Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

81.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 105 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2013.

Minutes:

It was noted that Councillor Mark Robinson was Vice-Chairman, not Councillor Jenny North.  Subject to that amendment the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

82.

Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S Armes.

 

83.

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:

All Members had received direct representation on Schedule Items (3) Lexham and (4) Dereham.

 

84.

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

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The Director of Planning & Business Manager gave Members a brief update on the work being undertaken by the Planning Policy Team.

 

  • Preliminary work on the Issues and Options document for the emerging Local Plan had commenced.
  • The Draft Charging Schedule for CIL was being prepared.  Public consultation had identified the need for further viability work which was currently in progress.  It was anticipated that further consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule would commence at the end of 2013.
  • Consultation responses from statutory bodies and key stakeholders on the Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report had resulted in modifications to the document.
  • The level of housing need and employment growth required in the district was being investigated to support the emerging Local Plan.  Work was ongoing on a Housing Numbers Assessment and an Employment Growth Study had been commissioned.  The Council had completed the Five Year Housing Land paper and was close to completion on the Local Annual Monitoring report.
  • The first application for the designation of a Neighbourhood Plan had been received from Attleborough Town Council working in partnership with Besthorpe and Old Buckenham Parish Councils.  The application was out for consultation until 27 September 2013.

 

Councillor North clarified that Besthorpe formed part of the Attleborough Wards and that only the Bunns Bank Industrial Area of Old Buckenham was being included to form a cohesive Neighbourhood Plan.

 

85.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 48 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Mr H Irwin

Rocklands

15-18

2

Mr & Mrs Bryan Aslett

Yaxham

19-23

3

Mr Edmund Colville

Lexham

24-28

4

Little Owls Day Nursery

Dereham

29-35

5

Mr & Mrs D Maclean

Swaffham

36-40

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: ROCKLANDS: Mill Farm, Scoulton Road: Erection of free range chicken shed to replace existing damaged by fire: Applicant: Mr H Irwin: Reference: 3PL/2013/0562/F

 

This application proposed the replacement of a building damaged by fire.  The new building would be subject to conditions regarding pest control and noise which would be an improvement for neighbour amenity.

 

Mr Davidson (for Applicant) queried the renewable energy condition.  He noted that the new building would have minimal energy usage and improved heating providing a massive saving on the previous old building.  The condition would be an additional capital cost.

 

Councillor Smith (Ward Representative) was representing the neighbour who was not objecting to the proposal but was suggesting that the new building could be sited across the road or further away from his house.  He also requested stringent pest control.

 

Councillor North was concerned that if the building was moved across the road there was no screening and it would stand out in the landscape. 

 

It was confirmed that the new building was the same size as the previous and that additional land had been planted with trees for use by the free range chickens.  It was also clarified that stringent pest control standards were maintained using a reputable company.

 

Councillor Claussen thought that the delegations policy needed revisiting as the application should not have had to come to Committee.

 

Approved, as recommended.

 

(b)       Item 2: YAXHAM: Lord Nelson Public House, Norwich Road: Change of use from public house (A4) to wholly residential (C3) including change of use of car park to domestic garden: Applicant: Mr & Mrs Bryan Aslett: Reference: 3PL/2013/0592/F

 

This application for change of use would make very little change to the external appearance of the property.  The pub had been losing money for three years prior to closing.  Members were advised that there were other pub/restaurant facilities close by in Yaxham and Mattishall.

 

Ms Smith (Agent) said the property had been purchased and money invested to enhance the restaurant facilities to try to develop the business.  Since its closure other community uses had been sought but not supported.  It had been marketed for 20 months and the price had been reduced twice but no purchasers had been found.  It was not commercially viable or economically sustainable. 

 

Councillor Lamb was concerned about the loss of public houses and asked about the Community Right to Bid scheme.  The Solicitor explained that it was up to community groups to apply to the Local Authority and no application had been received in this case so far as he was aware.

 

Councillor Sharpe asked questions about the purchase, licensing and sale of the property.  It was clarified that the premises were still licensed and that investment, marketing and attempts to find alternative use had been unsuccessful.

