traditional mix with some flint.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

l)          Item 12: ASHILL: Land off Dunnetts Close: Removal of condition 5 of planning permission 3PL2006/0441/O: Applicant: Bennett Homes: Reference: 3PL/2014/1119/O

 

This application was considered with Item 10 (see Minute No 22/15 j).

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

m)        Item 13: GRISTON: Land at The Old Dairy, Caston Road: New dwelling with cartlodge and room over, new access: Applicant: Mr Graham Lond-Caulk: Reference: 3PL/2014/1150/F

 

This site was adjacent a Grade I listed church outside the Settlement Boundary but amongst existing development.  The ecological appraisal had raised no objection subject to conditions.  A response was awaited from English Heritage and any approval would be subject to no objection from them.  Delegated authority was therefore requested if the application was approved.

 

Mrs Roberts (Agent) said the proposal had been designed to care for the location and surroundings. The advice of the Historic Buildings Officer had been sought regarding the sort of design.  The site was close to the centre of Griston which had a lot of employment opportunities and was close to a cycle route to Watton.

 

Deferred and the officers authorised to grant approval, subject to conditions, on receipt of no objections from English Heritage.

 

n)         Item 14: KENNINGHALL: Land to the west of Kenninghall, Garboldisham Road: MMA to 3PL/2012/1088/F - increase size of DNO sub-station, inc, module layout, inverters, substation, etc: Applicant: Lark Energy Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/1224/F

 

Members were given a brief update of the approved scheme with the areas to be changed highlighted.  In some respects the changes would reduce the impact of the development.  An amendment to the time limit was suggested by Officers requiring commencement by September 2017.

 

Ms Rafaluk (Agent) advised that the minor amendments were for technical reasons and would improve the efficiency and capacity of the scheme.

 

Approved, as recommended.  Councillor Chapman-Allen abstained from voting.

 

o)         Item 15: GUIST: The Barn, Malthouse Road: Erection of new dwelling: Applicant: Mr & Mrs J Hackett: Reference: 3PL/2014/1247/F

 

This application site on land outside the Settlement Boundary was opposite a new dwelling allowed on appeal.  Highways had objected in view of the substandard visibility at the junction however, in view of the Inspector’s comments it was not considered that the objection would be upheld at appeal.  A late objection had been received from the Parish Council raising concerns about the sewage system and too many dwellings down the track.

 

Mr Took (Agent) clarified that the application site did not encroach into open countryside as it was bounded by hedgerows.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

p)         Item 16: THOMPSON: 1 Redbrick Farm Barns, Marlpit Road: Removal of condition 3 on 3PL/2014/0595/F – Pavers: Applicant: Miss S Kelly: Reference: 3PL/2014/1251/F

 

All Members had received direct representation.

 

This application sought the removal of a condition which required vehicles to turn on site to re-enter the road in forward gear.  Evidence had been provided of some ‘near-misses’ caused by vehicles reversing out of the site.  The site was served by an unclassified road and the Highways Authority had raised no objection.

 

Mrs Yerby (Objector) said the condition had been applied for safety reasons.  The road was used by cyclists and pedestrians.  There was a similar condition on a nearby property.  She had provided video evidence of the danger caused by reversing vehicles and if that evidence was ignored it would put her family at risk.

 

Councillor Cowen (Ward Representative) noted that the applicant could comply with the condition sometimes but when other vehicles were on the site there was not room to turn.  The evidence from the neighbour showed reversing vehicles and was open to interpretation.

 

Councillor Sharpe thought it was difficult to dictate how people entered the road and the Chairman agreed that it would be difficult to police.

 

Councillor North said that many people reversed out of driveways and pedestrians were aware of the dangers.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager (Planning Services) reiterated that the condition was not required by the Highways Authority.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

q)                 Item 17: DEREHAM: Westfield House, 12 Westfield Road: Extensions and alterations (Revised scheme, granted on appeal 3PL/2012/1115/F): Applicant: Black Swan International Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2014/1298/F

 

The previous scheme had been granted on appeal.  The current proposal was to add two bedrooms in a single storey extension to the rear with a hip roof and to increase the overall height.  As the site was already a care home and the appeal had allowed extensions it was considered that the small changes were insignificant.

 

Mr Money (Objector) had lived to the north of the site for 30 years.  The site had been a residential home then but with only four occupants.  It had been extended to 14 and would now be extended to 26.  He was concerned about the height of the extension causing shadowing to his garden; that the surrounding space would be reduced affecting trees and shrubs; and about insufficient car parking for the additional staff and visitors.

 

Councillor Duigan said the development was adjacent to his Ward and he had attended the Town Council meeting when they had discussed the application.  They had not objected to the height but they had objected to the two additional bedrooms and the loss of garden area for residents. 

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

Notes to the Schedule

Item No

Speaker

Deferred Item

8a

Cllr Martin – Ward Representative

Mr Phelan – Objector

Mr Hickman Smith – Agent

Mrs Hocking - Applicant

Deferred Item

8b

Cllr Wassell – Ward Representative

Cllr Gilbert – Ward Representative

Mr Lincoln – Objector

Mr Laister – Agent

Mr Stacey – Agent

Mr Shaw – NCC Highways

Schedule Items

 

2

Mr Morgan – Objector

Mr Armstrong – Agent

Cllr Martin – adj Ward Representative

3

Mr Cumming - Agent

Mr Bales - Applicant

4

Mr Ward – Agent

5

Mr Becker – Agent

Mr Sizer – Agent

6

Ms Lockwood – Agent

7

Mr Blincow – Parish Council

Mr Haggett – Objector

Mr Daines-Smith – Agent

8

Cllr Bambridge – Ward Representative

Mr Marks – Objector

Mr Tring – Agent

9

Cllr Darby – Ward Representative

10

Cllr Darby – Ward Representative

Mr Leighton – Parish Council

Mrs Pickering – Objector

Mr Abram – Objector

Mr Bell – Agent

Mr Bingham – for Agent

11

Mr Wakeling – Parish Council

Mrs Reeve – Objector

Mr Grange – Applicant

12

Cllr Darby – Ward Representative

Mr Leighton – Parish Council

Mr Bell – Agent

Mr Bingham – for Agent

13

Mrs Roberts – Agent

14

Ms Rafaluk – Agent

15

Mr Took – Agent

16

Cllr Cowen – Ward Representative

Mrs Yerby – Objector

Mr Shaw – NCC Highways

17

Mr Money - Objector

 

Written Representations taken into account

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2009/0385/O

2

2PL/2014/0945/O

2

3PL/2014/1002/F

3

3PL/2014/1247/F

2

3PL/2014/1116/F

7

3PL/2014/0486/O

4

3PL/2014/1012/F

8

3PL/2014/1298/F

4

3PL/2013/1161/O

31

3PL/2014/0672/F

15

3PL/2014/1224/F

2

3PL/2014/0090/F

2

3PL/2014/1105/D

47

3PL/2014/0009/O

1

3PL/2014/1251/F

4

3PL/2014/0845/F

16

 

Supporting documents: