Agenda item

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 10)

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr Philip Hodson

Brettenham

15-19

2

Dr Sanjay Kaushal

Swanton Morley

20-23

3

SS Agriservices

Attleborough

24

4

Thetford Independent FC

Kilverstone

25-28

5

Broadland Housing Assoc

Carbrooke

29-31

6

Mr S Cross

Scarning

32-36

7

Mr G Loxton

Ovington

37-39

8

Mr C & Mrs W England

Necton

40-42

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: 3PL/2008/1627/F: Brettenham: Shadwell Breck Cottage, Snarehill: New cottage and garage: Mr Phillip Hodson

 

This item had been deferred for further investigation following the late withdrawal of objections by the RSPB.

 

(b)       Item 2: 3PL/2009/0242/F: Swanton Morley: Adjacent Swanton Morley Doctors’ Surgery & Lincoln House Care Home: 30 bed care unit: Dr Sanjay Kaushal

 

Outline approval had previously been granted for a two storey care home on this site.  This new application proposed a single storey care home to fit in with the development of single storey, assisted care bungalows currently being constructed on part of the site.   The simple design followed the form of the bungalows.

 

Members had concerns particularly with regard to the size of the roof and detailing.

 

Deferred, to allow negotiations on design.

 

(c)        Item 3: 3PL/2009/0247/F: Attleborough: Crows Hall Farm, Land west of Stony Lane & South of B1077: On-farm anaerobic digestion unit, construction of silage clamp store, one lagoon and a balancing pond: SS Agriservices

 

This item had been withdrawn.  See Minute No 102/09 above.

 

(d)       Item 4: 3PL/2009/0263/CU: Kilverstone: Kilverstone Park: Change of use of land to use for football maches and training: Thetford Independent Football FC

 

This application proposed the creation of four football pitches and car parking areas and the change of use of a former café to changing, toilet and refreshment facilities.

 

The site fell within the Stone Curlew buffer zone and this issue had been addressed. 

 

No objections had been received and the proposal was supported by Sport England.  A short-fall in pitches in Thetford had been identified following the Open Space Assessment and this proposal would provide facilities for junior players.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(e)       Item 5: 3PL/2009/0274/D: Carbrooke & Grison: Former RAF Watton Technical Site, Norwich Road: Development of 100 affordable dwellings: Broadland Housing Association

 

This application formed part of the redevelopment of the RAF Watton Technical Site.  Members were shown a plan of the whole site and the different phases of development were pointed out.

 

The scheme under consideration was a reserved matters application for affordable housing on three separate parcels of land, referred to as Sites A, B and C.

 

Sites A and B provided blocks and small terraces of housing, situated between the road and the green spine area.  Site C was different, providing three blocks of apartments.  All areas maintained key views through the development.

 

A number of existing trees would be retained and additional tree planting was proposed.

 

No full set of elevational drawings was available as a number of amendments to the layout and design had been required.  Members were shown the original drawings and then sketches of the agreed changes which included additional brick detailing, chimneys and improvements to the appearance of corner properties.

 

The apartments had butterfly style mono-pitched roofs and incorporated brick, timber boarding and render.  They provided an interesting contrast to the rest of the development.

 

Mr Mumford-Smith, representing Broadland Housing Association, said they were keen to raise the standards and build to Code Level 4 including solar and photo-voltaic panels and rainwater collection.  The development would help to meet a district-wide need for affordable housing.  They had been successful in getting funding and were in a position to deliver the first houses by next Easter.

 

A Member was unhappy with the provision of parking courts as they were not user friendly.  However, he applauded the team on having negotiated amendments which he felt upgraded the level of design.

 

The following points were clarified:

 

-        the parking provision requirements had been set by the Appeal Inspector at 150% and could not be increased;

-        the 100 affordable houses represented 30% of the houses in this phase of development;

-        some of the houses would be rented, some shared ownership and others rented with a right to buy.

 

A Member asked if some of the new trees to be planted could be fruit trees and if allotments could be provided.  Although it might be possible for fruit trees to be included, as the level of open space had been approved at the outline stage, allotments could not be provided.

 

Approved, as recommended, subject to receipt of a full set of amended drawings

 

(f)         Item 6: 3PL/2009/0310/F: Scarning: Riverside Garden Centre, Swaffham Road: Provision of 399m² retail/commercial space with 14 flats above (over two floors) and 16 parking spaces to rear: Mr S Cross

 

Mr Borrett, Mr Kiddle-Morris and Mr Labouchere all declared a personal interest in this item.

