Agenda and minutes

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

Contact: Committee Services  01362 656870

Items
No. Item

91.

Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 88 KB

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2013.

Minutes:

Councillor W Richmond pointed out that Ms Smith (Agent) for Schedule Item 2 (Yaxham) had been omitted from the Notes to the Schedule on page 7.

 

Subject to that amendment, the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2013 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

 

92.

Apologies & Substitutes (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Bowes, Councillor Carter and Councillor Robinson.  Councillor Duigan was present as Substitute for Councillor Bowes.

 

Councillor Chapman-Allen had been due to substitute for Councillor Robinson but had sent her apologies due to illness.

 

93.

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:

Councillor Armes declared a personal interest in Schedule Item 1 (Kenninghall) as her son was the applicant.  She left the room whilst the item was discussed.

 

All Members had received direct representation regarding Schedule Item 1 (Kenninghall) and Schedule Items 6 and 7 (Swanton Morley).

 

94.

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:

Schedule Item 5 (Bridgham) had been withdrawn by the Applicant.

 

The Deferred Item at Agenda Item 8a (Attleborough) had been deferred from the agenda as an extension to the time to determine the application had been agreed.

 

95.

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

To receive an update. 

Minutes:

The Director of Planning and Business Manager updated Members on the work of the Planning Policy Team.

 

The Community Infrastructure Levy draft charging schedule was timetabled to go to Cabinet on 29th October with a recommendation for it to go out to public consultation for a six week period, starting in mid-November. This would also need to be agreed by Council at the meeting on 14th November.

 

The Government consulted on changes to the regulations in April and May 2013 and it was anticipated that those changes were likely to be published later in the year, potentially as soon as late October. The changes were likely to include:

 

  • Relief from CIL for self build
  • Extension to the deadline for the pooling of s106 agreements from April 2014 to April 2015.

 

Work was continuing on the new Local Plan for the District, with the timetable for the first public consultation currently programmed for April-May next year. Evidence base studies looking at housing numbers and employment were currently being undertaken to inform policies within the plan.

 

The Annual Monitoring Report had been finalised, considered by Local Plan Working Group and published on the website.

 

 

The three Attleborough Transport Studies were now being finalised, and were expected to be presented to the next meeting of the Local Plan Working Group (date to be confirmed; probably towards the end of October). The reports recommend that further work would be needed to investigate the costs of the link road options.

 

Finally, Phil Mileham commenced his new role as Deputy Planning Manager for Breckland & South Holland District Councils today.  Capita had swiftly appointed Philip James as interim Policy Team Leader. He would commence work with the team on 16 October.  In the meantime Feng Li would be the principal contact point for the Policy Team.

 

96.

Deferred Applications (Agenda 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.

96a

Attleborough: Retail Area for 40 Caravans on Existing Established Caravan Storage & Maintenance Business Site at Swangey Farm, Swangey Lane, Attleborough: Applicant: Breckland Storage Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2012/0654/CU pdf icon PDF 42 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This item had been deferred from the agenda as a time extension had been agreed with the applicant.

 

96b

North Elmham: Residential Development at Station Road: Applicant: Mr S Thompson: Reference: 3PL/20071688/O pdf icon PDF 47 KB

Report of the Director of Commissioning.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

This application had been approved in 2009, subject to a legal agreement which had still not been successfully executed.  It had been brought back to the Committee before and given more time, but there was concern that it might reach the position where the Council was required to repay the fees.  It had therefore been recommended for refusal.

 

It was noted that after the Planning Committee had commenced an e-mail had been received from the applicant proposing an extension of time to the end of the year.

 

The Solicitor asked for clarification of whether it was proposed to refuse the application or grant a further extension. 

 

The Chairman pointed out that the applicant could re-apply, free of charge if the application was refused.

 

RESOLVED to refuse the application, in the light of the failure to execute the legal agreement, on grounds of lack of suitable provision for affordable housing and other contributions.

 

97.

