Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

72.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 89 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 19 April 2010.

Minutes:

Subject to an amendment to Minute No. 65/10 (Declarations) with reference to the Declaration of Interest made by Councillor Bowes, to delete “involvement with a company” and add “a neighbour dispute with the owners of one of the companies,” the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 April were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

73.

Apologies

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies were received from Mr S Rogers.

 

74.

Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received

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 an interest at the time the applications were introduced.

 

  • Mr Labouchere declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 11 (Item Nos. 3 & 4) being a friend of the applicant.

 

  • Mr Kiddle-Morris declared a personal and prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 11 (Item Nos 5 & 6) being an inhabitant of the village and customer of the Bull Public House.

 

  • Cllr Bowes declared a personal and prejudicial interest, as a friend of the applicant, in Agenda Item 10

 

75.

Requests to Defer Applications included in this Agenda

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 (DSM) reported that Application Reference  3PL/2010/0099/F for 12 flats including the demolition of existing building for The Dawe Charitable Trust had been withdrawn.

 

76.

Local Development Framework (Standing Item)

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The DSManager reported that the LDF site specifics had been agreed at Cabinet and wider consultation was taking place with Parish & Town Councils and other interested bodies.

A draft report of the Thetford Area Action Plan was under review. There was dialogue under way on the Attleborough Area Action Plan with a new group, the Attleborough Area Community Team as well as land owners and the Attleborough Task Force. A meeting was due at the end of May.

 

77.

Deferred Applications pdf icon PDF 35 KB

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

77a

Shipdham: The Gilbert Stud, Ash Farm, King Row: Extension to Farm House, replacement garage, tractor shed & workshop for Ms N Gilbert: Reference: 3PL/2010/0100/F pdf icon PDF 11 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application had been deferred from the meeting of 29 March to seek revisions to improve the overall appearance of the proposed extension and replacement buildings. The revised plan replaced the lean-to element in favour of a gable end to the south elevation which had extended the first floor area, and introduced a new gable detail to the north elevation.

 

The PPO(MP) reported that the amendments had incorporated a number of elements but did not address the concerns regarding overall size and design as required by Policy DC3 and DC16.

 

The DSM reported that the Council’s Economic Development Officer strongly supported the proposal on the grounds that the applicants would bring strong economic benefits to the local area.

 

Mr Thorne, the applicant, described his various business ventures, which amounted to a turnover of £50m, and his successful achievement of the Queens Award for Enterprise last year. His future business plans included new bases for his international shipping business in Watton and Great Yarmouth, as well as local employment opportunities for the business operated from his home. He showed the Committee an artist’s impression of the proposed development of his home.

 

Mr Hewett, Ward Representative, supported the proposal on the grounds that the changes to the design had simplified the plan and made it more acceptable. He recommended the proposed development as beneficial to the village, area, and district both in design, appearance and economic opportunity.

 

The recommendation to refuse planning permission was not supported by members as they considered that the alterations made to the building design were significant enough to alter their previous views and that the improved appearance would now fit well into the character of the area.

 

RESOLVED that the application be approved for these reasons. 

 

77b

Hardingham: White Barn, Hackford Rd, Grain Storage Building for Mr H Edwards: Reference; 3PL/2010/0104/F pdf icon PDF 11 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Exceutive.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Application deferred from meeting of 19th April 2010 to obtain further information regarding the use of the area between the proposed building and the road.

 

Mr Edwards, the applicant, informed the committee that the grain store was needed to comply with short term crop schemes and that the concrete hard-standing between the building and the road was needed to allow for turning space for grain lorries.

 

As Members were satisfied with the additional information provided, it was:

 

RESOLVED to approve the application subject to a condition to ensure that the building would be used for agricultural storage only and other conditions set out in the report.

 

78.

Bridgham: Camp Farm, Roudham: Change of Use of Building 10 to Hemp Processing and Erection of Office Extension for Paul Rackham Ltd: Application References: 3TL/2010/0008, 0009, 0010/TL pdf icon PDF 87 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

Minutes:

Since the original 3 planning applications for the hemp factory had been approved the previous intended occupier had relocated to another site and a time limit extension was requested. The PPO (MP) advised that objections should be based on policies, or other material considerations which had changed significantly since the original grant.

