Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

68.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 103 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2013.

Minutes:

The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 July 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

69.

Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors W Richmond, M Robinson, F Sharpe and P Spencer.

 

70.

Declaration of Interest and of Representations Received (Agenda Item 3)

Members are reminded that under the Code of Conduct they are not to participate and must leave the room, for the whole of an agenda item to which they have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest. 

 

In the interests of transparency, Members may also wish to declare any other interests they have in relation to an agenda item, that support the Nolan principles detailed within the Code of Conduct.

Minutes:

The following declarations were made with regard to Agenda Item 9:

 

Schedule Item 2 (Weeting) – for transparency Councillor C Bowes declared that she served on a local charity fundraising committee with the applicant, Councillor R Childerhouse.

 

Schedule Item 8 (Wellingham) – for transparency Councillor T Carter declared that he had called the application in to Committee and had met with the applicant Mr Joice.

 

71.

Chairman's Announcements (Agenda Item 4)

Minutes:

The Chairman informed Members that it was Nick Moys last meeting before he left the Council.  All Members joined him in thanking Nick for all that he had done and wishing him good luck for the future.

 

It was Jemima Dean’s first time at the Committee and she was introduced to Members.

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary report which had been issued to update Members on information received about applications to be considered, after the main agenda had been published.

 

72.

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The application at Schedule Item 1 (Lyng) had been withdrawn.

 

73.

Local Development Framework (Standing Item)(Schedule Item 7)

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

This item was presented with Agenda Item 10.

 

The Planning Policy Officer informed Members that work on the new Local Plan was on-going and parts of the vision and evidence base would be presented to the Working Group in the Autumn, along with a report on housing numbers.

 

A sustainability appraisal scoping report had been circulated to all Statutory Consultees for comments.  These had been reviewed and accepted by the Deputy Planning Manager and the Executive Member.

 

An initial consultation had taken place on the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and having reviewed the comments received more evidence and viability work would be undertaken before further consultation took place.

 

The new Statement of Community Involvement had been adopted by the Council.  The Statement described the consultation processes for Policy documents and planning applications.

 

It was confirmed that Members would see the revised CIL Draft Charging Schedule before it went out for further consultation.

 

74.

Deferred Applications (Schedule Item 8) 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.

75.

Watton: 119 Norwich Road: Variation of Section 106 Agreement: Applicant: S & A Jones: Reference: 3OB/2012/0004/OB pdf icon PDF 46 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application had been considered by the Committee on 1 July 2013 and Members had raised a number of questions.  The application had been deferred for further information and the report contained the latest updates which included an offer by the applicants to provide a £5,000 contribution for local recreation facilities.  They hoped to start work within six months and complete within three years.

 

Mr Futter (Agent) clarified some points raised at the previous meeting.  The scheme had stalled because it was unviable.  Even with all the contributions removed there would only be a 5.5% return on investment compared to the more usual 17%.  The District Valuer had concluded that with the current obligations the site would produce a loss.  There had been some confusion during the debate about the number of new properties being sold in Watton.  Those houses were being sold for a minimal return.  The removal of the obligations would produce jobs and houses.  As a gesture the applicant was offering £5,000 for off-site recreational facilities.

 

Councillor Wassell (Ward Representative) was heartened by the offer.  However, as the Town Council now had responsibility for maintaining play equipment he asked the Committee to consider reinstating the original £13,400 contribution for recreational facilities and the transport contribution which added together would only be about 5% of the original obligation.

 

Members discussed the offer of £5,000.  Councillor Lamb suggested that if the development was not viable it should be scrapped.

 

It was pointed out that the scheme was for larger, higher specification houses in response to local demand.  If Members refused the variation the applicants could indeed scrap the scheme and come back with a proposal for denser development which was not what the local community wanted, but which might be more viable.

 

Members acknowledged that but were still concerned that it might set a precedent.  Councillor Claussen asked whether a mechanism could be included to claw back contributions if market conditions changed.

 

After further debate the Planning Manager advised that costs were a fundamental part of the process.  There was a Government mandate to re-assess requirements to promote development.  There would be costs involved if the Committee made a decision that could not be defended on appeal and the Council’s lack of housing land supply also needed to be taken into account.

 

It was suggested that the application be deferred again for further negotiations.  The Agent was keen for the matter to be determined.  As his clients were present he asked for time to speak to them.  The matter was held in abeyance whilst another item was discussed.