Schedule of Planning Applications (Agenda Item 9) pdf icon PDF 132 KB

To consider the Schedule of Planning Applications:

 

Item No

Applicant

Parish

Page No

1

Crown Chicken Ltd

Kenninghall

 

2

Mr Bob Gooderham

Kenninghall

 

3

NR16 Limited

Kenninghall

 

4

Mr Bob Waterson

Attleborough

 

5

Rethink Energy Limited

Bridgham

 

6

Lincoln House Care Home

Swanton Morley

 

7

Lincoln House Care Home

Swanton Morley

 

8

Dudgeon Offshore Wind Ltd

Fransham

 

9

Mr David Taylor

Harling

 

10

Hursit SPV1 Limited

Narford

 

11

Claramond Solar SPV 1 Ltd

Litcham

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED that the applications be determined as follows:

 

(a)       Item 1: KENNINGHALL: Green Farm, Edge Green: Extension to hatchery: Applicant: Crown Chicken Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2011/1100/F

 

Councillor Armes declared a personal interest in this item and left the room while it was discussed.  Councillor North declared that she had received direct representation from the applicant.

 

Members were shown a map of the area with various application sites highlighted as they were relevant to the Officers’ recommendation.

 

The proposal had received no technical objections but the Parish Council and numerous third parties had objected on various grounds including traffic, smells, pollution and impact.

 

The key consideration was the environmental impact of the scheme.  The Secretary of State (SoS) had issued a Screening Direction requiring that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should address the cumulative effect of the applications.  An EIA had been received but it had not fully addressed that requirement.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds that the effects of the development could not be fully assessed.

 

Mrs Scott-Barber (Parish Council) said they had had concerns about the site for some time and had written to the Council about buildings and bulk bins being erected without permission.  The site plan submitted with the application was out of date.  They supported the recommendation and asked the Committee to err on the side of caution.

 

Mr Waters (Objector) said there had been six planning applications in the past 12 months.  Two had been withdrawn and three were on the agenda.  The sixth was for the bulk bins which had been erected without planning permission, as had the whole site.  HGVs from the site damaged the road surfaces.  The Certificate of Lawfulness issued by the Council had been quashed by the Court.  The site was unlawful and was also under investigation by HM Revenues & Customs with regards to rates.  He urged Members not to approve any applications until the question of lawfulness had been determined.

 

Mr Armes (Applicant) said the Company had been in operation for 60 years and the economic effects of a refusal would be great and would put jobs at risk.  The extension would have no detrimental effect on the area in terms of noise, smell, etc.  There had been a lot of poultry farm closures. Where did the cumulative effect start and where did it finish?  As the last major employer in the area he asked the Committee for their support.

 

Councillor Nunn (Ward Representative) was speaking on behalf of the residents.  Clarity was needed.  There were a lot of applications and Crown Chicken was caught up unfairly in the confusion.  There needed to be a balance between development and amenity.  There were three applications on the agenda and another three pending.  The applications could not be determined until the cumulative effect had been assessed.

 

Councillor North asked how many people were employed on the site and was advised that of 400 employees overall, about 70 were employed on the Green Farm Site.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

98.

Applications determined by the Director of Commissioning (Agenda Item 10) pdf icon PDF 104 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.

 

99.

Appeal Decisions (For Information)(Agenda Item 11)

APP/F2605/H/13/2197265: NECTON: Land North of the A47, West of Dunham Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for a freestanding advance directional sign by Hopkins Homes Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2013/0069/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered that the sign would add to the distraction of highway users and the potential for accidents, to the detriment of the free and safe flow of traffic on the A47 trunk road.

 

The following appeals relate to advertisements for a housing development at Swanton Morley

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2197885: BAWDESWELL: Land South of Billingford Road, West of Fakenham Road: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for I No freestanding advance directional sign by Hopkins & Moore Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2013/0070/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered that, in a location remote from and not related to the development site it advertises, the sign would appear discordant and wholly at odds with its surroundings. The strongly coloured graphics and modern materials would appear alien.   It would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.  In respect of public safety, the sign was considered likely to result in confusion and distraction to drivers and increase potential for accidents.  It would be detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic on the A1067.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2197886:  NORTH TUDDENHAM: Land South of Hoe Road South: Appeal against the refusal to grant express consent for a freestanding advance directional sign by Hopkins & Moore Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2013/0068/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary:The Inspector considered that, in a location remote from and not related to the development site it advertises, the sign would appear discordant and wholly at odds with its surroundings.  The strongly coloured graphics and modern materials would appear alien.   It would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2197888:  NORTH TUDDENHAM: Land South of A47: Appeal against a refusal to grant express consent for 2 No freestanding advance directional signs by Hopkins & Moore Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2013/0067/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered that the signs, remote from and unrelated to the site they advertise, are likely to be confused with official traffic signs and could distract highways users and add to the potential for accidents.  This would be detrimental to the free and safe flow of traffic on the A47.

 

APP/F2605/H/13/2198090: SWANTON MORLEY: Land North of Greengate: Appeal against a refusal to grant express consent for 2 No hoarding signs (‘A’ and ‘B’ on the submitted drawing No SWA-1-110); 1 No other sign (‘C’ on the submitted drawing) and 5 No flagpole signs (‘D’ on the submitted drawing) by Hopkins & Moore Ltd: Reference: 3PL/2013/0080/A

Decision: Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The Inspector considered the main issue to be effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  The display of five flagpole advertisements and two hoarding would introduce unnecessary clutter; the total number proposed would be excessive and harmful to the area’s character and appearance.

 

Minutes:

Noted.

 

100.

Proposed Changes to Delegated Arrangements in light of the introduction of the Planning Guarantee (Agenda Item 12) pdf icon PDF 119 KB

Report of the Executive Members for Planning, Housing & Public Protection and Assets & Strategic Development

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Replacement pages for Appendix One had been published and copies were tabled.

 

The Planning Manager presented the report which was similar to the one discussed by Members at the meeting in March 2013.  That report had been agreed by the Committee but the recommendations had not been supported at Council due to concerns about increased powers for Officers and the introduction of the Ward Member Call-In Request Form.  

 

In response to the concerns raised at Council the Planning Manager had amended the report.  The proposal to introduce the Ward Member Call-In Request Form had been removed as the current system worked well.  That left a recommendation to make a minor amendment to the Delegation Agreement to do away with the need for ALL major applications to come to Committee.  Major applications that had no issues, were in line with Policy and had received no substantive objections would not be presented to the Committee.

 

The Planning Manager had looked back over the last two years and during that time 45 major applications had been presented to the Committee which had not been a good use of Members’ time.  They included applications for large chicken sheds and for minor alterations to windows on previously approved major applications.  

 

The Planning Manager also pointed out that the new Planning Guarantee came into force on 1 October 2013 which meant that the Council would have to pay back planning fees for applications not determined within 26 weeks.  Most major applications came to the Committee within that time, but if they required a legal agreement and that had not been signed within the 26 weeks it could lead to costs.

 

The Chairman said that he wanted the Committee to have time to give due consideration to those applications that needed it.  He asked Members to support the recommendation when it was presented to Council.

 

Councillor Claussen agreed.  Members could still call in applications through the Chairman.  The more applications that were delegated the better as it made the Committee more efficient and gave it time to consider the contentious issues.

 

Councillor North suggested that the Chairman should speak to the Planning Committee Members and substitutes that were not present to ensure that they were all in agreement at Council.

 

It was clarified that all major applications raising local concerns would come to the Committee under the new agreement.  The first three items on the Schedule would still have come to the Committee, but the last three would not.

 

The Chairman also advised that not all applications that were called-in would come to Committee as sometimes there was no justification and he would take responsibility for that.  It was up to Members to notify their Parishes that not all applications were suitable for Committee.

 

Councillor Bambridge thought that the call-in system should be strong and enshrined in Policy.

 

Councillor Claussen said that the Committee could only be as good as the Policies it made its decisions by and they needed to be looked at continuously.

 

RESOLVED to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.