 

This application was a revision to a previously approved scheme.  It proposed the reduction of the ground floor retail area from 615m² to 399m² and a change to the design of the building incorporating a new gable above each shop unit and Juliet balconies.  The massing was also significantly reduced.

 

All the issues raised had been discussed previously.

 

A Member considered that this was a much better scheme but further consideration should be given to the inclusion of window arches.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(g)       Item 7: 3PL/2009/0366/F: Land at Rose Farm, Dereham Road: Erection of two holiday cottages: Mr G Loxton

 

Members were shown a plan of the Rose Farm complex which included a farmhouse and a number of outbuildings which had already been converted to residential use.  There was also an existing holiday cottage and one agricultural building. 

 

Under the terms of a proposed S106 agreement, this agricultural building (to the front of the application site) would be removed and a previous permission for that building and a workshop (not yet constructed) would be revoked.

 

The proposed holiday cottages would provide two-bedroom accommodation, with parking and bin storage provision. 

 

Mr Loxton, applicant, explained that the site was not a busy working farm and although there had been problems with the industrial use of adjacent agricultural buildings previously, these had been resolved and there were no noise problems now.  He said that holiday homes were more in keeping with the area and would benefit the neighbours as they would create less traffic movements and noise than the existing building to be removed and the proposed workshop which could still be built.

 

Members discussed the proximity of the proposed holiday cottages to the agricultural buildings on the adjacent site.  They asked for clarification of the low-key industrial use and it was explained that previous inappropriate and unauthorised use had led to enforcement action.  The activities had reduced.  An Enforcement Notice remained in force.

 

Other concerns raised were in relation to the busy road and the unattractive design of the holiday cottages.  It was pointed out that the holiday accommodation would reduce the number of traffic movements and that the cottages had been designed to appear as agricultural outbuildings to fit in with existing.

 

Finally a Member requested additional screening once the agricultural building was removed.

 

Deferred and the Development Services Manager be authorised to grant approval, as recommended, with a condition requiring additional landscaping, on completion of the section 106 agreement described.

 

Mr Kiddle-Morris abstained from voting as he had arrived during the discussions and had not heard all the arguments.

Mr Labouchere also abstained from voting.

 

(h)        Item 8: 3PL/2009/0368/F: Necton: Garden Plot adjacent 21 Tuns Road: Proposed dwelling and garage: Mr C & Mrs W England

 

Mr Wilkin declared a personal interest and did not take part in the discussions or vote on this item.

 

This application was for a bungalow and garage in the rear garden of the applicant’s dwelling.  A similar proposal had previously been refused on grounds of overdevelopment. 

 

The current proposal had been reduced in size by the removal of the conservatory; the garage had been detached and also reduced in size; and the overall width of the dwelling had been reduced.  Rear facing windows had been removed to avoid undue impact on amenity and avoid overlooking.  These changes had improved the relationship with the existing and neighbouring properties.

 

Mr Wagstaff, objector, said that the development did not enhance the village.  It would be intrusive and visually dominating.  The new dwelling would only be 18” lower than a two storey house and two windows would overlook six neighbouring properties.  He was also concerned about highway safety due to the number of traffic movements at the adjacent Inglenook House.

 

Mr Moulton, Agent, said that although the previous application had been unsuccessful, the site could accommodate a dwelling and garage as the original house occupied a double plot.  The dwelling would integrate well with existing.  The reduction in the size of the footprint would provide better parking and turning facilities. 

 

A Member queried the description of the dwelling as a bungalow when it was clearly two storeys.  He felt the site was suitable for a bungalow but not a house.

 

Another Member was concerned that the reduction in size was mainly due to the omission of a conservatory, but noted that there was no proposed condition to restrict permitted development rights.  It was confirmed that this would be added if the application was approved.

 

In response to being asked why the application was recommended for approval when it was clearly ‘backland’ development, the Development Services Manager explained that this did not make it automatically unacceptable.  There was already development in depth in the vicinity and officers had to consider its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

 

Refused, contrary to recommendation, on grounds of over-development of the site and failure to enhance.

 

Notes to the Schedule

 

Item No

Speaker

5

Mr Mumford-Smith – for Applicant

7

Mr Loxton - Applicant

8

Mr Wagstaff – Objector

Mr Moulton - Agent

 

Written Representations taken into account

 

Reference No

No of Representations

3PL/2009/0310/F

2

3PL/2009/0366/F

2

3PL/2009/0368/F

2

 

Supporting documents: