Agenda and minutes

Venue: Anglia Room, The Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

84.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 130 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2008.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2008 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

85.

Apologies (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Mr T Lamb and Mr M Spencer.

 

86.

Declaration of Interest (Agenda Item 3)

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.  The Members’ Code of Conduct requires that declarations include the nature of the interest and whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Minutes:

Members and officers were asked to declare any interests at the time the applications were made.

 

Mr A Byrne declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Schedule Item 2 (Snetterton) by virtue of owning adjacent property.

 

87.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)

Minutes:

(a)       The Chairman drew Member’s attention to the fact that the next meeting of the Development Control Committee on 3rd July 2008 would be on a Thursday.

 

(b)       Members were updated on the Gladedale Homes application at Swaffham (Reference No 3PL/2007/1436/H).  A request for amendments to the terms of the S106 agreement had been discussed at the last Development Control Committee meeting and been deferred for further negotiations.

 

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) confirmed that the developers had agreed to build the whole scheme to Code 3 as required.  Other minor amendments previously described to Members had been sent to the Town Council for consultation.

 

Completion of the legal agreement was being pursued.

 

88.

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.

Minutes:

The Development Services Manager told Members that the application at Schedule Item 7 (Carbrooke) had been withdrawn and would not therefore come forward to Committee.

 

Schedule Items 4 (Bylaugh) and 8 (Snetterton) had been deferred.

 

89.

Local Development Framework (Agenda Item 7)

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Policy Officer told Members that at the Policy Development & Review Panel 1 meeting on 3 June 2008, Members considered the first draft of the Site Specifics document and following debate changes were suggested.  These would be presented to Cabinet on 10 June 2008.  The document would go out for 12 weeks public consultation at the end of June.

 

The current programme of meetings was:

 

Dereham                          10 June

Saham Toney /

Yaxham                            12 June

Garboldisham                  16 June

Litcham / Beeston /

Kempstone / Lexham

Rougham and

Gt and Lt Dunham           18 June

 

Copies of maps would go out to the Town and Parish Councils later this week.

 

Following the recent adoption of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the issue of a revised version of Planning Policy Statement 12 by the Government, their effect on the regulations for the production of the LDF would be explained to Members of Development Control Committee and Panel 1 in due course.

 

At the next Panel 1 meeting on 15 July details of strategy and policy would be discussed.

 

90.

Regional Spatial Strategy - East of England Plan (Agenda Item 8)

Report of the Strategic Director (Transformation).

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This 130 page document was available on the Government Office website.  No paper copy had yet been received by the Council. 

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer told Members that it had taken five years to develop and now that it had been adopted by the Secretary of State had direct influence on the planning process. 

 

Two policies were particularly noted.  H2 – Affordable Housing; which set a new minimum requirement level of 35% for permissions sought from now onwards and ENG1 – Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance, which requires new developments of 10 houses or more, or commercial developments over 1000 square metres, to secure at least 10% of their energy from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources.

 

Also within the RSS, Thetford is identified as a Key centre for Development and Change.

 

The Principal Planning Policy Officer was pleased to tell Members that the emerging work within the LDF was in accordance with the RSS as required.

 

A Member asked how 35% affordable housing could be achieved in small developments of only a couple of houses and it was explained that the threshold was not set within the RSS and would be a key area for debate.  Currently the requirement was triggered by five plus dwellings in villages and 15 plus in towns.

 

91.

LAND NORTH OF SOUTH GREEN, DEREHAM AND LAND OFF HONEYSUCKLE DRIVE, DEREHAM (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 203 KB

Report of the Development Services Manager.

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) showed Members maps and photographs of six areas of open space within two housing developments.  He explained that this item was a tidying up exercise to ensure the long-term maintenance of these areas of land.

 

The two developments had received permission on appeal and had therefore not been the subject of legal agreements which would normally have provided for the adoption or management of the public open spaces.