 

On returning to the item, the Agent advised that having spoken to his clients and to the Ward Representative the applicant had agreed to pay the full £13,400 contribution to recreation facilities, half on the signing of the legal agreement and the other half on the sale of the third house.  Councillor Wassell confirmed that he was happy with that proposal.

 

RESOLVED that the section 106 agreement be varied as requested,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.

76.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 8 MB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Bawdeswell & Cherry Tree Ptnrshp

Lyng

 

2

Childerhouse Lodge Farms

Weeting

 

3

Banham Group Ltd

Attleborough

 

4

Mr Edward Sorrell

Bradenham

 

5

Abel Homes Ltd

Shipdham

 

6

Breckland Council

Thetford

 

7

Necton Management Ltd

Necton

 

8

Uphouse Farm Ltd

Wellingham

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the planning applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: LYNG: Land at Cherry Tree Farm off Blind Lane: Installation of a single wind turbine (max height 77m), access track, hardstanding, sub-station and works: Applicant: Bawdeswell & Cherry Tree Partnership: Reference: 3PL/2012/1079/F

 

This application had been withdrawn.

 

(b)       Item 2: WEETING: Land to east of The Beeches, Lynn Road: 24 residential dwellings: Applicant: Childerhouse Lodge Farms: Reference: 3PL/2013/0258/O

 

Councillor Bowes made a transparency declaration on this item.

 

This outline application comprised phase 2 of a development approved on appeal.  The original application was for dwellings and allotments.  The new application proposed amendment to three of the approved dwellings and moving the allotments back and building more houses on their original position.  The new application also sought to renegotiate the number of affordable housing units due to viability issues.  The Council’s Housing Team agreed the assessment figures.  An early review of viability could form part of any legal agreement.

 

As the previous permission had been granted on appeal it was difficult to substantiate an objection given the Inspector’s conclusions and methodology.

 

Councillor Nairn (Parish Council) was primarily concerned with the access from Cromwell Road which served a lot of traffic.  The development would produce an additional 2-300 traffic movements per day.  The local primary school would need an additional classroom.  The Parish Council had not been consulted about the 70 proposed allotments and did not think there was any demand for them and the terms of the lease were onerous.

 

Ms Whettingsteel (Agent) said the development would help to meet the substantial shortfall in market and affordable housing in the District.  The advice from Natural England was that the cumulative effect of the two schemes would not affect the SPA.  A new circular path would enhance pedestrian access to the village.  The applicant had offered 40% affordable housing in good faith but it was not financially viable, the reduction to 21% would make the scheme viable and deliverable.

 

Members were concerned about the proposals and Councillor North pointed out that the Inspector’s decision gave permission ‘in accordance with the approved details’ which were now being amended.  She was concerned that the new proposals moved development closer to the SPA and would increase the chances of predation by domestic animals.

 

Councillor Bambridge agreed and said that the Inspector had approved the scheme with 40% affordable housing and the new proposals would increase the number of dwellings but reduce the affordable housing to 21%.  If the Parish Council did not want the allotments what community benefit would they get in their place.

 

Councillor Claussen was concerned that the Committee did not have the District Valuer’s assessment to consider as he believed that there was viability for 40%.

 

The Planning Manager advised Members that the Inspector’s decision was not based on viability and reminded them that other sites were being approved in the District with less than 21% affordable housing.  With regard to the SPA he explained that without scientific  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

77.

Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement 2013 (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 65 KB

Report of the Director for Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Planning Policy Officer presented the report which was updated annually.

 

The Core Strategy set the housing target of 19,100 for 2001-2026.  That equated to 764 new homes every year but in the last financial year only 329 houses had been built.  There had also been a shortfall in the previous few years.  That under-delivery should be made up in the next five years, equating to 1,342 new homes per annum.  Taking all the sites with planning permission and those identified within the Local Plan documents there would still be a 2.8 year housing land shortfall.  That shortfall had an effect on planning applications as Members knew.  

 

The numbers were no longer up to date and a review of housing numbers would form part of the work being carried out for the new Local Plan.  Previously housing targets had been set regionally, now they could be set locally.

 

Councillor Lamb pointed out that there was plenty of land available with permission that was not being developed.  He thought the housing figures were too high and the requirement for a five year housing land supply was causing all sorts of issues.

