Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

MMC Norfolk Ltd

Caston

20 – 28

2

Bernard Matthews Ltd

North Pickenham

29 – 38

3

Melton Farms

Great Ellingham

39 – 52

4

Mr Matthew Gibbard

Attleborough

53 – 60

5

Raemoir Properties Ltd

Attleborough

61 – 85

6

Mr Liam Burke

Little Ellingham

86 – 98

7

Mr S Gray

Attleborough

99 – 104

8

Mr & Mrs Burrows

Banham

105 - 110

9

Mr P Howell

North Elmham

111 – 120

10

Tredwell Developments Ltd

Sporle

121 - 126

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the following applications be determined as follows:

 

a)    Item 1: CASTON: Land East of Walnut Tree Cottage, Attleborough Road: Erection of 4 dwellings (amended from 8 dwellings): Applicant: MMC Norfolk Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2015/0147/F

 

This was a full planning application for four detached dwellings which had been amended from eight dwellings. 

 

Mr Blincow (Caston Parish Council) said the parishioners would prefer the plot to be developed in a linear format and after consultations between the applicant and the Parish Council were in support of the application subject to a number of conditions.

 

Mr Clancy (Applicant) said he had worked with Planning Officers and since the original application had been submitted had been in consultation with the Parish Council.  He felt it was important to engage with the local community.

 

The Operations and Contracts Manager said he had received correspondence from Councillor Cowen (Ward Member) who was pleased to see the applicant had corresponded with the Parish Council and was supportive of the scheme.

 

Councillor Joel said he was delighted to see the Parish Council and applicant work together.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

b)    Item 2: NORTH PICKENHAM: The Airfield, Hilborough Road: erection of anaerobic digestion plant: Applicant: Bernard Matthews Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2015/0378/F

 

Full planning permission was sought for an Anaerobic Digestion (AD) plant.  The Scheme included three digestate tanks and associated equipment, a combined heat and power (CHP) plant and silage clamps for feedstock storage.  Access to the plant would be gained from North Pickenham Road, via an existing entrance to an adjacent poultry farm and a new internal access road. 

 

It was intended that the AD Plant would convert locally-sourced biomass into biogas which would be transferred directly to the National Grid.  Feedstock would comprise of maize, silage/energy beet and turkey litter.  Dry and liquid digestate produced by the plant would be stored in a lagoon and spread on local farmland as a fertiliser/soil conditioner.

 

It was expected that further detail would be provided on the proposed earth bund to ensure that it was suitable for the natural surroundings.

 

There would be some adverse impacts to the visual surrounding open area but this would not be deemed as significant.

 

The main impact would be with the traffic, and delivery of the feedstock into the site of which the main movement would be the energy crop being bought into the site.  The Turkey litter would be bought in by the farm and therefore would be a reduction in traffic.  The Energy crop would be seasonal of which a period of four to six week period of extensive traffic.

 

Access would be served by the country roads, and it had originally been proposed to use the A47 and Whitegate Road to bring the feedstock in.  Whilst there would be localised road-widening, and passing places it was not thought this would be satisfactory.  Subsequently, agreement had been obtained to provide the feedstock directly from the South Pickenham Estate.

 

By sourcing locally there would be little change to traffic around the area as there was already movement around the South Pickenham estate.  This would be controlled via a Section 106 agreement.

 

Whilst the location was not ideal, there were no significant adverse effects to highway safety.  With regards to amenity it was well distanced with 620m to the nearest dwelling and 900m to the main village.  Environmental Health had no issues, and the management of noise and odour would be managed through appropriate conditions.

 

Mr Youngs (Applicant) said this was the latest in sustainable energy and the development was important for Norfolk’s second largest employer.  The supply of arable feed stock had been agreed in principle for a 20-year supply.  This would be a real advantage as it was the first time in that the UK had captured carbon-dioxide for re-use.  The Plant would also be carbon neutral. The applicant had worked closely with stakeholders.

 

Councillor Sharpe asked if the existing pond would be of sufficient size, and what was being pumped into it.  It was confirmed the pond was referred to as the Lagoon on the scheme, and would contain liquid digestate which would be used on farmland.

 

Councillor Sharpe also asked what material would be used for the bund.  The Chairman confirmed it would be soil with plants to increase the height.