 

Negotiations were on-going with the Town Council who had expressed an interest in some of the open spaces being transferred to them.

 

RESOLVED that the areas of public open space referred to should be adopted and maintained publicly in order to ensure their future retention and maintenance.

 

92.

Deferred Applications (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 36 KB

To consider applications deferred at previous meetings including some, but not all, of those shown on the attached Schedule of Deferred Applications.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Harling: Retrospective application for new siting of dwelling (New dwelling approved Ref No 3PL/2005/1914/F): Reference 3PL/2007/0672/F: Applicant: Dr R Kobylecki

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented this deferred item which had previously been the subject of a Committee Site Visit.  Following discussion it had been deferred to allow officers to negotiate on the design of the dormer windows.

 

The applicant had had a meeting with his agent and architect and reached the conclusion that any changes to the dormers would be expensive and ineffective.  He provided a photograph of a similar dwelling in the area which had received approval.  He apologised for the inconvenience he had caused but said he was not in a position to make any changes.

 

A landscaping scheme had also been submitted.  This was not considered to reflect the parkland setting of the dwelling and was the subject of on-going negotiations.

 

The recommendation was for approval, subject to a satisfactory landscaping scheme being agreed.

 

Mr Horn, speaking as an objector, agreed with the officers.  He said that he did not think that changing the windows would affect the scale and setting of what he described as a very large cottage.  However, he felt that more effort needed to be put into the landscaping scheme to mitigate the effect of the house on its surroundings.

 

Mr Took, the agent, accepted that Members found dealing with retrospective applications very frustrating, but pointed out that the decision should be made on planning merits.  They needed to decide if they would have refused the design if the original application had shown the house as built.  He asked them to decide if it caused demonstrable harm, and also said that once the porch was added it would improve the appearance of the house.

 

A Member said he was really disappointed that the applicant was saying that because any changes would cost money he was not prepared to make them.  He felt that the Committee should not accept this.

 

The Council’s Solicitor told Members that although they felt strongly about this and frowned upon unauthorised work they were not looking at this matter on principle but at the intrinsic planning merits.

 

The Development Services Manager noted that the submitted amended drawing showed the windows in the dormers to be of four panes of glass, yet as built they had eight panes.  He suggested that if the Committee requested the windows to be changed to match the amended plan the appearance would be improved.  However, he reiterated that the addition of the porch and the introduction of some significant trees to the front of the property would make a great difference.

 

Another Member said he was not surprised at the applicant’s attitude.  He had said he would work with the Committee and yet he had failed to do so.  He proposed that the application should be refused on design grounds.

 

Members voted on the proposal 7 for and 8 against.

 

Members then voted on the officer’s recommendation of approval with the same result,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 92.

93.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 313 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr Mark Porter

North Lopham

22-26

2

Richard Johnston Ltd

Snetterton

27-29

3

Dam Green Services Ltd

North Lopham

30-34

4

Mrs M Vince

Bylaugh

35-40

5

McCarthy & Stone (Devs)

Attleborough

41-44

6

Mr Christopher Bottrell

Harling

45-47

7

Cofton Ltd

Carbrooke

48-50

8

Richard Johnston Ltd

Snetterton

51-53

9

Swaffham Gospel Hall Trust

Ashill

54-57

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as followed:

 

(a)       Item 1: 3PL/2008/0384/F: North Lopham: Meadow Farm House, The Street:  Proposed Replacement Dwelling for Mr Mark Porter

 

This item was considered in conjunction with Schedule Item 3 for the conversion and extension of an ancillary building.

 

An existing barn on the site already had planning permission for conversion to a dwelling and work was underway.  There was also permission for two new dwellings on adjacent plots one of which was under construction.

 

This resubmission showed a simpler design and the Historic Buildings Officer had withdrawn his previous design objection but still objected on the grounds of failure to enhance due to scale and massing.