 

The applicant advised that he wanted to stay in residence.  With regard to people using the driveway to wait for the local bus service he explained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

86.

Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 112 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.

 

87.

Appeal Decisions (For Information)(Agenda Item 11)

APP/F2605/H/13/2193112: THETFORD: Hurth Way / A1066 Roundabout: Appeal against a refusal to grant express consent for non-illuminated sponsorship acknowledgement signs by Mrs Jan Butcher (Marketing Force Ltd): Reference: 3PL/2012/1210/A

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Consent granted

Summary: The Inspector considered the signs do not appear disproportionate or obtrusive and, due to the size of the roundabout, do not give a cluttered appearance.  The signs do not appear as an incongruous or alien feature.  The scheme would not be materially detrimental to the visual amenity of the area.

 

APP/F2605/A/13/2194056: BRADENHAM: 20 School Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant outline planning permission for a detached 2 bedroom bungalow in the garden to the south of 20 School Road, Bradenham by Mr Dick Trett: Reference: 3PL/2012/1186/O

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered the site to be in a remote and unsustainable location and, in the absence of a unilateral agreement, was not satisfied that the development would make adequate provision for outdoor play space as required by policy.

 

APP/F2605/A/13/2194372: SAHAM TONEY: Land off Richmond Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of four new dwellings with garages and means of access by Mr Simon Rowling: Reference: 3PL?2012/0785/F

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered the site to be in open countryside. The dwellings would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  The proposal was not considered to have an unacceptably harmful effect on a local heritage asset or protected trees.  The Inspector concluded that, in related to contributions to childrens play and outdoor sports, no clear evidence has been provided that a contribution towards the provision of the relevant facilities would be directly related to the development.  As such, on the information available, there would be no unacceptable harm were the development to proceed without a contribution.

Minutes:

Noted.

 

88.

Applications Determined by Norfolk County Council (For Information)(Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 31 KB

Minutes:

Noted.

 

89.

Exclusion of Press and Public (Agenda Item 13)

To consider passing the following resolution:

 

“That under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Act”.

 

PART B – ITEM FROM WHICH THE PRESS AND THE PUBLIC ARE EXCLUDED 

 

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED that under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972 the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 & 2 of Schedule 12A to the Act.

 

90.

Enforcement Update (Agenda Item 14)

Mr Chris Curtis, the newly appointed Enforcement Team Leader, will update Members on Enforcement matters.

Minutes:

Chris Curtis, Enforcement Team Leader, advised Members that the Team had not changed in numbers.  He had replaced the S106 Monitoring Officer as well as taking on the Team of Debbie Wragg and Sue Arnold.  He was trying to make the team both more effective and more efficient and was currently reviewing how matters were dealt with.

 

Enforcement information would no longer appear on the public agenda as the work was carried out under various pieces of legislation and cases could end up in court.  Publicising the details could compromise investigations.  The team would be happy to answer Members’ questions and if they wished those questions to be answered at Committee he asked for advance notice to prepare the response.

 

The review process would lead to changes in the way the team operated aimed at an improved service and Members would be informed if formal enforcement action was to be taken.

 

Members discussed the possibility of being informed of matters within their Wards at an earlier stage.  They were advised that due to the workload of over 150 cases per officer and the fact that a large proportion of complaints received required no action it would be impossible to update each Member individually.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that a new computer system was proposed which would provide Members with a lot more information automatically when it was in place.

 

Councillor Spencer asked for full contact details of the Enforcement Team to be circulated to Members.

 

The Enforcement Team Leader advised that regular updates were provided in the monthly newsletter produced by the team.  He asked Members to contact him if they were not receiving it.  He said that he could provide a list of all the information that the team were dealing with but his aim was for them to be out on site rather than in the office doing administration work.

 

Councillor Claussen reminded Members that the Capita contract was monitored by the Contract Monitoring Board.  It was up to the Board to scrutinise the level of information that was being provided and if Members wanted a change they should contact the Board.

 

The Planning Manager was surprised that Members were asking for more information.  They had never been provided with a list of every case as it would bombard them with trivia.  Updates would continue to be provided on contentious cases.