 

The application met the requirements of the new farm policy (PPS4) & DC 20 relating to the economic use of buildings in the countryside and Policy DC21 supporting farm diversification. The requirement of Policy DC14 that 10% of the energy use be met by renewable sources could be met with an additional planning condition and the applicants had indicated that this would be acceptable.

 

The Parish Councils of Roudham & Larling and Harling had objected on the grounds of increased traffic and noise impact and that the intended occupier had moved out of the area. There had been an increase in the number of objections from local residents regarding increase in HGV traffic, harm to local amenity and loss of rural character.

 

Road improvements were included in the proposal and included the provision of passing bays where informal bays had existed which would have some impact on the local appearance. There would be no significant change to the buildings other than an additional office annex. There would be noise emissions from the plant and machinery used in the hemp processing. However, a scheme of noise control measures such as sound proofing and restrictions on operation and delivery times would be made planning conditions of the application. 

 

The Solicitor and Standards Consultant advised that the Committee needed to consider whether there was a significant material change to the planning considerations when making their decision.

 

Mrs Jolly, Parish Council Representative, spoke against the application. She considered there were relevant material considerations for refusal; that the application was outside the Development Boundary in an area of outstanding natural beauty. There were concerns that 6 of the units on the same site were the subject of unauthorised industrial use and under enforcement action. The application was no longer supported by a specialist company as the original applicant had relocated. The Parish Council recommended that the planning application should be refused and the building should revert back to agricultural use.

 

Miss Matthews, Agent for the applicant, said that the application was to keep the change of use available if needed, and that the end user should not be a material consideration. The application was for gainful use of an existing building, and that as the Highways Authority had not raised any objection there was no objection on highways grounds.

 

Lady Fisher, Ward Representative, spoke against the proposed application. Although supporting additional employment in the area, the proposed opportunity to employ 14 people had not happened. Since that time the Local Development Framework had identified other development sites. She was concerned that no passing bays had been provided; other buildings on the site were subject to enforcement action; and another hemp factory had been set up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

79.

Shropham: Oak Tree Cottages, Hargham Rd: Proposed Replacement of Fire Damaged Industrial Units for TNP Ltd: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0185/F pdf icon PDF 64 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.  

Minutes:

Mr Duigan noted that members had received direct representation on this matter.

 

Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, as a friend of the applicant, Cllr Bowes left the room for the duration of the discussion and voting on the item

 

The PPO (MP) outlined the application for replacement building, which would be an additional 5 metres further away from the original boundary with the residential properties. The proposed development had a larger footprint but the number of units had been reduced from 7 to 4. The proposal included increasing the height of the existing bund, erecting a wall and a tree screen.

 

A task group had met comprising the applicants, Parish Council, planning officers and local residents to iron out concerns. They agreed that provided the units were limited to B1 Light Industrial Use and did not compromise residential amenity, the application should be considered acceptable.  It was intended that the task group meetings would continue.

 

Environmental Health had been involved with previous complaints regarding the existing factory on the adjacent site and had raised no objection to this application, subject to various conditions relating to operation, CCTV, lighting, noise and installation of a bund.

 

Objections had been received from the Parish Council, local residents and Highway Authority. The Highways Authority had raised objections based on the insufficient visibility splay at Hargham Rd and the unsustainable location where there would be heavy reliance on the use of private vehicles rather than public transport. The PPO(MP) explained why he believed these objections were not well founded.

 

Mr Cowan, Ward Rep, spoke against the application. He expressed the disappointment of the majority of the residents to the recommendation of approval. He was concerned that noise from the factory would still be an issue for the properties 25 metres away. Additionally it was felt the proposed acoustic measures would not be enough, and that there would be increased traffic movement. The application was an opportunity to ensure protection to the neighbouring residents and that the acoustic barriers were the key to this.  Maintenance of the bund would therefore be essential.