 

Councillor Duigan asked about applications for development where there was insufficient high school places and was advised that the NPPF requirement for land to be deliverable, available and suitable meant that unsuitable applications could still be refused.

 

Councillor Claussen was concerned that the CIL had been meant to provide infrastructure and with a CIL rating of zero the housing need might never be met.  He was advised that although parts of the district would be zero rated S106 contributions would still apply to on site infrastructure.

 

Councillor North remarked that she hoped the development in Attleborough went ahead as it was one of only a few areas that would make a CIL contribution.

 

Councillor Bambridge thought that a zero CIL was madness.  He also thought the 19,100 housing target was unrealistic.  Too many houses were being built and not sold.  Somewhere the figures were wrong.

 

The Planning Manager advised that the figures had been set when times were good.  The annual target had only been met twice (in 2004 and 2005).  He agreed that the numbers needed revisiting.  Houses were not being built because they could not be sold and they could not be sold because people could not get a mortgage.

 

Councillor Bowes asked how SSSI sites could be protected from potential development proposals and was advised that it was areas with a positive housing allocation that were most likely to be affected and those areas in the Core Strategy for no growth should be protected by environmental constraints which would affect the NPPF criteria.

 

The Chairman thanked the Planning Policy Officer for the report, which was noted.

 

78.

PLANNING APPLICATION INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (Agenda Item 11) pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Principal Planning Officer (Major Projects) presented the report.


The Council had produced a list of the information required to be submitted with a planning application in 2009 and it was overdue for updating.  A change in legislation at the end of July 2013 meant that if the list was not updated the Council would no longer be able to require the information to be submitted.

 

There had been a lot of guidance from the Government about what to include and regard had been given to that advice.  It was not an onerous list and there had not been many alterations to the requirements.  However, there had been a lot of changes in the procedures for validation and so the accompanying guidance notes had also been updated.

 

Consultation had been carried out on the amended list and no comments had been received.

 

RESOLVED that the revised Local List be adopted.

 

79.

Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 90 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning

 

Members are requested to raise any questions at least two working days before the meeting to allow information to be provided to the Committee.

 

Minutes:

Noted.

 

80.

Appeal Decisions (for information) (Agenda Item 13)

APP/F2605/A/12/2168148: GRISTON: Land off Church Road: Application for Costs by Ms Lesley Bunn.

Decision: Application Fails – no award of costs

Summary: The Inspector resolved that the Local Planning Authority had not acted unreasonably in dealing with the planning matters relating to the site

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2193120: DEREHAM: Yaxham Road / Kingston Road Roundabout: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1213/A

Decision:  Appeal Allowed and consent granted

Summary:  The Inspector considered, given the existing signage in the area associated with the commercial and retail uses, and their busy nature of the roundabout, the signs do not appear as an incongruous or alien feature and therefore would not be materially detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2193045: MUNDFORD: Swaffham Road / A134 / Mundford Road Roundabout: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1202/A

Decision:  Appeal Allowed and consent granted

Summary:  The Inspector considered that on this large grass roundabout, the signs are small in size, are not prominent and do not appear disproportionate or obtrusive or give a cluttered appearance.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2193106: THETFORD: Norwich Road / Ethelreda Drive Roundabout: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1207/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary:  The Inspector considered that, on this small grassed area, the signs appear disproportionately large and give a cluttered appearance which is harmful to the street scene.  The proposal was not considered to materially harm highway safety in the area.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2193123:  WATTON: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1215/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary:  The Inspector considered that due to the small size of the roundabout, the signs appear disproportionately large and they give the roundabout a cluttered appearance which is harmful to the streetscene and therefore would be materially detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2193083:  THETFORD: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1206/A

Decision: Appeal Allowed and consent granted

Summary:  The Inspector considered that on this large grass roundabout, the signs are small in size, are not prominent and do not appear disproportionate or obtrusive or give a cluttered appearance.  Whilst the surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, the busy nature of the roundabout means that the signs do not appear as an incongruous or alien feature and would not be materially detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.  The proposal was not considered to materially harm highway safety in the area.

 

APP/F2605/A/13/2191365:  THETFORD: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for change of use from A1 use class charity shop to a A1/A3 mix use class restaurant/coffee shop by Mr Asir Aydin: Reference: 3PL/2012/1131/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed.

Summary:  The Inspector  ...  view the full agenda text for item 80.

Minutes:

Noted.