 

Members were shown a video of the site showing the existing buildings under construction and the relationship of the buildings on site to each other and to the access.  The existing farmhouse and the ancillary building proposed for conversion were in very close proximity to each other.  The proposed replacement farmhouse would be a little further away, but a much bigger building.

 

Both applications were recommended for refusal.

 

Mr Frith representing the Parish Council endorsed the recommendations.  He was concerned at the lack of garaging for both properties and considered that the conversion would be inappropriate and out of place, as it would be surrounded by much larger dwellings.  The conversion would destroy the community feel of the development, whereas the retention of the outbuilding with the farmhouse would preserve this.

 

Mr Plummer, the Agent, explained that the replacement farmhouse had been designed on a grander scale to dominate the site.  The conversion would provide a much-needed, low-cost, environmentally friendly dwelling.  Drainage problems would be addressed by the use of a new treatment plant.  Trees would be retained and new hedgerow planted.  The design was felt to be well suited to represent the historical context of the site.

 

Mr Nunn (Ward Representative) told Members that this was a controversial site.  He was not against re-development and did not have a problem with the farmhouse being re-built, but was concerned about the conversion.  He was not against its use as an annexe but felt that as a separate unit it would be out of context surrounded by larger dwellings.  He acknowledged that it was a difficult decision to be made.

 

The Chairman told Members that she did not have a problem with the replacement farmhouse, however, with a 5/6 bedroom house with no garage or outbuildings she wondered where things like bikes and lawn mowers would be kept.  She concluded that if the ancillary building was kept with the farmhouse she would not have a problem with the development.

 

Other Members were not concerned with the lack of garaging.

 

Members voted unanimously against the recommendation to refuse the replacement farmhouse.

 

Item 1 was: Approved, contrary to recommendation as the proposal fitted the scale of the new development in the vicinity.

 

Item 3 was:  Refused, as recommended.

 

(b)       Item 2: 3PL/2008/0419/F: Snetterton: Chalk Lane: Erection of light  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

94.

Representatives on Outside Bodies (Agenda Item 12)

Verbal report of the Development Services Manager.

 

To nominate representatives to the following Liaison Groups for the ensuing year (no political balance).

 

Snetterton Circuit Liaison Group  (Existing/previous members:  Mrs A Steward (Chairman), Mr S Askew, Mr P Cowen).

 

Old Buckenham Airfield Consultative Committee (Existing/previous members:  Mr S Askew (Chairman), Mr P Francis, Mrs S Howard-Alpe, Mr A Joel, Mr K Martin).

 

Fibrothetford Liaison Group (Existing/previous members:  Mr T Lamb (Chairman), Mr P Cowen, Mr R Kybird, Mrs M Chapman-Allen, Mr M Spencer).

Minutes:

The Chairman told Members that she had spoken to the current representatives and they were all willing to stand again.

 

RESOLVED to re-elect current representatives en-bloc for the ensuing year.

 

95.

Enforcement Items (Agenda Item 13) pdf icon PDF 13 KB

To receive the attached list of enforcement items.

Minutes:

The Chairman advised Members to contact the Enforcement Officer direct if they required more information on any item.

 

This item was noted.

 

96.

Appeal Decisions (Agenda Item 14)

APP/F2605/A/08/2064719: Harling: Dolphin Farm: Appeal against refusal to grant permission for existing unit 5 relocated to new position for Paul Rackham Ltd: Application Reference: 3PL/2007/1467/F

Decision:  Appeal Allowed

Minutes:

This item was noted.

 

97.

Applications determined by the Development Services Manager (Agenda Item 15) pdf icon PDF 54 KB

Report of the Development Services Manager.

Minutes:

This item was noted.

 

98.

Applications determined by Norfolk County Council (Agenda Item 16)

3/CM/2009/006/F:  Mattishall: Mattishall Primary School, Dereham Road: Re-cladding of existing sports hall roof and walls for Director of Children Services.  Decision:  Conditional approval

Minutes:

This item was noted.