 

A member commented that the bund had also provided some fire protection and reduced the potential fire damage to the adjacent area to scorching. The bund should be the same height as the proposed new buildings or at least a minimum of 3 metres.

 

It was noted that since the original application the road now had vehicle weight restrictions there was some protection from large vehicles. It was suggested that Highways Authority be consulted regarding any further restrictions required.

 

A member commented that the housing was built near to the factory so that residents could work locally. However, now the residents want the factory moved. Future developments would need to consider the proximity of residential areas to industrial sites.

 

Resolved to approve subject to conditions restricting the use of the building, hours of operation and deliveries, noise, lighting, CCTV cameras and for improvements to be made to the bund.

 

80.

Schedule of Planning Applications pdf icon PDF 87 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

The Dawe Charitable Trust

Dereham

19-22

2

TNP Ltd

Shropham

23

3

Earl & Countess Cathcart

Gateley

24-26

4

Earl & Countess Cathcart

Gateley

27-29

5

Mark Frankland

Litcham

30-32

6

Mark Frankland

Litcham

33-36

7

Mr & Mrs S and C Klinger

Snetterton

37-39

8

Paul Rackham Ltd

Bridgham

40

9

Paul Rackham Ltd

Bridgham

41

10

Paul Rackham Ltd

Bridgham

42

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)                           Item 1: 116 Sandy Lane, Dereham: Proposed 12 flats inc. demolition of existing building for The Dawe Charitable Trust: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0099/F

 

Item withdrawn

 

(b)                           Item 2: Shropham: Oak Tree Cottages, Hargham Rd: Proposed Replacement of Fire Damaged Industrial Units for TNP Ltd: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0185/F

 

Approved, see Minute 81/10

 

(c)                           Item 3: Gateley: Cart Shed Barn, Gateley Hall: Proposed re-erection of previously dismantled cart shed to form dwelling for Earl & Countess Cathcart: Application Reference: 3PL/2010/0188/F

 

Mrs Irving noted that members had received direct representation on this matter.

 

Mr Labouchere, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest as he was a friend of the applicant, made a personal statement and then left the room before any discussion by members.

 

The PPO (MP) gave a report on the background to the proposal which would replicate one approved in 2004. Since the cart shed was no longer standing the application fell within the policies for a new dwelling in the countryside and would need to be justifiable e.g. for agricultural workers or other appropriate enterprise. The cart shed had been removed under an unfortunate set of circumstances.

 

Earl Cathcart, the applicant, informed the Committee that the cart shed itself was not listed but had been built at the same time as the adjacent barn. The Earl had worked on a number of other developments and would not knowingly jeopardise the planning permission. The cart shed had been dismantled following the discovery that the mainframe of the cart shed had collapsed when ivy was removed during repair work. The Earl was away at the time and the builders decided to dismantle the building, salvaging as much material as possible.

 

The Earl acknowledged that a mistake had been made and that he should have sought permission to dismantle the cart shed but had not received advice or been requested to do so at the time. He wished to reinstate the building as previously proposed.

 

Mr Borrett, Ward Reprsentative, in a statement supported the proposal, praising the high standard of work carried out by the applicant using local oak from his estate. He recommended approval of the proposal in order to restore the building.

 

Mr Labouchere informed members that, in his capacity as a structural engineer, he had advised the applicant on the timber of the cart shed had suggested the demolition and reconstruction retaining 80 to 90% of the timber in a new building which could incorporate the original components. Mr Labouchere then left the meeting.

 

Members were in sympathy with the circumstances which led to the dismantling of the cart shed and shared the view that it would be better to give permission for rebuilding as proposed. Members questioned whether the outside walls would be left as brick or whitewashed. The applicant said he was open minded and would be happy to follow the advice of the Council.

 

Approved, contrary to officers recommendation as they accepted that the building had been structurally  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

81.

Applications determined by the Deputy Chief Executive (For Information) pdf icon PDF 58 KB

Report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

 

Minutes:

Decisions noted.