 

The Chairman asked what percentage of manure was perceived to go into the plant.  The applicant said it would envisage the manure would come from North Pickenham, and if required would come from the nearby site at Wendling.

 

The Chairman asked what happened to the manure now from Wendling, which went to the Fibro-Thetford plant of which they were contracted to supply.

 

Councillor Darby asked if a condition could be added so the traffic would not go through Swaffham town centre.  It was confirmed that it was not the plan to go through Swaffham.

 

Mr Shaw, Norfolk County Council Highways said this could not be conditioned and did not agree with the traffic figures that had been provided.  He said that digestate was being produced 52 weeks of the year, and asked how this was leaving the plant.  He also asked what would happen to the liquid that was sitting in the Lagoon.

 

Mr Doyle (Applicant) added that they were looking into a contract with South Pickenham Estate as it was a working farm and tractors and trailers were used on the roads within the estate.  The Lagoon was currently irrigated now and as more water would be pumped into it, it would be of benefit to the estate as they would draw less water from the bore holes.

 

Mr Shaw emphasised that he was concerned about the traffic and would like to see more control of this.

 

Mr Doyle said that roads were being used and would continue to be used.  However the South Pickenham Estate was a good neighbour with a good ethos, and would try to avoid using the roads if possible.

 

Mr Youngs said Maize was already growing on the site, and it would be diverted to this plant, instead of taking it elsewhere within the county.

 

Councillor Sharpe asked how the methane would leave the site and taken into the national grid.  Mr Youngs confirmed that a high pressure gas grid runs to the north of the site and it would be injected directly into the grid.

 

The Chairman was concerned that a number of issues had been raised regarding highways and suggested the scheme be deferred for further investigation into the highways issues.

 

Deferred, for further investigation on the impact of Highways

 

c)    Item 3: GREAT ELLINGHAM: Long Street, Erection of 12 new dwellings with associated garages and parking.  Three new Highways accesses and Public Open Space: Applicant: Melton Farms: Reference: 3PL/2015/0441/F

 

Councillor Smith acted as Ward Member as stated in Minute ref: 117/15.

 

This was a full application for the erection of 12 new dwellings on open agricultural land. The application also proposed to provide an area of open space of which the Parish Council were in agreement to take the ownership of.

 

The scheme provided a mixture of five house types with three access points onto Long Street.

 

The site was privately owned land currently used for grazing purposes and of no value to the community.  However, by providing an open space, it was thought it would give back to the community a significant gain.

 

The applicant suggested three properties were provided as affordable housing, one would be used as affordable rent, and two would be under the shared equity scheme.  This was acceptable to the Housing Officer.

 

Mr Betts (Parish Council) encouraged land owners to offer land for small developments.  The Parish Council supported this application along with the management of the memorial garden, which had resulted in an ‘Open Space Group’ formed.  However, the Parish Council would have preferred to see the three affordable housing units to be under the shared equity scheme.

 

Ms Roberts (Agent) felt the development provided high quality housing of mixed types, and appreciated that the Section 106 agreement would outline the final details of how the affordable housing would be allocated.

 

Councillor Smith (Ward Representative) said that over 120 homes had been planned along Long Street and therefore it was valuable that open spaces remained.  He felt it was important to retain the rural character of the village and would prefer to see the development at a different location.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen was concerned to hear the uncertainty of the affordable housing issue and wanted clarification this would be dealt with.

 

Ms Roberts said that three affordable housing units would be available, and that the detail was waiting to be approved through the Section 106 agreement.

 

Councillor Duigan asked if there was a policy with regards to the Section 106 agreements as he thought they should be ready and available immediately after the planning meeting, rather than in draft format.  He also felt that it would assist the Planning Committee in making decisions rather than after the event.

 

The Operations and Planning Manager said that in this instance a draft Section 106 agreement was in place, and confirmed it had been agreed that three units would be used for affordable housing; one would be used as affordable rent, and two would be under the shared equity scheme.

 

Councillor Joel was delighted to see the Parish Council was positive about the development and asked if the three properties would be under the control of the Housing Association and therefore be open to those on the Breckland Housing list.  It was confirmed that the Housing Association had confirmed interest in the three properties.

 

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

 

d)    Item 4: ATTLEBOROUGH: Land adjacent to Oak Tree Park, Norwich Road: Change of use to residential for the siting of up to 23 Mobile Homes: Applicant: Mr Matthew Gibbard: Reference: 3PL/2015/0485/F

 

The application proposes for the change of use of the land for siting of up to 23 mobile homes.  An indicative layout was presented along with examples of the types of mobile homes.

 

The Parish Council had objected to the application as it was not in keeping with the street scene, and there was concern over density and increased traffic entering the road.  The Internal Drainage Board also objected to the application.

 

Councillor Joel felt it would ruin the street scene as it was not in keeping with the houses in Attleborough.

 

Refused

 

e)    Item 6: LITTLE ELLINGHAM: Kerry Food Ltd, Attleborough Road: Construct an extension to existing factory, relocate entrance from the highway and additional HGV handling areas: Applicant: Mr Liam Burke: Reference: 3PL/2015/0682/F

 

This application was for full planning permission to provide an extension to the existing factory premises.  The development would be delivered in two phases: Phase 1 would be the lorry handling area, and Phase 2 would deliver the new cooking facility.

 

The key issues relating to this application were noise, odour, lighting and a change in operational hours. 

 

With regards to the operational hours, the factory had requested an extension to operating hours to be open 7-days a week, with a shift pattern operating between 06:00 – 18:00.  The existing staff would increase from 300 to 326 if the extension was permitted.

 

A noise assessment had been submitted where it highlighted a low level noise which had been identified to one piece of machinery.

 

It was felt that the odour and lighting impacts could be mitigated against by the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Representations had been received including from Little Ellingham Parish Council where issues had been highlighted including the extension of working hours and the issues of HGVs using a weight restricted road.

 

Mr Griffiths (Little Ellingham Parish Council) said there had been numerous Council meetings devoted to this application, with a high turnout of residents in attendance who had raised concerns.

 

The single track road which HGVs used were causing problems and due to the lack of infrastructure felt it much better if the factory moved to an appropriate premises within an industrial unit.  He considered it to be a disappointment if the application was to be approved.

 

Mr Betts (Great Ellingham Parish Council) raised concerns of highway safety, particularly when the vehicles used the village of Great Ellingham. There was a weight restriction on the small roads, and found the increase of HGVs unacceptable.  A number of vehicles would be used during out of hours would create disturbed nights for the residents and therefore the Parish Council refused the application.

 

Ms Whettingsteel (Objector) represented Orbit homes and requested that the application was deferred so that it could be considered alongside the planning application submitted by Orbit homes.  An application had been on the same road, but was rejected due to highway concerns.  Concern had also been raised with regard to the Grade II listed building within the site.

 

Mr Tilford (Agent) said Kerry Foods Ltd currently employed 300 local people and the development would safeguard long term employment within the area.  An extensive noise survey had been carried out, and highlighted that a piece of equipment would be removed due to the noise.  The HGV increase would be minimal as ‘double-decker’ HGVs would be used which complied with the weight restrictions.  The proposed new access to the factory would stop HGVs going through the villages.  It was hoped that the development of the Grade II listed building would create a customer focus point which would safeguard the building.

 

Councillor Smith said Attleborough Road was a very narrow road and that four Parish Councils had raised objection all relating to the highway’s issue.  He had spoken to Councillor Cliff Jordan at Norfolk County Council, and said that the highways around Little Ellingham should be protected.  He asked that the planning conditions put forward be added to the minutes so that they could be monitored.

 

The village of Great Ellingham did suffer from HGV disturbances, particularly at night time as it was used as a cut-through.  He suggested that the access should be limited to a left-hand turn in to the factory, and a right-turn out of the factory only, and therefore no vehicles should go through the villages.

 

Councillor Sharpe noted that planning permission had been granted in 2000 for an extension to the East side of the factory, and asked if this had been added.  It was confirmed this had been completed.

 

Councillor Joel said the listed building must be addressed and asked for it to be considered.  He also added that he would like to see the A11 be used more for the HGVs.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen asked if the 7.5-tonne weight limit applied, if a vehicle needed access to a building. It was confirmed from County Council Highways that that was the case.

 

Councillor Clarke noticed the condition regarding odour management was not listed under the conditions in the report.  The Operations and Contract Manager had also noted this and would ensure it would be added.

 

Councillor Brame asked that if there would be another application within the area should it be deferred and considered all together.

 

Kay Gordon, Norfolk County Council Highways said that all applications would be considered together where possible.  This application would result in three HGVs each week and therefore was not enough to object.

 

Councillor Brame was concerned that it was three on top of what was already going through the villages (177) and felt the roads were not safe.

 

The Operations and Contract Manager said Members should be clear that they were only required to look at the additional impacts.

 

Councillor Darby asked at what stage relocation should be considered, especially if further applications were to come forward for more development on the factory site.

 

The Chairman said relocation was not easy and extremely costly.  Local people were employed by the company, and if it was to move, it could go out of the District, and therefore result in jobs lost. 

 

The Decision Notice is attached as requested by Councillor Smith.

 

Approved, as recommended

 

f)     Item 7: ATTLEBOROUGH: Land off Deopham Road: Erection of a single dwelling, carport, garden and associated works: Applicant: Mr S Gray: Reference: 3PL/2015/0698/O

 

This application was for outline permission to the site which was currently used for the storage of scrap materials.  The site was well located and had a good degree of screening.

 

Whilst the Contaminated Land Officer had no objections to the application, it was requested that a desk study as per the DEFRA/Environment Agency’s model procedures for the management of land contamination was carried out.

 

Mr Hendry (Agent) said no objections had been received from the Highways and Environmental Health, and it was good use of a brownfield site which would help to tidy up the area.  He suggested that the Reserved Matters should be presented within a 2-year period.

 

Approved, as recommended

 

g)    Item 8: BANHAM: Hill Farm, Heath Road: Erection of Dwelling and detached garage: Applicant: Mr & Mrs Burrows: Reference: 3PL/2015/0775/F

 

Councillor Joel acted as Ward Member as stated in Minute ref: 117/15.

 

This was a full application for a single storey dwelling and a detached double garage.  There was an existing agricultural building which whilst it would not have any impact on the building of the new dwelling, was suggested it should be removed prior to occupancy.

 

Councillor Joel (Ward Representative) said the dwelling would be in the existing garden of the farm.  The Parish Council had no objections and he supported the application.

 

The Chairman asked for clarification if the existing building should be removed.  The Principal Planning Officer said that whilst he had no issue of it remaining whilst the building work was carried out, felt it should be removed prior to occupancy, and would be added as a condition.

 

Approved, as recommended

 

h)    Item 9: NORTH ELMHAM: Land adjacent to Caberfeidh, Pump Street: Construction of 4 dwellings with garaging: Applicant: Mr P Howell: Reference: 3PL/2015/0783/F

 

This was a full application for the construction of 4 dwellings on greenfield land, to the west of Pump Street, North Elmham.

 

The scheme involved three two-story dwellings each with detached double garage, and a single storey bungalow with integral garage.

 

Mr Footer (Agent) added that the site was readily available and would be delivered rapidly.  The development would provide limited impact onto the services within the village and endorsed the recommendations subject to the Section 106 agreement.

 

Councillor Bambridge (Ward Representative) said that the Parish Council had objected to the development as it was outside the development boundary, however felt these concerns could be addressed by the conditions.  He said it was a superb site suitable for development, with little disturbance to the land.

 

The Chairman asked if the proposed entrance was naturally between plot two and three was a turning point.  The agent agreed this was.

 

Councillor Duigan asked if ribbon development was still a factor in planning.  The Operations and Contracts Manager said that circumstances had moved on and each application would be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor Smith was pleased to see the application had been amended from six to four dwellings, and because the design and layout were of high quality had no adverse effect.

 

Councillor Joel was pleased to see the development was screened from the road, and that consideration had been given to the existing bungalow.

 

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

 

i)      Item 10: SPORLE: Land off The Street: Erection of single storey dwelling and detached garage: Applicant: Tredwell Developments Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2015/0788/F

 

This was a full application for the erection of a single storey dwelling and a garage which would be accessed off The Street.  The scheme had been designed in keeping with the area and Highways raised no objections.

 

Mr Craske (Agent) said the Parish Council had questioned who owned the land to the west of the property, and it was confirmed that this was not owned by the Applicant.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

Supporting documents: